COP29: Finance COP or Oil COP?
Written by Leona Veţeleanu
Ever since November, we’ve been hearing everyone debate and report on COP. COP this, COP that – so what is COP anyway? And how did the delegates manage to either piss off or let down (or both) so many people this last edition?
Let's revisit what happened and get some perspective:
What’s the actual purpose of the Conference of Parties?
Why was this COP so important… and so controversial?
Why should you care what happens at COP?
What’s the actual purpose of COP?
It all started in 1992, with the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change), an international agreement whose aim is to limit the increase of the average global temperature and to mitigate the effects of ongoing climate change. This convention evolved over time by adopting protocols that legally obligate countries to stick to emission reduction targets – like the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, observed by 192 countries.
Fast forward to 2015 when the Paris Agreement is adopted – while progress is happening, the UNFCCC wants to speed up and expand climate action, and the most quantifiable way is through setting a maximum threshold for global warming at 1.5°C per year. This decision became a landmark for climate policy and it is constantly being kept in check today.
So, the purpose of COP is to oversee and facilitate the proper implementation of the 2015 Paris Agreement, or, more broadly, actually mitigate climate change and keep it in control. It is the decisional body that holds the most responsibility for keeping us on track by creating actionable frameworks for global administrations to follow. But is COP actually fulfilling its end goal? And who is supposed to keep the big polluters accountable if they won't do it themselves?
Why was this COP so important… and so controversial?
During the first days of COP29, the Club of Rome stepped in, releasing an open letter that is calling for fundamental structural changes to COP (again) because of these very questions. Among the signatories are people like Ban Ki-Moon, former Secretary General of the UN, and Christiana Figueres, former Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC. The Club gave fact-based recommendations and reiterated the importance of the broader goal of COP – holding global warming at 1.5°C per year. This is what they think the conference should improve on:
Improving governance and accountability – Strengthen the selection process for COP presidencies, ensure robust climate finance tracking (an especially important one), and improve implementation and accountability mechanisms.
Accelerating action – Climate response processes should be streamlined for greater speed and scalability.
Promoting equity and inclusion – The COP should admit and address the close ties between poverty, inequality, and planetary instability while enhancing equitable representation.
Prioritizing science-based decision-making – Authoritative science needs to have a much more influential part in shaping climate policies and actions.
COP29 was dubbed as “The Financial COP”, suggesting ample decision-making on global climate finance. But, after negotiations, a rushed conclusion was reached on the last day – a “$300B pledge to developing countries”. This is not enough to make a difference for the nations that have been left behind. An estimated $1.3 trillion is needed to actually move the needle, and that's more than quadruple this year's pledge. The only action towards trying to meet this $1 trillion goal has been to “secure efforts of all actors to work together”. Despite all this, the UN is reporting the financial conclusion of COP29 in a positive light by saying that agreements have been made to "triple the finance to developing countries" by 2035.
Keep in mind, though, that this goal spans 10 years in the future, and inflation will have run its course by then. Assuming an inflation rate of 5%, the “triple” sum of $300B in 2035 will be worth the equivalent of $175B in today’s money. Not so triple anymore, is it?
For context – this is what’s happening in the world:
We’re projected to lose between $1.7 trillion and $3.1 trillion per year by 2050 in damages resulting from climate change and extreme weather;
Global spending for biodiversity conservation is estimated at only $80-90B annually. Biodiversity and land loss will continue to happen, and it’s much harder to measure its scope and the full breadth of its butterfly effects. And this is on top of the quantifiable financial losses;
Governments are already spending $7 trillion every year on fossil fuel subsidies, and the IMF projects this to increase to $8.2 trillion by 2030.
However, the attendance at COP29 seems to reflect different interests. None of the top 13 carbon dioxide producing countries sent any of their leaders. In contrast, leaders from smaller, less developed states that are at a higher risk of loss and damage (like Grenada, Antigua and Barbuda, and the Marshall Islands), were present and shared first-hand experiences and calls to action. Fossil fuel lobbyists also weren’t left without representation – 1,773 of them were present, which is more than the number of delegates sent by most countries. In fact, the host country seems to have been quite lax with the definition of “net-zero goals”, given that the CEO of COP29 and Azerbaijan’s deputy energy minister was recorded striking a sponsorship deal with an undercover journalist whom he believed to be an oil and gas investor. He stated that “we will have a certain amount of oil and natural gas being produced, perhaps forever.”
This statement comes in the same tone as what president Ilham Aliyev said in his COP29 opening speech – that oil and gas, among other natural resources, are “a gift of the gods”, and that Azerbaijan shall continue bringing them to the market because they are needed. After all, 90% of Azerbaijan’s exports still consist of oil and gas.
Why should you care about what happens at COP?
Discrepancies like these are part of the reason why public-private partnerships are so important for reaching common goals – since governments aren’t the only ones responsible for massive amounts of pollution. COP can only do so much in the face of multinational polluting corporations like Chevron, Shell and ExxonMobil (all of which are in the top 10 of global carbon emitting entities) that go beyond the jurisdiction of just one country.
See the example of India – where private corporations and investors are pledging financial support in order to help transition the country’s transportation infrastructure towards renewable energy, and the government supports agri-tech startups through open collaborations. These efforts can better unite stakeholders under a uniform approach towards curbing carbon emissions and more efficient climate action – and India is proof that it works, especially with how focused their industries have become on being more conscious of the Earth.
So, hope is not lost – even though angering events keep happening, there are still plenty of initiatives in the world that are fighting the good fight. It’s just that massive decisional bodies like COP need to be better at keeping their eyes on the 1.5 ºC goal – which can be hard when 1773 fossil fuel lobbyists are blocking your view.
Author's Hot Take
Personally, I think it looks like COP has gotten a little bit out of hand – this general loss of focus, and the lax guidelines on the members’ presence (or lack thereof) and actions are most probably coming from the sheer scale of this event and its fuzzy management structure. After all, COP is the largest conference held by the United Nations. It’s only natural that it would require more specific treatment and heightened attention.
The recommendations coming from the Club of Rome were very pertinent; governance and accountability need to be a top priority in order to follow through on goals. Especially important is the selection of COP’s host country every year: currently, it is up to the region to make an offer to host, and the UNFCCC investigates logistics, finances and technical specifications after the offer has already been accepted. Perhaps this process should look more like a competition than a single-candidate application process. This would both help with selecting countries that align closer with the COP’s purpose, and also with motivating others to do better in transitioning away from fossil fuels.
The goals set nearly 33 years ago, when the formal fight against climate change began, seem to be quite blurry now. So, COP needs to reel it in and start managing conferences more closely.
