Hi! It’s konkaz (@konkazuk).
“COP29“, the 29th Conference of the Parties under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was held from November 11 to 24 in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan in Southeastern Europe.
With the host country relying heavily on its oil industry and even planning to expand it, there was already a sense of unease in the air …, but how did the conference actually proceed?
Here is the summary of my takeaways from COP, based on stuff I read in the news and posts from people I follow on social media who talk about environmental issues.
We’re not reducing greenhouse gas emissions!
During COP28 in Dubai, UAE, in 2023, countries around the world agreed to transition away from fossil fuels. Yet, instead of seeing a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions this year, they have sadly hit an all-time high.
The total emissions have reached an astonishing 37.4 billion tons!!! That’s a 0.8% increase compared to last year!!!
On top of that, if we include the 4.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions from deforestation and land-use changes, the total emissions climb to 41.6 billion tons, which is 1 billion tons more than last year’s 40.6 billion tons.
At this point, to meet the global target of limiting the temperature rise to 1.5°C and deal with the growing impacts of climate change, we’ll need to cut emissions by 43% by 2030. It’s a pretty tough reality that’s coming our way.
An oil-dependent country hosting an international conference on environmental issues?
Azerbaijan is a “petrostate“, where fossil fuels account for more than 90% of total exports and make up two-thirds of government revenue.
After COP27 in Egypt and COP28 in Saudi Arabia, an oil-dependent country hosted the conference for the third year in a row. From the beginning, it was pretty clear that such a country wouldn’t be able to have an open discussion about “transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable energy”.
In fact, the group ‘Global Witness’ posed as fake oil and gas entrepreneurs and approached Elnur Soltanov, the head of COP29. During the conversation, Soltanov was caught on film saying, ‘We will probably continue to produce some oil and natural gas indefinitely.’ This footage, released just three days before the conference began, only increased the distrust among the participating countries.
And on the second day of the conference, Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev went so far as to describe oil and gas as “gifts from God“, making it seem utterly hopeless.
Adding insult to injury, it was discovered that…
a Saudi Arabian representative had made direct changes to the official negotiation documents of COP29.
On the 23rd, as the conference was extended, a revised version of the “Just Transition Work Programme” (JTWP) document, complete with “track changes,” was distributed to the representatives of the participating countries.
Normally, the host country distributes negotiation documents to all participating nations at the same time in an uneditable PDF format for fair discussions. But in Saudi Arabia’s case, they received a version with track changes enabled.
It was discovered that Bazel Alsubaie, a representative from Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Energy, had removed sections of the document recommending a “just transition” that aims to reduce fossil fuel use while minimizing harm to workers and society. He also deleted parts emphasizing that these efforts should align with the Paris Agreement’s target (limiting global warming to 1.5°C) and the global stocktake process.
This revelation sparked widespread criticism from other countries.
By allowing another country (Saudi Arabia, the host of COP28) to have editing rights, Azerbaijan, as the host country of this conference, has enabled actions that aim to undo last year’s landmark agreement to…
“transition away from fossil fuels, triple renewable energy capacity by 2030, and double energy efficiency improvements”.
This disregard for rules and order erodes the very purpose of the conference.
Despite experiencing rising temperatures across its territory and declining groundwater supplies, Saudi Arabia continues to obstruct progress in international climate negotiations solely to protect its domestic oil and gas sector. It’s truly exasperating.
global north & global south
The issue of “the crisis of global warming caused by the accumulation of greenhouse gases” presents quite challenging obstacles to resolve.
When looking at history from a geographical perspective, Europe advanced earlier than other regions through events such as “venturing out to colonize other countries” and the “Industrial Revolution.” As a result, the world has developed a polarized structure between the “Global North” (developed countries) and the “Global South” (developing countries) in economic terms.
While Australia and New Zealand are geographically in the Southern Hemisphere, they are considered part of the “Global North” in economic and political terms. Likewise, certain countries in the Northern Hemisphere, like those in Central Asia and North Africa, are sometimes classified as part of the “Global South.”
Reducing CO₂ emissions means slowing down economic growth, so when wealthy nations go,
“Hey, the planet’s in big trouble! Let’s all work together to cut CO₂ emissions!“
developing countries are bound to fire back with,
“Are you kidding us? You’re the ones who’ve been dumping CO₂ into the atmosphere for ages—why should we clean up your mess?“
To reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it is crucial to “shift away from fossil fuels and move to renewable energy.” This has led to a stronger call for developed countries to offer financial aid as climate funding to support developing nations in making this transition.
