The 2024 UN climate change conference put climate finance and carbon trading at the top of the agenda, but the big story was the influence wielded by fossil fuel companies and petrostates.
The annual UN climate conference known as the Conference of the Parties (COP) takes place in a different city every year. In 2024, delegates from almost 200 countries gathered for COP 29 in Baku, Azerbaijan. Disagreement marked the start of the summit and foreshadowed the end result. While most climate conferences come down to the wire, COP 29 came closer to collapse than almost all the talks that had preceded it.
Trump’s 2024 Win: Climate Denial and the Future of the Paris Agreement
Donald Trump’s victory in the 2024 US elections cast a shadow over this year’s conference of the parties and made concessions around climate finance more difficult. Some of the delegates at COP 29 expressed concern that another four years of climate denial from the Trump administration may very well push us past the point of no return.
Trump’s election win is expected to diminish climate ambitions all around the world. As an authoritarian wannabe, Trump’s second term in office is about more than killing climate action. He has made it clear that he plans to wage war against democratic institutions, and international organizations.
Trump is certain to once again withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement and this will have global repercussions. “Many developed world governments are struggling with budget constraints and economic turmoil,” Fiona Harvey wrote, “fear the weaponization of climate action by the resurgent far right.” Argentina’s President Javier Milei is a climate denier who, like Trump, calls global warming a “hoax”. Milei pulled his delegation out of COP 29 and has publicly stated that he is considering withdrawing from the Paris Agreement.
Trump makes the difficult road ahead that much harder, but UN General Secretary António Guterres said the Paris Agreement and the COP process will survive the Trump administration. In a less than veiled reference to Trump, Joe Biden said, “While some may seek to deny or delay the clean energy revolution that’s underway in America and around the world, nobody can reverse it.” Former US Vice President Al Gore also downplayed the impact Trump will have on climate policy. Gore said economics are driving the growth of renewables and EVs. He points out that Trump couldn’t stop their expansion in his first four years as president and he won’t be able to stop them this time either.
COP 29 in Context: Geopolitical Shifts, Coalescing Crises and the World at a Crossroads
While there are limits to what Trump can do, his administration is staffed with sycophants and the Supreme Court has given him carte blanche to do as he pleases. The world has also changed since Trump was last in office. “We’re in a different geopolitical context than we were the first time,” AOSIS negotiator Michai Robertson explained, adding, “A lot of other countries are leaning right. There’s…less…camaraderie amongst the international community to get things done. ”
We are faced with a globally deteriorating situation as crises are interacting and reinforcing each other. As explained by Simon Stiell, the UN’s top climate official, politics, economics, and the climate are now fatally entwined.
Extreme weather events are becoming increasingly common and every year is trending hotter than the year before. We are not acting even though almost 90 percent of people around the world support climate action.
Guterres called 2024, a “masterclass in human destruction” and warned that we are facing “inflation on steroids”. As George Manbiot wrote, we are a “species that knows it is destroying itself but is too greedy to change course. ”
Climate Shortfalls at COP 29: Emissions, Renewables, EVs, and Deforestation Challenges
The emissions crisis and COP 29: Urgent action needed to avoid climate tipping points
Over the last 275 years, humans have upended the planetary balance by emitting 2,634 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Guterres warns that the failure to slash emissions risks triggering tipping points from which we may not be able to recover.
To avoid tipping points, we need to keep temperatures from rising above the critical thresholds laid out in the Paris Agreement (keeping temperatures from surpassing 1.5C – 2C above preindustrial norms). To do this we must cut carbon pollution by 43 percent before 2030, and the world must reach net zero by mid-century.
To meet the Paris targets we need to reduce emissions by a minimum of 7.5 percent every year until 2030, however, rather than decline, emissions keep increasing. In 2023 emissions increased by 1.3 percent and the Global Carbon Budget predicts that fossil fuel emissions will rise an additional 0.8 percent in 2024. which is 8 percent higher than in 2015.
