Viewpoints express the writer’s opinions.
As the dust gradually settles following COP29 in Baku, I have mixed feelings.
The focus of COP29 was to tackle the financing of the acute and increasing costs of mitigating and adapting to climate change.
The conference resulted in an agreement on a new collectively quantified target (NCQG) for such financing. The target was set at $300 billion annually between 2026 and 2035. That is a far cry from the $1.3 trillion that a climate finance expert group deemed necessary.
This gap is about more than numbers. It has to do with a crisis of confidence. The biggest challenge for the next summit will be to rebuild trust. The fragmented results from COP29 have led many to question the effectiveness of the entire process. Moving forward will require leaders to commit to concrete actions that reflect shared responsibility.
South-South financing
The agreement does open the door for a work stream to secure voluntary contributions towards a total target of $1.3 trillion. Particular emphasis is placed on South-South climate financing, between “developing countries” – as this group of nations was defined in 1992. Concrete examples include the financing of projects between China and countries in Africa, India, and other regions.
It is understandable that the countries most vulnerable to rising sea levels and major climate damage are furious.
A number of financial mechanisms are again being allowed to count as climate finance, which means that there will be less interest in climate finance, since most of it will be in the form of loans to an already indebted part of the world.
Fragile compromise
Many developing countries, those hardest hit by climate change, regard the new agreement in precisely this way.
It is understandable that the countries most vulnerable to rising sea levels and major climate damage are furious. Papua New Guinea did not attend the meeting, stating that the COP meetings “are a total waste of time.”
The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), frustrated with the negotiations, organized a walkout the day before the meeting ended. However, they returned for the final session, where the agreement was adopted.
Calling for reform of the process
These nations are not the only ones frustrated with the process. Former UN leaders Ban Ki-moon and Christiana Figueres (UNFCCC) have called for a fundamental reform of the COP process. They believe that it needs to move from negotiation to implementation in order to address the gravity of the climate crisis.
While acknowledging the process’s achievements, they stress that the current structure is too slow and inadequate to deliver the systemic changes needed to ensure a safe climate future.
The fossil fuel dilemma
The absence of references to fossil fuels in the final text reveals the enduring influence of vested interests, especially by petrostates, who resist aligning their rhetoric with the scientific consensus.
The agreement from the previous climate summit, COP28 in Dubai, was also not fully ratified. Saudi Arabia was the most vocal opponent of using the term “fossil fuel transition.” The fact that this was not repeated is on a par with a NATO country not confirming its Article 5 commitment of “one for all, all for one.”
What does “developing country” mean today?
Some of the challenges in the discussions were due to outdated definitions for the terms “developed countries” and “developing countries” from 1992, which COP29 chose not to put on the agenda.
Countries like China, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and South Korea are still classified as “developing countries,” yet they now resemble developed countries in an economic sense and in terms of their contributions to climate change.
This disparity undermines trust and complicates climate finance. This is especially true when richer nations that are still in principle considered “developing countries” can benefit from mechanisms and exceptions intended for truly still developing countries.
At the same time, developed nations fear legal liability under the principle of historical responsibility – which deters them from addressing loss and damage. This highlights the need for fair frameworks that can rebuild trust.
The Plastics Paradox
The main priority of COP29 was finance, but its ripple effects have already affected other global environmental negotiations. The recent talks on a global plastics treaty in Busan revealed deeper connections between the climate and plastic crises.
Saudi Arabia opposed measures to limit plastic production. The country argued that the plastic crisis is a pollution problem, not a production problem. Saudi Arabia has launched a global coalition in this field. More specifically, it is an alliance that advocates for improved waste management rather than production restrictions. The analogy to oil and gas production is striking.
A lot at stake for the next summit
As Brazil prepares to host COP30 in Belém in November 2025, a lot is at stake. The conference will facilitate more ambitious nationally determined contributions (NDCs), and includes Norway, which has a hearing on what its target should be.
The city of Belém, on the edge of the Amazon rainforest, is a stark reminder of the interconnected crises that climate change and biodiversity loss pose. COP30 is also expected to address adaptation and loss and damage for countries that have repeatedly called for fairness in climate finance.
The US election and the incoming administration’s denial of human-caused climate change has also had a major impact on COP29. A US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement will weaken the contribution to climate finance, and who will then cover for the supposed US contributions?
Bold leadership needed
The results of COP29 – celebrated by some as an important step forward and criticized by others as a missed opportunity – serve as both a reminder of the challenges ahead and an urgent call to action.
As we look ahead to COP30, the message is clear: the time for small steps is over. Whether addressing climate finance, fossil fuels or plastics, bold leadership and innovative solutions are needed. Future generations will accept nothing less.
This post was first published in Energi og Klima – Norsk klimastiftelse’s online newspaper. It is reproduced here with the newspaper’s permission.
