into overtime. whilst some celebrate, other nations, including india, say the deal falls far short of what is needed. and officials in lebanon say more than 50 people have been killed in israeli air strikes on beirut and baalbek. i'm helena humphrey. good to have you with us. world leaders have agreed a major deal on climate finance after days of negotiations and complex twists and turns at the cop29 conference in baku. in an agreement welcomed with applause, wealthier countries will offer $300 billion per year to poorer nations for efforts to fight climate change. just hours ago, talks were on the verge of collapse when the group representing poorer nations walked out.

they eventually returned to the negotiating table but were angered by an offer from wealthier nations that was far short of the $500 billion they wanted. talks at the summit in azerbaijan went on 32 hours longer than they were meant to. 0ur climate editorjustin rowlatt filed this report a few hours ago, following the efforts to make a deal in baku. these talks have been fraught from the start. just a few hours ago, it looked like any chance of an agreement had evaporated. representatives of dozens of the world's least developed countries stormed out key meeting. developed countries stormed out key meeting-— key meeting. we've 'ust walked out. we key meeting. we've 'ust walked out. we came h key meeting. we've 'ust walked out. we came here _ key meeting. we've just walked out. we came here to _ key meeting. we've just walked out. we came here to this - key meeting. we've just walked out. we came here to this cop i out. we came here to this cop for a fair deal out. we came here to this cop fora fair dealand we out. we came here to this cop for a fair deal and we feel like we haven't been heard and there is a deal to be made and we have not been consulted. there was real anger. we need to hold these _ there was real anger. we need to hold these leaders - to hold these leaders accountable for the crisis they've caused and we cannot let the great escape that they

are actually planning in buckhout. barcoo will be remembered as the place that portrayed the world —— baku. john, how is it going? poorer countries demanded more cash, rich countries that they would keep on talking. i’m rich countries that they would keep on talking.— keep on talking. i'm hoping this is the _ keep on talking. i'm hoping this is the storm _ keep on talking. i'm hoping this is the storm before - keep on talking. i'm hoping this is the storm before the carm. this is the storm before the (arm. ., _ , this is the storm before the (arm. ., , h (arm. that may be the case? -- calm. (arm. that may be the case? -- calm- we — (arm. that may be the case? -- calm- we will _ (arm. that may be the case? -- calm. we will keep _ (arm. that may be the case? -- calm. we will keep working - (arm. that may be the case? -- calm. we will keep working and l calm. we will keep working and see whether we can pull it back together. see whether we can pull it back touether. �* u, , see whether we can pull it back touether. �* , , ., see whether we can pull it back touether. �* , ., ., together. but cash is hard to come by _ together. but cash is hard to come by in _ together. but cash is hard to come by in developed - together. but cash is hard to i come by in developed countries like the uk, which face cost of living crises.— living crises. they are saying half a trillion _ living crises. they are saying half a trillion minimum - living crises. they are saying half a trillion minimum or. living crises. they are saying l half a trillion minimum or they won't do a deal for a deal. they're saying no deal is better than a bad deal. well, in the end, parties will have to decide the deal that is offered, and whether it's an acceptable deal or not. currently, developed countries pay $100 billion a year. energy secretary ed miliband says the new offer of $300 billion by 2035 is generous — not when you take into account

inflation, say poorer countries. this is what they always do — they break us at the last minute, you know? they push it and push it and push it until our negotiators leave, until we're tired, until we're delusional from not eating, from not sleeping. it is after 2am now and we are all feeling tired. you may be wondering what all this talk about money has to do with actually tackling climate change. well, the hope is that that cash will be used to help developing countries power their growth with renewable energy, not fossilfuels. that should moderate emissions and, hopefully, slow climate change. justin rowlatt reporting from azerbaijan. there's been mixed reaction to the deal. india's representative at the summit says she absolutely objects to what she called an unfair agreement that excluded nations from the decision—making process. this document is nothing more than an optical illusion. this, in our opinion, will not address the enormity of the challenge we all face.