Although 10 major developed nations have managed to reduce emissions by 4.2 percent in 2023, almost everywhere else emissions are growing, leading to net global increases. The Global Stocktake concluded that “urgent and deep greenhouse gas emissions reductions” were needed. The 2024 Emissions Gap Report reiterated the shortfall, and also called for dramatic emissions reductions.
The COP 29 final agreement calls for better management of waste methane, and livestock emissions. But, it did not address the key issue of fossil fuels as the primary source of emissions.
Renewable energy and COP 29: growth, Challenges, and the 2030 Deployment Gap
Approximately 72 percent of all human-generated emissions come from energy production. The IEA estimates that solar capacity increased about 40-fold between 2010 and 2023. Wind power expanded around six-fold in the same timeframe. At COP 28, more than 130 nations agreed to triple the deployment of renewable energy by 2030. Despite the rapid growth of renewable energy, deployment is still not sufficient.
According to IRENA, we need to increase renewable energy capacity by 7.3 TW by 2030. That means building clean power sources equivalent to more than 80 percent of the world’s total current electricity-generating capacity, which was just short of 9 TW at the end of 2023. BNEF estimates that around $1 trillion a year will have to be invested in the clean energy sector through the end of the decade to meet these targets. A total of $623 billion was invested in 2023, leaving a shortfall of $377 billion. There was nothing new for renewables in the final agreement reached at COP 29.
Electric vehicles and COP 29: Key to reducing emissions but falling short of 2030 goals
Passenger vehicles currently account for half of all road transport emissions. Electric vehicles could eliminate the need for 6 million barrels of oil per day by 2030, according to the IEA. BNEF forecasts that 16.6 million new electric cars will be sold in 2024, and more than 30 million in 2027. EVs are expected to account for 45 percent of new car sales in 2030. Delegates at COP 29 pledged more support for electric vehicles in developing countries as part of an initiative called, electrification of road transport in emerging markets and developing economies (EMDEs). However, the current trajectory still falls far short of the 70 percent market saturation that is needed.
Deforestation and protected areas: COP 29’s missed opportunity
Deforestation and land use change accounts for around 6 percent of human-caused CO2 emissions. In 2021 a total of 130 nations responsible for more than 90 percent of the world’s forests, committed to halt and reverse deforestation and land degradation by the end of the decade. According to the Forest Declaration Assessment, in 2023, 6.4 million hectares of forests were lost, which is 45 percent higher than the rate that can put the world on a path to meet the 2030 target. A new report concludes that we are not doing enough to protect and preserve forests. According to this report, less than half of nations with more than 100,000 hectares of forest have a deforestation-specific emissions reduction target. Forests and land sequester about 30 percent of the anthropogenic carbon emissions, but according to preliminary research land-based carbon sinks collapsed in 2023.
The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity framework signed by more than 190 nations in 2022, committed to protect 30 percent of the world’s land and waters by the end of the decade. It fell apart in November after nations failed to agree on a funding package at the 16th UN Biodiversity Conference in Columbia. Currently, only 17.6 percent of land and inland waters are protected, and 8.4 percent of oceans. This is well short of the 30×30 conservation commitment which seeks to protect 30 percent of the world’s land, fresh waters, and oceans by the year 2030.
Deforestation and land use change were largely ignored at COP 29, and they were not mentioned in the action agenda. While delegates considered a text reaffirming the “importance of conserving, protecting and restoring nature,” it was not adopted during the final plenary session.
Climate Finance and COP 29: Benefits, Funding, Feasibility, and Challenges
What is climate finance?
Climate finance is premised on the idea that wealthy nations, which have historically generated almost 80 percent of global warming-causing emissions, must help the developing world. This reflects the understanding that those who have done the least to cause the climate crisis, suffer disproportionally from it. These funds help poorer nations mitigate their emissions by making their economies cleaner and it also helps them adapt to the impacts of a warming world.
