COP29: Geopolitical Tensions Shape Climate Negotiations “`
The annual UN climate summits are always bustling events: tens of thousands of delegates gather in a distant city for two weeks of intense negotiations on global climate policy.
This year’s COP29 in Baku is particularly striking. A short walk separates the opulent Russian pavilion, where delegates enjoy tea amidst large Russian dolls, from the Ukrainian pavilion featuring a solar panel damaged by Russian weaponry. Instead of spotting celebrities, delegates are looking out for Taliban representatives. The Argentinian delegation departed early due to their president’s instructions, the French environment minister skipped the conference due to a dispute with the host country, and the event opened with Azerbaijan’s president referring to fossil fuels as “a gift from God”.
The conference’s timing, just days after the U.S. election, significantly impacts discussions. The U.S. has historically played a crucial role, brokering agreements and conveying the message of decarbonization. John Podesta, President Biden’s climate envoy, acknowledged potential setbacks under a new administration, expressing regret for past U.S. actions but highlighting continued climate efforts at state and city levels.
The second week of talks, focused on financing the climate transition, remains uncertain. A negotiated agreement might be reached, or the conference might collapse under geopolitical pressures. Long-time attendees describe the situation as one of the most precarious in recent memory.
The current climate situation is perilous. We are already experiencing the effects of climate change, resulting in loss of life worldwide. A standstill in international efforts is detrimental. However, there are positive developments. Decarbonization is no longer theoretical; it’s an economic reality, with businesses adapting to sustainability standards and significant investments from major corporations.
The question isn’t whether the international climate push will continue but how it will proceed.
One of the first things I noticed in Baku was the significant increase in electric vehicles compared to seven years ago. Chinese electric vehicles are prevalent, often appearing as ride-sharing options.
Baku’s EV surge illustrates the rapid energy transition underway, impacting even developing economies. In 2016, following Trump’s election, there were concerns about the survival of the Paris Agreement and the decarbonization efforts. That’s not a concern in 2024.
This confidence partly stems from Trump’s first term. Many businesses continued their climate commitments, and states and cities intensified their decarbonization policies. In Baku, similar commitments have been made. Washington Governor Jay Inslee stated that Trump would only be a temporary obstacle to a clean energy economy.
However, the substantial investments over the past eight years are even more significant. Baku’s EVs are just one example. Major companies have invested billions in clean technology infrastructure, creating momentum that is difficult to reverse. Catherine McKenna, a former Canadian environment minister, emphasized that no single country can halt this progress, highlighting its integration into the real economy.
The key question for delegates is how the ongoing transition and extreme weather impacts will affect the world. Which countries will thrive, which will suffer? Will vulnerable nations receive adequate support? Will the transition occur quickly enough, especially in developing countries, to mitigate the worst effects of climate change?
These questions have fueled disputes at COP29, covering issues like climate regulations in trade, financial contributions from different nations, and the role of oil and gas in the transition. Amidst heightened tensions, prominent figures in the international climate community issued a call for reforming the process. This includes stricter criteria for host countries to ensure fossil fuel phase-out commitments and streamlining decision-making.
While not explicitly stated, the post-election timing of the letter is relevant. Regardless of Trump’s potential withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, a significant void will be left in the climate world. Many negotiators acknowledge that U.S. climate leadership has been inconsistent. Even with supportive presidents, U.S. agreements often reflected domestic politics, sometimes weakening deals, and fulfilling international demands proved challenging. Despite this, many will miss U.S. involvement.