COP29
A step forward or another missed opportunity?
Tempo di lettura: 7 min
🖊️Francesca Suriano
Dec 2024
In a world grappling with record-breaking temperatures and intensifying climate impacts, the 29th UN Climate Change Conference (COP29) in Baku was seen as a make-or-break moment for global climate diplomacy. Over two weeks of negotiations, nations struck a deal that aimed to reshape climate finance for the next decade, but the outcomes left a trail of frustration, unanswered questions, and lingering doubts about the world’s ability to meet the escalating climate crisis.
The centerpiece of COP29 was the adoption of the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG), a financial framework aimed at mobilizing $300 billion annually by 2035 for developing countries. While heralded as a breakthrough by some, others labeled it a “betrayal”, underscoring the mounting frustrations of nations most vulnerable to climate change.
The curtain rises on COP29, the 29th edition of the United Nations Climate Conference, where nations gather to negotiate solutions to the climate crisis amid deepening divisions and mounting pressure for decisive action.
A finance deal that fails to bridge the divide
The NCQG replaces the previous $100 billion annual target established in 2009, which was intended to be reached by 2020, but was only achieved two years later. The new agreement aims to mobilize an additional $1.3 trillion per year globally by 2035, drawing on both public and private sources. Yet, only the $300 billion annual commitment to developing nations is legally binding, leaving the broader figure aspirational and contingent on voluntary contributions from actors like China and the Gulf States.
For countries in the Global South, the deal falls painfully short. India’s delegate, Chandni Raina, decried the agreement as an “optical illusion,” while a Nigerian representative called it “a joke” compared to the $1.3 trillion they had demanded. Even among wealthier nations, there was quiet acknowledgment of the deal’s inadequacy. “Finance is not a handout,” UN Secretary-General António Guterres stated during the negotiations. “It’s an investment against the devastation that unchecked climate chaos will inflict on us all.”
The structure of the NCQG has also drawn criticism. A significant portion of the funds is expected to come from loans and private investments, rather than direct public grants, which many developing nations see as an unacceptable burden. This approach, they argue, risks entrenching debt in countries already struggling with the impacts of climate change.
Leaders and delegates at COP29 in Baku engaged in negotiations to advance measures for tackling climate change and strengthening international commitments
Azerbaijan’s hosting of COP29 draws widespread criticism
As a nation deeply tied to oil and gas, Azerbaijan’s hosting of COP29 highlited a stark contradiction, adding to the complexities of an already fraught negotiation process. The oil-dependent nation drew sharp criticism for its president, Ilham Aliyev, who described fossil fuels as a “gift from God” during the conference. This, combined with Azerbaijan’s authoritarian governance and lack of previous engagement in the climate process, raised questions about its suitability as host.
The logistical challenges were equally glaring. Negotiators described a chaotic environment, with procedural irregularities and rushed gavelling of decisions. At one point, India formally objected to the finance text, claiming their concerns were ignored. The episode highlights broader structural issues within the COP framework, where consensus is often forced through under duress, leaving many nations dissatisfied.
Mitigation efforts fall short of expectations
Perhaps the most glaring shortfall of COP29 was the failure to make substantive progress on mitigation, the backbone of global climate efforts. Despite warnings from the Emissions Gap Report 2024 that current policies would lead to a catastrophic 2.6°C of warming by the end of the century, the final text lacked any reference to phasing out fossil fuels or peaking emissions. The critical 1.5°C temperature threshold, a cornerstone of the Paris Agreement, was notably absent.
Saudi Arabia and a coalition of like-minded nations, including China and several African countries, resisted binding commitments on emissions reductions. The result was a diluted text that offered vague ambitions but no concrete actions, a stark contrast to the progress made at COP28, where a global agreement was reached to “transition away from fossil fuels.”
Per capita greenhouse gas emissions in 2023 reveal stark contrasts across the globe, with Qatar leading as the highest emitter, followed by Kuwait, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia. The data emphasizes the need to address disproportionate contributions to global emissions while pursuing net-zero targets by 2050.Per capita greenhouse gas emissions in 2023 reveal stark contrasts across the globe, with Qatar leading as the highest emitter, followed by Kuwait, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia. The data emphasizes the need to address disproportionate contributions to global emissions while pursuing net-zero targets by 2050.
