Paying For Agreement?

Developed and developing countries naturally assume different starting positions in their likely responses to Cop26. In general, the developed nations have been/are the biggest polluters. They also have the finance/technology to make their transition to a low carbon economy. Poorer nations a) put much of the blame for the climate crisis on the developed nations and b) are more likely to suffer extreme hardship/eradication as a result of climate change. Saving the planet, however, needs action from every country, irrespective of its current state of development. In an effort to break the impasse between developed and developing countries, poorer nations are to be offered billions of dollars more funding to help them reduce their 'greenhouse gas' emissions (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/24/poor-countries-to-be-offered-extra-funding-to-break-cop26-impasse). This approach is necessary but it has some potential flaws. Firstly, the UK (along with Germany and Canada) are charged with setting up the financial deal. Concomitantly, the UK's Chancellor of the Exchequer is planning further cuts to the UK's aid Budget. That will not reassure the poorer nations. Secondly, poorer countries were promised aid from 2009. They have only received 80% of the money pledged. Why would they be more trusting this time round? Thirdly, developed nations have seemed to have generally regarded offering 'aid' to poorer countries, as technique for generating sales opportunities. The Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change is predicting that, if Cop26 is not a success, conflict and chaos will follow (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/24/world-conflict-and-chaos-could-be-the-result-of-a-summit-failure). She suggests that migration crises and food shortages could well result in the breakdown of global security and stability. Is everyone confident?