At the “COP15” held in Copenhagen, Denmark, in 2009, the goal was set for developed countries to provide $100 billion annually to developing countries. (At first, the contributions fell short, but by 2020, they started catching up, and the goal was achieved in 2022.)
As the climate finance distribution will expire in 2025, during the “COP21” in France in 2015, it was agreed that a new climate finance goal, the “New Collective Quantified Goal,” would be determined by 2025.
Thus…
the 2024 “COP29,” also known as the “Finance COP,” became an important meeting to determine the total amount of funding for greenhouse gas emission reductions and climate change adaptation support in developing countries after 2025.
The amount proposed by the developed countries was $250 billion (2.5 times the previous amount).
While it may sound like a significant sum, according to research by leading economists, it was reported that at least $1 trillion would be required to protect developing countries from natural disasters caused by climate change. As a result, the developing countries were met with a storm of boos, confronted with the fact that the proposed amount was far from what they had hoped for.
As a result, many countries turned down the offer, leading to the conference being extended and continuing the next day.
The next day, the developed countries offered $300 billion, but the fact that this was still far from the $1 trillion target, along with the pressure stemming from Donald Trump’s victory in the U.S. elections before the start of “COP29” (since he was highly likely to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and cut support to developing countries once he took office as president in January), led to an outpouring of anger from the developing countries.
However, the developed countries are also facing a financially difficult situation due to the impacts of inflation, COVID-19, and the Ukraine war, and it is currently impossible for them to squeeze out any more budget.
The $300bn offer was accepted out of necessity, despite dissatisfaction, and the shortfall to reach the $1tn target will be made up through new taxes on fossil fuel use, as well as investments from the World Bank, private companies, and other sources.
Compared to developed countries, the damage caused by natural disasters due to changing weather patterns is becoming more severe in developing nations. Therefore, it is understandable that they argue the agreement of $300bn per year by 2035 is ‘too late and too little.
However, the new funding targets allow for ‘voluntary’ contributions from developing countries like China, which have not officially provided climate finance until now. Therefore, we can only hope that many nations will come together and things will move in a positive direction.
The circumstances of the countries participating in the conference.
United Kingdom
The UK has taken a strong stance on phasing out coal and opposing new fossil fuel projects. While this leadership has gained some support, developing countries view it with skepticism, citing a lack of financial backing to turn ideals into reality.
Domestically, Labour faces the monumental task of repairing a country left in shambles by 14 years of Conservative rule, all while juggling crises in governance, conflict, and the environment.
United States
While Biden’s push for renewable energy received positive feedback, Trump’s re-election has amplified fears of a complete reversal in climate policy. As one of the biggest contributors to global pollution, the U.S. remains under fire for its inadequate contributions to climate finance.
European Union (EU)
The EU committed $200–300 billion per year in climate funding but faced criticism from African and small island nations for not meeting the $1 trillion annual requirement.
Germany received recognition for progress in renewable energy, though decarbonization in housing and transportation lagged behind, drawing criticism.
China and India
Both countries emphasized fairness, asserting their rights as developing nations.
China has been investing heavily in renewables but remains under fire for its high levels of coal consumption.
India, on the other hand, pointed to its low per capita emissions and made strong demands for technological and financial support from developed countries.
Saudi Arabia and the UAE
Both nations, as oil exporters, sought to draw attention away from the “fossil fuel phase-out” commitments made at “COP28” by underscoring the role of carbon capture technology. Unsurprisingly, their approach faced fierce resistance from countries advocating for a full shift to renewables, exacerbating the rift between developed and developing nations.
African Nations and LDCs
African countries stressed the critical need for climate finance, asserting that a transition away from fossil fuels is unrealistic without adequate support.
Uganda, struggling with delays in the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) due to conflicts with environmental groups, condemned developed nations for their “hypocrisy,” pointing out the lack of assistance for alternative strategies while being asked to forgo oil exploration.
Well, thank you for reading till the end. That wraps up today’s article.
Bye now.
konkaz
*You can read this blog post in Japanese from the link below.
👉 “COP29″の成果と課題：新たな気候資金目標の全貌