therefore, we oppose the adoption of this document, we oppose the adoption of this argument, india opposes the adoption of this document and please take note and regard of what we have just said from the floor of this room. we've also gotten reaction from un secretary—general antonio guterres, who says he hoped for a more ambitious outcome: there's been a similar reaction from uk energy secretary ed miliband — who we heard from injustin�*s report. he said the deal was not everything he hoped for but it is a step forward and he has been speaking with the bbc about how the deal helps britons. we do think it is right to help poorer countries to go down the low carbon energy path. it is

right because we are only i% of global emissions in britain and we need other countries to tackle the problem as well we're going to keep future generations say. and it's right as because this is the biggest job opportunity of the 21st century and four british companies and british exports, there are huge opportunities here if the rest of the row before world is moving down that road. —— here if the rest world is moving down that road. 0ur climate reporter esme stallard is at the conference in baku and told me more about what's included in the deal that's now been agreed. the main one we were looking at was this finance deal — effectively, how much money was going to travel from richer countries to poorer nations to help them prepare for climate change, and also to move away from fossil fuels. now, what was in this deal that just got agreed was $300 billion by 2035 — that was an increase in the 250 opening gambit, if you like, from richer nations earlier in the week. there's also other details in there for an aspirational goal of $1.3 trillion by the same date.

how we're gonna get there is not quite clear — there's suggestions a lot of the money could come from the private sector. now, poorer nations say that's only a fair reflection of the demands or the needs that they have. they say they are at the forefront of climate change and have a disproportionate burden and they've also contributed very little to the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that are the driver of climate change. now, despite what's been passed and the cheers we heard erupt here, it wasn't quite all clean sailing — in fact, after the gavel went down, the indian representative — i'm just going to read it out to you on my phone — said she was absolutely furious. she felt like the whole deal was stage—managed, that essentially the cop president — represented by azerbaijan — tried to push the deal through very quickly. i think they felt cornered, that time was running out here, and that theyjust had to agree what was on the table. so, even though it might go down as a landmark agreement, it doesn't necessarily mean that everybody is happy. really interesting to get some of that initial reaction coming in, esme.

i know it's perhaps difficult to quantify right now but do we have any idea, when it comes to climate science, for example, how meaningful that $300 billion per year would actually be? how much it can potentially change? that $300 billion is split across effectively three areas. the first is what we call mitigation, so that is any effort that goes towards a greenhouse gas emissions, so that could be switching out a coal power plant for a massive wind turbine project. it also goes towards adaptation, which is preparing other countries for the worst impacts of climate change. now, this year is predicted to be the hottest on record. we're seeing time and time again extreme weather events, hurricanes battling the caribbean, for example, we've seen typhoons in asia, so it's very clear that money is needed on that front. but there's also a suggestion that some of that money might go towards what's called loss and damage, giving money

to those countries already affected by climate change. now, we've heard reports from the likes of the un and others who are trying to assess how much money is needed and they say it is in the trillions so, really, that $300 billion is a kind of minimum floor required to support these countries — which is potentially why, like i the indian representative felt so disappointed by what was finally agreed to today. joining me live is lisa sachs, director of the columbia center on sustainable investment. welcome to you, lisa. good to have you with us. as you would have you with us. as you would have heard throughout the course of the programme, really some lukewarm responses, pretty mixed reaction, some angry when it comes to this deal. what are your thoughts on it?— it comes to this deal. what are your thoughts on it? yeah, no, i think your thoughts on it? yeah, no, i think the _ your thoughts on it? yeah, no, i think the anger _ your thoughts on it? yeah, no, i think the anger and _ your thoughts on it? yeah, no, i think the anger and the - i think the anger and the disappointment are exactly right. this is a weird process, to come up with the financing commitment, ratherthan to come up with the financing commitment, rather than asking what needs to be financed and what needs to be financed and what it will cost and how we will finance it, we have this bizarre adversarial negotiation

over figures, bizarre adversarial negotiation overfigures, with bizarre adversarial negotiation over figures, with developing countries putting up the very real costs of mitigation, imitation and loss of damages and developing countries saying sorry, it is too high. in the end, this commitment is really incredibly underwhelming, even within the contours of the agreement that recognises extraordinary need, so it is indeed deeply disappointing. i'm sure, i mean, you spend a lot of time looking at the science on all of this, indicating that without meaningful action, there actually could even be a much bigger hell to pay for governments, so what do you think is holding countries back from more preventative action —— bigger bill. from more preventative action -- bigger bill-— -- bigger bill. absolutely first of all _ -- bigger bill. absolutely first of all i _ -- bigger bill. absolutely first of all i think - -- bigger bill. absolutely first of all i think the - -- bigger bill. absolutely i first of all i think the losses and damages are mounting every year. we arejust and damages are mounting every year. we are just facing a higher bill by failing to meaningfully address mitigation and building resilience into our economic system is now, that's absolutely true. i is holding them back, shortsightedness, politics, the incredible difficult geopolitical situation that we are in right now that is

