COP29: Chasing the chimera?

The climate talks at COP29 in Baku, concluded this month, left several developing countries disappointed as developed nations backtracked on the earlier agreement of USD 1.3 trillion annually for vulnerable countries, agreeing instead to just USD 300 billion per year. However, the resolution frames this as tripling the previous year’s agreement of USD 100 billion in Dubai. The agreement, now referred to as the New Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance (NCQG), aims to secure efforts to scale up finance to developing countries from public and private sources, to the amount of USD 1.3 trillion per year by 2035 in the form of grants and low-interest loans from developed nations and international mega-banks, like the World Bank.

When EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen hailed the deal as marking “a new era for climate cooperation and finance” US President Joe Biden termed it a “historic outcome”. However, the developing countries sulked over the perfunctory attitude of the developed countries, so much so that they staged a walkout during the talks. Leading the Global South, India strongly protested, calling the deal an ‘optical illusion’, while Nigeria called the figure of USD 300 billion a ‘joke’. Mohamed Adow, the Kenyan director of Power Shift Africa, a think tank, said that the rich world staged a great escape in Baku by shirking their climate finance obligations. Sierra Leone’s Environment Minister, Jiwoh Abdulai, said it shows a “lack of goodwill” from rich countries to stand by the world’s poorest as they confront rising seas and harsher droughts. At the same time, Nigeria’s envoy Nkiruka Maduekwe called it “an insult”. The disheartenment is veritable.

The takeaways from the COP29 are anything but a clear and practical commitment to combat the climate change adhering to Paris agreement on 1.5 degrees Celsius goal. For instance, the deal of USD 300 billion stipulates using the money for two main buckets: preparing for the impacts of climate change (Adaptation) and ‘transitioning away from fossil fuels’. ‘Adaptation’ which is adjustments in ecological, social and economic system in response to climate change is difficult for vulnerable countries in the absence of liberal flow of funds. Similarly, transitioning away from fossil fuels is no less an insurmountable task as the technology for alternative resources is too expensive to afford. The COP29 rolled out a new set of rules for carbon trading, establishing a global market which facilitates trade, bilaterally as well as globally, with a view to channel vital investment in to poor countries to create more carbon credits for them through activities like reforestation, protecting carbon sinks, and transitioning to clean energy. By implication, it means that the developed countries may continue with their emissions by luring the developing countries with cash for plantations. Carbon trading cannot reduce emissions; it may encourage more on the contrary.

According to Simon Stiel, the UN Climate Change Executive Secretary, the new finance goal is an insurance policy for humanity, for it will help all countries to get their share in the huge benefits of bold climate action: more jobs, stronger growth, cheaper and cleaner energy for all and real protection for those on the frontlines, especially the most vulnerable. It is the same rhetoric played over and again in all summits. Whatever progress was achieved with regard to the resolutions at COP28 in Dubai, like rapidly ramping up renewables, transitioning away from fossil fuels, and transforming societies, making them more resilient, and, most importunately, the 100 billion assistance promised, was not discussed. Of course, Simon Stiel admits that governments still need to pick up the pace while he also mentions that strong signals on climate action were seen from two G20 countries–the UK and Brazil. Signals are no consolation since ‘coal phase out’ is yet to kick off in the UK which depends up to 80 per cent exclusively on coal and, ironically, Brazil, where the COP30 is to take place next year, plans to expand domestic production of fossil fuels.

Climate talks have always been eclipsed by half-heartedness and selective concerns. Evidently, issues related to responsibility for emissions and corresponding retributive efforts for mitigation are never adequately addressed. Developed countries, which emitted CO2 and GHG in alarming quantities over the last two centuries, continue to do so. Yet, their financial contribution to global climate efforts remains frugal. The first international climate treaty (UNFCCC, 1992) rightly emphasized historical responsibilities and proportionate actions; even the Kyoto Protocol (1997) classified nations into developed (Annex-I) and developing (Annex-II) categories for the same reason. However, the Paris Agreement (2015) dispensed with such classifications and allowed for the inclusion of emission reductions in one country as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) by another through carbon trading and accounting. In short, wealthy nations do not necessarily have to reduce emissions directly, provided they buy carbon credits or invest in Joint Implementation (JI) projects.

Although the Paris Agreement binds nations to limit global temperature rise to "well below 2 degrees Celsius" and strive for 1.5 degrees Celsius, it remains unclear who must take specific actions and by when. The potential return of Trump as President of the US, who dismissed climate change as “a big hoax” and pledged to withdraw the US from global climate efforts, could further undermine climate initiatives. If current emission levels remain unchecked, global temperatures could rise by at least 2.4 degrees Celsius by 2030. Achieving the 1.5 degrees Celsius target requires limiting emissions to less than 300 tonnes, necessitating an exponential reduction of 6-7 per cent annually which, in other words, is to reduce emissions by half in a decade. This calls for huge financial outflow from developed countries to the developing ones. But against a projected need of USD 340 billion climate finance for 2030, the developed countries have contributed only USD 29 billion until now. Rich nations must adequately assist developing countries in combating climate change, which is proving to be a global equaliser. Unprecedented hot summers, massive wildfires, tornadoes, and flash floods occurring more frequently in developed countries should serve as eyeopeners. Scientists warn that, in five billion years, Earth will become uninhabitable as the Sun’s expansion boils the oceans and destroys all life. If the world powers do not perform their obligations, perhaps a full-blown climate crisis in the next few decades may decimate life on the planet even much before such cataclysmic apocalypse of distant future.

Bending the emission curve is an immediate concern which calls for planned, self-policed actions by all nations. While NDCs focus on reducing emissions, accelerating fossil fuel phase-outs, and achieving energy transition goals through affordable and clean renewables, these efforts will be far more effective if backed by law. Nations must incorporate global climate mandates into their constitutions, guaranteeing them as perpetual political obligations. Such constitutional provisions would pave the way for citizen vigilantism to act as a watchdog against uncontrolled anthropogenic activity. The next COP Summit at Belém should consider making this an agenda item.

The writer is a former Addl. Chief Secretary of Chhattisgarh. Views expressed are personal