What are the benefits of climate finance?
Both governments and the private sector have a vested interest in minimizing the adverse impacts of the climate crisis. There are also opportunities to profit from investments in green infrastructure and benefits associated with improving international stability. As explained by Stiell: “When nations can’t climate-proof their links in global supply chains, every nation in an interconnected global economy pays the price. And I mean literally pays the price, in the form of higher inflation, especially in food prices, as savage droughts, wildfires, and floods rip through food production.”
Who will pay for climate finance?
Under the 1992 UN framework, money for climate finance comes from nations with the most historical emissions. This group is comprised of 23 developed countries and the European Union. These investments will come from private and public sources including big banks, companies, private investors, governments, and new finance mechanisms. About 50 percent should come from the private sector, 25 percent should come from multilateral development banks, and 10 percent should come directly from developed countries. The remaining 15 percent should come from new sources of finance such as taxes on fossil fuels.
How much climate finance is needed?
The amount of climate finance money provided to help poorer countries is known as the collective quantified goal on climate finance (NCQG). The $100 billion per year NCQG expires in 2025 and estimates of the amount of wealth transfer required for the new NCQG ranges between $1 trillion and $6 trillion per year by 2035. As reported by Al Jazeera, an independent panel of experts at the COP summit said, countries need to invest more than $6 trillion per year by 2030 or risk having to pay more in the future.
The UN’s Independent High Level Expert Group (IHLEG) concluded that to meet the core goal of the Paris Agreement, developing nations need a bare minimum of about $1 trillion a year in climate finance by 2030. This cost will rise to about $1.3 trillion a year by 2035. The cost of transitioning the developing world (excluding China) to a low-carbon path is around $2.3 trillion, $1 trillion is the amount needed from external sources the remaining $1.3 trillion would come from domestic budgets.
Is climate finance feasible?
Climate finance need not be a burden even as government budgets are tight. Leading economists have said the goal of $1 trillion a year by 2030 is achievable without disruption to the global economy. While one trillion dollars may seem like an astronomical sum, it represents only about 1 percent of the global economy and this is a tiny fraction of the cost of inaction. According to Amar Bhattacharya, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, visiting professor at the London School of Economics, and executive secretary of IHLEG on climate finance, $1 trillion a year is feasible although politically challenging.
Climate finance deal reached at COP 29
After the historic progress on climate finance at COP 27, efforts to establish the NCQG have proven to be difficult. However, on November 24, two days after the scheduled end of COP 29, delegates agreed on a $300 billion per year climate finance deal for developing countries. The agreement proposes that private funding will account for $1 trillion of the $1.3 trillion annual target.
An initial offer of $250 billion per year drew swift condemnation from climate advocates especially those in developing and vulnerable nations. Dozens of nations walked out of the conference including representatives for the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS). “We cannot be expected to agree to a text which shows such contempt for our vulnerable people,” AOSIS said in a statement.
“The amount that is proposed to be mobilized is abysmally poor. It’s a paltry sum, ” Chandni Raina, a negotiator for India said, adding, “This document is little 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.”
When the $300 billion figure was announced, other developing countries walked out in protest. They angrily pointed out that the world spends 25 times more on fossil fuel subsidies than they have offered for climate finance.
Raina called the deal “outrageous” and a “travesty of justice”. “Developing countries have been forced to accept half-measures, Cop after Cop, but at COP 29 these half-measures push the costs of climate change on to the people least responsible but suffering the worst consequences,” she said. “That the developed countries are saying that they are taking the lead with $300 billion by 2035 is a joke,” a delegate from Nigeria said after the document’s adoption. “We do not accept this.”
“This is a slap in the face,” said Mohamed Adow, a cofounder of the thinktank Power Shift Africa. “No developing country will fall for this. It’s not clear what kind of trick the presidency is trying to pull. They’ve already disappointed everyone, but they have now angered and offended the developing world.”
