Like a wailing siren, the warnings of climate change have long been sounded, but its impacts are now being felt more widely and acutely than ever before. Year after year, extreme weather events and rising temperatures remind the world of the race against time. Yet, as leaders gather for the annual COP summit, this time in Baku, Azerbaijan — a nation deeply entwined with the oil industry — the urgency to act remains mismatched by collective inaction.
Hanging over the discussions is the spectre of Donald Trump’s return to the White House, whose withdrawal from the Paris Accord marked a dramatic retreat from global climate commitments. And in a few weeks, he is set to become the most pro-fossil fuel president in American history, adding further weight to an already precarious global climate agenda.
But what has transpired between COP28 and the ongoing COP29? The answer is another year that has served as a stark reminder of the climate crisis and, perhaps, even wasted opportunities. The world is on track to surpass the critical 1.5°C warming threshold above pre-industrial levels, marking a sobering milestone in climate history. This threshold, which has long been a warning signal, underscores the escalating climate crisis driven by human activity, primarily the burning of fossil fuels.
For climate advocates, the past year has been a relentless showcase of searing heat waves, catastrophic storms, and devastating floods. These developments lend a charged atmosphere to COP29 in Baku, where leaders are now tasked with translating decades of rhetoric into urgent, binding action, once again. The summit tests not only diplomatic resolve but also the framework of current global climate strategies, as the planet’s warming trajectory looms ominously over any commitments made in past years.
Many scientists predict that global warming will fuel increasingly extreme weather events, from more intense storms to hotter heatwaves and heavier rainfall. The real-world consequences of these changes are already evident, as the Philippines braces for Super Typhoon Man-yi, with authorities warning of ‘life-threatening’ storm surges.
This marks the sixth storm to pound the country in just the past month, intensifying fears of widespread devastation. More recently, Hurricanes Helene and Milton, devastating storms that intensified rapidly, hit Florida, Trump’s political base. Meanwhile, the Valencia region of Spain experienced catastrophic flooding, with a wave of water reminiscent of a tsunami sweeping through towns and claiming more than 200 lives. Similar devastation unfolded across Europe, where floods ravaged southwestern Poland, the Czech Republic, Croatia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Romania, and Slovakia.
In West and Central Africa, largely ignored by global media, more than 4 million people were affected by severe flooding, displacing at least 500,000 people, many of them children, and destroying over 300,000 homes. By July this year, when the monsoon season peaked, countries from Afghanistan to Bangladesh, India to Nepal, and Pakistan experienced flash flooding and torrential rain that killed hundreds. The climate crisis amplified the annual rains, leaving widespread devastation across South Asia. Floods, landslides, and heavy rains displaced millions, highlighting the region's vulnerability, where a quarter of the world’s population resides and faces the growing impacts of climate change.
The irony at the annual climate summit is palpable – while leaders should be fiercely debating ways to prevent further damage to the planet, France and the host nation, Azerbaijan, have been engaged in a diplomatic standoff over unrelated issues. France and Argentina, both withdrawing their top negotiators, have deepened divisions at a summit already fraught with political tension following Donald Trump’s election. In Baku, tensions have been running high as Azerbaijan’s president publicly accused France of maintaining colonial control over its Pacific island territories, citing nuclear tests in French Polynesia and Algeria. The statement underscored deeper historical animosities, particularly since France has long supported Armenia in its conflict with Azerbaijan. To avoid the optics of an “empty chair” diplomacy, France has kept its delegation present, but the absence of several key leaders—US President Joe Biden, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and Chinese President Xi Jinping—raises concerns about the significance of the summit, suggesting it may not be as high on their priority lists as other global forums.
But regardless of who is present or absent, negotiators at COP29 are facing what could be the toughest climate talks in almost a decade. This year, representatives from nearly 200 countries are tasked with updating the financial goals agreed upon at COP15 in 2009, which pledged $100 billion annually for climate financing to developing nations by 2020. While the goal was met two years late, many developing countries now demand a new target of at least $1 trillion per year, arguing that they cannot be expected to shoulder the financial burden of climate change, a crisis largely driven by the historical emissions of wealthier nations in the global north. However, after the strain of the pandemic and energy crises, developed countries remain reluctant to commit to large new grants, particularly after failing to fully meet the previous target.
