#11: some feminist reflections on COP29

Sorry, this is going to be a tad boring for people who may not be into COP talk (and rightly so, given the outcomes).

There have been mixed (to put it politely) reactions to COP29's outcomes. Years of technical dialogues and high-level discussions on the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) raised hopes, but the result, a $300 billion target by 2035, is frankly a joke. Despite the urgency underscored by global stocktakes, this “goal” falls way short of addressing the sheer scale of climate challenges. Adaptation is survival; not a luxury. Yet, the financing remains nowhere near sufficient to meet the needs of people on the frontlines of climate catastrophes.

Moreover, the focus on finance was a (lost) opportunity to deliver on the promises of a Just Transition. Instead, it reinforced the status quo, where the burden of adaptation is disproportionately distributed, whereby “developed” countries continue to minimise their financial contributions and retain control over disbursements.

To me, these post-COP29 reflections highlight the structural contradictions of international climate governance under capitalism. As activists, experts, and organisations continue to mull over the results of this "finance COP," it is clear that such negotiations prioritise profit and geopolitical dominance over the wellbeing of the planet and its most vulnerable peoples.

The aftermath of COP29 evinces a sense of betrayal and mistrust; a roadmap for concrete climate action just wasn’t delivered. This failure is a deliberate choice by First World nations to minimise their contributions while maximising control over disbursement, exposing the contradictions of a system that prioritises short-term profits for multinational corporations over humanity's long-term survival.

Climate Finance Unmasked

The most glaring issue is what can be described as the mirage of climate finance.

COP29 exemplifies the inequitable distribution of power and resources in the global economic order. Developed countries’ commitments fall laughably short of their obligations under the Paris Agreement. The $300 billion target, ostensibly a commitment to address climate crises, appears downright derisory when adjusted for inflation and juxtaposed against the growing costs of climate inaction: a paltry sum that fails to address the scale of the climate crisis or enable developing countries to meet their nationally determined contributions (NDCs). This goal reflects the continued subjugation of the Global South, where financial commitments are designed to reinforce existing power imbalances rather than challenge them.

The inclusion of loans (both concessional and market-rate) further entrenches debt dependency among developing nations. Additionally, by funnelling resources through multilateral development banks (MDBs) and counting all MDB flows as climate finance, the global north conveniently consolidates its hegemony while sidestepping historical responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, far from being a “benevolent” transfer of resources, climate finance becomes a tool to sustain imperialist financial systems.

Developed nations, led by imperialist powers, impose conditions that prioritise private investment and market-based mechanisms over systemic transformation. While the Paris Agreement (rhetorically?) promises equity and differentiated responsibility, its frameworks unfortunately operate within this hegemony. Wealthy nations, the historical drivers of climate degradation, evade ethical and material obligations by promoting inadequate solutions such as leveraging private finance.

This is exploitation masked as virtue, commodifying crises to extract profit even as the planet nears ecological collapse.

Market forces, ill-equipped to address the needs of marginalised populations on the frontlines of the climate crisis, have become the preferred mechanism. Calls for substantial public finance, particularly grant-based funding, are systematically ignored, revealing the superficiality of these commitments.

Many developing nations are compelled to prioritise debt servicing over investments in health, education, and climate adaptation. These priorities are dictated by global financial institutions that function as instruments of neo-colonial control. Public finance, particularly in the form of grants, represents a potential means to redress these injustices, but its absence reflects the system's aversion to redistributive justice.

A Feminist Approach to Climate Action and a Just Transition

The narrative of scarcity dominates discussions around climate finance, often used to justify the lack of resources. A “feminist” solution, then, should transcend the constraints of multilateral spaces and center the grassroots knowledge and resistance of the Third World.

At COP29, advocacy groups underscored the need to ensure that funds are channelled effectively through mechanisms like the Adaptation Fund, the Green Climate Fund, and the Loss and Damage Fund, all of which remain woefully underfunded. Their call for a focus on quality climate finance that is grant-based, accessible, and responsive to the needs of communities on the frontlines stands as a challenge to the neoliberal climate agenda.

Beyond grants, feminists must interrogate how the global climate finance regime affects gendered inequalities besides mere “gender inclusive” rhetoric. Women in the Global South are left to grapple with adaptation and resilience-building efforts with little long-term structural support. The tokenistic inclusion of “gender considerations” in finance mechanisms highlights the superficiality of a system that professes to value “intersectionality” while perpetuating patriarchal and racialised systems of exploitation.

