COP29: Can Progress Be Made Without Curbing Fossil Fuel Influence

ROMA – The denunciation of vulnerable countries for the poor results of COP 29 mixes with that of NGOs, both calling for greater transparency. “Kick out the big polluters: 1773 fossil lobbyists present in Azerbaijan”. “We came in good faith, with the safety of our communities and the well-being of the world at heart – writes Tina Stege, climate correspondent for the Marshal Islands – and yet we have seen the worst of political opportunism here at this COP, this is how the game is played with the lives of the world’s most vulnerable people. The interests of the fossil fuel industries have been instrumental in blocking progress and undermining the multilateral goals we have worked towards. This cannot be allowed to happen.”

A low-cost deal. The process that led to the drafting of the final COP 29 documents on the climate in Baku, Azerbaijan, ended late at night on November 23rd. Results are the result of a downward agreement on the main topic, that is, establishing a new quantitative climate finance objective (NCQG – New collective quantified goal) post 2025. A topic that during the closing plenary session warmed the soul and lit up the tone of the countries in developing world “betrayed by the behavior of the richest nations”.

To give some examples. The representative of the Nigerian delegation, Nkiruka Maduekwe, said that the new financial target is “an insult to what the UN Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) says” and that “300 billion dollars a year by 2035 is a joke ”; Chandni Raina, the Indian representative, first contested the way in which the Azerbaijani presidency conducted the negotiations, “we are extremely disappointed by this incident, you have forced an agreement on us”, and then declared that “India opposes the adoption of this document”; Cuba’s negotiator, Pedro Luis Pedroso, spoke of an NCQG that “demonstrates the willingness of developed countries to renounce their responsibilities towards developing nations, in continuity with the dynamics of environmental colonialism”.

Cop 29: but what was ultimately decided? As mentioned, the wait was for the new financial objective called to replace the 100 billion dollars per year established in Copenhagen in 2009, relaunched by the Paris Agreement in 2015 expiring next year. In Baku it was decided, for post-2025, to extend this figure to 300 billion dollars a year to be reached by 2035. 300 billion, however, is far from the 1300 billion requested, the minimum threshold identified by the most vulnerable part of the Planet to protected from global warming with adaptation activities, and to develop with renewable sources.

Without money, poor countries will not be able to make the energy transition. The consistency of the NCQG therefore risks influencing the mitigation path: without money, developing countries will not be able to make the energy transition effective, much less will they be able to present ambitious NDCs (commitments to reduce climate-changing emissions) for the COP 30 (already renamed the mitigation COP, given that all countries must submit new NDCs by 2025).

Yet another rift. It is here, therefore, that yet another rift between the North and South of the world has occurred, also because the 1300 billion already represent a compromise, a lower estimate compared to the real needs, as highlighted by the same COP document on the NCQG: “Mitigation needs in developing countries are estimated at between $5.1 and $6.8 trillion by 2030. […]those for adaptation between 215 and 387 billion dollars per year until 2030”.

No resources for the climate, but 2,300 billion for weapons. Furthermore, much of the $300 billion will not be the requested grants, the figure can in fact be achieved through a wide range of possibilities (public and private finance, bilateral or multilateral agreements, loans at subsidized or market rates, etc.) ; the cost of inflation over time is not taken into account, which makes the figure even smaller; Vulnerable countries are aware that the money could be mobilized if desired. An example of this is the 2,300 billion dollars in 2023, found in a short time, for military spending and, without straying too far from the topic, the 7 trillion dollars in 2022, between direct and indirect subsidies, intended for gas companies, oil and coal.

Fossil subsidies have more than doubled. Among other things, as confirmed by the International Monetary Fund, direct subsidies from rich countries aimed at the fossil fuel sector have more than doubled in the last two years. A mass of money that contributed to making 2023 the record year for gas and oil production in the world and which incentivizes 95% of fossil fuel companies (out of over 1,700 analyzed) to plan further expansion of the sector in the coming years, as revealed by the report by the Urgewald organization released on the occasion of the Baku summit.

