COP29: Progress and paralysis in global climate talks

Picture this: you’re stranded in the middle of the ocean, huddled in a lifeboat that’s rapidly taking on water. The passengers are busy arguing over who should plug the holes rather than fixing the leaks.

That’s how many COPs turn out.

With 2024 already confirmed as the hottest year on record, COP29 set out to patch the boat and chart a course toward safety.

The UN Environment Programme’s Emissions Gap Report 2024 – which was published a month ago – set the stage for the conference, revealing that global greenhouse gas emissions have reached a staggering 57.1 gigatons, with the world barreling toward a catastrophic 3.1°C of warming by the end of the century.

UNEP’s Executive Director, Inger Andersen, issued a no-nonsense plea: “If nations don’t act now, the Paris Agreement target of holding global warming to 1.5°C will be dead within a few years and 2°C will take its place in the intensive care unit”.

With the stakes this high, COP29 needed to deliver concrete steps to bridge the gap between pledges and action.

Here’s how it unfolded.

Climate finance: Too little, too loan-focused

At COP15 in 2009, developed countries pledged $100 billion per year by 2020 to help developing countries combat climate change.

Dubbed the “Finance COP,” COP29 sought to replace the $100 billion pledge with a new and more ambitious target – the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG).

But instead of unity, the talks highlighted just how divided the global community remains. Hostile exchanges dominated discussions about the source of funds, fairness in burden-sharing, and the adequacy of the proposed amounts.

In the early hours of Sunday – well into overtime and amid heated debates and limited opportunity for dissent – the gavel came down on a deal:

$300 billion annually by 2035, with a broader goal of mobilizing $1.3 trillion annually through various public and private sources.

While the NCQG may appear to be a significant leap from the previous $100 billion pledge, it quickly drew criticism. Analysts estimate that developing nations alone need trillions annually to meet adaptation and mitigation goals, making $300 billion feel like a drop in the bucket.

Adding to the concerns, the $300 billion target is not adjusted for inflation. Assuming a 3% annual inflation rate, the buying power of $100 billion in 2020 will equate to $155 billion by 2035. This means $300 billion in 2035 might barely double the climate finance developing nations receive today.

The structure of the deal also raised eyebrows: it heavily relies on loans rather than grants, private sector contributions that are far from guaranteed, and even the recycling of previously allocated funds. This way of counting to 300 had some describing it as "creative accounting."

“It's a paltry sum," India's delegate Chandni Raina said after the finalization of the deal, "This document is little more than an optical illusion. This, in our opinion, will not address the enormity of the challenge we all face.”

For many developing nations, the NCQG exacerbated a long-standing sense of climate debt – the idea that wealthier nations, having historically contributed the most to climate change, owe poorer nations financial support.

It's a paltry sum. This document is little more than an optical illusion. This, in our opinion, will not address the enormity of the challenge we all face.

But instead of relief, for countries already grappling with debt, this arrangement was more like adding weight to a sinking ship.

While this disconnect between ambition and reality left many delegations frustrated, UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell struck a more diplomatic tone: “This new finance goal is an insurance policy for humanity, amid worsening climate impacts hitting every country. But like any insurance policy it only works if premiums are paid in full, and on time. Promises must be kept, to protect billions of lives.”

Reassessing ‘developing’ nation status

“If China can go to the moon, why isn’t it paying more toward climate action?”, asked EU’s climate commissioner Wopke Hoekstra earlier this fall.

The debate over reclassifying nations like China and India was among the most contentious at COP29. Under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), these countries retain “developing” nation status, granting them access to financial and technical support. However, their significant economic growth and status as major greenhouse gas emitters (China is responsible for nearly a third of annual GHG emissions) prompted smaller, less developed nations to call for an update, arguing that this classification is outdated and unfair.

Smaller nations argued that economic powerhouses like China and India should no longer access funds intended for poorer, more vulnerable countries. As Balarabe Abbas Lawal, Nigeria’s environment minister, said: “China and India cannot be classified in the same category as Nigeria and other African countries. I think they are developing but they are in a faster phase than states like Nigeria”. Proponents of reclassification pointed to the inconsistency of treating nations with high per-capita GDP and emissions as struggling economies.

If China can go to the moon, why isn’t it paying more toward climate action?

In response, China countered that while its per-capita emissions remain far below those of developed nations, it would voluntarily donate to the global climate finance goal as a gesture of goodwill, but they would not become an official donor. And an Indian delegate remarked: “Our per-capita income is $2,800 a year; in the US, it’s $35,000. No one should be saying India should be paying climate finance – we should be receiving. India will also defend the principle of responsibility based on historic emissions”, emphasizing the longstanding argument that nations with the largest historical contributions to climate change bear the greatest obligation to address its impacts.

