the un climate summit in baku is set to overrun over the weekend as countries fail to agree on key issues. after two weeks in baku, talks at the cop 29 climate summit are coming to a close. well, almost — the summit is set to overrun its initial schedule in the azerbaijani capital. there are deep divisons over key issues — improving efforts to cut carbon, and dealing with climate finance. on this a vital question looms: how much money is needed to help vulnerable countries... and who should fork it out? a new deal drafted at the cop summit "calls on" all countries to work together to scale up funding for developing

countries to $1.3 trillion by 2035. that figure includes all finance from public and — crucially — private sources too. within that — a proposal to see wealthier countries give 250—billion dollars per year by 2035 to poorer nations to help tackle climate change. that's up $100 billion a yearfrom what's currently in place. the draft text has been met with strong criticism — panama's climate envoy among those describing it as �*deeply disappointing'. after three years of negotiations on the new finance goal, countless workshops and dialogues in remote places our developed colleagues have yet to put forward a quantified proposal for us to negotiate. we've been to south africa, we've been to germany several times the philippines, egypt, austria, switzerland, dubai, colombia, baku a few times. for god's sakes,

what's the next stop? mars? do we need to go to outer space to get a quantitative number from our developed countries to be able to start negotiating here? let me tell you something. sadly, mars is years away and we only have hours to get to this decision. quite frankly, this lack of commitment transparency feels like a slap in the face to the most vulnerable. it is just utter disrespect to those countries that are bearing the brunt of this crisis. let's take a closer look at that $250 billion figure we just mentioned. this is for the cash and loans directly generated by finance from richer countries. as we noted — it's an increase on the existing amount. and it's one that finance ministers in wealthier countries will be paying close attention too, as it implies they'll need to find new money for climate action. the german foreign minister

wrote on social media the country �*would not issue blank cheques�* — but added "we as europeans are ready to deliver". and this was the response from senior us climate envoy, john podesta. we are, frankly, deeply concerned at this stage about what we view as a glaring imbalance in the tax thus far. in particular, we want to underscore that the treatment of mitigation in the current drafts is absolutely unacceptable. we join many others in our surprise that there is nothing that carries forward the central work of mitigation and the key mitigation outcomes that we agreed on last year in dubai. let�*s talk about suriname. it�*s one ofjust let�*s talk about suriname. it�*s one of just three let�*s talk about suriname. it�*s one ofjust three countries in the world which is climate neutral, that�*s partly because it is almost entirely covered in forest. joining me now is

the environment minister. it�*s good to see you again. we spoke last week so it�*s great to catch up and find out what�*s been happening since we last spoke. i think a useful place for our audience would be to ask you when you arrived at the conference what with the key things you are hoping to achieve and have you managed to achieve and have you managed to achieve those? this achieve and have you managed to achieve those?— achieve those? this cop is known as _ achieve those? this cop is known as the _ achieve those? this cop is known as the finance - achieve those? this cop is known as the finance cop| achieve those? this cop is i known as the finance cop so finance is the ultimate goal. we are talking about the collective quantified goal. we need this climate finance to address the climate crisis in our countries. besides this nonmarket climate finance we all org also focus on finance

six. . , . . . all org also focus on finance six. ., ., ,., ,, six. has climate gate progress be made on — six. has climate gate progress be made on that? _ six. has climate gate progress be made on that? their - six. has climate gate progress be made on that? their latest| be made on that? their latest tax is very _ be made on that? their latest tax is very disappointing - tax is very disappointing because it doesn�*t meet the needs of the ambitions of our countries like suriname and thus small island states it mentions 250 billion us dollars to address the climate crisis in our countries but according to science level temperature increase should be well below 1.5 degrees in orderfor our planet and the people to survive. the original ask of 1.3 trillion already drive temperature to 2.8 celsius. everything less then 1.3 trillion us dollars is disastrous.- trillion us dollars is disastrous. �*, ., ., disastrous. it's not a good lace

