COP29: The ‘Finance COP’
Between November 11 and 23, 2024, COP29 convened for nearly two weeks of debates, press conferences, and protests in Baku, Azerbaijan. The Conferences of the Parties, commonly referred to as COPs, are annual global climate summits organised by the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC). COPs are held in a different country every year, but always take place in November and consistently carry with them a cloud of controversy. COP29 has been no different.
The conference in Baku succeeded the rather turbulent COP28 and focused on the critical issue of climate finance, namely the mobilisation of the funds necessary to address climate change. Last year, COP28 gave way to the establishment of the Loss and Damage Fund for countries already suffering the effects of the climate crisis. This year, attention shifted to another form of climate finance: the NCQG. Short for the New Collective Quantified Goal, the NCQG represents a significant milestone in the fight against the climate crisis. It is intended to pin down a number on funds for clean energy infrastructures, particularly in developing countries. As it becomes increasingly clear that the yearly $100 billion commitment set in 2015 is nowhere near sufficient to achieve the green transition, climate finance is needed to take on a much bigger role. Prior to the conference, talks have revolved around new figures constituting trillions of dollars for the NCQG. However, as COP29 has shown, ideas on the exact number diverge greatly.
Once again hosted by an oil-state, COP29 negotiations were deeply divided from the onset. Azerbaijan along with last year’s host, Saudi Arabia, reportedly slowed progress by attempting to edit negotiation documents in their favor. The uncertainty over funding coming from the US, following the recent elections, presented an additional obstacle in the attempt to quantify the NCQG. Yet, the COPs are meant to be a forum where countries come together to collaborate on solutions to the climate crisis. This year’s task was clear: mobilise sufficient funds from the largest economies and highest emitters to support a global energy transition. However, by Friday November 22 – the conference’s scheduled end date – no common ground had been reached. Talks continued two days into overtime, and only late on Sunday night a final agreement was reached.
Wealthy countries committed to providing $300 billion annually in climate finance. This is a tripling of the current amount but also a far cry from the trillions of dollars that scientists, activists, and developing countries had deemed necessary and fought for over the course of the conference. The agreement addresses a broader goal of raising a total of $1.3 trillion annually from both private and public sectors by 2035, but specific sources and strategies are not further specified.
Why the COPs Are a Disappointment – And Why They Are Still Necessary
COP29 certainly has dealt a bitter blow to everybody concerned about the climate crisis, disappointing hopes that ambitious international climate finance might pave the way for a successful green transition. However, given the history of the annual conferences, it is hardly surprising that a trillions of dollars-agreement did not materialise. Overall, there has been little reason for celebration at the COPs since the landmark 2015 Paris Agreement set the 1.5 °C limit to global warming. Common ground is only rarely found, the agreements remain vague and avoid the necessary bold changes. Instead, recent COPs have been defined by disagreements, division, and controversy.
The climate conferences’ biggest merit is surely their ability to gather decision-makers from all nations together in a room to discuss the climate challenge. Yet their impressive scope might just be their most dangerous flaw. This is especially true as the conferences operate on a complete consensus principle, where every single country can veto the final document. As a result, the agreements reached only represent the lowest common denominator of the world’s nations, or tentative and loose statements of ambition. The Paris Agreement, for instance, is not legally binding – such a mandate would have been impossible to pass. And while decision-makers agreed to attempt staying below 1.5 °C global warming, the COPs have failed to put in place a legal mechanism to ensure the respective policy changes and the world is currently on a path towards 3 °C warming at the end of the century.
One might feel angry, disappointed, or frustrated by the COPs, and it would not be unwarranted. The results are insufficient, the science gets lost in political and economic interest, and the urgency of the crisis is often missing. But unfortunately, the COPs are also the best there is at the moment. There is currently no other forum that provides such a powerful space for protest, activism, and debate. And while major agreements, like Paris 2015, fail to bring about the immediate change that would be necessary, they do serve as a foundation for further climate activism to build on. Recent climate lawsuits against governments for example, such as in Switzerland in 2024, would never have been possible without the climate commitments formulated in the Paris Agreement.
This is not meant to excuse the COP’s failure to hold countries accountable for their climate inaction, their reluctance to address the need for a fossil fuel phase-out, or their inability to mobilise sufficient climate finance. Instead, it is a call not to settle with the disappointing reality of what the COPs have been so far. With every passing COP that fails to deliver solutions, the next one needs to yield even greater results. Realistically, COP30 in Belém is not going to solve the climate crisis. But giving in to realism would mean giving free reign to endless discussions, half-hearted promises, and avoidance of significant change. Instead, there needs to be continued pressure on the decision-makers in the conference rooms. Not giving up on the COPs and demanding for more may be the only way to realise their potential.
Comments