diverting both attention and resources. that's the only thing that's holding us because otherwise, the needs are right in front of our faith. find in front of our faith. and there was _ in front of our faith. and there was also _ in front of our faith. and there was also in - in front of our faith. and there was also in this i in front of our faith. and | there was also in this text this aspirational target was put out, $1.3 trillion. it is understood that would involve more private financing, possibly including loans. so how meaningful do you think thatis how meaningful do you think that is for poorer nations? bi; that is for poorer nations? by the way. _ that is for poorer nations? el: the way, ijust come on my reading, it is even more incoherent than that, just the $300 billion target in and of itself also includes mobilising finance from private sources which is bizarre to my mind because the 1.3 trillion is supposed to be collective of all public and private under 300 million should havejust been the public commitment but as i read it is inclusive of all types of public and private and alternative finance from developed countries 300 million. and the thing that is addressed is the extraordinary challenges that developing countries face in accessing affordable capital. the cost of

capital in developing countries is extraordinarily high. much of this climate finance comes at market rate loans which exacerbates the depth of developing countries. that is a bit acknowledged in the text but in no way solved. so these figures, the 1.3 trillion is probably the only real number in this agreement because it is really the figure that is needed and the solutions are just woefully insufficient. i do want to ask — and i recognise this is quite a difficult assessment to make — when you look at the 300 billion a year, this being put out there and then you look at the level of warming that we are seeing and the limits and the efforts to keep it in within a limited range, i mean, what really does 300 billion actually do in terms of the targets? actually do in terms of the tar: ets? ., actually do in terms of the targets?— actually do in terms of the taraets? ., ., , ., ., targets? not nearly enough, and that's in the _ targets? not nearly enough, and that's in the agreement - targets? not nearly enough, and that's in the agreement itself. i that's in the agreement itself. i believe it is article three lays out what the estimated costs of meditation and adaptation are —— mitigation. the estimates just a few articles before the commitment

it is $1 trillion per year and by the way that figure doesn't include the loss and damages so there's no world in which this 300 billion is sufficient. arguably, i suppose the point thatis arguably, i suppose the point that is being made is this is the rest have come from developing countries and cooperation but it is morally reprehensible and it is completely impractical because it is not where the capital is, so the short answer is the 300 billion is nowhere near the figures that we know are needed to actually address both the finance energy transition to build resilience and then to address the mounting costs. lisa sachs. really good to have your analysis. thank you, lisa. thank you very much. lebanon's health ministry says 3,670 people have been killed in israeli attacks since october 2023, with at least 35 people killed saturday. in beirut, at least 20 people were killed and more than 60 others were injured in a strike which flattened an eight—storey

residential building. and near the city of baalbek in the east, 15 others were killed, including a mother and herfour children. there has been no comment from the israeli military. hugo bachega reports from beirut. a crater in central beirut after a massive israeli air strike. an attack that happened without warning at 4am in the morning when many here were sleeping. hours later, a heavy smell of explosives was still in the air. bunker buster bombs were apparently used in the attack, and one eight—storey residential building collapsed. this is the site that was hit and there's still a massive operation happening here to remove the rubble. there's a heavy security presence as well. this attack was so powerful that it was heard and felt across the city. there has been no reaction from the israeli military.