While the discussions reached no resolution, they exposed the urgent need to revise frameworks created in the 1990s that no longer reflect today’s global realities. As global economic and emissions landscapes evolve, so too must the frameworks guiding international climate action.

Fossil fuels and the transition debate

The fossil fuel debate at COP29 was another stark reminder of the persistent divides that haunt international climate negotiations. Countries were not even pushing for ambitious new commitments but simply trying to reaffirm the language agreed upon at COP28 about the phasedown of unabated coal and a transition away from fossil fuels. Even that modest aim met fierce resistance – and ultimately failed.

“There is definitely a challenge in getting greater ambition when you are negotiating with the Saudis,” John Podesta, the top US climate negotiator, told reporters.

Saudi Arabia, a key oil producer, spearheaded efforts to block any explicit mention of fossil fuels in the final text. This resistance frustrated developed nations and climate-vulnerable states, which had hoped to consolidate last year’s progress. The final deal avoided any direct reference to fossil fuels, representing a significant backslide from the already diluted language of COP28.

There is definitely a challenge in getting greater ambition when you are negotiating with the Saudis.

For small island nations and other vulnerable communities, this was a bitter pill to swallow.

The German foreign minister, Annalena Baerbock, who spoke before the deal was made, said: “We are in the midst of a geopolitical power play by a few fossil fuel states. […] We will not allow the most vulnerable, especially the small island states, to be ripped off by the few rich fossil fuel emitters who have the backing, unfortunately, at this moment of the president [of COP29]”.

The outcome of COP29 underscores the challenges of aligning diverse national interests within a global framework. If COP30 in Brazil hopes to regain credibility, it will need to revisit and strengthen commitments on fossil fuels. Anything less risks turning the annual conferences into exercises in backtracking rather than progress.

Carbon markets: Rules finally in place

One of COP29’s more tangible successes was the finalization of rules for global carbon trading under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement.

Marking a major milestone, this long-awaited framework aims to enable nations to trade carbon credits to offset emissions, potentially directing billions of dollars into renewable energy and conservation projects in developing countries.

Carbon markets operate in two forms: compliance markets, which are regulated and tied to legally mandated targets, and voluntary markets, where credits are purchased to offset emissions outside regulatory obligations. While both hold potential, concerns about the quality and integrity of carbon credits remain pressing.

History offers a cautionary tale. The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) under the Kyoto Protocol faced criticism for issuing credits not backed by real emissions reductions, undermining trust and effectiveness. COP29 sought to address these past failures, but critics argue unresolved issues persist.

“The new rules are a start, but the risk of abuse still remains alive and well,” said Injy Johnstone, a research fellow at the University of Oxford. “We have to learn the lessons of past mistakes and watch for new ones this system could create, otherwise we risk the Paris Agreement becoming a market failure”.

The new rules are a start, but the risk of abuse still remains alive and well. We have to learn the lessons of past mistakes and watch for new ones this system could create, otherwise we risk the Paris Agreement becoming a market failure.

As implementation begins in 2025, the success of carbon markets will hinge on strong oversight and transparency. Without these safeguards, the system risks repeating the pitfalls of the past. While COP29’s progress on Article 6 is a step forward, whether it becomes a transformative tool or another missed opportunity remains to be seen.

Governance challenges and host country criticism

Azerbaijan’s presidency of COP29 came under heavy fire for perceived bias toward fossil fuel-producing states and procedural inefficiencies.

Tensions escalated when reports revealed Saudi Arabia had been granted editing access to a draft text – a controversial move, especially given the kingdom’s resistance to phasing down fossil fuels. This raised serious questions about neutrality and the fairness of the negotiation process.

Saudi Arabia’s influence in blocking key discussions on fossil fuel commitments further frustrated delegations, especially those representing climate-vulnerable nations. These controversies reignited debates about the criteria for hosting COP conferences, with many calling for stricter rules to ensure impartiality and fair representation.

The path forward: a call for unity and action

COP29 was a mixed bag.

On one hand, the long-awaited rules for global carbon markets marked a tangible success, potentially unlocking billions in climate finance for developing nations.

On the other hand, key issues like climate finance and fossil fuels revealed deep divisions. The failure to reaffirm last year’s commitments on fossil fuels, coupled with ongoing disputes over responsibility and governance, left many questioning whether the global community is capable of the unity needed to combat the climate crisis.

As the baton passes to Brazil for COP30, there is a clear need to address unresolved issues and rebuild trust in the process.

