COP29 came to a fragile agreement in which rich countries pledged $300bn a year for climate finance, but the funding promises from rich countries are too little and the deal ultimately may be short-lived as Donald Trump may upend it once he assumes the presidency.
Annual climate summits, called conferences of the parties (COP), are organised under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) signed in 1992, the original treaty to the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement.
The 2015 Paris Climate Agreement outlined a long-term strategy the world must adopt to reduce global temperatures and keep the rise under 1.5°C.
The UN climate summit, COP29, took place in Baku, Azerbaijan. Agreements among almost 200 countries need to be unanimous before action can be taken.
How can you expect us to go back to the women, men and children of our countries with a poor deal?
— Cedric Schuster, the chairperson of the group of Aosis and LDCs
After two weeks of tense negotiations, the talks were on the brink of collapse. The climate summit overran by more than 32 hours. Many angry developing countries decided in the end not to stand in the way of a deal they did not agree with, to prevent the talks collapsing.
The dispute that almost derailed the talks was between developed and oil-rich countries, which are responsible for most of the climate change, but unenthusiastic about meeting their minimum promises or giving more funding to tackle the issues..
Just before the agreement was reached, representatives of the Alliance of Small Island States (Aosis) and Least Developed Countries (LDCs) walked out of the talks, expressing anger at an earlier draft offer for climate change finance of $250bn from rich nations.
“We came here to this COP for a fair deal. We feel that we haven’t been heard, and there’s a deal to be made, and we have not been consulted ... We’ve walked out because at the moment, we don’t feel that we are being heard,” said Cedric Schuster, the chairperson of the group of Aosis and LDCs.
Despite walking out, the Aosis and LDCs said they remained “committed” to the negotiations.
In 1992, the UN established a framework whereby 23 industrial countries, with the EU who historically were the largest contributors to emissions, have a responsibility to contribute to climate finance.
Developing nations who contribute the least to climate change but bear a disproportionate burden, asked developed countries to contribute $1.3-trillion in climate change finance. However, the developed countries pledged only $300bn a year by 2035 and promised to raise $1.3-trillion a year from a combination of state, multilateral, business and philanthropic institutions by 2035.
Many developing countries said the COP29 deal was wholly inadequate. Leena Nanda, India’s delegate, said the developed country climate finance pledge was “abysmally poor” and a “paltry sum”.
The African group of countries said in a statement the promises by the developed countries were “too little, too late”. Schuster asked: “How can you expect us to go back to the women, men and children of our countries with a poor deal?”
In a letter to the UN, global leaders said the COP as an institution was “no longer fit for purpose” to competently manage climate change negotiations and needed an urgent overhaul. The authors of the letter include former UN secretary-general Ban-Ki Moon, former UN climate chief Christiana Figueres and former president of Ireland Mary Robinson.
The letter stated countries that oppose the phasing out of fossil fuels should not host critical climate negotiations. “Its current structure simply cannot deliver the change at exponential speed and scale, which is essential to ensure a safe climate landing for humanity,” said the signatories of the letter to the UN.
The COP process in itself is not relevant any more. The negotiations are dominated by developed countries. For example, the small islands and least developed countries walked out of the negotiations because they felt developing countries were not sufficiently included in the negotiations, with richer countries being accused of mostly talking among themselves.
Oil and gas exporters opposed faster targets for countries to reduce emissions and transition to clean energy. The Arab group of nations specifically opposed the setting of targets to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy.
Oil-rich Saudi Arabia has been criticised for persistently slowing down UN climate summits to reduce fossil fuel emission. The Azerbaijani presidency circulated updates to the negotiating text on the just transition work programme (JTWP), with “tracked changes” from the previously circulated version. The Guardian newspaper in London reported that the document showed edits to soften emission reduction targets that were made directly by Basel Alsubaity from the Saudi energy ministry. It was not sent to other countries to edit, according to the Guardian.
In 2023, civil society group the Climate Social Science Network in a report criticised Saudi Arabia for the country having “a 30-year record of obstruction and delay, protecting its national oil and gas sector and seeking to ensure UN climate talks achieve as little as possible, as slowly as possible”. Saudi Arabia, the report claims, despite being directly affected by climate change, with “increased temperatures across Saudi Arabia and falling groundwater supplies”, frequently pushes back on efforts to curb fossil fuels at UN climate talks.
China and India are classified as developing countries, dating back to 1992 when the UN framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC) was signed. This means they have no obligation to provide climate finance to poorer countries or to cut greenhouse emissions.
A week after COP29, Saudi Arabia, Russia and other oil exporters tried to block a UN deal to tackle plastic pollution, negotiators said. Delegates from more than 170 nations after COP29 engaged in negotiations in Busan, South Korea, to draft a global treaty to address plastic waste.
The major producers of petroleum, used to make most of the world’s plastic, opposed measures such as curbs on excessive plastic production that would tackle plastic pollution. The Saudis and petroleum-producing group also oppose a draft treaty that would list and phase out chemicals present in plastic that are deemed harmful to the environment and to health.
It was reported by the New York Times that Saudi Arabia and its allies tried to delete paragraphs from the draft plastic treaty text on which countries should finance the costs of implementing the plastic pollution agreement.
China and India are classified as developing countries, dating back to 1992 when the UN framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC) was signed. This means they have no obligation to provide climate finance to poorer countries or to cut greenhouse emissions. They can receive financial assistance for climate change, just as any poor developing country. Many poorer developing countries have objected to China and India’s classification as developing countries when it comes to climate change obligations.
China is the world’s second-biggest economy and the biggest CO₂ emitter. India is the world’s fifth-largest economy and the third-largest CO₂ emitter.
Nigeria’s environment minister Balarabe Abbas Lawal complained at COP29: “China and India cannot be classified in the same category as Nigeria and other African countries. They should also commit to trying to support us (poorer developing countries). They should also come and make some contribution (to climate finance for poorer countries).”
There are fears that Donald Trump, a climate sceptic, will refuse the US contributing to climate finance when he assumes the US presidency in January 2025. Trump says global warming is a hoax. He has threatened to withdraw the US from the 2015 Paris agreement that establish a timetable to deal with climate change.
Trump may not honour the US pledges for climate finance contributions. Importantly, he may strengthen the global forces that do not believe in climate change, oppose finance for climate change and oppose the reduced use of fossil fuels. Ultimately, the progress made at COP20 may be rolled back; and the COP29 deal may collapse under a Trump presidency.
William Gumede is associate professor, School of Governance, University of the Witwatersrand and author of Restless Nation: Making Sense of Troubled Times (Tafelberg)
For opinion and analysis consideration, email Opinions@timeslive.co.za
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.