Those resources that are only a hope. In truth, the COP 29 document mentions the target of 1300 billion, but not in a binding way and in the form of a hope to be achieved by 2035, perhaps thanks to the contributory help of other developing countries (they are still defined as such by Framework Convention on Climate) such as China and the oil-rich Gulf countries. Finally, to clarify the financial objective and to understand if and how to raise the bar on the topic, a road map has been launched that leads to Brazil, to Belem, home of next year’s COP 30.

The prevalence of home interests. The mitigation program also failed at COP 29, led by the lack of ambition of the G20 countries and by a president, Mukhatar Babayev, minister of natural resources of Azerbaijan with a past in the state fossil industry “Socar”, too focused on domestic interests (more than 90% of Azerbajan’s exports are made up of oil and gas, of which 57% of oil and 20% of gas are directed to Italy). This explains the lack of a clear reference in the COP 29 documents to the 1.5°C objective, to the development of renewables, to the move away from fossil fuels, and to the peak of emissions to be reached by 2025, all objectives which instead were been included in the decisions on Global stocktake of COP 28 last year.

The only positive note. It is the approval of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. After nine years, the first global carbon market was made operational, with the aim of regulating the mechanism of credits issued and exchanged. A methodology, entrusted to the supervision of the UN responsible for creating a “single register”, where various projects will converge, such as reforestation ones and those linked to the Sustainable Development Goals. The framework of the agreement also allows countries to trade carbon credits with each other and with companies. However, much remains to be done on the topic in terms of transparency, effectiveness of the funded projects and respect for human rights.

No consensus reached. Regarding the just transition, COP29 did not reach any consensus. For adaptation, however, 100 indicators have been defined for the reporting activity which will serve to establish how, which and how many objectives are achieved on the topic. There is no big news on the Loss and damage fund either, which became operational last year.

The response of civil society. The results in Baku have dissatisfied civil society, leading non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to question themselves. “The outcome of COP 29 risks causing climate action to regress at the very moment it needs to be accelerated. After two weeks of tense and polarized negotiations, a climate finance deal has been agreed that comes nowhere close to meeting the needs of developing countries.

Criticism from WWF and Greenpeace. Furthermore, this COP has failed to send a strong signal on the need to rapidly reduce emissions and phase out fossil fuels,” reads a press release from Wwf, while Jasper Inventor, head of the Greenpeace delegation at COP 29, spoke of people who were “fed up and disillusioned. But we will persist and resist because this is a fight for our future! We won’t give up. As we look to COP 30 in Belem, we must hold on to hope, a hope firmly anchored in the people who are calling for climate ambition.”

The massive presence of fossil lobbies. During the two weeks in Baku, the attention of civil society was focused on the massive presence of the fossil lobby, representing companies such as Chevron, Exxonmobil, BP, Shell, Eni and Totalenergies. With 1773 lobbyists present, the second highest participation was recorded after COP 28 (when there were 2456 lobbyists).

The complaint from 450 NGOs. He reported it Kick big polluters out a union of 450 NGOs, underlining that these lobbyists outnumber both the delegates of the 10 most vulnerable nations to the climate (1033), and the delegates of almost all the countries present, with the only exceptions represented by the host country (Azerbaijan ), from Brazil which will host the next Cop, and from Turkey.

Polluters should be barred from climate policies. To make the negotiation process more transparent and encourage decisions in line with the provisions of the Paris Agreement, the NGOs essentially ask: that large polluters not be granted access to climate policies; that is not permitted to be done greenwashing during summits, refusing any kind of partnership; to significantly include civil society in the COP process; to review the current capitalist system through the creation of a new economic system capable of putting the rights of indigenous peoples, local communities and the protection of those seeking justice at the center. In light of the results of COP 29, these are more than legitimate requests.

* Ivan Manzo – ASviS