The issue of funding for climate adaptation has once again been flagged by the United Nations. A recent report from the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) highlights the urgent need for hundreds of billions of dollars per year to help developing countries cope with the worsening impacts of climate change. As global temperatures continue to rise, nations are increasingly forced to protect themselves from heat waves, floods, and other extreme weather events. Currently, at least 171 countries have established national climate adaptation plans. However, these plans remain severely underfunded, particularly in poorer nations.
The funding gap highlights a significant challenge for developing nations already on the frontlines of climate change. Despite $28 billion in climate adaptation aid from wealthy nations in 2022, the UNEP estimates that between $187 billion and $359 billion more is needed annually to help vulnerable countries cope with climate impacts. This stark discrepancy underscores the urgency for developed nations to fulfill their financial promises to the countries least responsible for the crisis but most at risk.
Grim headlines, however, keep coming. Without swift action, the world is on track for a 3.1°C rise in global temperatures by the end of the century, according to the latest United Nations report. Even if countries implement their current carbon-cutting plans, temperatures could increase by 2.6°C to 2.8°C. The most optimistic scenario, where all nations follow through on their net-zero pledges, might limit the rise to 1.9°C—but that outcome is far from guaranteed. Even at 1.9°C, the consequences would be catastrophic. The planet has already warmed by 1.1°C, and the effects, from more extreme weather to rising sea levels, are undeniable. Wherever nature's wrath is unleashed, the stories of loss, suffering, and displacement remain all too familiar—new faces each time, but the devastation, tragically, the same.
When asked about the overall efficacy of global climate summits, which for the second consecutive year are being hosted by a petrostate, Patrick Bigger, Research Director at the Climate & Community Institute, a progressive think tank focused on climate and economy, expressed strong criticism of COP29's host, Azerbaijan.
Bigger argued that the decision to allow Azerbaijan to host the summit was indefensible. “Given their track record on domestic human rights and aggression toward Armenia, it’s troubling,” he said. “They are also the largest fossil fuel exporter to Israel, facilitating genocide. We've seen leaked conversations from their prime minister discussing using COPs as an opportunity to sell more oil and gas.” Bigger’s comments reflected broader concerns about the influence of petro-states on climate policy. “This is obviously unacceptable and should not be repeated,” he added. “The outcomes—or lack thereof—at this COP are, unfortunately, almost a foregone conclusion. It’s not going to produce positive results.” He emphasised the issue of “bad faith actors” in the room, pointing to the involvement of fossil fuel executives and certain parts of the “green capital” pushing for emissions offsetting instead of direct cuts. “All of these are incredibly damaging,” he concluded. “Regardless of the outcome, it is probably better to have the COP than not, but I’m also very aware of its limitations,” he said.
The Trump tragedy
In the race against climate change, Donald Trump’s impending return to the Oval Office is the biggest wrench tossed into the gears. Experts have long warned about the importance of limiting global warming to 1.5°C— and now every tenth of a degree counts. Trump’s promise to withdraw the US, one of the world’s largest historical and current emitters, from the Paris Agreement is a significant blow, and it may embolden other countries and entrenched fossil fuel interests still clinging to the old energy order. Already, Argentina has withdrawn its climate negotiators from the conference, on orders from the government of President Javier Milei, who claims to be Trump’s strongest Latin American ally. The country has the world’s fourth-largest shale oil and second-largest shale gas reserves.
Yet, for all the misleading rhetoric, the climate crisis is deepening. In 2023 alone, natural disasters caused a staggering $380 billion in damages. The price of inaction is already insurmountable, teetering on the edge of uninsurability.
An air of pessimism looms as COP29 continues through November 24, but this is no time for despair. We’ve been here before. In 2017, when Trump first announced the US exit from the Paris Agreement, it did not spark the global retreat he anticipated. Instead, countries recommitted, and China seized the opportunity to surge ahead in green technology.
The US, according to Bigger, has always been an inconsistent partner on climate issues, both for other countries and in multilateral processes. “This dates back to 1992, when George H. W. Bush administration was involved in the initial UNFCCC discussions. They introduced several obstacles into the agreement, such as market mechanisms and carve-outs for military emissions reporting, which made it harder to achieve climate goals from the very start,” he said.
“This is not a new phenomenon. It will certainly worsen with Trump's election, but I don’t think it fundamentally shifts things in many ways,” he added.