With the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C goal slipping further out of reach, the global community must shift from words to action. Incremental progress is not enough. It’s time for bold, decisive leadership to tackle the climate crisis head-on.

The question is no longer whether we can afford to act, but whether we can afford not to. It has already been concluded that it is now cheaper to save the world than to destroy it.

For now, COP29 has provided a lifeline – but it’s up to us all to ensure it doesn’t unravel.

Reactions from Baku

Juan Carlos Monterrey-Gomez, Panama’s special representative for climate change: “We needed to leave Baku with an agreement to keep the multilateral system alive. We kept the system alive. But I think 1.5 is dead.”

John Podesta, the top US climate negotiator: “There is definitely a challenge in getting greater ambition when you are negotiating with the Saudis. At a time when the world is facing such catastrophic effects from climate change an inch at a time is not enough.”

Azerbaijan's President Ilham Aliyev on oil and gas: They are "a gift of God."

Chandni Raina, India's delegate: "It's a paltry sum. This document is little more than an optical illusion. This, in our opinion, will not address the enormity of the challenge we all face. The goal is too little, too distant."

Laurence Tubiana, chief executive office of European Climate Foundation, an architect of the landmark Paris Agreement: “COP29 took place in tough circumstances but multilateralism is alive and more necessary than ever.”

Ralph Regenvanu, envoy for small island nation Vanuatu: "The dollar amounts pledged and the emissions reductions promised are not enough. They were never going to be enough. And even then, based on our experience with such pledges in the past, we know they will not be fulfilled."

Tasneem Essop, executive director of The Climate Action Network (CAN): “This has been the most horrendous climate negotiations in years due to the bad faith of developed countries. This was meant to be the finance COP, but the Global North turned up with a plan to betray the Global South."

Teresa Anderson, global lead on climate justice at ActionAid International, said that the agreement was "not worth the paper it's written on," and pointed out that "Superficially the numbers may look bigger than the previous $100 billion climate finance goal, but scratch the surface, and this is packed full of loans. In order to artificially bulk out the numbers with existing funding streams, it is trying to count everything, everywhere all at once, while also shifting the burden onto developing countries."

Mohamed Adow, director of Kenya-based think tank Power Shift Africa: “This [summit] has been a disaster for the developing world. It’s a betrayal of both people and planet, by wealthy countries who claim to take climate change seriously. Rich countries have promised to ‘mobilise’ some funds in the future, rather than provide them now. The cheque is in the mail. But lives and livelihoods in vulnerable countries are being lost now.”

Germany’s foreign minister, Annalena Baerbock: “We will not allow the most vulnerable, especially the small island states, to be ripped off by the few rich fossil-fuel emitters who have the backing, unfortunately, at this moment of the president [of the Cop].”

Nigerian delegate: “That the developed countries are saying that they are taking the lead with $300bn by 2035 is a joke. We do not accept this.”

Avinash Persaud, an expert on climate finance at the Inter-American Development Bank, who has served as an adviser to Barbados prime minister, Mia Mottley: “It was hard fought over, but at $300bn per year led by developed to developing countries, we have arrived at the boundary between what is politically achievable today in developed countries and what would make a difference in developing countries.

Simon Stiell, Executive Secretary of UN Climate Change: “No country got everything they wanted, and we leave Baku with a mountain of work to do. The many other issues we need to progress may not be headlines but they are lifelines for billions of people. So this is no time for victory laps, we need to set our sights and redouble our efforts on the road to Belem.”

A small island nations representative: “After this COP29 ends, we cannot just sail off into the sunset. We are literally sinking,” and the conference outcome highlighted “what a very different boat our vulnerable countries are in, compared to the developed countries”. 

Injy Johnstone, research fellow at the University of Oxford: “The new [carbon market] rules are a start, but the risk of abuse still remains alive and well. We have to learn the lessons of past mistakes and watch for new ones this system could create, otherwise we risk the Paris Agreement becoming a market failure”.

Friederike Otto, a climate scientist at Imperial College London: “It’s been another shady, oil-stained COP. Public interest in this COP has been low and cynicism feels like it has reached an all time high."

Catherine Abreu, director of the International Climate Politics Hub and a Cop veteran: “All parties need to see presidency texts during this process as the negotiations proceed and this is generally done by circulating non-editable PDF documents to all parties simultaneously. Giving one party editing access to these documents, and a party known for its objective of rolling back the historic global agreement made last year to transition away from fossil fuels to renewable energy and energy efficiency, suggests a worrying lack of independence and objectivity, and clearly contravenes both the spirit and the rules of this process. This kind of behaviour from a presidency risks placing this entire Cop in jeopardy.”