While the climate finance agreement struck at COP 29 is widely seen as insufficient, it is three times the $100 billion-a-year agreement that is expiring in 2025. EU climate representative Wopke Hoekstra called COP 29, “the start of a new era for climate finance,” and US President Joe Biden called it a “significant step” in the fight against global warming.
Carbon Trading and COP 29: Benefits and Challenges
What is carbon trading?
Carbon trading is a mechanism that allows governments and corporations to offset their emissions by investing in carbon-reducing projects elsewhere. Carbon trading relies on a global market to buy and sell carbon credits which are each equal to a tonne of CO2 that has been reduced or removed from the atmosphere. The credits are designed to advance climate action by funneling finance to vulnerable communities and nature conservation.
What are the benefits of carbon trading?
Carbon trading is designed to create faster and cheaper pathways to transition to low-carbon economics. The objective is to drive down emissions and keep temperatures below critical thresholds. This quick, cost-effective way of addressing climate and biodiversity issues does not just benefit the developing world in the global south, the global north will also benefit tremendously. By leveraging privatized market approaches to finance climate action, carbon trading reduces the burden on governments. According to some estimates, the global carbon market could generate more than $1 trillion per year, providing a much-needed source of climate finance. As Stiell said, “We are a long way from halving emissions this decade but wins on carbon markets here at COP 29 will help us get back in that race.”
Carbon trading deal reached at COP 29
Carbon trading was one of the most contentious issues at COP 29. After years of deadlock, an agreement was reached on an international carbon trading system designed to help countries meet their Paris commitments. These rules outline how countries can create, trade, and register emission reductions and removals as carbon credits.
The framework of this idea is in Article 6 of the Paris Agreement adopted at COP 21 in 2015. To fully operationalize Article 6 two new sets of rules were adopted: Article 6.2 regulates bilateral carbon trading between countries, and Article 6.4 creates a global crediting mechanism for countries to sell emissions reductions.
Concerns about volatility and other criticisms of the COP 29 carbon trading deal
Carbon markets are contentious, and the new rules announced on November 21, have been criticized for giving polluters wiggle room to keep polluting. The lack of definitional clarity and measures to prevent double counting, prompted Jonathan Crook, policy expert on global carbon markets to say, “The text overall is worse”. Injy Johnstone, Research Associate in Net Zero Aligned Offsetting at the University of Oxford, agreed, saying, “safeguards have been dropped.”
Carbon trading is volatile as illustrated by the fact that carbon markets have crashed at least twice. While carbon markets soared in 2022, two years later they collapsed due to questions about the environmental impact of many carbon credit programs. According to a new study published in Nature Communications, less than 16 percent of carbon credits represent real emissions reductions.
As Ghazali Ohorella, the lead Indigenous Peoples Caucus negotiator for Article 6 explained recently, using carbon markets to fund climate action takes the onus away from public finance in favor of unstable and unpredictable private investments.
Victor A. Lopez-Carmen, MD, wrote the COP 29 carbon trading deal expanded the gulf between the global north and the global south. The former is looking for profits while the latter needs “stable, predictable climate finance separate from tumultuous economic trends.”
Lopez-Carmen says carbon trading also jeopardizes the “rights and sovereignty of Indigenous Peoples who have cared for and protected the lands used in these trades since time immemorial,” adding, “carbon credit trading has, in some cases, already resulted in Indigenous communities being evicted from their motherlands.”
COP 29 carbon trading deal: High hopes, risks, and the future of global emissions reduction
While there is palpable disappointment with the COP 29 deal, many still have high hopes for carbon trading. According to UNEP-CCC, there are already 91 bilateral agreements between 56 different countries. Axel Michaelowa, a carbon markets expert at the University of Zurich calls carbon trading “a powerful tool to accelerate the diffusion of low-carbon technology around the world.” He adds, “the operationalization of international carbon trading under Paris can prevent a third meltdown that could be fatal.”
