I won’t waste your time here…
COP29, much like most other COPs, concluded with a lot of talking, open letters, informal discussions that ultimately didn’t lead to much. An estimated 40,000-50,000 delegates from UN member states flew in to make about as much progress as could have been made via phone call.
It is a show, an important show, one that displays to the world how much each governmental body cares, and is willing to combat climate change and really impact this ever growing beast of our own creation. The pessimistic view is that everything I just wrote is dripping with irony, but actually, it’s not.
Ultimately, I can appreciate that there exists a political and financial nuance that just cannot be understood by an outsider. I am not privy to the goings on behind governmental doors, nor am I privy to what their priorities are. But so long as COP is happening, they must at least pretend climate change is at the top of that priority list.
Whether it is or it isn’t, sometimes pretending it is can be enough to push stubborn issues over the finish line. Despite most climate activists wishing and expecting the impossible; governments agreeing with each other, progress -though often small- is made where otherwise it wouldn’t be without COPs existence.
Therefore, I won’t sit hear and write a lengthy post about every single day and every update, though admittedly that was my initial intention. But as I read the ongoing updates I learned two things: firstly, one hundred other websites have each day broken down beautifully if that is what you want or need; and secondly, actually nothing really happened most days. “Informal discussions regarding X” ad nauseum is what you will see.
Though I can understand that these informal discussions are important for dealings to eventually get over the line, they aren’t tangible results happening today. Thus, for this article I won’t repeat what is written in the other articles and posts, I will simply list off what I believe to the be the most important events that happened during this years COP (2024).
If it’s important to you, here is a quick list of the more predominant individuals that did not attend:
China’s Xi Jingping was not particularly keen to show, unsurprising from the world’s number one polluter.
Newly elected President Donald Trump who formerly wanted no part in the Paris Agreement unsurprisingly did not attend, while Joe Biden is no longer in office and so did not attend either.
Olaf Scholz of Germany was dealing with more local issues (the dissolution of the coalition) and so couldn’t really find the time.
Emanuel Macron of France also had some local matters to handle and so stayed home too.
Also, various COP “veterans” from the European Commission did not attend.
So what happened that you should know about?
Well, I certainly won’t be telling you about the riveting speeches that were made. Though there were well written and presented, unfortunately they do not have a huge impact, as well as sometimes making inaccurate scary statements. The disproved “60 harvests left” comes to mind.
Article 6 gets a consensus agreement:
One of the best things to come from COP29 from my perspective. This is a major breakthrough on carbon credit rules, it’s a very promising advancement toward a well functioning global carbon market. Azerbaijan’s lead negotiator, Yalchin Rafiyev, shared his optimism too, stating that “critical progress” was achieved on Article 6, I can’t help but agree.
This is a longstanding section of the Paris Agreement that has challenged climate diplomats for nearly a decade. Calling it a “gamechanger” is not an overstatement. Rafiyev suggested that these newly established rules could channel much-needed resources into developing countries, potentially saving up to $250 billion annually for climate initiatives.
I would like to take a minute to explain carbon markets. I also have an article about how they function under the now former Article 6 regime here. They are designed to allow wealthier nations and companies to pay for emission reductions in poorer countries, counting these reductions toward their own climate targets.
This mechanism, in theory, streamlines global climate action by addressing the most cost-effective emissions reductions first. However, it has long been a controversial solution, with misuse through the crediting of ineffective or damaging projects, as well as double-counting reductions.
The new framework, however, was not universally welcomed. NGOs expressed frustration over the process that saw the rules pushed through, describing it as a “backdoor deal.”
The supervisory body responsible for implementing these rules adopted them unilaterally, recommending immediate approval instead of offering negotiators a set of points to debate, as had been done in past years.
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer plans to introduce a bold new climate target:
The UK are aiming for an 81% emissions cut by 2035 compared to 1990 levels. This target aligns well with recommendations from the UK’s Climate Change Committee and should hope demonstrate the UK’s leadership on climate, especially as few major countries have presented their updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) at COP29.
I suppose this is the UK’s way of taking charge, and the newly elected Prime Minister trying to make his mark as fast as he can, considering the revolving door of leaders the UK has seen over the past few years. The target is hoped to be achieved by decarbonising the power sector, expanding offshore wind, and investing in carbon capture, storage, and nuclear energy.
Brazil ceremoniously delivered their NDC 3.0
They also expressed their wish to host COP30. Simon Stiell announced that Brazil had handed over their proposal for Brazil’s “NDC 3.0,” which I believe was officially submitted in November 2023. It’s Brazil’s hope that this commitment solidifies their place as a State committed to climate action.
This version emphasises a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2030, relative to 2005 levels, setting Brazil on a pathway toward net-zero emissions by 2050. It also underlines Brazil’s focus on reducing deforestation, increasing renewable energy use, and promoting sustainable agriculture practices.
The NDC aligns with Stiell’s call for more stringent climate goals from States. It also contributes to Brazil’s longstanding goal of achieving climate neutrality by 2050, a significant benchmark for Latin America’s largest economy.
This step forward shows Brazil’s commitment, and hopefully in combination with the UK’s updated NDC, sets the standard that all members should follow when announcing their NDC. I do think also the hope from Brazil is that this may position them as a nation that’s a key player in international climate governance.