reports say this was an attempt to kill a senior hezbollah official, who is believed to have survived. it's a very horrible explosion happened. all of the window, the glasses are all over me and my wife and my children. my home now is a battlefield, if you see it. 0k, one person is hiding here. should they destroy three buildings with the people are sleeping inside? across lebanon, israeli air strikes have intensified, despite new efforts for a ceasefire. explosion. israel calls it a strategy of negotiations under fire and says the attacks will continue. hugo bachega, bbc news, beirut. two ukrainian missiles and 27 drones were destroyed over the russian kursk region, according to local officials. it comes after a week of significant escalation in the war after the us and britain gave permission for their missiles to hit russian targets. on saturday, the french foreign minister said his country's

missiles could be used by ukraine to attack targets inside russia at any time. jean—noel barrot told the bbc that when it came to defending ukraine, there could be no red lines. each time the russian army progresses by one square kilometre, the threat gets one square kilometre closer to europe. joining me now is sethjones, president of the defense and security department center for strategic and international studies. seth, good to have you ever asked. we heard those comments from the french foreign minister. essentially saying no red lines when it comes to support the ukraine and ijust wondered do you think it is a sentiment that he shared among all western allies?— all western allies? well, i think it is _ all western allies? well, i think it is a _ all western allies? well, i think it is a sentiment - all western allies? well, i | think it is a sentiment that all western allies? well, i i think it is a sentiment that is certainly increasingly held within the and certainly many other nato allies, poland for

example. i think it is also way overdue. the russians have had no red lines really since the beginning of this war. they have shot lister, chris, hypersonic missiles, drones across ukraine. second, it's hard to ukraine to defend its territory really without able to strike targets within target, it is a military target, it is a military target, weapons devos, military bases, logistics hubs. these are critical for ukraine, even from a defensive standpoint. i wonder if you think there are other red lines, though, because, of course, we know the number of these atacms missiles for example are limited. do you think they can be anything done that can realistically turn the tide? when are in the ukrainian administration, there is this concern about what another donald trump presidency could mean and what it could also mean and what it could also mean for the supply of aid. what else could be done to turn the tide? ., ., , ., ,., , the tide? none of these weapons s stems the tide? none of these weapons systems in _ the tide? none of these weapons systems in and — the tide? none of these weapons systems in and of— the tide? none of these weapons systems in and of themselves, i

systems in and of themselves, whether they are atacms which have about a 300 kilometre rain or storm shadow or even f—16s or storm shadow or even f—16s or patriots i think have been able to turn the tide of this war. but in and of themselves, they are helpful in causing significant casualties and that is i think what is important as we get close to increasing discussions with the russians, at least with a ceasefire, is increasing attrition rates against russia. they have suffered more casualties in ukraine since the war began, about five times more than all russian and soviet wars since 1945 combined. so that ends up being, i think, 1945 combined. so that ends up being, ithink, important, to move towards ceasefire is to continue to attract russian forces. , , ., , forces. president zelensky has said he believes _ forces. president zelensky has said he believes that _ forces. president zelensky has said he believes that russia i said he believes that russia essentially is making a full—scale push to try to retake kursk right now and when

you look about when you think about the incoming trump administration, do you think that indicates perhaps that were vladimir putin to retake kursk that they then may have the appetite, at least from the russians, to sit at the negotiation table? i russians, to sit at the negotiation table? i think if president — negotiation table? i think if president trump _ negotiation table? i think if president trump pushes . negotiation table? i think if. president trump pushes hard negotiation table? i think if- president trump pushes hard for a negotiation, ithink president trump pushes hard for a negotiation, i think putin will take it seriously. i think we're seeing now is both sides trying to jockey for the best advantageous position before those negotiations begin. it is not unlikely, frankly, we saw some of the balkans countries before the dayton accords, trying to get as best they position as they can. this is why we are seeing ukrainians go an offence to with medium and long—range strikes into russian territory from atacms, storm shadow and drones to get the potential advantage before the discussions began. [30 potential advantage before the discussions began.— potential advantage before the discussions began. do you think than for the _

discussions began. do you think than for the ukrainians - than for the ukrainians territorial concessions looked to be increasingly inevitable? i think it's probably going to be difficult at this point for the ukrainians to take back, in the ukrainians to take back, in the nearfuture, the territory that russia holds by force. i would not rule it out over the next several years but at this point, especially with donald trump raising lots of questions about continuing us aid, i think it will be very difficult for the ukrainians to take back the territory that russia now holds for now. again, this could be along long we will wait to see how it transpires over the next few months and years. over the next few months and ears. ,, over the next few months and ears, ,, g ., , over the next few months and ears. ,, g ., , over the next few months and ears. ,, , ., years. seth jones, good to get our years. seth jones, good to get your take- _ years. seth jones, good to get your take. thank _ years. seth jones, good to get your take. thank you. - years. seth jones, good to get your take. thank you. thank . your take. thank you. thank ou, your take. thank you. thank you. helena- _ president—elect donald trump tapped brooke rollins as his pick for agriculture secretary on saturday as he continues to shape his cabinet. ms rollins served in mr trump's first term as the acting director of the domestic policy council. she has spent the last four

