CoP29 climate summit ends in disappointment and betrayal, but the stage is set for Brazil
The UN CoP29 climate summit concluded in Baku on 24 November with a climate finance deal that has been branded a betrayal.
It is hardly surprising that the latest CoP, hosted by a major fossil fuel-producing country for the third year in a row, has ended in disappointment.
Azerbaijan’s role as host was characterised by a lack of leadership and plenty of controversy, with President Ilham Aliyev describing oil and gas as a “gift of the god” and insulting guest nations in his opening speeches.
Climate-harming HFC-32 units keeping CoP29 cool (c) EIA
Dubbed the “Finance CoP”, discussions centered on the transfer of climate finance from the developed to the developing world under New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG). Countries in the Global South were calling for a minimum of $1.3 trillion in annual finance, building on the already committed $100 billion per year, prior to 2025.
This support is essential to ensure their ability to implement the Paris Agreement targets, recognising the historic responsibility of Global North countries for climate change. This ask represents a modest one per cent of global GDP.
Final negotiations ran well into the weekend before an agreement was reached, with developed nations agreeing to provide at least $300 billion a year to developing countries by 2035. The NCQG final text also calls on public and private actors to scale up funds to “at least $1.3 trillion” by 2035.
Beyond the headline figure, the quality of the financing is crucial. Countries in the Global South require grant-based and concessional climate financing, avoiding high-interest loans which would ultimately lead to more national debt. Developed nations have failed to deliver on both quantity and quality.
EIA Climate Campaigner Jack Corscadden said: “The final agreement on climate finance is a bitter disappointment. Without access to high-quality stable financing, developing countries are unable to take measures to address the climate crisis — a crisis they are not responsible for. The world’s most vulnerable nations have been abandoned.”
Campaigners were also disappointed to see a lack of progress on fossil fuels. Last year’s CoP28 deal called on all countries to contribute to “transitioning away from fossil fuels” under the global stocktake. Building on this pledge proved impossible with the Arab group, led by Saudi Arabia, pushing back on any mention of fossil fuel phase-out during the discussions on mitigation.
Corscadden said: “Fossil fuel-producing countries continue to promote their own interests, jeopardising both the CoP negotiations and the fate of humanity. Continued fossil fuel extraction and consumption is not compatible with limiting warming to 1.5 degrees.”
President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev addresses CoP29, via cop29.az
CoP29 president Mukhtar Babayev announced Azerbaijan did not intend to produce a cover text summarising the key decisions from the conference, perhaps signalling a lack of ambition in this area from the outset. Ultimately, the conference ended without meaningful progress on fossil fuels and the text will need to be taken up by parties once again at CoP30 in Brazil, scheduled for November next year.
Cop29 discussions around Article 6 of the Paris Agreement were also disappointing. Billed as a means of facilitating voluntary cooperation between developed and developing countries, Article 6 is intended to establish the rules for carbon trading under the Paris Agreement. But we’ve been here before — the predecessor to Article 6 was the Clean Development Mechanism, a carbon offset scheme set up under the Kyoto Protocol which all but collapsed in the early 2010s after years of being rocked by scandals and profiteering.
The countries and companies pushing for Article 6 have promised that lessons would be learnt from the failure of the CDM, but attempts to enhance transparency and accountability barely progressed in Baku. On top of this, efforts to make sure low-quality CDM credits could not make their way into the Article 6 markets were flatly rejected.
Despite significant evidence that many of these legacy CDM credits are supported by only the flimsiest of environmental claims, their trade will be permitted under Article 6 without any reassessment of their environmental value.
EIA Climate Campaigner Tom Nickson said: “When used for offsetting, carbon credits are little more than permissions to pollute. The science tells us clearly that long-lived emissions from burning fossil fuels cannot be ‘offset’ by planting a tree or trading emissions that were avoided elsewhere.
“We have seen time and again that carbon trading’s only consistent success is in delivering profits to project developers. The failure to agree on meaningful rules around transparency and accountability in these new Article 6 markets guarantee that the system will remain complex, opaque and entirely reliant on outside actors to spot its weaknesses and failings. That might be good news for profits, but it’s bad news for the planet.”
The CoP29 venue in Baku, via cop29.az
There is, however, some cause for optimism. The launch of the Global Nitrous Oxide Assessment should catalyse action on N₂O emissions. Although the US may no longer be considered an ally in the fight against climate change, the UK has shown renewed leadership, committing to an 81 per cent GHG reduction target by 2035.
In the methane space, the European Commission launched its Methane Abatement Partnership Roadmap to accelerate action on methane emissions from the oil and gas sector.
Corscadden added: “When it comes to methane mitigation, we need all hands on deck. These partnerships have the potential to catalyse action in countries currently lacking methane regulations by providing the necessary incentives to act swiftly.”
Nearly $500 million in new grant funding for methane abatement was announced at the annual Global Methane Pledge (GMP) Ministerial, bringing total GMP grant funding to more than $2 billion.
Corscadden said: ”We’ve seen a real willingness from developing countries to take action on methane. Now they need support. The current funding landscape is fragmented and unpredictable. A centralised methane fund would provide GMP signatories with long-term stable financing, allowing them to strengthen their institutions and invest in methane mitigation.”
You can learn more about this issue in the recent EIA briefing Accelerating methane action: the case for a dedicated fund.
Developed countries are still failing to take full responsibility for their contribution to climate change, while the CoP process needs to be completely reformed to prevent authoritarian petrostates from derailing the talks and stopping progress towards a phase-out of fossil fuels before it is too late.
As we look towards CoP30 in Belém, strong leadership from Brazil will be critical to speed up progress.
