BAKU: With time running down, negotiators at the United Nations annual climate talks on Wednesday returned to the puzzle of finding an agreement to bring far more money for vulnerable nations to adapt than wealthier countries have shown they’re willing to pay.
Pressure was building to drive a deal by the time COP29, as this year’s summit is known, concludes this week. COP29 President Mukhtar Babayev asked negotiators to clear away the technical part of talks by Wednesday afternoon so they can focus on substance.
That substance is daunting. Vulnerable nations are seeking $1.3 trillion to deal with damage from climate change and to adapt to that change, including building out their own clean-energy systems. Experts agree that at least $1 trillion is called for, but both figures are far more than the developed world has so far offered.
Half the world away in Rio, Brazil, where the Group of 20 summit was wrapping up, the United Nations Secretary-General told the group of the world’s largest economies that “the success of COP29 is largely in your hands.”
“That goal, the financial goal, in its different layers, must meet the needs of developing countries, beginning with a significant increase in concessional public funds.”
And the president of Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, said developed nations should consider moving their 2050 emission goals forward to 2040 or 2045.
“The G20 is responsible for 80 percent of greenhouse effect emissions,” he said. “Even if we are not walking the same speed, we can all take one more step.”
Negotiators are fighting over three big parts of the issue: How big the numbers are, how much is grants or loans, and who pays. The “how big” question is the toughest to negotiate and will likely be resolved only after the first two are solved, COP29 lead negotiator Yalchin Rafiyev told The Associated Press in an interview Tuesday.
“There are interlinkages of the elements. That’s why having one of them agreed could unlock the other one,” Rafiyev said.
“All presidencies must at this point show that they have what it takes to move from administration to leadership,” German climate envoy Jennifer Morgan said. “They must set the expectation for ambitious outcomes across the board. ... It is now up to the presidency to ensure that we move at full speed toward a green future.”
The current goal of $100 billion annually was set in 2009. Rich potential donor nations have so far been reluctant to offer a starting figure to replace that. Rafiyev said the conference presidency has sought to pressure them, telling them that the figure should be “fair and ambitious, corresponding to the needs and priorities of the world.”
India’s junior environment minister Kirti Vardhan Singh, who is at the Baku talks, said that “the Global South are bearing a huge financial burden.”
“This is severely limiting our capacity to meet our developmental needs,” he said.
The European Union is expected to finally offer a figure, likely ranging from $200 billion to $300 billion annually, Linda Kalcher, executive director of the think tank Strategic Perspectives, said Tuesday.
That wasn’t enough for Debbie Hillier, climate policy lead for the humanitarian group Mercy Corps, who called it “wildly out of step with the needs of developing countries” and a failure by richer nations to live up to the agreement of the 2015 Paris climate talks.
“If $200-300 billion is indeed the ballpark for what developed countries will offer, then this is a betrayal — a betrayal of the communities around the world who, whilst least responsible for climate change, are bearing its most devastating consequences,” she said.
Some wealthy nations were talking of loans that could be leveraged to attract other money — grants, more loans and private investment — to multiply the funds they can offer.
But poorer nations say they are already drowning in debt and most money should come in the form of grants.
Whatever the form of the finance, Ireland’s environment minister Eamon Ryan said it would be “unforgivable” for developed countries to walk away from negotiations in without making a firm commitment toward developing ones.
“We have to make an agreement here,” he said. “We do have to provide the finance, particularly for the developing countries, and to give confidence that they will not be excluded, that they will be center stage.”

MELBOURNE: How do you remove children from the harms of social media? Politically the answer appears simple in Australia, but practically the solution could be far more difficult.
The Australian government’s plan to ban children from social media platforms including X, TikTok, Facebook and Instagram until their 16th birthdays is politically popular. The opposition party says it would have done the same after winning elections due within months if the government hadn’t moved first.
The leaders of all eight Australian states and mainland territories have unanimously backed the plan, although Tasmania, the smallest state, would have preferred the threshold was set at 14.
But a vocal assortment of experts in the fields of technology and child welfare have responded with alarm. More than 140 such experts signed an open letter to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese condemning the 16-year age limit as “too blunt an instrument to address risks effectively.”
Details of what is proposed and how it will be implemented are scant. More will be known when legislation is introduced into the Parliament next week.
The concerned teen
Leo Puglisi, a 17-year-old Melbourne student who founded online streaming service 6 News Australia at the age of 11, laments that lawmakers imposing the ban lack the perspective on social media that young people have gained by growing up in the digital age.
“With respect to the government and prime minister, they didn’t grow up in the social media age, they’re not growing up in the social media age, and what a lot of people are failing to understand here is that, like it or not, social media is a part of people’s daily lives,” Leo said.
“It’s part of their communities, it’s part of work, it’s part of entertainment, it’s where they watch content – young people aren’t listening to the radio or reading newspapers or watching free-to-air TV – and so it can’t be ignored. The reality is this ban, if implemented, is just kicking the can down the road for when a young person goes on social media,” Leo added.
Leo has been applauded for his work online. He was a finalist in his home state Victoria’s nomination for the Young Australian of the Year award, which will be announced in January. His nomination bid credits his platform with “fostering a new generation of informed, critical thinkers.”
The grieving mom-turned-activist
One of the proposal’s supporters, cyber safety campaigner Sonya Ryan, knows from personal tragedy how dangerous social media can be for children.
Her 15-year-old daughter Carly Ryan was murdered in 2007 in South Australia state by a 50-year-old pedophile who pretended to be a teenager online. In a grim milestone of the digital age, Carly was the first person in Australia to be killed by an online predator.
“Kids are being exposed to harmful pornography, they’re being fed misinformation, there are body image issues, there’s sextortion, online predators, bullying. There are so many different harms for them to try and manage and kids just don’t have the skills or the life experience to be able to manage those well,” Sonya Ryan said.
“The result of that is we’re losing our kids. Not only what happened to Carly, predatory behavior, but also we’re seeing an alarming rise in suicide of young people,” she added.
Sonya Ryan is part of a group advising the government on a national strategy to prevent and respond to child sexual abuse in Australia.
She wholeheartedly supports Australia setting the social media age limit at 16.
“We’re not going to get this perfect,” she said. “We have to make sure that there are mechanisms in place to deal with what we already have which is an anxious generation and an addicted generation of children to social media.”
A major concern for social media users of all ages is the legislation’s potential privacy implications.
Age estimation technology has proved inaccurate, so digital identification appears to be the most likely option for assuring a user is at least 16.
The skeptical Internet expert
Tama Leaver, professor of Internet studies at Curtin University, fears that the government will make the platforms hold the users’ identification data.
The government has already said the onus will be on the platforms, rather than on children or their parents, to ensure everyone meets the age limit.
“The worst possible outcome seems to be the one that the government may be inadvertently pushing toward, which would be that the social media platforms themselves would end up being the identity arbiter,” Leaver said.
“They would be the holder of identity documents which would be absolutely terrible because they have a fairly poor track record so far of holding on to personal data well,” he added.
The platforms will have a year once the legislation has become law to work out how the ban can be implemented.
Ryan, who divides her time between Adelaide in South Australia and Fort Worth, Texas, said privacy concerns should not stand in the way of removing children from social media.
“What is the cost if we don’t? If we don’t put the safety of our children ahead of profit and privacy?” she asked.