Also, efforts to make climate finance “gender-responsive” or more inclusive are often siloed and disconnected from the broader structural critique of capitalism. These reforms, while important, risk being co-opted as lip service that leaves the underlying exploitative system intact. A truly transformative approach would integrate these concerns into a larger anti-capitalist framework, where climate justice is understood as inseparable from the dismantling of global inequalities.

Actual climate action demands a radical redistribution of resources and power, guided by the principles of public provision, internationalist solidarity, and ecological sustainability. The continued reliance on capitalist solutions, be it through private finance or incremental reforms, only entrenches the inequalities that lie at the heart of this worldwide emergency. Climate justice can only be achieved through dismantling the structures of exploitation, and building a world that prioritises human and ecological well-being over profit.

Climate adaptation and addressing loss and damage are arenas where profit motives fail entirely, highlighting the incompatibility of COPs with egalitarian or feminist climate action. Grant-based finance, directly channelled to communities and grassroots organisations, particularly ethical women-led ones, emerges as the most effective and imperative solution. Yet, the systemic reliance on private finance underscores how deeply entrenched capitalist structures are in global governance, privileging elite interests over the needs of the working class and vulnerable populations.

Additionally, the claim that public finance is insufficient is worthy of mockery.

The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the capacity of states to mobilise trillions of dollars during emergencies. Similarly, global military expenditures, which exceed $2.4 trillion annually, reveal the priorities of imperialist powers. If these resources were redirected through progressive taxation and collective work, such as, say, community-led climate adaptation programmes and publicly funded green infrastructure, the financial requirements for climate action could perhaps be met. The refusal to do so highlights the structural imperative of capitalism to prioritise militarisation and capital accumulation over the welfare of the planet and its people.

In regards to discussions around a Just Transition, an issue raised was the growing demand for transitional minerals, predominantly sourced from the Global South. Feminists would emphasise the importance of rejecting capitalist, colonial, and patriarchal models that exploit these regions under the guise of green solutions, even in surface-level discussions regarding the need for equitable transitions for workers and vulnerable populations.

This is where internationalist solidarity matters, advocating for demilitarisation and a redirection of funding towards life-affirming systems, rather than destructive ones.

It is high time discussions around a Just Transition go beyond energy systems to include a shift towards care-based models. Unrecognised care and domestic work, which sustain economies, must be acknowledged and integrated into policies. Additionally, there is a pressing need to move beyond loan-based approaches that exacerbate austerity, further burdening women and populations on the peripheries.

Policies must prioritise sufficiency and respect for planetary boundaries, particularly by decoupling economic growth from environmental harm. This should encompass the de-growth of industries that cause harm while actively incorporating visions of feminist futures.

What Then?

Climate finance, in its current form, is a mechanism for perpetuating an unimaginably unequal world. A revolutionary and intrinsically feminist climate movement must demand the cancellation of climate debt, the direct transfer of resources to communities without intermediaries, and the nationalisation of industries critical to a Just Transition. Only through an overhaul, rooted in solidarity and collective ownership, can we hope to avert the catastrophic consequences of climate inaction.

Climate action is linked to systemic injustices, including class inequalities, war, arms trade and military spending, and exploitation of the Global South. The UNFCCC framework is criticised for its siloed approach, which separates gatekept climate discussions from broader systems of oppression. This limits the ability to address the interconnectedness of climate change with issues like economic inequality, colonialism, and patriarchy, ultimately hindering the development of pro-people climate solutions.

If you were to ask me, the disillusionment expressed by many after COP29 must catalyse a broader cross-coalition movement, beyond the work that feminists are doing, and beyond reformist demands for incremental finance increases. It is time to centre anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, and decolonial perspectives in climate advocacy.

The climate crisis is a direct result of centuries of capitalist accumulation through colonial plunder, resource extraction, and exploitation of labour. Any meaningful response must therefore seek to dismantle these systems in the longer run.

The path forward demands collective action rooted in class struggle, feminist ethics of care and reflexivity, accountability, and a commitment to dismantling the capitalist systems that perpetuate both climate injustice and inequality.

The current climate and socio-political landscape may be rather bleak, especially for younger folks, but there is hope in the power of the people, and of feminists themselves. Creating spaces for collective action is essential, as mass movements have historically dismantled systems of oppression, and can do so again to address the blind spots of self-serving international economic, legal, and trade systems.

Picture credit: Pinterest