Banner image — COP 29 closing plenary Photo: Vugar Ibadov CC

At the final Plenary around 4 a.m. on Sunday, the COP President, His Excellency Mukhtar Babayev brought down his gavel to signify the end of COP29. The intended scheduled end was some 36 hours earlier and, not unusual for a COP, agreement among the almost 200 countries had not been reached in time. The sticking point was, as expected, the amount of finance the richer countries of the global north would provide to assist the poorer countries of the global south to cope with the climate breakdown being inflicted on them. 

The main objective of this COP was to agree a new ‘quantum’ to replace the $100B per year agreed in 2009 (and only reached in 2022). In the intervening years, climate breakdown has accelerated, and coping with increased loss and damage has led the developing countries to seek a renewal of funding extending to $1.3 trillion. Developed countries have baulked at this but refused to say what their floor figure was until the dying hours of the conference. When this figure finally emerged it was $300 billion, to be reached by 2035, an amount described by some developing countries as ‘breadcrumbs’.

Of course negotiations to reach a compromise should have started in earnest 10 days ago. Many developed countries wanted to do this, but the influence of the Presidential team from Azerbaijan would appear to have stifled this. And so began a long night of negotiations to craft a new text. While some countries such as Ireland were progressive in their proposals, others were not. An imminent general election in Germany — whereby a report that Germany was upping its aid to the developing world — was clearly something that would be politically contentious in combatting the rise of the extreme right. Equally, the awareness that any US commitment might amount to nought after January 20^th was in the consciousness of many. Geopolitical issues around Gaza and Ukraine also did not help.

But as usual the main blockers were the oil producers, especially Saudi Arabia who even tried to undo some of the language around fossil fuel transition agreed at COP28 in Dubai. Things became heated overnight with reports of a ‘lot of shouting’ among the developed countries. Even the EU (the EU Council is currently chaired by Hungary) came in for a lot of criticism.

It is a regular complaint of the developing countries that, ‘they get us tired, they get us hungry, they get us dizzy, and then we come to terms with agreements that don’t truly represent the needs of our people.’ Multiple texts were issued for consideration by the Presidency during the course of Saturday. Accounts of bilateral negotiations, rumours of walkouts and disagreements swirled through the night. Supposed final plenaries kept being postponed. Ultimately, a sum of $300 billion was offered to be reached by 2035. That’s around a quarter of what is currently spent globally on fossil fuel subsidies.

The winners from this COP have undoubtedly been the rich oil producing countries and the newly industrialised countries of Asia. These are still classed as developing countries under the outdated classification agreed in 1992. As such, they are not obliged to contribute to climate finance. Despite the traditional industrial economies such as the US, EU, Japan etc seeking a broadening of the donor base, this came to nothing. China did offer to make a voluntary contribution to the most hard pressed countries of the global south, and may yet emerge as the main ‘climate leader’ of the next decade should the US and EU go AWOL.

This has been the most difficult COP of the 15 I have attended. The lack of transparency from the Presidency and from some of the developed countries placed the outcome in jeopardy on several occasions and the final outcome is not one which pleases the majority of the nations represented in Baku. Indeed, the gavel was hurriedly banged down before the objections of major countries, such as India, were voiced. It is time for a reform of the operation to take place. Abolition would be too simple a solution since this is the only forum where large and small countries enjoy parity of esteem and to lose this multilateral approach would be unfortunate for the most vulnerable countries of the global south.

What has been lost however, is an appreciation of climate justice. I attended a presentation by a government minister from the Solomon Islands this week. A nation of 1,000 spread out islands, it is one of the most vulnerable countries to climate change impacts and the second most at risk nation in the world for natural disasters. The Minister described poignantly how homes were being lost through rising sea levels, how wells were becoming salinized, and how young people were being reluctantly asked to consider moving to other islands. She also described how the rising sea level was washing away the graves of her ancestors, a cultural impact of significant proportions. Yet the Solomon Islands are a net carbon positive nation, absorbing more of the world’s greenhouse gases than the minimal amount it produces. What do we in Ireland say to them about our seeming indifference to meet our climate obligations?

Perhaps when our culture and way of life is threatened by climate change our children and grandchildren will start asking hard questions of what our elected leaders were saying and doing in 2024.

Professor John Sweeney