COP30 Sustains Climate Cooperation, Yet Remains in Limbo

COP30 President Andre Correa de Lago (centre) alongside Advisor and UN Climate Change Secretary Simon Stiel (left)

Pablo Porciuncula/AFP via Getty Images

The COP30 climate summit held by the United Nations in Brazil faced severe challenges, including heavy rainfall, protests, and a partial electrical fire. The concluding session was momentarily halted over objections to the perceived weakness of the finalized document.

Despite these hurdles, the globally recognized climate action framework continued, with nearly all nations except the United States engaging in 12 days of discussions in the Amazon to establish a unified framework.

Notably, the final agreement omitted any mention of fossil fuels, responsible for a significant portion of greenhouse gas emissions, despite a prior commitment made at COP28 in Dubai to pivot away from such energy sources. Over 80 nations at COP30 aimed for a detailed transition plan regarding fossil fuels, but oil-exporting nations excluded a key clause that mandated unanimous consent from all 194 countries.

“An agreement born out of climate change denial is a failed agreement,” remarked Diana Mejía, the Colombian representative, expressing support from delegates from Panama and Uruguay who voiced frustrations about Brazil’s dismissal of their comments before the text’s submission.

Brazil argued it was unaware of the request but committed to helping draft a roadmap for transitioning away from fossil fuels outside the UN’s framework.

“It’s akin to designing a board game,” commented Natalie Jones, a professor at the International Institute for Sustainable Development, reflecting on the stalled transition roadmap, “We’re engaged in play, yet some are still deliberating on the rule set.”

The final decision, named “Global Mutilan” after an indigenous Brazilian term for “collective endeavor,” at least indicated that international collaboration on climate issues has withstood some severe challenges this year, as U.N. Climate Secretary Simon Stiel noted. said in his closing remarks.

President Donald Trump again withdrew the United States, the second-largest emitter globally, from the COP process, threatening to do the same with Argentina, raising alarms about the potential collapse of annual negotiations. Throughout other global conferences this year, the U.S. has sought to advance talks on minimizing shipping emissions and reducing plastic pollution.

Corporate entities, industry coalitions, and non-profits have also begun retreating from addressing climate change, with Bill Gates suggesting a focus on poverty and health instead of emissions at COP30.

A decade post the Paris Agreement at COP21, which aimed to cap global warming to 2°C above pre-industrial levels, we are currently experiencing steady progress towards 2.6℃— an increase that had already approached 4°C before the agreement’s onset.

In a letter to the UN last year, leading scientists and diplomats expressed concerns that the COP process is “no longer fit for purpose.” However, one of the letter’s signatories, former Irish president Mary Robinson, commented post-COP30 that many nations are moving forward “during a time when multilateralism is under stress.”

The nations reaffirmed their collective commitment to the Paris Agreement and the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In conjunction with climate pledges, the G20 Summit Declaration was issued on the same day, while participants from major economies, along with the U.S., opted out, describing it as “a significant pushback against Trump.” Joanna Depledge, a COP historian at the University of Cambridge, remarked.

This conveys a strong message to businesses, investors, and local authorities, according to her.

As foreign aid budgets decline and the U.S. eliminates aid agencies, low-income nations are expressing dissatisfaction with historically large polluters for not aiding them in coping with climate challenges. COP30 acknowledged the necessity to devise a “just transition mechanism” for support, also promising to triple adaptation funding, though the specifics remain vague, and the original deadline of 2030 has been postponed to 2035.

“Beyond the just transition mechanism… there’s little to celebrate,” said Harjeet Singh from the Satthat Sampada Climate Foundation, which aids climate-vulnerable populations. “We should have aimed higher.”

COP30, convened in Belém at the Amazon’s edge, did not achieve consensus on a plan to halt and reverse deforestation, despite the efforts of over 90 nations. Prior to the summit, however, Brazil launched the Tropical Forest Forever Facility, an investment initiative rewarding countries for maintaining forest areas.