“The new rules are a start, but the risk of abuse still remains alive and well,” Johnstone said, adding “We have to learn the lessons of past mistakes and watch for new ones this system could create, otherwise we risk the Paris agreement becoming a market failure.”
Fossil Fuel Influence at COP 29: Petrostate Power, Obstruction, and the Battle Against Climate Action
Fossil fuels are at the heart of the climate crisis: Urgent need for a global phase-out to achieve climate goals
Fossil fuels are at the core of any climate discussion because they are responsible for 1,814 billion tons or 69 percent of total emissions since 1750. There is no way to achieve our climate goals without eliminating oil gas and coal. Guterres urged governments to take decisive action to phase out fossil fuels saying: “There is no way to preserve 1.5 degrees or avoid a catastrophic development in relation to climate change if we don’t accept the principle that there must be a phase-out of fossil fuels.”
Romain Ioualalen, at Oil Change International, said: “At COP 28, all countries pledged to transition away from fossil fuels but, on the ground, we have witnessed the opposite: new oil and gas projects are being approved around the world, in complete defiance of climate science.”
The Fossil fuel industry’s growing Cop influence and obstructionism
The fossil fuel industry’s influence over the Cop process has been steadily growing alongside their obstruction of climate action. An analysis by KBPO indicates that there were 1,773 fossil fuel lobbyists or industry players registered to attend the talks. That is more than the number of delegates from almost every country at the conference. A report by Urgewald and CEE Bankwatch concluded that COP 29 is being overseen by “those with a vested interest in keeping the world hooked on fossil fuels”.
Dawda Cham, from Help, Gambia, said: “The fossil fuel industry has long manipulated climate negotiations to protect its interests while our planet burns.” David Tong from Oil Change International told the AFP news agency, “It’s like tobacco lobbyists at a conference on lung cancer.”
The fossil fuel industry is the reason we are not seeing sufficient climate action, the industry obstructs the Cop process and weaves elaborate webs of disinformation. “It’s unfortunate that the fossil fuel industry and petrostates have seized control of the COP process,” Gore said, adding, the fossil fuel industry is using their “legacy network of political influence and wealth to stop progress” and to fight climate legislation “tooth and nail”.
In a fiery speech at COP 29, Gore slammed the fossil fuel industry saying officials in the sector are, “way better at capturing politicians than emissions…We just have to decide how long the world is going to cower in front of the financial and political power of the fossil fuel industry. ”
Saudi Arabia’s Influence and obstructionism at COP 29
Saudi Arabia obstructs climate action and efforts to transition away from fossil fuels. As reported by The Guardian, the Azerbaijani government rolled out the red carpet for oil bosses. At least 132 fossil fuel company executives and staff were invited as special guests and given host country badges. This includes Saudi Arabia’s Amin Nasser, the CEO of Aramco, and Marco Arcelli, who heads ACWA, another Saudi fossil fuel company.
Saudi Arabia was criticized for allegedly altering the negotiating text to advance their pro-fossil fuel agenda. Most egregiously, they walked back the commitment to “transition away from fossil fuels” known as the UAE Consensus. Calling it an option rather than a goal, Saudi Arabia and its allies succeeded in striking the reaffirmation of this commitment from the agenda.
At the plenary, Saudi Arabia’s Albara Tawfiq said, “The Arab Group will not accept any text that targets specific sectors, including fossil fuels.” That comment prompted Catherine McKenna, Canadian chair of the UN group on net zero emissions commitment, to write on social media: “I am so sick of Saudi Arabia’s opposition to any suggestion of a transition away from fossil fuels. We are in a fossil fuel climate crisis.”
In 2024 Saudi Arabia scuttled five different U.N. resolutions designed to move us away from fossil fuels. The Saudi’s also led the push against efforts to curtail plastic pollution. “They are acting with abandon here,” Alden Meyer, senior associate with E3G, says, adding, “They’re just being a wrecking ball.”