Decarbonisation efforts in jurisdictions committed to the transition will likely proceed regardless of the United States’ stance,” said Patrick Bigger, Research Director at the Climate & Community Institute.
“China will continue to develop its clean technology and manufacturing sectors, and this trend will likely expand across Asia. Additionally, the global economics of power generation will influence key regions, including India, Pakistan, and Sub-Saharan Africa, where the transition to clean energy is becoming increasingly critical.”
Bigger, however, stressed that climate action is not solely contingent on political outcomes in the US. “One thing you can say with certainty about Donald Trump is that he is extremely unpredictable,” he noted. “It’s difficult to gauge what will capture his attention from day to day. Whether he will follow through on his threats to withdraw from the Paris Agreement or even the entire UNFCCC remains uncertain. He has mentioned withdrawing from the UNFCCC, and that would effectively make it impossible for a future US administration to rejoin the Paris Agreement directly.” Despite these uncertainties, Bigger emphasised that global momentum for climate action would continue, driven by regional efforts and international economic forces pushing for a transition to cleaner energy.
As US fossil fuel production is set to dramatically increase, a central question looms over how much of the climate-related policies from the Biden administration, like the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, will remain intact. According to Bigger, certain Republican lawmakers from energy-rich states—who have benefited from clean energy subsidies embedded in the IRA—may be reluctant to dismantle these provisions for fear of jeopardising local jobs and economic growth tied to those tax cuts.
The climate scholar pointed out that while the rhetoric around US energy policy may shift under a potential second Trump term, the actual policy on the ground might not be drastically different from Biden's approach. “It may turn out that US energy policy won’t be that different from what it was under Biden in terms of an all-of-the-above energy strategy,” he said. “Of course, this strategy is unsustainable, dangerous, and ecocidal, but the real question is whether climate action will worsen much further.”
Regardless of domestic policies, Trump’s re-election victory—coupled with his well-documented climate skepticism—could prove a significant distraction in the global climate fight and potentially embolden other climate deniers worldwide. Already, countries like Argentina are pulling back from the climate summit in Baku and might even walk away from the Paris accord, reflecting growing discontent among nations that see the leadership of major fossil fuel producers as undermining real progress.
As the US, one of the largest historical and current emitters, shifts further from climate action under Trump, it risks sending a damaging signal to other nations, whose commitment to climate goals could falter in the face of such high-profile opposition. The ripple effects are already evident as countries reassess their positions on climate negotiations, with the world’s most vulnerable nations questioning the value of multilateral talks dominated by petrostate interests.
“The absolute brazenness with which Trump operates can have an emboldening effect. However, I'm not sure how meaningful that is on a global scale, especially considering that you also have non-aligned governments, like in Australia, that are set to increase their fossil fuel production,” Bigger said. “It might embolden certain factions in the world to be more obstructionist within European processes, and it could result in some countries dragging their feet even more on climate action,” he cautioned. “But given the scale of US emissions, I believe what happens domestically in the US on climate will have a far greater impact than any kind of permission structure that Trump might create for others,” he added.
Shifting focus
If funding has emerged as a significant challenge in the fight against climate change, the larger issue lies in the shifting focus of global diplomacy. Across Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, ongoing conflicts are increasingly consuming the attention and resources of diplomats, leaving little room for the multilateral climate coordination that is urgently needed. As wars rage in regions like Ukraine, Gaza, and the Sahel, the strain on both financial and human capital has intensified, forcing governments to prioritise immediate security concerns over long-term climate action.
Experts argue that these ongoing conflicts have become a major distraction from the climate crisis. The vast sums spent on ammunition and military operations, they believe, could instead be allocated to climate mitigation and adaptation efforts. With diplomatic resources spread thin, many question the world's ability to effectively collaborate on addressing the climate emergency, especially as geopolitical tensions and resource competition deepen.
Capitalist-driven policies
As climate change accelerates, efforts to combat it are often thwarted by capitalist-driven policies and the overpowering influence of corporate lobbies. Bigger, from the Climate & Community Institute, identifies one of the major barriers to progress as the deep entanglement of corporate interests in climate policy. Fossil fuel lobbyists, especially influential at COP negotiations, wield tremendous power, often obstructing meaningful change. As corporations push to safeguard their interests and a reluctant judiciary fails to intervene, the responsibility may increasingly fall on civil society to challenge the political and financial dominance of fossil fuel companies—a daunting task, given the immense resources at stake.