Brazil and its sponsors have so far contributed $6.6 billion to the fund, which is far below the $25 billion target. Tightening the fund’s operational guidelines is necessary, stated Kate Dooley from the University of Melbourne, indicating that it represents a welcome shift away from carbon offsets that yield no actual climate benefits.

“Brazil’s leadership on deforestation could be among the top outcomes from COP30,” remarked Marco Duso, a sustainability consultant at Ernst & Young. “And this leadership is resonating on the global stage.”

Topics:

Source: www.newscientist.com

Disputed COP29 deal highlights deteriorating climate cooperation

When COP29 President Mukhtar Babayev stepped up to the podium on Sunday morning at the closing session of the Baku Climate Summit, he had two speeches ready. According to sources who spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity, one speech was prepared in anticipation of a much-anticipated deal, while the other was prepared in case of a deadlock after the summit collapsed. It was seen as a contingency plan.

An official from the COP29 Presidency revealed that negotiations were tough until the last minute to secure the Baku breakthrough, but they were still preparing for various outcomes. The final speech was being crafted to address different possibilities.

Ultimately, without giving his detractors a chance to react, Babayev succeeded in pushing through a $300 billion funding plan to assist developing countries in handling the escalating costs of global warming over the next decade, earning praise for his efforts.

He lauded the agreement as a significant achievement and criticized skeptics, labeling them as “wrong,” along with many individuals targeted by the climate deal accused of being grossly inadequate.

The audience was already aware that Babayev was preparing for a mixed outcome at the divisive Baku summit, signaling that negotiations were unlikely to proceed smoothly.

Concerns about the imminent withdrawal of the United States from global climate cooperation, geopolitical tensions, and the surge of isolationist politics that have sidelined climate change in many nations’ priorities had lowered expectations for the deal.

An activist holds up a globe balloon during a protest at the United Nations Climate Change Conference COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, on November 21.
Maxim Shemetov/Reuters

Potential obstacles loomed large over Baku. The coming months will continue to cast a shadow over global efforts to address climate change as Brazil gears up to host a major conference next year in the Amazon rainforest city of Belem. The world will then embark on a multi-year plan for deeper emissions cuts and building climate resilience.

Trump Effect

One major factor clouding the negotiations in Baku was the impending return of Donald Trump as the President of the United States, the world’s largest economy, historically the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and a significant producer of oil and gas, who has been a climate change skeptic.

President Trump, due to take office again in January, had vowed to withdraw the US from the global Paris climate accord, repeating his stance from his previous term and dismissing climate change as a hoax.

Negotiators at the Baku conference noted that while the US delegation contributed to developing a climate finance agreement, the country was unable to play the high-profile leadership role seen in previous climate summits. Doubts persisted about the administration’s commitment to honoring the agreement.

“As far as the United States is concerned, the voters have spoken, and that’s where we stand. We are unsure of their intentions,” stated South Africa’s Environment Minister Dion George.

US officials attending COP29 tried to assure global partners that even if President Trump withdraws from the international process, market forces, federal subsidies, and state mandates will continue driving the deployment of renewable energy.

Furthermore, conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East diverted global attention towards security and energy availability, compelling many governments to tighten their budgets, making it challenging to secure larger climate finance amounts, noted observers.

“Given the current political climate, maintaining climate finance at its current level is an uphill battle,” remarked Joe Thwaites, a senior adviser at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The pledged $300 billion annually by 2035 would theoretically triple the previous commitments of rich countries to provide $100 billion by 2020. Rich countries’ reluctance to offer further funding and the pressure to reach agreements amidst political turmoil disappointed least developed countries and small island states left out of negotiations at the Baku conference.

At one point during the summit’s final stages, the negotiating bloc representing these nations staged a walkout in protest, leading to a delay in reaching an agreement.

Representatives from Marshall Islands and India voiced their dissatisfaction with the climate finance deal, highlighting the reluctance of developed countries to fulfill their responsibilities, setting the stage for challenges at COP30 in Brazil.

“This could prove contentious in Belém. Brazil must find a way to rebuild trust,” remarked Oscar Soria, head of the Common Initiative focused on global financial reform.

Source: www.nbcnews.com