disastrous. it's not a good place to — disastrous. it's not a good place to be _ disastrous. it's not a good place to be at _ disastrous. it's not a good place to be at the - disastrous. it's not a good place to be at the end - disastrous. it's not a good place to be at the end of l disastrous. it's not a good i place to be at the end of this summit. we saw criticism earlier this week saying that the cop are no longer fit for purpose, they are too slow moving and they can�*t force countries to act in a timely way would you agree with that and if so, how else would it make does the world deal with the climate crisis? this make does the world deal with the climate crisis?— the climate crisis? this year we have _ the climate crisis? this year we have three _ the climate crisis? this year we have three cop, - the climate crisis? this year we have three cop, the - the climate crisis? this year we have three cop, the one the climate crisis? this year. we have three cop, the one we had in colombia that was far biodiversity, we have a climate cop every year and next year we have a land degradation cop. these are very important. as a lot of people said, progress is very slow. but we have to talk about this. i don�*t think that we should stop talking about this on the world stage, we

need this, but the progress is very slow because they developed countries are not stepping up and this is unfair. it's stepping up and this is unfair. it�*s less about cop and how they are organised and the structure and more about what they developed countries are prepared to commit to? yes. that's right- _ prepared to commit to? yes. that's right. that _ prepared to commit to? yes. that's right. that is - prepared to commit to? yes. that's right. that is a - prepared to commit to? yes. that's right. that is a very i that's right. that is a very straightforward _ that's right. that is a very straightforward and - that's right. that is a very straightforward and clearl straightforward and clear answer. suriname�*s environment minister. thank you very much for your time. minister. thank you very much foryourtime. let�*s minister. thank you very much for your time. let�*s continue the discussion with our panel. leon emirali and kurt bardella. what do you take away from the finance minister there? we have been seeing _ finance minister there? we have been seeing this _ finance minister there? we have been seeing this in _ finance minister there? we have been seeing this in the - finance minister there? we have been seeing this in the space - been seeing this in the space for a while which is a gap of

doing develop nations and developing nations and we are at a point where there is a great deal of disagreement between the two. i was at the cop 27 in egypt and you start with optimism and think you�*re going to come out achieving something and people are going to unite around climate change but it gets into the nitty—gritty and countries having to open their cheque books and that becomes a harder conversation. there is a discussion about whether cop are fit for purpose and i think they are not. they are too cumbersome, they have become talking shops without enough action. ~ ., ., , action. what would you replace them with? _ action. what would you replace them with? a _ action. what would you replace them with? a conversation - them with? a conversation clearly needs to happen so what would you replace them with? i think there needs to be a clear alignment between developing and developed nations and what

we need to see is organisations like the world bank, multi—development banks, being able to fund projects in those developing countries while enabling other countries to fund those projects. i think it comes down to a lining leg aligning the organisations that are funding these cops. we have too many different cop. it needs to be focused discussion with those parties that comes to an adjective that works for everyone. d0 to an adjective that works for everyone-— to an adjective that works for eve one. i. ., ., everyone. do you agree that the conversations _ everyone. do you agree that the conversations that _ everyone. do you agree that the conversations that are _ conversations that are happening within the current format are not focused enough? yes and i think part of the challenges you are dealing with is a problem that is so enormous that it is really easy to have — enormous that it is really easy to have dozens of different tentacles of solution minded people —

tentacles of solution minded people trying to solve the biggest problem that humanity is ever— biggest problem that humanity is ever going to face and it's almost _ is ever going to face and it's almost the problem is too big. you have — almost the problem is too big. you have to narrow the focus. you're — you have to narrow the focus. you're not _ you have to narrow the focus. you're not going to solve it all at — you're not going to solve it all at one _ you're not going to solve it all at one time. until the united _ all at one time. until the united states posture changes with the — united states posture changes with the new president and you are likely— with the new president and you are likely to see a withdrawal from — are likely to see a withdrawal from the _ are likely to see a withdrawal from the united states from this conversation on a global scale — this conversation on a global scale. what does this look like without— scale. what does this look like without the united states being active? — without the united states being active? without the resources that have _ active? without the resources that have been devoted to it drying — that have been devoted to it drying up? i think some of this is going — drying up? i think some of this is going to _ drying up? i think some of this is going to have to get done on a more — is going to have to get done on a more granular level and progress is going to have to be done _ progress is going to have to be done incrementally even though we all— done incrementally even though we all know we don't have that runway — we all know we don't have that runway to _ we all know we don't have that runway to solve the bigger problem realistically politically speaking, resource speaking, the only way we're going — speaking, the only way we're going to _ speaking, the only way we're going to make progress is on a smaller— going to make progress is on a smaller level as the politics

