The "Finance COP" Fumbles the Bag
COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, was supposed to be the big one for figuring out how to pay for climate action—hence the nickname "Finance COP." The big goal? Establishing a New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) for climate finance. They landed on a figure of $300 billion annually by 2026, rising through 2035. Sounds decent, right? Wrong. Experts say we actually need $1.3 trillion a year to address the crisis. That’s not just falling short; it’s face-planting.
Developing nations, already bearing the brunt of climate disasters, aren’t thrilled about this shortfall. Why? Because most of this funding is coming as loans or other financial instruments that add debt instead of building resilience. Essentially, they’re being told, "Here’s money to fix what climate change wrecked—but don’t forget to pay us back with interest!" Unsurprisingly, a lot of them are pissed. Papua New Guinea straight-up boycotted the event, calling the whole thing a "total waste of time." Ouch.
Walkouts, Protests, and Broken Trust
Small island nations, the ones most at risk of literally disappearing underwater, staged a walkout on the penultimate day of COP29. The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) basically said, "Screw this," in frustration over how slow and ineffective the talks were. They came back for the final session but didn’t seem happy about it. Their frustration is shared by former UN heavyweights like Ban Ki-moon and Christiana Figueres, who called for the whole COP process to be overhauled. According to them, we need to stop wasting time on negotiations and start implementing actual solutions.
The big problem is trust—or, more accurately, the lack of it. Developing nations don’t trust wealthier countries to come through on promises. Wealthy countries don’t trust developing nations not to squander the funds. And everyone’s pointing fingers instead of rolling up their sleeves.
Fossil Fuels: The Elephant (and Oil Drum) in the Room
Here’s where things really go off the rails. Despite the overwhelming scientific consensus that we need to phase out fossil fuels, the final COP29 agreements didn’t even mention them. Why? Petro-states like Saudi Arabia, which has a vested interest in keeping the oil flowing, threw a tantrum at the very idea of "transitioning away from fossil fuels."
It’s a glaring omission and a massive step backward, especially after some progress was made on this front at COP28 in Dubai. But entrenched interests won out this time, showing just how deeply the fossil fuel industry is embedded in global politics. Meanwhile, activists outside the conference protested in droves, demanding action on fossil fuels, but their voices were largely ignored in the final text.
The Outdated "Developing" Label Causes Chaos
Another major issue? The outdated definitions of "developed" and "developing" countries. These classifications, set back in 1992, haven’t aged well. Nations like China, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and South Korea are still labeled as "developing," even though their economies and carbon emissions are on par with—or exceed—those of many "developed" nations.
This outdated labeling allows wealthier countries to avoid binding climate finance obligations while still benefitting from funds intended for truly vulnerable nations. It’s a strategic loophole, but one that’s eroding trust and making meaningful progress harder to achieve. China, for example, continues to resist reclassification, opting instead to make voluntary contributions while sidestepping formal obligations.
Plastics: The Parallel Crisis Nobody Wants to Fix
COP29 focused on finance, but the climate crisis doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Plastics, which are over 99% derived from fossil fuels, are another massive environmental catastrophe that ties directly into climate change. Unfortunately, recent talks on a Global Plastics Treaty in Busan fell apart, revealing the same entrenched interests that plagued COP29.
Countries like Saudi Arabia argued that the problem isn’t plastic production but waste management. In other words, they want to keep cranking out plastic while expecting everyone else to clean it up. To drive their point home, Saudi Arabia even launched the Global Coalition for Plastics Sustainability, teaming up with countries like Russia, Iran, and China. Their focus? Better waste management, not reducing production. It’s a classic case of treating the symptoms instead of the disease.
Meanwhile, less than 10% of global plastic waste is recycled, and microplastics are showing up everywhere—from the deepest oceans to our own bodies. This isn’t just an environmental issue; it’s a climate issue, too, and ignoring it is a dangerous game.
Glimmers of Progress Amid the Chaos
Not everything about COP29 was a dumpster fire. There were some positive developments, like agreements on carbon market mechanisms under Article 6. If implemented well (big "if"), these mechanisms could make international cooperation on emissions reductions more transparent and effective. They’re designed to ensure real climate benefits from projects while preventing shady practices like double-counting emissions reductions.
It’s a small step in the right direction, but it’s nowhere near enough to offset the glaring shortcomings of the conference.
Looking Ahead to COP30 in Brazil
The next COP conference will be hosted in Belém, Brazil, on the edge of the Amazon rainforest—a fitting location given the intertwined crises of climate change and biodiversity loss. Expectations are sky-high, with leaders expected to present more ambitious Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and finally address the adaptation and loss-and-damage discussions that COP29 punted down the road.
There’s also hope that COP30 will revisit the outdated developed/developing country classifications and incorporate the social cost of carbon into decision-making. This metric, which quantifies the hidden costs of inaction, could be a game-changer for framing the economic argument for climate action.
But let’s be real: the stakes are massive, and trust is at an all-time low. Unless leaders bring bold solutions and follow through on their promises, COP30 could end up being another exercise in frustration.
The Clock is Ticking
At the end of the day, COP29 was a stark reminder that we’re running out of time to act on climate change. The trust deficit, the lack of accountability, and the influence of fossil fuel interests are all massive roadblocks. If we don’t address these issues head-on, future generations will pay the price—financially, environmentally, and in terms of basic survival.
As we look to COP30, the message is clear: half-measures and empty promises aren’t going to cut it anymore. The world needs real leadership and real solutions. Otherwise, we’re just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic while the planet burns (and floods).
Bibliography
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). "Conference of the Parties (COP29) Overview." UNFCCC Official Website. Accessed December 9, 2024. https://unfccc.int
Rokke, Nils. "COP29: Lessons Learned from the UN Climate Change Conference." Forbes. December 9, 2024. https://forbes.com
Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS). "Statement on COP29 Outcomes." AOSIS Official Website. Accessed December 2024. https://aosis.org
International Energy Agency (IEA). "Global Energy and Climate Trends 2024." IEA Reports. Accessed December 2024. https://iea.org
Greenpeace. "The Role of Fossil Fuels and Plastics in Climate Change." Greenpeace Reports. Published December 2024. https://greenpeace.org