Azerbaijan’s fossil fuel influence at COP 29
Azerbaijan is a petrostate that earned a climate action rating of “critically insufficient” from CAT. Fossil fuels make up 90 percent of Azerbaijan’s export income and Baku, the nation’s capital and the host city for COP 29 is ringed by oil and gas infrastructure.
Azerbaijan’s president, Ilham Aliyev, opened the climate conference with a speech that hailed oil and gas as a “gift from God” adding, “Countries…should not be blamed for having them, and should not be blamed for bringing these resources to the market because the market needs them. The people need them.” Even before the talks began, Mukhtar Babayev, the president of COP 29 was recorded negotiating a fossil fuel deal with an oil and gas investment group. Babayev did not mention reducing fossil fuel use at the climate summit.
At both COP 28 and COP 29 petrostates wielded undue influence over climate talks
COP 29 in Baku was reminiscent of COP 28 in Dubai. The 2024 conference is the second year in a row that a petrostate is hosting the annual climate talks and the third year if you include Egypt (COP 27 in 2022). COP 28 was held in Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE) and those meetings were led by Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber who is a UAE Cabinet Member and the Minister of Industry and Advanced Technology. He is also head of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC). COP 29 was presided over by Babayev, Azerbaijan’s minister of Ecology and Natural Resources who was previously the vice-president of the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan (SOCAR).
In 2023, the UAE led climate talks while at the same time preparing to increase fossil fuel production. The COP 29 host nation did the same thing in 2024. Azerbaijan’s plan to increase oil and gas production was detailed in the Urgewald report. According to the report, Azerbaijan’s emissions are expected to increase 20 percent by 2030.
The fossil fuel industry won at COP 28 and again at COP 29. At COP 28, fossil fuel influence prevented delegates from discussing the phase-out of oil and gas, at COP 29 any mention of fossil fuels was wiped off the agenda. This led Fiona Harvey to describe COP 29 as “the drama of fossil fuel wealth battling with science” adding, “Most observers would say that science lost.”
Greenpeace’s Ann Lambrechts called COP 29 a “climate scam” with many loopholes. COP 28 was also full of loopholes leading some to call it a “compact from hell”. At COP 28, petrostates and the fossil fuel industry spun a carbon capture ruse as a deceptive pretext to keep extracting more oil. While technologies that capture or remove carbon are essential, they are not a panacea. Similarly, COP 29’s focus on carbon offsets, while important, avoids the need to reduce and eliminate fossil fuels.
COP 29 Failure: Petrostate Influence and Unmet Climate Commitments Threaten Global Climate Action
This is one of the worst Cops ever. We have not seen such discord since COP 15 in Copenhagen. COP 29 succumbed to the overarching influence of petrostates and the fossil fuel industry. The 2024 climate summit failed to adequately deliver on climate finance and did not produce stringent carbon trading rules. The conference also failed to address key issues including emissions, renewable energy, EVs, deforestation, and protected areas.
As Gore said, “there are a lot of words and some meaningful commitments, but we are still failing badly.” Efforts to address the climate crisis have been ongoing for more than three decades. Despite triumphant moments like the landmark Paris Agreement, the COP process has not been able to address the crises at scale. COP 29 reaffirmed this sense of failure.
“What they’ve done essentially is undermine the mandate to try to reach 1.5,” said Tamra Gilbertson, climate justice program coordinator with the Indigenous Environmental Network. Representatives of the least developed countries (LDCs) negotiating bloc said: “Once again, the countries most responsible for the climate crisis have failed us. This is not just a failure. It’s a betrayal.”
