Dr Bilawal Kamran
The ongoing 29th Conference of the Parties (COP29) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Baku has seen leaders from nations severely impacted by climate change-induced disasters call for greater urgency in addressing global warming. At the same time, however, the conference has also underscored the deep divisions between nations that continue to exploit fossil fuels and those pushing for a drastic reduction in their use.
One of the most striking moments at the conference came from Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev, the host of COP29 and a leading figure in fossil fuel production. Aliyev, in a strongly-worded speech, referred to concerns over climate change as “fake news,” vehemently defending the right of fossil fuel producers to exploit their natural resources. “This is a gift of God,” he declared, reiterating that countries should not be blamed for bringing their resources to market, as the global market needs them. While Aliyev’s defense of fossil fuels is typical for oil-producing nations, it highlights the broader dilemma of balancing economic growth, energy security, and climate action.
This perspective, however, drew sharp criticism from climate advocates, such as Alex Rafalowsicz of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, who pointed out that while nations are not at fault for possessing natural resources, they must be held accountable for the environmental and human impact of extracting and burning those resources. This exchange underscores a central challenge of the climate conversation: the tension between the exploitation of fossil fuels and the urgent need to reduce emissions to mitigate climate change.
The issue is compounded by the conspicuous absence of several major players in the climate debate. Notably, the leaders of the G20 nations, which collectively account for nearly 80% of global emissions, have been largely absent from the conference. The absence of Indian and Chinese leaders is particularly concerning. At previous COP summits, both countries resisted calls to “phase out” fossil fuels, instead advocating for a “phasedown” approach, which allows for a more gradual reduction of fossil fuel consumption. While China is making significant strides toward cleaner energy, its continued reliance on coal-fired power plants and other fossil fuels raises questions about its commitment to addressing climate change.
India’s position is even more troubling. The country continues to commission new coal-fired power plants, despite the devastating impact of fossil fuel emissions on the melting of the Hindu Kush Himalayan (HKH) glaciers, the largest outside of the Polar Regions. These glaciers are crucial to the water and food security of billions of people in South and Central Asia. Alarmingly, environment ministers from the HKH region gathered on the sidelines of the conference and expressed deep concern about the accelerating rate of glacier melt. Over the past decade, the rate of glacier loss has increased by 65% compared to the previous decade, a trend that is projected to continue, exacerbating the already precarious water supply for millions.
Against this backdrop, the central issues of COP29 remain focused on two primary objectives: limiting the global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius, or at most 2 degrees, above pre-industrial levels, and mobilizing climate finance to assist poorer and middle-income countries in reducing emissions, as well as adapting to and mitigating the effects of climate change. These goals are intricately linked, as the financial resources required to support developing nations are essential for meeting global climate targets.
In his inaugural address, UN climate chief Simon Stiell made an impassioned plea to wealthy nations, urging them to reconsider their approach to climate finance. He emphasized that financing climate action is not a matter of charity, but rather an essential investment in the self-interest of every country, including the wealthiest nations. Stiell’s comments reflect the growing understanding that addressing climate change is a global responsibility, and that failing to support developing countries in their efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change will only exacerbate the long-term impacts on all nations.
However, the prospects for robust climate finance remain uncertain. The United States, historically the world’s largest emitter and the wealthiest nation, has shown little enthusiasm for funding climate initiatives under the incoming Trump administration. President-elect Donald Trump, who has previously dismissed climate change as a “hoax,” is unlikely to contribute meaningfully to the loss and damage fund or any other climate finance mechanisms. As US envoy Johan Podesta acknowledged in Baku, the next U.S. administration is expected to reverse the policies of the Biden administration, particularly those that encourage green energy development through tax credits and subsidies. Instead, the incoming administration may focus on rolling back environmental regulations, further complicating international efforts to address the climate crisis.
The uncertainty around U.S. climate policy casts a long shadow over the conference. Despite the dire scientific evidence suggesting that 2024 is on track to break new temperature records, the lack of clear financial commitments from the wealthiest nations creates a significant gap in the global response to climate change. It is not only the U.S. that poses challenges; other rich countries must also demonstrate a stronger commitment to the funding required to support vulnerable nations. The international community is now faced with the uncomfortable reality that political will, especially in the world’s wealthiest and highest-emitting countries, remains a major obstacle to the kind of coordinated, global action needed to tackle the climate crisis.
At the same time, there is growing recognition that local and regional actions will play a critical role in the fight against climate change. While national governments continue to drag their feet, cities, states, and individual citizens in the U.S. and elsewhere are stepping up. Podesta pointed to the efforts of American cities and states to continue pushing forward with climate policies, even as the federal government appears poised to retreat from climate action. This decentralized approach, while encouraging, may not be sufficient to meet the scale of the global challenge.
The ongoing COP29 summit underscores the deep divides within the international community over how to address the climate crisis. While nations most affected by climate change are calling for urgent action and more ambitious commitments, many of the largest emitters continue to resist meaningful steps toward reducing emissions and transitioning away from fossil fuels. This tension is likely to persist, and as long as wealthy, high-emitting countries fail to take responsibility for their role in the climate crisis, the chances of achieving the ambitious goals set out in the Paris Agreement remain slim.
The failure of COP29 to achieve substantive breakthroughs on key issues such as climate finance and fossil fuel reduction highlights the challenges facing the global community as it confronts the greatest environmental threat of our time. Without greater commitment from the world’s biggest polluters, particularly the U.S., China, and India, the international community’s ability to address the climate crisis will remain limited, and the window for meaningful action is rapidly closing.
