COP29 in Azerbaijan delivered disappointing results, with rich countries failing to meet the urgent financial needs of the Global South. Despite calls for $6 trillion by 2030, the deal only offers $300 billion starting in 2035, while key issues like loss and damage remain unresolved. The EU praised the agreement, but many Global South nations condemned it as inadequate and unjust.
In his analysis, Roland Kulke - who is the the transform! Europe representative in Brussels - highlights the need for stronger alliances with climate justice movements and a democratic, public approach to tackling the crisis.
COP29 primarily revolved around the question of the “new collective quantified goal” (NCQG), i.e. how the Global South (in United Nations (UN) terminology “developing countries”) can obtain sufficient financial resources to invest in the transition to a post-fossil economy (mitigation), obtain money to adapt to climate change caused primarily by the developed countries (adaptation), and then how damage and losses that are already occurring can be paid for now (loss and damage, L&D).
The General Secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), Luc Triangle, stated at the end of the COP: “This so-called deal is utterly inadequate, and an insult to working people and the countries of the Global South. COP29 has failed workers and communities worldwide.”
In 2021, the UN Finance Committee determined that $6 trillion must flow, or rather “should have flowed”, in the nine years up to 2030.The outcome of the COP is disastrous, compared against this target. The rich countries of the Global North, with the active support of the host and oil country Azerbaijan, have dictated an agreement to the poor countries in which it is now stated that $300 billion per year would flow from 2035, i.e. starting in eleven years’ time. Studies show that of the meagre $100 billion that flowed into the Global South for climate aid in 2022, 70% flowed as loans (!), thus exacerbating the sovereign debt crisis in developing countries.
There was still no agreement on L&D, with payments remaining voluntary. Similarly, there was no agreement on the topic of adaptation.Agreement on the $300 billion was pushed through against diplomatic rules of behaviour, in the face of open opposition from countries such as India.
However, a number of major countries of the Global South supported the agenda of fossil capitalism. Saudi Arabia issued an ultimatum against any mention of fossil fuels in the text, and Russia used the COP to include the Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine in its national carbon budget. (These two countries also contributed significantly to the subsequent failure of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) INC-5 negotiations in Busan in early December to tackle plastic pollution in the environment).
The EU expressed satisfaction with its role and with COP29: “COP 29 will be remembered as a start of a new era for climate finance and the EU and its member states will continue to play a leading role… to ensure that there is significantly more money on the table. We’re tripling the USD100 billion to USD 300 billion goal… we are also seeing a historic expansion of the very important role of MDBs [multilateral development banks] in supporting this transition”.
The international Climate Action Network (CAN) presented the EU with the “Fossil of the Day” anti-award on 20th November 2024. Statements by developing countries best explain why the self-perception of the EU and CAN International, which represents more than 1,900 organisations in 130 countries, are so far apart.
While the EU, with its new European People’s Party (EPP) Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra, who worked for McKinsey and Shell and whose name appeared in the Panama Papers, sold the COP as a success, Indian diplomats clearly stated that India “does not accept the goal proposal in its present form”. The results were not compatible with the basic standard of the “common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR)” of 1992. The $300 billion is “abysmally poor.” There was also sharp criticism of the Global North’s desire to shirk responsibility by passing the buck to MDBs. However, these MDBs are underfunded and cannot fulfil this task.Bolivia supported India and stated that: “climate finance is not charity [but] a legal obligation of developed countries.”
Speaking about the meagre $300 billion, Nigeria described it as an “insult to what the Convention says”. Nigeria clearly called on the COP states to “rethink it” and emphasised that Nigeria “does not accept this.”
Cuba declared the behaviour of the developed countries to be “environmental colonialism“. It made a very important reference to the effect of current global inflation, which meant that the $300 billion target would be less than the $100 billion target that the developed countries had already promised (and broken) in 2009. Cuba rightly pointed out “an alarming contrast with the defence budgets of developed countries“.
The European Left Party draws the following conclusion from COP29: We will forge stronger partnerships with Global South climate justice movements and European climate justice campaigners. Our goal is to reduce Europe’s carbon footprint, based on the Just Transition approach, stated in the COP29 Declaration of the over 100 Global South Trade Unions, organised by Trade Unions for Energy Democracy. We support their goal of preventing a debt trap for the developing countries, ending the financial “de-risking strategy” and moving beyond carbon pricing and trading by strengthening public sectors. We acknowledge the historical climate debt of many of the EU-member states, and hence the role of the EU in climate change. We believe that only a democratic public approach can be the solution, addressing also energy poverty in housing and supporting technology transfer. This means that those of us inside the EU must fight against militarisation, against “fortress Europe”, free trade agreements at the expense of workers and regions, and the privatisation of common goods.
This piece appears in the December 2024 newsletter of the European Left. If you would like to receive the newsletter directly when published, you can subscribe by clicking through here.