For those who hoped climate change might fade into irrelevance or spare the world its most dire consequences, the past year has delivered a sobering reality check. Since the last UN climate summit, the planet has been battered by extremes – record-breaking heatwaves, catastrophic floods, unrelenting rainfall, and crippling droughts. These events have not only displaced millions, but disrupted local and regional supply chains, strained economies, and amplified the urgent need for decisive climate action.
But the pace of climate action has lagged behind the escalating fury of the planet’s extreme weather events. Despite mounting evidence of the need for rapid and transformative change, experts argue that current efforts—both implemented and promised—are dangerously inadequate and delayed. While policymakers trumpet incremental progress, the chasm between ambition and reality is growing wider at each Conference of the Parties (COP), the United Nations' annual forum for climate negotiations, leaving the world ill-prepared for the accelerating onslaught of climate-related disasters.
At COP29, held in Baku, Azerbaijan, last month, the climate talks, despite several setbacks, made the same incremental progress that independent experts have long criticized as a day late and a dollar short. Adding to the disappointment, the summit concluded with fewer dollars than pledged by wealthy nations to help developing countries transition to cleaner energy and cope with the growing impacts of climate change.
Under the agreement, developed economies have promised to increase climate finance to $300 billion annually by 2035, a significant jump from the current target of $100 billion. Yet experts argue that the financial requirements for developing countries are much higher, with estimates suggesting $1.3 trillion per year is required to fund energy transitions in lower-income nations.
The deal reached at this year’s climate summit places much of the financial burden on private companies and international lenders such as the World Bank—a move critics say lets wealthy nations off the hook. Representatives from across the Global South, from Bolivia to Nigeria to Fiji, delivered searing critiques of the final document in a series of impassioned statements – with some even describing the outcome as ‘stage-managed’.
The summit began with a cloud of uncertainty hanging over it, as the prospect of Donald Trump returning to the presidency overshadowed discussions. By its conclusion, the worst fears of climate experts had materialized. Trump’s victory not only marked the end of Joe Biden’s presidency, which had seen some progress on climate action, but also resurrected memories of his controversial 2017 decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord, a move that sparked global condemnation. With his rhetoric increasingly dismissive of climate science, the return of the Republican leader to power threatens to unravel the already fragile international consensus on climate action. Experts warn that his policies could undermine years of diplomatic progress and unravel global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, potentially reversing critical commitments made under the Paris Agreement.
Despite bold promises to shift away from coal, oil, and natural gas at COP 28 in the United Arab Emirates, a petrostate, global fossil fuel consumption is continuing to rise, raising concerns about the efficacy of the pledges made by world leaders at such gatherings. The Global Carbon Project’s latest data shows that carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels are projected to reach a record 37.4 billion metric tons in 2024, a 0.8% increase from 2023. This trajectory moves the world further from meeting the Paris target of limiting global temperature rise. While emissions in the United States and Europe are expected to decline, and fossil fuel use in China has slowed, this progress is offset by a sharp increase in emissions from India and other regions, highlighting the uneven nature of the global effort to curb climate change. Even as the findings were revealed at the summit in Baku, where diplomats and world leaders had gathered to discuss how to mobilize trillions of dollars to tackle rising global temperatures, they had limited impact on the conference’s ability to deliver the urgent action needed. The discussions, despite the dire warnings and new data, struggled to overcome the political and financial hurdles that have long hindered meaningful progress on climate change.
In Dubai last year, the world’s nations, from developed to developing, came together to endorse a deal aimed at reducing fossil fuel reliance and ramping up climate action. Yet, despite the high-level promises, the agreement remained frustratingly vague, offering little clarity on the specifics of how countries would take responsibility for their emissions. The ambition was clear—halt global warming—but experts agree that without concrete measures and enforceable commitments, this remains a distant hope.
With the recent climate summit now concluded, the grim reality of its proceedings looms large. Set against a backdrop of persistent global inaction, experts warn that the failure to decisively address the crisis has entrenched extreme weather as a constant in the lives of millions worldwide. While COP29 featured ambitious discussions, many remain unconvinced that meaningful progress is within reach, let alone the sweeping action necessary to reverse these alarming trends.
The Express Tribune spoke with several experts to assess the outcomes of COP29. While opinions vary, there is a shared consensus that the promises made at climate summits are increasingly out of step with the accelerating environmental crises unfolding globally. Despite high-profile declarations, many argue that the pace of progress at these gatherings is lagging far behind the catastrophic speed at which climate disasters are manifesting, underscoring a growing gap between international commitments and the immediate demands of the climate crisis.
Between COP28 and COP29
Interestingly, the COP28 agreement in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) called for a gradual phase-out of fossil fuels. However, it permitted oil producers to continue extraction and offered limited details on how to fund the transition to renewable energy. Criticism has mounted, particularly as major oil-producing nations, which have been accused of insufficient action on emissions, provided few concrete commitments. Moreover, the financing mechanisms for the shift to greener energy remain vague.
