COP29: a fizzling climate summit?

COP29 in Baku holds the key to addressing climate change, but challenges like financing and emissions persist.

Listen to article

Over the past three decades since the first UN climate summit (COP) in 1993, a global consensus has emerged: climate change is the most significant threat facing our planet. The potential consequences, including a sixth mass extinction, are dire. Despite numerous international agreements and pledges, including the Paris Agreement, global efforts to mitigate climate change have been insufficient. While strategies have been proposed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, many continue to haplessly rely on the end-of-use of fossil fuels, a major contributor to climate change.

With devastating climate disasters on the rise and record-high greenhouse gas emissions, the upcoming COP29 presents a crucial opportunity to accelerate global climate action. Scheduled to take place in Baku, Azerbaijan from November 11 to 22, 2024, the summit will prioritise increasing climate finance for vulnerable nations and communities. It also serves as a platform for world leaders to reinforce their national climate pledges and fulfil past commitments. However, considering the past performance of COPs, it's difficult to remain optimistic about a universally agreed-upon, workable solution emerging from this summit.

To address the impacts of climate change, particularly in vulnerable regions, there's a growing call for financial support from historically high-emitting nations. This support aims to help affected regions adapt to the changing climate and build resilience. Whether it's mitigating greenhouse gases, transitioning to green energy, establishing carbon markets, or providing immediate relief to affected nations, all climate action requires significant financing. The most intriguing aspect of this scenario is that while plans for climate action are abundant, their implementation hinges on adequate financing. Without it, these plans remain mere aspirations.

In 1995, the Kyoto Protocol marked the first time developed nations were obligated to reduce their carbon emissions. However, several top emitting countries either refused to ratify the treaty or later withdrew, citing high costs of emission control or claiming their dual status as both contributors and victims of climate change. This strategic move delayed mandatory mitigation efforts and undermined the seriousness of the issue for less powerful nations.

From 1995 to 2015, the annual Conference of the Parties (COP) meetings, while held regularly, failed to achieve significant breakthroughs in addressing climate change. Despite persistent efforts from the Global South, which bore the brunt of climate disasters, these COPs often devolved into debates and discussions without concrete action. A notable exception was the 2009 agreement, where developed nations pledged to provide $100 billion annually in climate finance to affected countries by 2020. However, this target remains unfulfilled.

Looking back at the 28 COPs preceding the Paris Agreement, it's evident that global efforts to combat climate change have been largely ineffective. While the Paris Agreement marked a significant step forward, its implementation has been slow and insufficient. The outcome of these efforts can be summarised in a single word: "hype". Before every COP, there's a surge of anticipation and promises, followed by a barrage of reviews and analyses. Ultimately, a few institutions and the most affected countries are left to plead with developed nations to do more to combat climate change.

Confusion reigns supreme when it comes to promoting climate action through COPs. Questions abound regarding climate finance, such as: Who will contribute how much? How will the funds be allocated and managed? Who will oversee the auditing process? Similarly, the effectiveness of carbon markets remains uncertain. Are they intended to offset emissions or provide a loophole to avoid emission reductions? The criteria for assessing the success of adaptation projects, unlike mitigation projects, are less defined. Will they rely solely on lengthy reports, or will there be quantifiable metrics? Even the definition of a "climate disaster" is subject to debate. If heatwaves are considered climate disasters, should losses in productivity due to heatwaves be compensated through loss and damage funds?

Despite the growing recognition of climate change and the increasing adoption of renewable energy, primarily driven by economic factors, the world remains far from achieving the necessary emissions reductions. While there's growing global recognition of the climate crisis, tangible progress in transitioning away from fossil fuels remains limited. Despite rhetorical commitments, concrete actions to reduce emissions are still in their early stages. The most vulnerable regions now have a unique opportunity to leverage this shared threat to secure the support and cooperation of wealthier nations.

Moreover, just 20 days before COP29, three shocking reports have dashed the artificially inflated optimism surrounding climate action. The WMO report confirmed that global emissions reached a record high last year, undermining claims of progress despite the growth of renewable energy. The UNFCCC and UNEP reports painted an even bleaker picture. The UNFCCC revealed that current national pledges are critically deficient to meet the 43% emission reduction target by 2030. UNEP's Emission Gap Report highlighted the yawning gap between climate ambitions and actual actions, with inaction prevailing globally.

It is a clarion call for the world's climate leaders to finally reach an agreement on the thorny issues that remain unresolved, even nine years after the Paris Agreement. While dissent is inevitable in collective action, the matter of planetary survival demands that the differences of opinion prevailing between the Global North and South be bridged effectively.

If all other methods fail to produce a decisive solution, perhaps a more drastic approach could be considered: key decision-makers could convene in a conclave-like secluded setting until they reach a consensus on the critical decisions necessary to address the climate crisis. The public could be informed of their progress through a symbolic indicator, similar to the process used by cardinals in electing a Pope. This method, inspired by the Vatican's tradition, could emphasise the urgency and significance of the climate crisis.