Climate finance billions at stake at COP29

Published

2 years ago

November 3, 2024

Climate finance billions at stake at COP29

Rich nations will be under pressure at this month’s UN COP29 conference to substantially increase the amount of money they give to poorer countries for climate action.

But there is deep disagreement over how much is needed, who should pay and what should be covered, ensuring that “climate finance” will top the agenda at COP29 in Baku.

– What is climate finance? –

It is the buzzword in this year’s negotiations, which run from November 11 to 22, but there is not one agreed definition of climate finance.

In general terms, it is money spent in a manner “consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development”, as per phrasing used in the Paris Agreement.

That includes government or private money for clean energy like solar and wind, technology like electric vehicles, or adaptation measures like dykes to hold back rising seas.

But could a subsidy for a new water-efficient hotel, for example, be counted? It is not something the COP summits have addressed directly.

At the annual UN negotiations, climate finance has come to refer to the difficulties the developing world faces getting the money it needs to prepare for global warming.

– Who pays? –

Under a 1992 UN accord, a handful of rich countries most responsible for global warming were obligated to provide finance.

In 2009, the United States, the European Union, Japan, Britain, Canada, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, New Zealand and Australia agreed to pay $100 billion per year by 2020.

They only achieved this for the first time in 2022. The delay eroded trust and fuelled accusations that rich countries were shirking their responsibility.

At COP29, nearly 200 nations are expected to agree on a new finance goal beyond 2025.

India has called for $1 trillion a year and some other proposals go higher, but countries on the hook want other major economies to chip in.

They argue times have changed and the big industrialised nations of the early 1990s represent just 30 percent of historic greenhouse gas emissions today.

In particular, there is a push for China — the world’s largest polluter today — and the oil-rich Gulf countries to pay. They do not accept this proposal.

– What’s being negotiated? –

Experts commissioned by the UN estimate that developing countries, excluding China, will need $2.4 trillion per year by 2030.

But the line between climate finance, foreign aid and private capital is often blurred and campaigners are pushing for clearer terms that specify where money comes from, and in what form.

In an October letter to governments, dozens of activist, environment and scientific groups called on rich nations to pay developing countries $1 trillion a year in three clear categories.

Some $300 billion would be government money for reducing planet-heating emissions, $300 billion for adaptation measures and $400 billion for disaster relief known as “loss and damage” funds.

The signatories said all the money should be grants, seeking to redress the provision of loans as climate finance that poorer countries say compounds their debt woes.

Developed countries do not want money for “loss and damage” included under any new climate finance pact reached at COP29.

– Where will they find the money? –

Today, most climate finance aid goes through development banks or funds co-managed with the countries concerned, such as the Green Climate Fund and the Global Environment Facility.

Campaigners are very critical of the $100 billion pledge because two-thirds of the money was given as loans, not grants.

Even revised upwards, it is likely any new pledge from governments will fall well short of what is needed.

But this commitment is viewed as highly symbolic nonetheless, and crucial to unlocking other sources of money, namely private capital.

Financial diplomacy also plays out at the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the G20, where this year’s host Brazil wants to craft a global tax on billionaires.

The idea of new global taxes, for example on aviation or maritime transport, is also supported by France, Kenya and Barbados, with the backing of UN chief Antonio Guterres.

Redirecting fossil fuel subsidies towards clean energy or wiping the debt of poor countries in exchange for climate investments are also among the options.

COP29 host Azerbaijan, meanwhile, has asked fossil fuel producers to contribute to a new fund that would channel money to developing countries.

bl-np/rlp/rsc

Click to comment

Low-income Chinese girl aces gaokao, inspires live-streamers offering help

Published

1 hour ago

July 7, 2026

Press Room

Low-income Chinese girl aces gaokao, inspires live-streamers offering help

A girl from a disadvantaged rural family in central China topped this year’s gaokao, attracting numerous live-streamers eager to finance her education, which she declined.

The home of 18-year-old secondary school graduate Han Yaping in a Henan province village was recently bustling with live-streamers.

This attention came after Han achieved an impressive score of 699 out of 750 in the gaokao, China’s national college entrance exam.