in the — smaller level as the politics in the west change. it seems there is a _ in the west change. it seems there is a difficult _ in the west change. it seems there is a difficult tension - there is a difficult tension between dealing with the climate crisis and to helping developing countries adapt to the climate crisis between that and the shorter term issues which are not climate related but ultimately climate relates to everything, to health, education, so many different areas like housing. there is that conflict between short—term decisions that governments might want to make in terms of other areas of spending and that bigger, longer term project. do you think that the solution is to break this down into smaller chunks rather than this huge, intractable problem?- chunks rather than this huge, intractable problem? there has to be a focus — intractable problem? there has to be a focus on _ intractable problem? there has to be a focus on those - intractable problem? there has to be a focus on those key - to be a focus on those key areas that we can make a difference on right now. you can�*t write a check and climate change goes away. there needs

to be more that goes into it. the problem we are seeing is that there is domestic politics at play on an international scale. if you look at cop there are leaders from all around the world discussing these big issues but back home in those countries for the politicians there are big issues that they have to face domestically as well. if keir starmer was to invest a lot on climate change invest a lot on climate change in developing countries there would be a fair argument that says what about funding the nhs, funding schools in the uk? we are seeing the same in donald trump�*s retraction and his pitch to the ux electric that he will focus on america first. that has to be addressed. it might not be able to be addressed but we have to put it in those terms. it affects everything and affects everyone and we are a long way to get the public at large to

the understanding that will allow us to solve this problem. we are going to move on to another topic now. the 2023 coronation of king charles had been described as a �*once in a generation�* moment — and now we have a sense ofjust how much a moment like that costs. government figures have revealed £72 million of taxpayer money were spent on the event — split between the department for culture, media and sport and the home office. the coronation was paid for by the uk government and buckingham palace through the sovereign grant — which comes from a percentage of the profits of the crown estate revenue — and the privy purse, money from a private estate known as the duchy of lancaster. what do you make of this sum of money, we know that king charles said he wanted this coronation to be a scaled—back affair, mindful of the cost of living crisis? i

affair, mindful of the cost of living crisis?— living crisis? i think we have to look at — living crisis? i think we have to look at it _ living crisis? i think we have to look at it in _ living crisis? i think we have to look at it in context - living crisis? i think we havej to look at it in context which is that £72 million spent on the coronation realistically is a fairly small amount of money when we�*re talking about government budgets. it means something for the uk�*s soft power abroad i think you pay £72 million for an advert for britain now gets beamed into rooms and television sets around the world globally. the international relationships we have are often built on the royal family. have are often built on the royalfamily. if have are often built on the royal family. if you have are often built on the royalfamily. if you look have are often built on the royal family. if you look at donald trump are talking about britain, it doesn�*t take him long to get to his relationship with the queen and how much he loves the royal family. with the queen and how much he loves the royalfamily. i with the queen and how much he loves the royal family. i think thatis loves the royal family. i think that is important for the uk�*s standing and i think it is money well spent.- standing and i think it is money well spent. you think it's good _ money well spent. you think it's good for _ money well spent. you think it's good for brand _ money well spent. you think it's good for brand uk, - money well spent. you think it's good for brand uk, what| money well spent. you think i it's good for brand uk, what is it�*s good for brand uk, what is the perspective from the us? the amount of exposure when you look at _ the amount of exposure when you look at it _ the amount of exposure when you look at it from an advertising

standpoint for the crown and the country, this was watched, streamed, _ the country, this was watched, streamed, live broadcast by every— streamed, live broadcast by every major media outlet in the world — every major media outlet in the world. imagine what the head net advertising tab of that would _ net advertising tab of that would be in dollars and the economic revenue that was generated that week. whether that is— generated that week. whether that is from tourism, people coming _ that is from tourism, people coming in _ that is from tourism, people coming in from all over the world — coming in from all over the world to _ coming in from all over the world to experience coming in from all o