Carbon markets finally take shape after years of debate
One area of success at COP29 was the finalization of rules under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, which governs carbon markets. After nearly a decade of negotiations, delegates established frameworks for bilateral trading of carbon credits (Article 6.2) and the Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism (Article 6.4). The latter includes safeguards for Indigenous Peoples and human rights, though critics warn that enforcement mechanisms remain weak.
These agreements could potentially unlock significant financial flows for developing nations, enabling faster and more cost-effective climate action. However, the efficacy of these markets will depend on their implementation, which remains to be seen.
Adaptation gains overshadowed by funding challenges
Adaptation, long overshadowed by mitigation in climate negotiations, saw modest gains at COP29. The Baku Adaptation Road Map was launched, providing a framework to enhance National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) and introduce more localized indicators to track progress. While these measures were welcomed, the lack of dedicated funding for adaptation remains a significant barrier.
The NCQG’s failure to address the urgent financing needs of vulnerable communities highlights a persistent imbalance in global climate priorities. As Tina Stege, climate envoy for the Marshall Islands, remarked, “We leave with a small portion of the funding climate-vulnerable countries urgently need. It’s not enough, but it’s a start.”
Activists, holding signs and raising hands marked with ‘Pay up’, demanded immediate action from wealthier nations to fulfill financial pledges for climate reparations. The protests reflect growing frustration over the lack of progress in addressing loss and damage for vulnerable regions.
Protests reveal growing anger over inaction
Outside the conference halls, protests took center stage as Fridays for Future and other youth-led movements organized highly visible demonstrations, demanding stronger action from world leaders. In one of the key moments, thousands of activists formed a human chain around the conference venue in Baku, symbolizing the unity needed to tackle the climate crisis. The demonstration called for a complete phase-out of fossil fuels by 2035, a demand that echoed through the streets of the city.
Protesters also directed their ire at the heavy presence of fossil fuel lobbyists, with over 600 representatives from the oil and gas sector reportedly attending the conference. “They are here to protect profits, not the planet,” said a youth delegate from Kenya. The disconnect between public demands for bold action and the incremental progress made during negotiations was a recurring theme both inside and outside the halls.
A question of leadership
With the looming return of a climate-skeptical Trump administration, the global stage appears increasingly fragmented. The United States’ wavering commitment has cast doubt on its role as a reliable leader in climate diplomacy, while China has begun to fill the vacuum. For the first time, Chinese officials disclosed $24 billion in climate finance to other developing nations, signaling a potential shift in leadership. Yet, China’s dual identity as the largest emitter and a self-identified developing country complicates its position.
Observers warn that this leadership void risks weakening the multilateral climate process at a critical juncture. As nations grapple with intensifying climate impacts and mounting pressure from civil society, the absence of a unifying force highlights the fragility of global climate governance and the challenges of forging a cohesive path forward.
Global temperature projections by the end of the century, based on different socioeconomic and emissions pathways, highlight the stakes of climate action. The most optimistic scenario, SSP1-1.9, limits warming to 1.4°C with significante missions reductions. In contrast, pathways with higher emissions, such as SSP5-8.5, could see temperatures rise by over 4°C by 2100. The data underscores the urgent need for effective policies to mitigate climate risks and meet global targets.
The road ahead for global climate action
In the aftermath of COP29 in Baku, all eyes turn to COP30, which will be held in the city of Belém. Hosted by a country with deep environmental stakes, the conference is expected to address unresolved issues, including the implementation of the Global Stocktake and the next round of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). Yet, with global divisions deepening and the clock ticking on the 1.5°C threshold, the stakes have never been higher.
COP29 was not without its achievements, but it fell far short of the transformative action needed to avert climate catastrophe. The fundamental question remains: is the COP process still fit for purpose or is it time to rethink how the world approaches the greatest existential threat of our time?
