RISING sea levels, storms and droughts are not only destroying lives and ecosystems but are also pushing lower-income countries deeper into debt.

Cop29 was expected to address this injustice by urging wealthy nations, the main drivers of the climate crisis, to fund the damages they’ve caused.

The talks aimed to secure at least $1 trillion annually in grants for lower-income countries to manage climate disasters. 

Research indicates that this is the minimum necessary for countries to effectively address the climate emergency. But reports of a $1.3trn climate finance goal are misleading: it is merely a nebulous aspiration. In fact only $300 billion has been committed, and even this only over 10 years.

Outrageously,money raised by global South countries themselves are to be included in this goal.

Crucially, there’s no assurance that funds from richer countries will be grants rather than loans, which already dominate climate finance, entrap recipients in penury and to bear the financial burden of a crisis they didn’t create.

That is morally bankrupt and unfathomably stupid given the catastrophic implications for all mankind.

 And the cost of hamstringing those countries of the global South with ever-increasing debt negates all the headlined progress. Many are now spending five times more on debt payments than on addressing the climate crisis. 

But such exploitation was not always set in stone. Jubilee 2000 was a global campaign that successfully secured the cancellation of over £89bn in debt for 35 of the world’s poorest countries.

In his case study on the Jubilee Debt Campaign: Working Across the Levels, Spaces and Forms of Power John Gaventa observed: “The [Jubilee 2000] movement was able to align itself across all the dimensions of power […] Not only did it mobilise at global meetings of the G7, IMF, World Bank, Paris Club and others, but it also built links with national organisations and campaigns in over 60 countries, which lobbied, campaigned, protested and educated in their own countries as well.”

The age of oil and gas extraction needs to end in a way that is fast, fair and forever. The 29th Cop drew to a close taking one step forward and two steps back given the backtracking on Cop28’s commitments due to the corruption by fossil fuel interests, some even calling it their playground.

What’s needed now is an unhindered path toward global goals on adaptation and to unlock the finance needed to support resilience. Anything short of this is an early death sentence for far too many.

Reporting from Cop29, Attracta Mooney lamented: “Cop29 has failed, the clue is in the name. Next year countries will try for the 30th time. What is clear is the era of oil and gas must end: fast, fairly and forever.

“While the fossil fuel industry thrives, billions suffer. Rich nations must stop imposing loans on the poorest who have done the least to get us where we are today, and instead provide grants. Anything less is a death sentence for the planet and people on it.”

A positive thing to come out of Cop29 is that countries made poorer through history have doubled down — the kind of action from those most affected by climate chaos that is needed.

Based on the same principle, Extinction Rebellion has long called for citizens’ assemblies because people make better decisions than petro-states, recognising the implications for a wider constituency.

The fight continues

Right now a handful of oil industry executives are more interested in their share prices than their future, such is the absurdity of our economic system where too much power lies with petro-states and global extractive companies who would self-destruct in their worship at the feet of their golden calf.

Eight billion people now alive have an interest in a liveable planet, not to mention those yet born. Yes, the money needed goes into the trillions but if you are worried about money, the cost of doing nothing will be far, far higher.

And if you think our life on this one, beautiful and irreplaceable planet is worth saving, you’ll see the sense in spending now as well as forgiving debt.

Those who say we can’t afford it are really saying: “We can’t afford to survive.” Life on this planet is at stake, what do you think it’s worth?