years as the founder and ceo of the conservative america first policy institute think tank. however, she has little experience in agriculture policy. among trump's latest flurry of cabinet nominations, he tapped hedge fund manager scott bessent as treasury secretary. mr bessent had become a key economic adviser to mr trump and his team in recent months. he is a wall street financier who once worked for george soros, bringing a relatively conventional resume compared to the president—elect�*s other nominations. if confirmed by the senate, he will be responsible for turning the president—elect�*s campaign promises into economic policy, including the elimination of taxes on tips, placing more aggressive tariffs on us imports, and cutting back federal regulations. joining me live to discuss the pick is brian schwartz, white house economic policy reporter at the wall street journal. brian, thank you for being with us. hedge fund as treasury

secretary. what kind of reaction i'll be seeing to that? ., that? to tell you the truth, i think trump _ that? to tell you the truth, i think trump should - that? to tell you the truth, i think trump should be - that? to tell you the truth, i | think trump should be happy with this because i think wall street is going to be very excited about scott present being treasury secretary, as long as he gets confirmed and it seems like he will —— bessent. he gets along well with many republicans in the senate so we're not any problems there so i feel like this is a wall street pic but it is also a pick that appeals to donald trump as base, scott bessent has come forward and raved about donald trump's tarriffs policy, for instance, something that appeals to many of trump's supporters. it is for making some of these tax cuts more permanent as they expire in 2025, so this is really the best scenario for trump, the markets and for wall street executives, many who are big fans of his, and it's going to be fascinating to see how the confirmation plays out but i think overall it's a pretty positive pic for trump. i wonder whether you think there

could be policy disagreements because we had seen a tweet from elon musk backing another candidate and calling mr bessent the business as usual choice. �* ., , ., ., choice. but goes to something a bit different. _ choice. but goes to something a bit different. that _ choice. but goes to something a bit different. that was _ choice. but goes to something a bit different. that was related . bit different. that was related to a battle that took place between mr bessent and howard blood link as well as their allies over who should be the pick to be treasury secretary and we detail all is course on our website —— howard lutnick. and we touched on the few that took place at mirra largo quite regularly, it's really simple to get out. lutnick also wanted to get out. lutnick also wanted to be treasury secretary and he is the trump transition co—chair and the nominee to be, as secretary but to be clear before he was named to be the nominee, he was aiming for treasury, as was scott bessent. so there was this back and forth over who trump should pick as both of these people kind of went for this job. trump such back and thought maybe they could be an

alternative here, instead of either of these two men and looked at somebody like mike rowe and the poly global ceo, kevin walsh will be somebody who has been eyeing the feature once jerome powell's who has been eyeing the feature oncejerome powell's term ends in 2026, and eventually settled on scott but the truth is is that they came after weeks of deliberation for trump and his team as to whether it should be scott bessent, may be howard lutnick or possibly someone else. �* ., ., lutnick or possibly someone else. �* ., . ~' lutnick or possibly someone else. �* ., ., ,, ., else. and i wonder what kind of brand of economic _ else. and i wonder what kind of brand of economic policy - else. and i wonder what kind of brand of economic policy you i brand of economic policy you would expect them mr bessent to bring if you were confined because as you know huge promises made on the campaign trailfrom donald trump promises made on the campaign trail from donald trump when promises made on the campaign trailfrom donald trump when it comes to the economy. what could we see from bessent? from all reporting _ could we see from bessent? from all reporting we've _ could we see from bessent? from all reporting we've done, - could we see from bessent? from all reporting we've done, one i all reporting we've done, one of the reasons why scott bessent was selected was because he gave off the impression of trump and all these meetings that he was the guy was going to march in lockstep with what trump wanted from economic policy side of things that we go back to the tarriffs, a variety of tariffs have been proposed by trump on the paint covid campaign trail,

