[aravindet]

I think the solution is for historical emitters to pay the rest to forgo fossil-fuel based economic growth.

Obviously, this would not happen: historical emitters also have the most political power.

The US and EU's success at killing the "loss and damages" mechanism is an example of this dynamic at play. (This was supported by countries representing 85% of the world's population.)

[rsj_hn]

The problem with these UN agreements promising money is that the leaders still have to go home and get those appropriations passed.

So even if 85% of the world's population wants to get money, whether or not the money is provided will depend on the 15% that has to pay. It's not a situation where you can take a vote and majority rules.

So if you are running the conference and deciding to make a decision based on a vote, then your choice is to promise money and then not deliver or not promise. The former destroys the credibility of the conference, and that's an important consideration for why conferences aren't run by rules in which countries can vote themselves aid from other nations.