If the result of the latest United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP29) held in Baku, Azerbaijan is to be taken as a sign of where this world is heading, then the future is destined to be uncertain, at the very least. When recent events in the United States of America are taken into consideration – more specifically the gobsmacking election of climate denier Donald Trump to the presidency – the uncertainty turns into dismality.
Before the 29th Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is thankfully usually shortened to the acronym COP, even began it was clear that what was about to occur would be more of a cop out. The choice of venue initially gave a hint of what was to come. Late last year, Russia had made a hullabaloo over the possibility of the conference being hosted in Bulgaria, a member of the European Union. Azerbaijan was the next choice. This is a country that has a poor human rights record and more than that, oil and gas make up 90% of its exports. Its selection as host was the first win for the oil and gas lobby.
It fell to reason, naturally, that fossil fuel lobbyists were front and centre at the conference, as has occurred before. Countries whose leaders’ interests lie more in securing profits than halting global warming dominated and what emerged was disappointing to developing nations that are vulnerable to climate change. It was akin perhaps to hosting a deer convention in a lion’s den.
Worse still, a number of delegates alleged in the media that a Saudi Arabia representative had edited the text of a document, deleting a section which read “encourages parties to consider just transition pathways…” away from fossil fuels. The rich Middle-Eastern sovereign state is said to be the world’s largest producer and exporter of petroleum and petrochemicals and has been called out time and again for attempting to and obstructing climate conferences, to no avail.
The US election, concluded six days prior to the conference, hung like a pall over the proceedings. During his previous tenure, 2016 to 2020, president-elect Trump had pulled the US out of the Paris Agreement signed in 2015, which commits to limiting global warming to under two degrees – and ambitiously, less than 1.5 degrees Celsius. There is every indication that Mr Trump will repeat that very poor, extremely selfish decision.
The expectation was that this year’s con-ference would have seen large financial commit-ments from developed nations. It is an accepted fact that the wealthier countries are responsible for most of the climate pollution that has caused the rise in global temperature. The poorer countries suffer some of the worst impacts and it was previously estimated that those most at risk to the vagaries of climate change needed US$1 trillion a year to cope. The meeting, which went over by a day, saw heated exchanges, and a walkout and ended with an agreement for US$300 billion a year, with an overall climate financing target to reach “at least $1.3 trillion by 2035”, according to the draft statement produced.
Delegates from at-risk countries have since called the agreement “insulting” and “a joke”. While press releases from the UN tried to put a positive spin on the conclusion of the conference, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’s initial reaction was that he had hoped for a more ambitious outcome. He also pointed out that in order for vulnerable countries to have hope, commitments had to “quickly become cash”. Of course he is correct. Commitments are a very far cry from actual funds. With the entire world waiting agog to see what happens after January 20 next year, whether those commitments will actually be kept remains to be seen.
The truth is that despite all of the efforts by the UN, vulnerable countries are either in stasis or decline and the wishy-washy statements from the conference, chock-full of delaying tactics, reveal no real commitment to a clean-air future. UN climate officials are urging the disappointed countries to look forward to COP30, which will be held in Brazil next year, where they hope there will be more progress made. However, as is well known, a lot can happen in a year. The fact is that at this point, the voices of reason that speak to saving the future are constantly being overridden by the loudness of the greedy. Could next year make a difference? Will they ever learn? Hope is fading fast.