on imports in china, from around the world, ——on the campaign trail. it is something that bessent has supported and something we have to watch out for clearly as to how he handles that is the likely treasury secretary. it is the same story for tax cuts, you have to keep in mind the big battle that will come up in the next month or two starting in 2025 is over those tax cuts that were expiring that were put into play when trump was vice president starting in 2016 so about is also something mr bessent is for a day also feel that he is close with elon musk despite the fact that he was supporting another contender for thejob so if in supporting another contender for the job so if in fact he is, you are going to see a lot of push by scott bessent i believe to cut back on government spending, something that musk has talked about regularly through this commission, this outside advisor group that he runs, and so that is something also to keepin so that is something also to keep in mind. the tarriffs, tax cuts, policy side i think you are also going to season push

by mr bessent to cut them spending here. brian schwartz. thank you for being with us. thank you for being with us. thank you. a man has died after a tree fell on his car near winchester in south east england, as storm bert caused havoc across much of the uk and ireland. strong winds, heavy rain and snow have left thousands without power and disrupted transportation. this was the scene in northwest ireland, where the storm caused a river to burst its banks. and in the uk, some areas are bracing for more heavy snow and high winds. dozens of flood warnings remained in place into saturday night. you are watching bbc news and remember that you can find the latest on our website. i'm helena humphrey. as ever, thank you for your company and i will have more world news for you at the top of the hour. join me thenif the top of the hour. join me then if you can. goodbye for now. hello there. well, storm bert has given us some very severe weather conditions right across the uk through the day on saturday —

heavy snow, rain, strong gusty winds. potentially more disruption to come, too — it's not over yet. here are some of the strongest wind gusts through the day on saturday. high wind gusts recorded across some mountainous —— higher wind gusts recorded across some mountainous regions, and it could be windier still for parts of the channel coast on sunday than it was on saturday. there's been a lot of rain around as well, a number of flood warnings in force. that number could well rise for the rest of the night and through the day on sunday. there's more rain to come, certainly more strong, gusty winds. here's the centre of the low, moving very slowly northwards and eastwards, tight squeeze on the isobars. more snow melt across scotland tonight, and that could add to the flooding problems perhaps here with the rising temperatures into tomorrow morning, that milder—feeling air. still gales, particularly for exposed coasts, and a lot of heavy rain piling into south west england and wales. but look at the temperatures as we start off the day on sunday and compare that to how cold it was earlier on through the week, so a very mild start to the day.

there's more rain across south west england, in through wales and stretching up to yorkshire, humberside perhaps, moving southwards and eastwards through the day. some hazy sunshine, drier weather to the north of that, and more showers packing into western scotland and northern ireland. but very windy for western scotland, down through the northern isles and for northern ireland as well. gusts of wind here of up to 75 miles an hour. up to 65 for some of these channel coasts, too. but a very mild day — we could get to 17 celsius, perhaps, given any brightness in the far south east of england, that rain clearing away from here as we head into monday morning. still very windy towards the north. there'll be heavy, persistent outbreaks of rain still here. it is a cooler day across the board but certainly drier further south. still a few more showers out towards the west, perhaps. as we head through monday and into tuesday, the storm is moving off towards scandinavia, so we are going to see lighter winds across the board. in fact, the winds are coming in from the north, so it is going to be feeling cooler. watch out on wednesday — there could be more rain

in the south from another area of low pressure, pushing further northwards and eastwards, so generally cooler into the start of next week. there will be more sunshine around and lighter winds. watch out for some rain in the south through the middle of the week. bye— bye.

voice-over: this is bbc news. we'll have the headlines for you at the top of the hour, which is straight after this programme. hello and welcome to the bbc polls newsroom.

the nuclear sabre—rattling goes on. now that donald trump has won the election, someone who has always talked about wanting to get along with russia, it would seem a strange moment for vladimir putin to suddenly go nuclear. with donald trump getting ready to take over as us president, who can successfully put europe's case to him? they're looking for a trump whisperer. who is it that could bridge the gap? because so many of those more mainstream leaders in europe have said pretty derogatory things about donald trump over the years. and after the scandal which brought down the archbishop of canterbury, how big a crisis is the anglican church now facing? it's certainly extremely damaging. it is something that has led to shock waves through the church of england.