Return to action: The Hindu Editorial on moving ahead after Baku Politics & News

After two extra nights of extended negotiations in Baku, countries finally gave up on bridging their differences and settled on a “roadmap” that has left nearly all developing countries frustrated, developed nations relieved and the planet, still on a perilous path. Officially, the CoP Presidency may claim progress. The text, which was passed early in the morning, included a commitment to triple public finance for developing countries, raising the goal from $100 billion annually to $300 billion by 2035. In addition, countries pledged to work to scale finance from public and private sources to $1.3 trillion per year by 2035. In the world of international negotiations, it is common for countries to bring maximalist demands — asking for the most optimistic outcomes — only to settle for these being scaled back. However, in this case, the gap between what was demanded and agreed upon is striking: the $300 billion figure represents just 20% of the original demand. While $300 billion a year is no small sum, other meaningful concessions would have made its impact far greater. For example, if the funds were predominantly public finance, facilitating the affordable transfer of technology from developed to developing countries, or supporting investments in infrastructure that could help vulnerable populations in the Global South adapt to climate change. Unfortunately, none was included.

Despite decades of scientific progress in developed countries that have rigorously outlined the threat posed by rising carbon emissions, these nations have repeatedly backtracked on their responsibility to support meaningful climate solutions. Moreover, many have failed to discourage developing countries from pursuing fossil-fuel-based development. This shift is likely a reflection of broader geopolitical changes — such as the decline of the globalised world order — and a reduction in public support and political will in the West. As a result, climate action has increasingly been framed within the logic of market competition rather than global solidarity. The recent CoP talks revealed that climate negotiations are now entangled with trade conflicts. In this year’s talks, wordplay and political posturing often took precedence over meaningful action. It is possible that next year, there will be a repeat of the drama surrounding the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, especially with the impending return of a Trump presidency. Next year’s CoP, in Brazil, will be a symbolic return to the country that hosted the 1992 Earth Summit, where the world first recognised that action, not just talk, was needed to tackle global challenges. As the climate crisis grows more urgent, it is time for the world to revisit that commitment and move beyond empty promises to real, transformative action.