As the months pass, I’m still reflecting on my experience attending the United Nations Climate Conference (COP29) in Baku, Azerbaijan. I work in the environmental sector and was fortunate enough to get an observer pass. Where I could observe and listen in on the many meetings taking place by world leaders.
Purpose of COP29
The theme of COP29 was climate finance. To face climate change, finances and access to these finances are necessary to keep the 1.5C temperature target of the Paris Agreement within reach.
Finances would be used to:
- Implement and develop clean energy technologies
- Improve energy efficiency
- Create climate-resilient communities
- Help with loss and damage
This would all be in specifically vulnerable communities and Small Islands Developing States (SIDS).
The consensus is clear that the Global North* needs to contribute the most financially. Places like North America and Europe, are some of the world’s richest countries and the biggest emitters of GHG. However, the Global South* is the most affected by climate change, contributing the least to it, and the least developed.
It’s ultimately a matter of justice for the Global North to be financially responsible for the consequences of their actions.
*The terms Global North and Global South are still up for question, but in this context, it sums my point up.
Bolivia Case Study
Angélica Nararro Llanos is Bolivia’s ambassador to the World Trade Organization. She has given speeches at United Nations conferences laying out a case for climate finance. Nararro Llanos speaks directly about how places like Bolivia, Brazil, and India are suffering from the effects of climate change, that they did not help create. She says we need a Marshall Plan for the Earth. There needs to be mobilization and transfer of money on unprecedented scales.
Here is a quote from Naoimi Klein’s book This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs the Climate, where Klein speaks to Nararro Llanos:
“A threat (climate change) for obvious reasons: Bolivia is extraordinarily dependent on glaciers for its drinking and irrigation water and those white-capped mountains that tower over its capital were turning gray and brown at an alarming rate. The opportunity, Navarro Llanos said, was that since countries like hers had done almost nothing to send the emissions soaring, they were in a position to declare themselves “climate creditors,” owed money and technology support from the large emitters to defray the hefty costs of coping with more climate-related disasters, as well as to help them develop a green energy path.”
Ultimately, the countries who are profiting from the polluting, need to use those profits to clean up their mess – that other countries like Bolivia, have to deal with.
Results of COP29
The results of the conference were “to achieve a global climate finance goal of at least USD 300 billion annually by 2035. While this amount does not address the needs of the most vulnerable nations, we must ensure it is delivered in full.”
This result was begrudgingly agreed to by Global South countries, as the goal amount was 1.3 trillion USD annually per year by 2035. So yes, this is significantly less, and begs the question if Global South countries can successfully implement their projects in a just manner.
Many world leaders throughout the conference kept saying “1.3 trillion or no deal at all” as the number to be given kept getting lower. While this seems like a lot, it takes a lot of money to truly battle climate change at this rate. As well as to have successful and just programs that can lift people out of poverty.
COP29 was at the end of November 2024. So, of course a big topic of discussion was the recent U.S. election. Where Donald Trump, a notorious climate denier, got re-elected and what that would look like for the rest of the world. As I write this in February of 2025…it’s not good.
Food for Thought
In my time in Baku, I was also questioning – is this really doing anything? The host country of Azerbaijan is historically an oil rich country and the leadership running COP 29 reflected that. 50,000+ people flew (a huge emitter of GHG) to come here and many of the world leaders and politicians took private jets. What kind of resources, time and money went in for them to host this scale of conference – with booths, catering, signage, etc that would end up in landfills afterwards?
Would a virtual conference be a better solution? Would it have the same effect? I don’t think so. Are environmentalists just judged harder for this because of what we preach?
With Trump in power – is there really any progress going to be made – when the United States is polluting and emitting GHG’s at increasing levels?
As an environmentalist, this is all stuff that haunts us.
Yet, we need hope, we need symbols of peace and unity, and we need collaboration and conversations. There needs to be agencies that set these ambitious international goals. There needs to be a force that keep governments accountable. And there needs to be organizations that outline human rights and international climate action. I believe that is what the United Nations and conferences like these ultimately provide in these times.
Sources
Small Island Developing States (SIDS): https://climatepromise.undp.org/news-and-stories/small-island-developing-states-are-frontlines-climate-change-heres-why
Global North and South: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265425871_A_comparative_analysis_of_global_north_and_global_south_economies
Klein, Naomi (2014) This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate
Marshall Plan: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2008/09/the-marshall-plan_g1gh8e35/9789264044258-en.pdf
Leave a Reply