This policy brief asserts that the major area of conflict in climate negotiations is finance. Poorer nations fear that richer ones will fulfil the US$30 billion ‘fast-start’ climate finance promises made in the non-binding Copenhagen Accord by relabelling or diverting basic development aid, or by simply delivering on past climate finance pledges. The problem, this brief argues, is simple: contributor countries are operating with no clear baseline against which their promise of ‘new and additional’ funding can be counted – and they do not accept the baselines put forth by developing countries.The brief presents eight possible baseline scenarios with varying degrees of feasibility and effectiveness in leveraging climate finance. These eight scenarios are plotted on a rough scale that varies between options that are conducive to recipient countries and those that favour the contributing or donor countries. The advantages and disadvantages of each of the different scenarios are tabulated for easy reference. It is noted that it is generally preferable to define the baseline first, before pledges are made: this can prevent developed countries from endlessly renegotiating and adjusting the baseline, both of which hamper trust-building. In conclusion, the policy brief puts forth a strong appeal for defining these baselines from a climate justice perspective.