Jon Creyts, president of RMI, an energy transition think tank said, “This Cop was hamstrung from the beginning”. Leaders of many of the biggest emitting countries did not attend COP 29, this includes the US, the EU, China, India, Japan, Canada, Australia, Mexico, and others. Even before the talks got underway, Papua New Guinea announced that it would not be attending COP 29, saying the “empty promises and inaction” make the conference, “a total waste of time”. The country’s foreign affairs minister, Justin Tckatchenko said UN climate summits have not produced concrete results. “The pledges made by major polluters amount to nothing more than empty talk. They impose impossible barriers for us to access the crucial funds we need to protect our people,” he said.
“This Cop has been a disaster for the developing world,” remarked Adow, adding “It’s a betrayal of both people and planet, by wealthy countries who claim to take climate change seriously.”
“The UN climate and environmental negotiations are increasingly becoming a tragic spectacle,” said Juan Carlos Monterrey, Panama’s climate envoy, and this translates to “death and misery”. According to George Manbiot, the COP process is “designed to fail”.
COP 29 cascade effect on global climate ambitions (NDCs)
The failure of COP 29 may have a cascade effect that unravels the UAE consensus from COP 28 and dooms COP 30. After COP 28, the UAE instituted a “troika” system, whereby the three countries that were the current, immediate past, and next hosts agreed to cooperate. The involvement of Azerbaijan in COP 30 does not bode well for a positive outcome.
COP 30 will take place in Belem, Brazil in November 2025. At this climate conference governments are tasked with charting a course for the next decade. Countries must increase their climate ambitions, but the scope of those ambitions will be limited by the climate financing deal struck at COP 29.
The carbon trading deal that emerged out of COP 29 may also adversely impact emissions reduction pledges known as the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). All the signatories of the Paris Agreement are obligated to submit NDCs in February 2025. These NDCs detail how countries will reduce their emissions and adapt to the effects of climate change.
The UN Secretary-General called for more ambition saying, the NDCs must: “cover all emissions and the whole economy, accelerate fossil fuel phase-out, and contribute to the energy transition goals agreed at COP 28 – seizing the benefits of cheap, clean renewables. The end of the fossil fuel age is an economic inevitability. New national plans must accelerate the shift and help to ensure it comes with justice.”
Like the UAE and Azerbaijan, Brazil is also a petrostate, however, Brazil’s climate envoy, Ana Toni, said the country will not “shy away” from calling for “a just transition on stopping fossil fuels”. As Marina Silva, the Brazilian minister of the environment and climate change said at COP 29, COP 30 will be the “COP of COPs” with “no more time to lose”. “At COP 30, our objective will be to do what is needed to keep 1.5C in reach,” she said.
Political Will to Tackle Fossil Fuel Influence and Secure Global Climate Action
It is hard to refute the idea that any deal is better than no deal. The fact that nations can agree on anything in this war-torn, highly fractured geopolitical environment can be construed as a victory for multilateralism. However, failure to adequately support developing nations puts every country in the world at risk. As Guterres put it: “The world must pay up, or humanity will pay the price. Climate finance is not charity, it’s an investment.”
We will not be able to seriously address the crises we face as long as fossil fuels are given a seat at the table. So, first and foremost, we need to find the political will to confront the fossil fuel industry, which, as the leading cause of global warming, has no place at a climate conference.
Frustrating as they may be, we can not afford to dismiss the COP process. There is too much in the balance and no viable alternative platform to get things done in the short amount of time we have to act.
“I had hoped for a more ambitious outcome — on both finance and mitigation — to meet the great challenge we face,” Guterres said in a statement, adding that he is appealing, “to governments to see this agreement as a foundation — and build on it.”
Reforming the Cop process is critical but being cynical and throwing up our arms in despair is a luxury we can not afford. Future generations are calling us to keep pushing for sane reality-based governance. To get there we need to build a critical mass of understanding that politicians cannot ignore.
Guterres laid out the stark choice we face, “either the political will emerges in order to make it possible, or it will be lost”. In these highly polarized times, the challenge may seem insurmountable, but as Gore reminds us, “political will is itself a renewable resource.”
Discover more from Change Oracle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
About The Author