The UAE also submitted their NDC 3.0 following suit of the UK and Brazil…
The UAE’s updated NDC 3.0 reflects an ambitious effort to position itself as a global leader in climate action, committing to a reduction of GHG emissions of 47% from 2019 levels by 2035 while aiming to be net-zero by 2050.
It signifies also significant investments in renewable energy and carbon capture technologies to mitigate emissions from hard-to-abate sectors, while using its COP28 presidency to promote international cooperation and climate finance for developing nations.
However, this commitment comes with a glaring omission: the absence of any plans to phase out fossil fuels. As a nation heavily reliant on oil and gas revenues, this comes as no surprise.
The UAE’s approach risks being perceived as a balancing act rather than a transformative shift. Much like Brazil’s NDC, which avoided addressing deforestation aggressively, the UAE’s strategy skirts the need to directly tackle fossil fuel dependency—arguably the core challenge in achieving true climate leadership.
The Climate Finance Agreement (already heavily scrutinised)
A finance deal to developing countries worth triple the previous amount at $300 billion came to fruition at the end of this years COP. But it sparked controversy the very moment it was announced. Many developing nations and climate advocates expressed their dismay at this grand reveal.
Critics argue that the amount falls far short, as the expectation was for $1.3 trillion in order to effectively combat climate change and assist the vulnerable countries. The deal, while significant in scale compared to previous the commitment, has been described as inadequate (rightfully so) in addressing the immediate and long-term challenges faced by nations most impacted by climate change.
Developing countries, which are often on the frontlines of climate disasters, voiced strong concerns. India described the process as “stage-managed,” while Panama accused wealthier nations of pushing decisions to the exhaustion point, for less-resourced delegations.
CARE International also noted the failure to clearly earmark funds for critical needs, namely adaptation and disaster recovery, with adaptation costs in developing countries already estimated to reach $215 billion annually this decade.
The deal has also been criticised for not adequately advancing the operationalisation of the loss and damage fund established in 2023. While initial pledges to this fund totalled $700 million, progress at COP29 was deemed insufficient, leaving many vulnerable communities without the support they urgently need.
Climate advocates, including Mohamed Adow of Power Shift Africa, called the agreement a “betrayal,” and so it’s safe to say there exists a large disparity between rhetoric and action by wealthier nations.
Although, some positive notes were sounded, such as the deal’s potential to boost renewable energy growth. Our leading man Simon Stiell said it’s as an “insurance policy for humanity.” However, many argue that such optimistic framing cannot mask the underlying financial and moral gaps left unaddressed.
Honourable Mentions
- UNHCR released a new report:
To summarise, it states that the climate crisis is a fundamentally human one, shaping lives differently based on factors like location and socio-economic status. In the past decade, the number of forcibly displaced people has doubled to over 120 million globally, driven primarily by conflict and exacerbated by climate hazards.
Those who are forcibly displaced—whether briefly or for extended periods -often face extreme hardships, especially as climate impacts worsen. They lack essential resources and struggle to recover from disasters such as floods, droughts, and extreme heat.
Going on to say that these hardships don’t exist in isolation but are compounded by factors like conflict, increasing the vulnerability of already marginalised populations.
Around 90 million displaced people currently reside in regions with high climate-related risk e.g. Sudan, Syria, Haiti, Ethiopia, and Yemen. Over the last decade, weather disasters alone have led to 220 million internal displacements, with many occurring in fragile, conflict-ridden areas.
Climate risks for displaced individuals and host communities are expected to increase sharply. By 2040, the number of countries facing extreme climate hazards may jump to 65, the majority of which are hosts to displaced populations. Refugee camps are likely to experience a steep rise in dangerous heat days, straining resources.
- Countries are encouraged to be extremely progressive with their new upcoming NDC renewals (3.0)
A recent report (October 24) suggests that we are still way off-track to avert the crippling effects of climate change. Nothing new. The next round must deliver a dramatic step up in ambition. NDCs 3.0 will play a crucial role in determining if the world will achieve the Paris Agreement’s objective of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5C.
- The Independent High-Level Expert Group on Climate Finance (IHLEG) release their third-report
The report outlines key strategies to address the critical shortfall in climate finance for developing countries. There’s a need for substantial financial flows to achieve climate goals, including mobilising $1 trillion annually for developing nations by 2030. Calling for improved access to funding, particularly through public-private partnerships, enhanced international cooperation, and better governance frameworks to ensure effective delivery and use of climate funds.
It also stressed the importance of reforming the global financial architecture, like multilateral development banks (MDBs), to align their operations with climate objectives and amplify their capacity to mobilise private investment.
It also advocates for robust collaboration between governments, financial institutions, and international organisations, stressing an urgency to scale up efforts to meet both the financing and implementation needs for climate adaptation and mitigation.
You can access the executive summary directly: https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Raising-ambition-and-accelerating-delivery-of-climate-finance_Executive-summary.pdf or the full report here: https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Raising-ambition-and-accelerating-delivery-of-climate-finance_Third-IHLEG-report.pdf
I think it will be interesting too to look at what didn’t happen, that perhaps should have, at this years COP. Available here.