COP29 - Time for Change?
In what has become our annual progress update on global climate action, let’s take the opportunity to once again review the key outcomes from this year’s edition of the Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change), aka COP29.
Climate Change Status Update (the bad news) 🥵
First of all, the broader global context:
2023 was the hottest year on record.
Not only that, but it was also above 1.5°C hotter than the pre-industrial era for the whole year.
2024 is all but certain to be the new hottest year on record.
As mentioned in our previous two reviews of COP27 and COP28, the likelihood of achieving the critical climate goal of limiting global warming to a long-term average of 1.5°C has nearly vanished.
BBC News, 9th January 2024. ‘2023 confirmed as world's hottest year on record’. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-67861954
How far off the requisite level of climate action are we? The simple answer is very far. The chart below, produced by the independent scientific project Climate Action Tracker, illustrates the scale of regulatory and policy action urgently needed to retain even the slimmest chance of limiting global warming to 1.5°C.
COP Controversies 😡
So, in step COP29, which was first created to provide a collaborative, international space for devising the exact policies and regulations that governments around the world need to introduce to massively accelerate global climate action.
Unfortunately, as is now becoming a recurring theme, this edition of COP was controversial before it even began.
COP29 was hosted in Azerbaijan, a nation heavily reliant on fossil fuels for national revenue and exports, and was therefore criticised as the location of choice for hosting a climate summit (as was COP28, in the UAE). Concerns about conflicts of interest were heightened by statements from Azerbaijani officials promoting fossil fuels as a “gift of God,” undermining the intent of the summit to truly commit to phasing out fossil fuels.
There was more controversy when COP29 got underway, with over 1,700 representatives from fossil fuel companies registered for the conference, raising fears about undue influence on climate policies. While this was fewer than COP28, it still exceeded the size of most national delegations, reinforcing perceptions of industry domination and lobbying for reduced climate action.
The conference was marred by diplomatic tensions, such as the withdrawal of Argentina's delegation and criticism from France’s climate minister, who refused to participate in the conference any further due to disagreements with Azerbaijan. Additionally, the re-election of Donald Trump has sparked fears over future climate commitment from the US – Trump has promised to roll back climate action and take the US out of the Paris Agreement (again 🙄).
This is why the question is now being asked as to whether the way COP is set up, administered and followed up with needs a total overhaul. Some observers, including prominent figures like former UN officials, argued that the COP framework is becoming increasingly ineffective. Concerns were raised about its inability to decisively address fossil fuel dependence, despite being the key platform for multilateral climate negotiations.
So, another disappointing COP, including another complete failure to address fossil fuel production and yet more anger over the way the whole conference is governed.
Were there any positives? 😬
Thankfully there were a few positive outcomes of COP29, and we desperately hope these are built on at COP30 in Belém, Brazil, which is already being viewed as truly make or break for global climate action.
A key breakthrough was the agreement to triple financial assistance to developing countries for climate mitigation and adaptation. This is aimed at protecting vulnerable communities and supporting sustainable development in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement.
However, the new climate-finance goal was poorly received by stakeholders from developing countries, who felt extremely disappointed. They had called on developed countries to directly raise $1.3tn a year in climate finance, yet negotiators agreed on vaguer sources of raising the $1.3tn each year from a wide range of sources, including private investment, by 2035. Some developing countries accused the COP29 presidency of pushing the deal through without any formal consent from them.
Efforts to combat deforestation received a boost with funding commitments, such as a UK pledge of £3 million to support REDD+ initiatives aimed at halting forest loss by 2030, which admittedly is not a huge amount, but it is a positive signal, nonetheless.
On the surface, a particularly good outcome was that significant progress was made on the operationalisation of carbon markets under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. Rules were finalised for both bilateral carbon trading (Article 6.2) and a centralised carbon crediting mechanism (Article 6.4), which include strong environmental and human rights safeguards. This is clearly the most important outcome from COP29 for Seafields as an organisation, as hopefully it can further improve the international framework under which we will participate in when we generate and sell carbon credits from our operations.
However, some stakeholders claim that the rapid adoption of these carbon markets agreements was the result of bypassing adequate consultation processes, potentially setting a bad precedent for future negotiations. Furthermore, many have said that the “advancements” made in Article 6 have actually done nothing to reduce its shortcomings and barriers to full adoption.
What to do next ➡️
It is clear what the world needs to do. Massively reduce global emissions and increase the scale and efficiency of carbon removal systems in place around the world.
Sufficient funding, policy frameworks and international collaboration are absolutely essential to unlock scalable solutions that can both reduce and removal emissions globally.
Whether or not governments and large corporates can work together to make that a reality is now hanging by a thread. Hopefully we will not be writing (yet) another very similar article after COP30 in a year’s time.
