Table of Contents
- 1 Barely there
- 2 Mandates and process mismanaged
- 3 The path from here
- 4 **To what extent did geopolitical tensions and the withdrawal of certain delegations at COP29 hinder progress on key issues like emission reduction targets and financial commitments? Were there alternative collaborative frameworks or models that could have facilitated more ambitious outcomes despite these challenges?**
COP29 faced a seemingly insurmountable geopolitical headwind. Donald Trump just won the US election with the most likely prospect of pulling the US out of the Paris Agreement. Argentina withdrew their delegation in the middle of the conference. A diplomatic mess led France to ground their ministers for the second week political fight.
Yet nearly 200 countries did manage to reach an agreement in Baku. The discontent with the process of adopting the decision was stark, but Ministers showed they still see multilateralism as the only way to solve existential global crisis. Those who give up a seat at the table are giving up the power to shape their own future.
Barely there
Ministers agreed on the bare minimum in the new global climate finance goal at the heart of this year’s negotiations. A small increase in support for developing countries from $100bn per year to at least $300bn per year over the next 10 years tested every country’s nerve. A “Baku to Belem roadmap” of ways to mobilise at least $1.3 trillion could provide some confidence the scale of finance needs could be met.
But fights over who should or should not contribute to the new finance goal overshadowed the science that urges us to act now if we want to avoid the worst climate disasters. Developed countries holding back their position stifled any chance of unity amongst the countries wanting to keep small islands afloat. The blockers of accelerated fossil fuel transition stepped into the void. Mexico’s new net zero pledge and the UK’s 81% emissions reduction target for 2030 (on 1990 levels) don’t quite compare to no global progress on how to implement last year’s decisions to transition away from fossil fuels and end deforestation.
Mandates and process mismanaged
The Azerbaijan Presidency blundered the process leaving some parties excluded from consultations and allowing Saudi Arabia to directly edit texts to delete any progress on the transition away from fossil fuels. But Climate Ministers had too narrow a mandate to fundamentally change their offer here in Baku.
Global security and economic opportunity depend on all countries being able to participate in the green economic transition. International climate finance is an investment in national security. We can’t expect Climate Ministers to do the job for them. Finance Ministers and Leaders need to prioritise climate action and broaden those mandates.
The path from here
The next 12 months to COP30 – where we celebrate and reflect on 10 years of the Paris Agreement – will be the ultimate test of whether the world is serious about avoiding the worst climate impacts. Countries’ new national plans are due before COP30 and need to drastically improve on the 2.5 degrees of global warming we’re currently on track for. That means setting policies to transition away from fossil fuels and implementing the financial system transformations that can get the trillions flowing.
Finance is being unlocked beyond the confines of the UN climate conventions even if not yet at the scale and pace needed. Developing countries have been leading the charge to accelerate reforms in the finance system with the Bridgetown Initiative and expert reviews on debt solutions and solidarity levies. With private sector investment relied upon for the bulk of the $1.3 trillion mobilisation aim, it’s time for Ministers to turn their eye to reforming the financial rules that hinder them from investing in global south countries.
Where do we go from here? A new level of collaboration between Europe and China could become the new force of global climate action if they are able to overcome key tensions around trade and security. Both geopolitical blocs share mutual interest in lowering their dependency on imported fossil fuels, building global green markets and building partnerships for development.
This alliance can only truly work for everybody if Europe and China build a common front with the other G20 emerging economies, including Brazil, South Africa, Turkey, India and Indonesia, as well as with the most vulnerable countries that made their voice heard in the final hours of COP. Together, this alliance can navigate the world through a safer journey against the more disruptive forces that want to protect the status of the fossil economy.
Photo at COP29 Azerbaijan
**To what extent did geopolitical tensions and the withdrawal of certain delegations at COP29 hinder progress on key issues like emission reduction targets and financial commitments? Were there alternative collaborative frameworks or models that could have facilitated more ambitious outcomes despite these challenges?**
## World Today News Interview: Decoding COP29
**Introduction:**
Welcome to World Today News. We’re here today with two esteemed guests to unpack the outcomes and implications of the recently concluded COP29 climate summit in Baku. Despite significant geopolitical headwinds, nearly 200 countries managed to reach an agreement, but the process itself was marred by controversy and insufficient ambition.
**Our Guests:**
* **Dr. Aisha Ahmed**, Climate Policy Analyst at the Institute for Global Sustainability.
* **Mr. James Carter**, Senior Advisor for Energy and Climate at an international consultancy firm.
**Section 1: Geopolitical Challenges and Multilateralism**
**Moderator:** COP29 faced substantial geopolitical challenges from the outset, including the US elections and the withdrawal of certain delegations. Dr. Ahmed, how did this backdrop shape the negotiations in Baku, and what are the lasting implications for the future of multilateral climate action?
**Dr. Ahmed:**
[Response focusing on the impact of geopolitical tensions on the negotiating atmosphere, potential erosion of trust, and whether it signals a larger trend of fracturing multilateralism].
**Moderator:** Mr. Carter, do you agree with this analysis? And despite these challenges, nearly 200 countries still managed to reach a consensus. Does this demonstrate the enduring importance of multilateralism as a framework for addressing climate change?
**Mr. Carter:**
[Response addressing the strength and limitations of multilateralism in the context of COP29, referencing greater inclusivity versus decision-making effectiveness, and potential alternative models for global climate cooperation].
**Section 2: Finance Commitments: A Bare Minimum?**
**Moderator:** The agreement reached at COP29 included a commitment to increase financing for developing countries, but many experts argue that the scale of the commitment falls short of what is required. Dr. Ahmed, can you elaborate on the finance pledges made at COP29, and do you think they are adequate to address the urgent needs of vulnerable nations?
**Dr. Ahmed:**
[Response outlining the details of the agreed-upon financial mechanisms, emphasizing the gap between pledges and the estimated needs for climate action in developing countries, and potential equity considerations].
**Moderator:** Mr. Carter, some argue that relying solely on traditional funding pathways is insufficient and that we need to explore innovative approaches like carbon pricing or private sector investment. What are your thoughts on diversifying the sources of climate finance?
**Mr. Carter:**
[Response discussing alternative financing mechanisms, potential benefits and challenges of each, and the need for a multifaceted approach to mobilize sufficient capital].
**Section 3: The Road Ahead: Beyond Baku**
**Moderator:** COP30 is just a year away, and it will mark a decade since the Paris Agreement was signed.
Dr. Ahmed, how should countries build on the outcomes of COP29 in the lead-up to COP30 to ensure more ambitious and impactful action?
**Dr. Ahmed:**
[Response outlining key areas for progress between now and COP30, including translating pledges into concrete policies, emphasizing the role of civil society and public pressure, and addressing the need for tangible progress on emission reductions].
**Moderator:** Mr Carter, where does the world go from here? What key partnerships and collaborations will be crucial in driving progress towards the goals of the Paris Agreement?
**Mr. Carter:**
[Response emphasizing the importance of international collaboration, highlighting potential partnerships between developed and developing nations, the role of the private sector, and technology transfer in accelerating the green transition].
**Conclusion:**
Thank you both for sharing your valuable insights today. COP29 served as a stark reminder of the complex challenges and geopolitical realities surrounding climate action. However, it also demonstrated the enduring need for international cooperation and the commitment of many nations to address the climate crisis.
The next year will be critical for translating the agreements made in Baku into concrete actions. The world waits to see if the momentum generated at COP29 can be sustained and amplified as we move closer to COP30 and beyond.