Ultimately, the climate scholar contends, without a concerted effort to rein in corporate influence, the world’s climate ambitions will remain largely unfulfilled, particularly in ensuring an equitable distribution of the benefits of climate action. This systemic problem threatens to derail the global fight against climate change, leaving countries in the Global South particularly vulnerable to the consequences.
Money for adaptation
The UN’s recent report highlighting the stark underinvestment in climate adaptation comes as little surprise, according to climate expert Patrick Bigger. He notes that adaptation has always been necessary due to the long-lasting impacts of emissions already in the atmosphere.
The need for adaptation has only intensified as climate change accelerates, with both developed and developing countries grappling with its effects. Small island states and low-income nations are particularly vulnerable, but even areas once considered safe, such as parts of the US Midwest, are now experiencing rising home insurance rates due to unpredictable weather patterns.
Bigger argues that the funding available for adaptation, particularly in the Global South, remains grossly inadequate. Multilateral mechanisms designed to finance climate resilience are underfunded and lack ambition, leaving vulnerable nations to bear the brunt of a crisis they did not create. He insists that responsibility for funding adaptation should fall to the countries most responsible for climate damage, primarily the Global North. As the impact of climate change intensifies, Bigger predicts that adaptation will rise in prominence on the global agenda—but only if the financing shortfall is addressed.
COP discontent
A growing number of prominent figures, including former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, are calling for major reforms to the COP process, expressing concerns that it has failed to deliver on its climate commitments.
In an open letter to the UNFCCC Secretariat, a coalition of influential individuals, including Christiana Figueres, former head of the UNFCCC, and former Irish president Mary Robinson, argue that while COP meetings have secured significant diplomatic milestones—such as the Paris Agreement, and global commitments to phase out fossil fuels and stop deforestation—the rate of progress remains far too slow.
This comes against the backdrop of rising global emissions, with the planet on track for a significant temperature increase by 2100 unless dramatic changes are made. In light of this, climate policy expert Patrick Bigger calls for concrete, actionable commitments over distant, aspirational goals.
“Net zero itself is already a bit of an evasion,” he said, criticising the overreliance on carbon removals and offsets, which fail to directly reduce emissions. He argues that what is truly needed is a “net negative” approach and stresses that targets set too far in the future, such as net zero by 2050, lack real significance. “I’m far more interested in the concrete five- to ten-year trajectories that individual countries will propose to evaluate how serious they are about addressing climate change,” Bigger said, underscoring the urgency shared by many of the letter’s signatories.
This growing frustration signals an urgent need for COP to shift its focus from negotiation to execution, with robust mechanisms to ensure countries are held accountable for their pledges. The letter calls for reforms, including a reevaluation of the COP presidency selection process to ensure leaders are genuinely committed to meaningful change, and the introduction of stronger measures for tracking climate financing. A particular concern is that much of the climate financing is now being offered as loans, rather than grants, exacerbating the debt burden for climate-vulnerable nations.
Priority list
With each passing year, the global community stacks up unmet climate promises, as targets set at previous COP summits slip further out of reach. While there have been notable milestones, such as the Paris Agreement and bold pledges from world leaders to phase out fossil fuels, the pace of action remains alarmingly sluggish, and emissions continue to climb.
Climate experts and activists argue that the real challenge lies not in the ambitious targets but in the concrete, actionable steps needed to meet these commitments. Patrick Bigger from the Climate & Community Institute underscores that the top priority must be a binding, achievable, and equitable timeline for the complete phase-out of fossil fuels.
He advocates for a moratorium on new fossil fuel projects and an urgent need to increase ambition on emissions reductions, particularly from the largest historical emitters, including the US, the UK, Europe, China, and India. At the same time, COP must address the issue of climate finance, he said, by eliminating debt-creating mechanisms and blended finance models, ensuring that countries in the global North fully fund the damage they’ve caused and support zero-carbon development pathways.
For Bigger, the absolute phase-out of fossil fuels and robust climate finance for the global South are the two top priorities, and they should be non-negotiable moving forward. As COP negotiations continue, the pressure to turn promises into tangible action has never been greater.