Deliberations in Baku imbued with obstruction, outrage and disarray
Rescued from the brink of collapse, COP29 just managed to produce a deal, albeit an insufficient one. The conference brought together 200 delegations in Baku, Azerbaijan. Wrapping up at the end of November, the proceedings were imbued with obstruction, outrage, and disarray, with a spending agreement of roughly £240 billion being reached on the final day.
The deal secured an apparent tripling of finance to developing countries (not accounting for inflation) from the previous goal of $100bn annually. Additionally, the target of $1.3tn per year by 2035 was agreed upon to enable developing countries to transition towards a low carbon economy and adapt infrastructure to withstand worsening extreme weather events.
In terms of grants and low interest loans from the developed world, the agreed $300bn annually falls short of the “widely and scientifically agreed to be minimum” of $1tn to properly avert the effects of climate change. This leaves the remainder of funds to be provided by private investors and yet to be agreed upon levies on fossil fuels.
The agreement has been largely criticised by representatives from smaller nations; India’s delegate Chandni Raina labelled the deal a “paltry sum”. Further, delegates from the least developed countries (LDCs) negotiating bloc said they were: “outraged and deeply hurt by the outcome of COP29” and that “the countries most responsible for the climate crisis have failed us. This is not just a failure. It’s a betrayal.” On a more alarming note, WaterAid described the deal as a “death sentence for millions.”
However, rich countries claimed to be offering everything they could at this time. UK energy secretary Ed Miliband stated “Developed countries have gone quite a long way to try and find a way through this, and at a time when public finances really are stretched.”
The negotiations saw the deployment of lowball tactics by developed countries regarding the finance they were prepared to provide, which left many at the forum outraged. When considering the catastrophic impacts suffered by developing countries due to rising instances of extreme weather, the strategy struck many as inappropriate. It is evident that the richer nation’s cards-close-to-chest negotiating strategies were not received well, serving to stall an agreement and creating an atmosphere of distrust and frustration.
The fact of the matter is that the Global North has contributed to the climate crisis significantly more than the Global South and is responsible for almost 92% of global emissions – a number that has only added to the upset the COP29 strategy has caused, hindering talks towards an agreement. Oscar Soria, a director at the Common Initiative think-tank, said: “The negotiating placeholder ‘X’ for climate finance is a testament of the ineptitude from rich nations.” Furthermore, the adviser to the Alliance of Small Island States said: “We were quite frustrated that the developed countries had not put forward a number much sooner.”
Countries whose self-interest lies in non-renewables played an interesting role at the convention. Host country Azerbaijan, having an economy built on oil and gas exports, seems opposed to the primary goal of COP29: helping the world transition away from coal, oil and gas. They stated they wanted to expand gas production by up to a third in the next decade. President Ilham Aliyev described oil and gas as being a “gift from God”.
COP 29 saw the attempted killing of certain policies opposed to fossil fuels, the primary obstructor being oil giant Saudi Arabia. A Saudi official was accused of having altered a key document, regarding the encouraging of parties to consider low emission pathways, without the proper consultation. Other countries claim to have not been granted the ability to edit this document and that the Azerbaijan Presidency could have easily been able to prevent this interference. Ultimately, the countries present could not reach an agreement on how the previous year’s COP pledge to transition away from fossil fuels would continue. The matter was postponed to COP30, which will take place in Brazil this year, representing a possible half-victory for Saudi Arabia, and its vested interest in oil.
The turbulent nature of this year’s conference perhaps calls into question the efficacy of its structure. Its less than ideal agreement also points in a similar direction, towards pursuing more effective forms of mitigating climate catastrophe without inducing debt through financing programs. Some have proposed carbon import taxes, which would help to prevent the displacement of emissions in favour of reducing them. Additional cuts on methane emissions would also see a faster response time in comparison to carbon dioxide emissions, as the former has a shorter atmospheric lifespan. Additionally, points have been raised regarding private fossil fuel companies’ responsibility for providing financial aid. Tracy Carty, of Greenpeace International, said fossil fuel companies should have been forced to pay into the finance pool – having made $1tn a year in profit annually for half a century.
It cannot be forgotten that it is in the collective interest of all countries to ramp up climate action. Future international meetings must be more co-operative and bring with them more radical policy agreements in order to halt the exponentially worsening climate disaster.
