Oil and gas are a “gift of God.”
That’s what Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev told world leaders in his opening speech at COP29 in Baku two weeks ago.
It was quite an unconventional opening speech, especially considering why people from all around the world had gathered there.
Then he continued: “As a president of COP29, of course, we will be strong advocates for a green transition, and we are doing it. But at the same time, we must be realistic.”
By realistic, I’m guessing he meant the investment opportunities, deals, and profits that needed orchestrating over those two weeks. After all, more than 1,700 coal, oil, and gas lobbyists had been granted access to COP29 this year. This is what happens when you host a climate summit in a petrostate. Last year it was Dubai; this year, Azerbaijan.
I get the importance of involving these states in the conversation. But when the fossil fuel industry and petrostates take over COP to the point it can’t serve its original purpose, we’ve got a problem. When lobbyists outnumber the delegations of almost every country, we’ve got a problem.
The fossil fuel industry focuses on profits, directly clashing with the urgent need to phase out fossil fuels to address the climate crisis fairly and effectively. They’ve spent years manipulating climate negotiations to protect their interests while our planet burns. The fossil fuel industry should not be part of COP. It’s like inviting tobacco companies to a lung disease conference. It’s insane.
When there’s a conflict of interest, climate action takes a hit. If COP is ever going to reclaim the bold ambition of the Paris Agreement, it cannot be hosted by countries whose wealth depends on oil and gas.
So, what was COP29 about?
Labelled the “Finance COP,” COP29 focused on scaling up climate ambitions and securing the funding needed to make them happen.
Negotiations revolved around four main themes: loss, damage, adaptation, and mitigation. These represent the pillars of climate action: building infrastructure to protect against climate impacts, transitioning to net-zero systems, and covering recovery costs when efforts fall short.
The goal? Get nearly 200 countries to agree on a new climate funding target to replace the $100 billion (£95 billion) per year goal. It’s like global version of splitting the bill at an expensive dinner.
After much haggling between developed and developing nations, a new annual target of $300 billion was set for climate finance.
The ‘developed’ countries refused to commit more than $300 billion a year.
The deal states that the funds will come from “all public and private sources.” Under a framework set by the UN in 1992, 23 developed countries plus the European Union, historically responsible for most emissions, are obliged to contribute to climate finance.
Who are the developing countries?
Among the top ten annual greenhouse gas emitters, six (China, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, India, Iran, and Indonesia) are not officially considered “developed.”
Under one proposal, Saudi Arabia and South Korea would start contributing because of their high incomes (as they should!). China is close to the cutoff and may join the list soon. But nations like India, Indonesia, and Iran, home to larger populations and fewer resources, wouldn’t need to contribute just yet.
Another part of the proposal looks at income and pollution per person, which could include smaller but wealthier nations like the UAE, Singapore, and Israel as donors.
It’s pay-up time.
Once again, the most vulnerable are left to pay the price of climate change. Indigenous communities, in particular, have been disproportionately affected. Their lands, livelihoods, and cultures are under constant threat from extractive industries, deforestation, and climate-driven disasters.
This has to change. While countries and communities continue to suffer with their lives, homes, and children’s futures, wealthy nations must step up. These countries, which grew rich on fossil fuels, owe it to the world to fund efforts to limit global warming to 1.5°C and deliver climate justice.
At the end of COP29, many developing nations are left wondering: is this process even worth it? After three long decades, we’ve barely scratched the surface. Will COP30 in Brazil offer any answers?
Last year, COP28 in Dubai included wording on “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly, and equitable manner.” But at COP29, no clear decisions were made about how to begin this transition. Fossil fuels weren’t even mentioned in the outcome documents.
Why? Because they were too busy making deals.