COP29 in Azerbaijan
Why the climate compromise is a “joke” for many
Rarely has a world climate conference proceeded like this. In the end, the COP participants delivered a result, but less money than hoped. Many countries feel ignored.
For two weeks, over 190 countries discussed how they wanted to further combat climate change. Shortly before the official end, the delegates had nothing to show except a series of highly controversial proposals. Some observers no longer believed that the negotiators would even reach an agreement. A failure of the climate summit was certainly considered a realistic scenario.
But more than 30 hours after the official end of the international meeting, the states decided on a new financing target. 300 billion dollars are to be made available in the ten years from 2026 to the fight against climate change.
What took a long time finally turned out well, right?
Are you kidding me? Are you serious when you say that. Developing countries had demanded at least $500 billion. And there is also a financing gap for the 300 billion. Very few people were satisfied with the outcome of the extended climate conference. Many had probably only agreed grudgingly so as not to let the summit end without compromise.
Many developing countries are disappointed by the COP decision
Emotions were already simmering at the summit site in Baku in the final days of the negotiations. After the decision, they boiled over: the developing countries particularly affected by climate change reacted angrily. The representative of Nigeria described the new funding target as a “joke” and an “insult.”
India’s representative also protested: “We cannot accept this.” Others accused the industrialized countries of shirking their historical responsibility. A number of states felt ignored and complained that requests to speak had been ignored.
Foreign Minister Annalena Bearbock tried to reassure the plenary session: “We know that our decisions today alone are not enough to meet all needs.” It is clear to the EU: “Nobody has forgotten their historical responsibility.”
The money is still not enough
Federal Development Minister Svenja Schulze also admitted that the results in Baku were “no reason to celebrate.” She called the fact that countries like China and Saudi Arabia will now also help finance the fight against climate change “an important signal.”
China is, along with the USA, the world’s largest carbon emitter. Even before the conference, European countries had demanded that Beijing contribute financially to climate damage. The People’s Republic refused. Now the country should participate voluntarily.
Development banks should also be engaged and private financial sources should be tapped. Where exactly the money for climate financing will come from and how the 1.3 trillion gap will be closed by 2035 is still unclear.
Activists and environmental organizations were also disappointed with the results. “The new financial target does neither justice to the past nor the future,” criticized WWF climate chief Viviane Raddatz. It would be disproportionate to the enormous need to reduce emissions, adapt to climate change and pay for previous damages.
No commitment to the end of the fossil era
But many participants were not only dissatisfied with the financing goal. The conference ended without the states once again committing to phasing out fossil fuels. Canada, Chile and Switzerland, among others, blocked this formulation. And until the end, the delegates were unable to agree on energy targets that should be incorporated into the new national climate protection plans.
There was therefore also criticism of countries like Saudi Arabia. “It is scandalous that the oil and gas lobby, with the help of some oil states in cooperation with the gas sponsor country, has managed to block all the necessary accelerations to phase out coal, oil and gas,” explained Martin Kaiser from Greenpeace.
During the negotiations, Foreign Minister Baerbock had also accused the oil and gas states of a “power game” under the protection of the Azerbaijani presidency.
Also positive voices about the climate summit
Beyond all criticism, there were also positive voices. “This world climate conference does not deliver what was actually necessary – but it is in the upper range of what is possible given the current political climate,” said Christoph Bals, Political Director of Germanwatch.
The European Climate Commissioner defended the decision as ambitious but realistic. UN Secretary-General António Guterres also praised the decision, but added that the money had to flow quickly. Outgoing US President Joe Biden spoke of a “historic” achievement and added that the green “revolution” was irreversible.
New, smaller formats for a climate summit are required
Nevertheless, one question remains after this climate summit: Can negotiations continue to take place in the future as before? Influential climate researchers consider the international meeting to be outdated. “We have 28 conferences behind us and emissions have exploded. The COP is a spectacle that has so far done nothing for the climate,” .
The director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Ottmar Edenhofer, also does not see COP29 as a success, “but at best as an avoidance of a diplomatic disaster.” It is abundantly clear that the global fight against the climate crisis requires smaller negotiation formats. “In order for things to move forward, all of the almost 200 signatories to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change do not necessarily have to sit at the same table.”
His colleague from PIK, Johan Rockström, was also pessimistic that the set financial target would even be met. “To tackle the climate crisis, we must transition the entire global economy away from fossil fuel-based growth,” he said.
Source: Stern
I have been working in the news industry for over 6 years, first as a reporter and now as an editor. I have covered politics extensively, and my work has appeared in major newspapers and online news outlets around the world. In addition to my writing, I also contribute regularly to 24 Hours World.