She has received offers from China’s two leading universities, Tsinghua University and Peking University.

Han’s accomplishment is particularly remarkable given her family’s impoverished circumstances.

Her mother suffers from ankylosing spondylitis, an inflammatory arthritis affecting the spine, preventing her from working. Her father, who earns a living through farming and odd jobs, serves as the family’s sole provider. Han also has a younger sister.

Finance

UK financial regulator publishes landmark AI review

Published

11 hours ago

July 7, 2026

Press Room

UK financial regulator publishes landmark AI review

The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) published a landmark review on Monday that proposes recommendations to regulate the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on the financial decisions made by consumers.

The review, titled the Mills Review, anticipates that both consumers and firms will start delegating “more financial decision-making to AI systems,” including for agreements, initiating transactions, and executing decisions “within agreed parameters.” One of the key findings of the review outlined that while AI can help bridge advice gaps and “support growth,” there remain risks “associated with fraud, cyber security, and consumer harm.” Conducting the review, Sheldon Mills highlighted that “AI can also amplify risks: bias, discrimination, exclusion, opaque decision-making (particularly when multiple AI models interact), misleading or hallucinatory advice and erosion of consumer trust.”

The review stated that presently, one in five adults in the UK are “already open to AI making decisions for them,” particularly when decisions feel “complex or high stakes.” It found that roughly 26 percent of the population “trust general-purpose tools such as ChatGPT, Claude or Gemini for financial advice” with little awareness that such platforms provide no “formal routes to recourse” or protections.

Overall, the Mills Review identified four areas that it anticipates will be impacted by AI in the financial sector: “the transformation of firms,” “new consumer journeys,” “a reshaped competition landscape,” and “amplified financial crime and cyber risk.” The FCA projected the shift in how consumers and firms consult AI to take place by 2030.

The Mills Review put forth seven “priority” recommendations to be considered by the FCA Board. It recommended that any transitions to autonomous AI models be monitored and that regulatory frameworks and perimeters be adapted and secured. The review called for the strengthening of “system-wide coordination and oversight,” the scaling up of the FCA’s AI Lab to enable it to support AI models and innovation for agentic finance, and an “AI-enabled agentic supervisory model” to be built and adopted. Finally, it recommended that a trusted “public-interest AI-enabled financial capability service” be developed.

The FCA announced, in the press release, that it will launch an AI “good and poor practice publication” in late 2026.

Finance

Fayette County Public Schools Board of Education approves audit contract, new finance director position

Published

22 hours ago

July 7, 2026

Press Room

Fayette County Public Schools Board of Education approves audit contract, new finance director position

LEXINGTON, Ky. (WKYT) – The Fayette County Public Schools Board of Education approved a one-year audit contract capped at $131,750 plus $225 per hour during a virtual meeting Monday, along with a new finance director job description.

The contract is with Mauldin & Jenkins Certified Public Accountants, an Atlanta-based firm, and covers the 2025-26 fiscal year and the restatement of the 2024-25 fiscal year and ancillary services through FY 2029-2030. The work is set to be completed by Nov. 15.

The board approved the contract in a 5-0 vote.

Audit contract details

Interim Chief Financial Officer Kyna Koch said the cost is already accounted for in the district’s budget.

“And is actually less than we expected given our current situation — we were thrilled with the bid,” Koch said.

Koch said she believes this is Mauldin & Jenkins’ first school district audit in Kentucky, but that the firm works with school districts of more than 100,000 students throughout the Southeast.

“Quite frankly when I spoke to the folks at KDE they were thrilled because we’re running kind of short of auditors who want to do school district audits — so all around I think this was a win-win for everyone,” Koch said.

New finance director position

The board also approved a new job description for the position of Director of Finance. Acting Superintendent Dr. Bill Bradford said the title will replace two associate director positions.

“Which will not only save the school district money but it’s also going to streamline our work and align internal controls to make room for a more efficient unit,” Bradford said.

Koch said the position will be posted as soon as possible following the board’s approval.

Closed session

The board went into closed session for more than an hour to discuss pending investigations that could lead to employee discipline. When the board returned, it took no action and adjourned the meeting.