Fast forward to this year in Azerbaijan, another petrostate hosting a climate summit, where delegates engaged in extensive discussions on financing but ultimately made only minimal progress. While there were intense negotiations, particularly over the amount of financial support to provide developing nations, the outcome did not reflect the urgency of the situation. A funding target was proposed to help these nations transition to greener energy, but experts and delegates swiftly dismissed it as insufficient, with many arguing that the real need is closer to $1.3 trillion annually. Once again, the summit revealed the gap between ambition and action, exposing the ongoing struggle to align rhetoric with tangible, enforceable commitments.
Speaking about COP28, held in the UAE, Dr. Joanna Depledge, an expert on international climate negotiations, acknowledged some significant progress: “COP28 marked some major steps forward, including agreement on the loss and damage fund, and the reference to transitioning away from fossil fuels, plus tripling energy efficiency and renewable energy. The language was weak, but at least it was there.”
But turning to COP29 in Azerbaijan, Depledge described it as a disappointment in several respects. “The $300 billion pledge is too low and lacks precision,” she said, adding that the absence of clear sub-goals for small island states, least developed countries, and adaptation efforts was a glaring omission. Depledge, a former editor of the peer-reviewed journal Climate Policy, also highlighted a critical shortfall -- the lack of a defined timeline extending to 2035. Her critique underscores the tendency of such summits to avoid setting concrete milestones, which are crucial for accountability and progress in combating climate change. However, she tempered her criticism, noting that the geopolitical backdrop made a worse outcome plausible. “Given the current context, COP29 could have been much worse, and we should be relieved it was not an outright failure. Key decisions were adopted, including on Article 6 market mechanisms,” she said.
However, she noted that the failure to build on COP28’s decisions regarding energy was deeply disappointing and troubling, as it is standard practice for each COP to advance the outcomes of its predecessor. This setback, she explained, stemmed largely from opposition by oil-exporting nations, likely bolstered by the tacit support of other major emerging emitters wary of facing additional pressure to curb their own emissions further.
For Ashok Swain, a professor of peace and conflict at Sweden’s Uppsala University, the outcome of the COP29 summit was nothing short of a “disaster.” Swain contrasted this year’s discussions with those at COP28 in Dubai, which had at least centered on loss and damage. In Baku, he noted, the talks were overshadowed by disputes over who would bear the financial burden.
Swain did not spare criticism for Azerbaijan, the host nation, accusing it of undermining progress by targeting Europe over its double standards—a point he conceded was valid but ultimately counterproductive. “As a host expected to steer negotiations constructively, such an approach only hinders meaningful dialogue,” he said, highlighting the broader dysfunction that characterized this year’s summit.
Reflecting on the process as a whole, Swain delivered a blunt verdict: “Climate change is worsening every year, yet the negotiations fail to make significant progress.” His critique extended to the very concept of the summits, which he described as increasingly obsolete. “I think these meetings have outlived their utility,” he concluded, voicing the frustration of many who see global climate diplomacy faltering in the face of an escalating crisis.
Under influence
In recent years, climate summits have been hosted by oil-rich nations, raising concerns about their influence on the global response to the climate crisis. Last year’s COP28, held in a glittering expo centre in Dubai under smog-laden skies a few kilometers from the world’s largest natural gas power plant, offered major energy exporters like Saudi Arabia an opportunity to maintain fossil fuel drilling. Meanwhile, governments and investors were left wrestling with the challenge of financing the transition to renewable energy. This year’s meeting in Baku followed a similar path, yielding little progress on concrete steps to phase out fossil fuels.
Although Saudi Arabia publicly endorsed the idea of transitioning away from fossil fuels at COP28, the kingdom has since worked to dilute such commitments, reportedly intervening in at least five United Nations forums, according to diplomats cited in a recent report published by The New York Times. At Baku, observers noted the influential role of Saudi negotiators in ensuring that no major agreements called for a meaningful shift from fossil fuel reliance. This dynamic, experts argue, casts doubt on the effectiveness of climate diplomacy when led by nations whose economies are deeply tied to oil production.
“It is certainly true that oil interests exert an outsized influence on global climate negotiations, and have done so since the very start,” said Depledge, a Research Fellow at the Centre for Environment, Energy and Natural Resource Governance at the University of Cambridge. This influence, she explained, is driven by both oil-exporting nations, such as Saudi Arabia, and private-sector oil companies.
However, Depledge contended that the presidencies of oil-dependent nations like the UAE and Azerbaijan were not the main culprits behind slow progress and limited outcomes. She pointed to efforts by the Dubai Presidency to broker agreements on fossil fuels and low-carbon transitions as evidence of their active engagement.
While private sector lobbyists significantly shape domestic policies through their influence on national governments, Depledge said their direct impact on COP negotiations might be less pronounced. What concerns her more is the transformation of COPs into what she described as a kind of ‘energy trade fair’, where companies—often at odds with the Paris Agreement’s goals—engage in greenwashing and business deals, particularly in fossil fuels. She stressed that COPs should remain a forum for governments and aligned stakeholders to tackle climate change, rather than an arena for commercial interests.
The barriers
The annual climate summit is intended as a forum to forge a global solution to a global crisis. In reality, it is obstructed at nearly every step.
Asked about the barriers, Depledge pointed to several factors: “The complexity of the climate change problem itself—time lags between action and effect, uneven distribution of impacts -- deliberate obstruction by right-wing ideological and fossil fuel interests in the developed world, primarily in the United States. If the US and other rich countries, like Norway, Australia, and Japan, had taken a much more decisive lead early on, we would not be where we are now.”
She added, “We often point the finger at Saudi Arabia and others—but how can they be expected to cut their own fossil fuel production when countries like Norway are still expanding theirs?”
Another major obstacle, Depledge noted, is the way climate negotiations have become entangled with geopolitics and the lasting impacts of unequal development, including colonialism. “This has deepened the North-South divide, creating a rift that has proven both intractable and profoundly damaging to progress,” she said.
Building on Depledge’s views on the role of geopolitics, Swain from Sweden’s Uppsala University, said: “The global power dynamics have become increasingly complicated,” referring to the standoff between two major power blocs—Russia and China on one side, and the US and Europe on the other. “None of these countries seem willing to prioritize climate change – they’re caught up in direct and indirect conflicts.” The academic, who has been involved in research on climate change, particularly in the context of global conflicts, resource management, and geopolitical tensions, pointed out that the world’s largest powers must unite to tackle the crisis.
However, he noted that such unity remains elusive, with divisions deepening daily. He also highlighted the ongoing debate over whether climate change should be integrated into the UN Security Council’s mandate, noting Russia’s disinterest and China’s ambivalence. “Climate change should not be politicized. Even if countries don’t collaborate, it should not become a political issue,” Swain concluded.
Global South sidelined
For the Global South, climate financing often feels like a debt trap. Despite repeated calls for an overhaul of the existing financing mechanisms, many of these appeals continue to be ignored. The question of how to fund developing nations' climate efforts without exacerbating their debt burdens remains a daunting challenge.
Over the past two years, calls have mounted from world leaders, economists, and activists urging a fundamental reform of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to better equip these institutions in addressing the climate crisis. However, while the conversations surrounding these reforms are often mired in technicalities, they ultimately come down to one central issue: money. How can the necessary funds be mobilized for countries already suffering from the devastating effects of extreme weather? And, perhaps more crucially, how can these nations avoid being caught in a vicious cycle of debt repayment?
“It is true that debt is a major problem,” said Depledge, who has extensively researched and lectured on climate change. “Climate finance needs to be delivered primarily as grants, or as investments, or at a minimum, at highly concessional rates.”
Ashok Swain, on the other hand, was sharply critical of COP29 and its failure in addressing the real needs of the Global South. Reflecting on the summit, he expressed frustration with the focus on loss and damage, noting that the discussions were dominated by debates over who would pay. The Sweden-based academic dismissed the $300 billion financing pledge as little more than a “farce.” He drew comparisons to the $100 billion climate fund agreed upon in the Paris Agreement, which he argued took years to reach and ultimately amounted to only $30 to $35 billion, with the rest being “accounting adjustments.” “These funds aren’t coming from governments – they’re trying to raise it from all sorts of sources, with no real commitment behind it,” Swain noted.
The next summit
While the next climate summit in Belém, Brazil, located in the heart of the Amazon, is still months away, experts have much to look forward to — and much to lament about what was missed at COP29 in Baku. For Depledge, who has years of experience in international climate change negotiations, there remains reason to be optimistic about what can still be achieved.
Depledge expressed hope that Brazil would focus on “keeping 1.5 alive,” advocating for more ambitious commitments and concrete measures, such as tracking and reporting, to advance the phase-out of fossil fuels.
She noted that there is significant cause for optimism -- “The cost of renewable energy, particularly wind and solar, is now lower than that of new fossil fuel power generation. Many developing countries are rich in renewable resources, and once the plants are established, the energy generated is nearly free. While there are institutional and infrastructure challenges, these can be overcome,” said the expert from the University of Cambridge.
Through renewable energy and other green technologies, Depledge believes developing countries can achieve progress in a much less carbon-intensive way than the industrialized nations did in the 19th and early 20th centuries. “I believe the world is on a low carbon path. We are going far too slowly, but we are going,” she concluded.
While Depledge struck an optimistic tone about the potential for progress, Swain was more skeptical about the prospects for a global solution. He pointed out that current efforts, particularly through the COP summits, have been failing, and that alternative forums and approaches are not offering viable solutions.
Swain emphasized that real change must happen at the state level, with national governments prioritizing the climate crisis. “Climate change should be incorporated into national security agendas,” he argued. The Sweden-based expert criticized the tendency to blame the Global North for the climate crisis, stating that this will not resolve the problems faced by the Global South.
Clear in his assessment, Swain said: “The states are the primary actors here.” He warned that reliance on civil society, the private sector, or global NGOs would not suffice. “Unless governments treat climate change as a national security issue and take immediate, drastic action, we are heading toward a crisis that will be impossible to recover from,” he cautioned.