Samoan Environment Minister Toeolesulusulu Cedric Schuster attends the COP29 United Nations Climate Change Conference, in Baku, Azerbaijan on November 23, 2024.
| Photo Credit: Reuters

Negotiators from small islands and least-developed nations on Saturday (November 23, 2024) walked out of overtime consultations on a climate deal with COP29 president Azerbaijan, saying their interests on finance were ignored.

“We’ve just walked out. We came here to this COP for a fair deal. We feel that we haven’t been heard,” said Cedric Schuster, the Samoan chairman of the Alliance of Small Island States, a coalition of nations threatened by rising seas.

Civil society members staged a silent march at the U.N. climate summit
| Photo Credit: REUTERS

Civil society members staged a silent march at the U.N. climate summit, condemning the developed nations’ proposal to increase annual climate finance to a meagre $250 billion by 2035. 

They called on the developing world to reject what they described as an “insulting” and “unjust” deal.  

With their arms crossed in defiance, protesters walked silently through the summit venue, where chanting is prohibited

“We urge you to stand up for the people of the Global South, and we insist: no deal in Baku is better than a bad deal, and this is a very, very bad deal because of the intransigence of developed countries,” said Climate Action Network (CAN), a global coalition of more than 1,900 civil society organisations, in a letter to G77 and China, the largest bloc of developing nations

The letter urged negotiators to abandon weak agreements, saying, “If nothing sufficiently strong is forthcoming at this COP, we urge you to walk away from the table to fight another day, and we will fight the same fight.”

Shailendra Yashwant, senior advisor at CAN South Asia, denounced the proposal, saying, “The NCQG (New Collective Quantified Goal on climate finance) number of $250 billion in the latest ministerial text is not a joke, it’s an insult to the people of the Global South salvaging their belongings and trying to rebuild their lives from floods, heatwaves, cyclones, landslides or forest fires and other climate change-induced disasters.”

Harjeet Singh, Global Engagement Director for the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, called the proposal “a disgrace”.

He said, “Developed countries are fully aware of the cost of climate action, which is running into trillions of dollars annually. Yet they had the audacity to offer this paltry amount.”  

Renowned activist Greta Thunberg also slammed the draft text on climate finance, calling it “a complete disaster” and a “death sentence” for millions already vulnerable to the climate crisis.

At the U.N. climate conference in Baku, countries are required to reach an agreement on a new climate finance package to help developing countries cut greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the warming world.

The summit was scheduled to conclude on Friday (November 22, 2024) but spilt into overtime as developed nations only presented a concrete climate finance figure in the closing hours. 

The $250 billion amount they have offered is a far cry from the trillions required to tackle the escalating climate emergency. Developing nations have been demanding at least $1.3 trillion annually — 13 times the $100 billion pledged in 2009 — starting in 2025 to address their escalating climate challenges.  They have said that a significant portion of this $1.3 trillion should come directly in public funding from developed countries. 

Panama Climate Envoy Juan Carlos Monterrey Gomez, left, and Wopke Hoekstra, EU climate commissioner, attend a session on climate targets during the COP29 U.N. Climate Summit, Thursday, Nov. 21, 2024, in Baku, Azerbaijan. (AP Photo/Sergei Grits)
| Photo Credit: Sergei Grits

A new draft text released early on Thursday (November 21, 2024) which will form the basis of any deal reached at United Nations climate talks on money for developing countries to transition to clean energy and adapt to climate change left out a crucial sticking point: how much wealthy nations will pay.

Negotiators at the talks — known as COP29 — in Baku, Azerbaijan, are trying to close the gap between the $1.3 trillion the developing world says is needed in climate finance and the few hundred billion that richer nations have been prepared to pay.

Ali Mohamed, chair of the African Group of Negotiators told The Associated Press on Thursday (November 21, 2024) that how much money is on the table “is most critical” to finding a deal, and that’s what’s missing from the draft deal.

The draft text “presents two extreme ends of the aisle without much in between,” said Li Shuo, Asia Society Policy Institute Director. “Other than capturing the ground standing of both sides, this text hardly does anything more.”

Mohamed Adow, director of the think tank Power Shift Africa, expressed disappointment in the draft. “We came here to talk about money. The way you measure money is with numbers. We need a cheque but all we have right now is a blank piece of paper,” he said.

Independent experts say that at least $1 trillion is needed in finance to help transition away from planet-warming fossil fuels and toward clean energy like solar and wind, better adapt to the effects of climate change and pay for losses and damages caused by extreme weather.

There are three big parts of the issue where negotiators need to find agreement: How big the numbers are, how much is grants or loans, and who contributes.

Rob Moore, associate director at European think tank E3G said that “negotiators need to make a huge amount of progress over the next few days”, particularly on the issue of how much.

 Also read | COP29: India voices dissent on ‘discriminatory trade barriers linked to carbon emissions

Official observers of the talks from the International Institute of Sustainable Development who are allowed to sit in on the closed meetings reported that negotiators have now agreed on not expanding the list of countries that will contribute to global climate funds — at least at these talks. Linda Kalcher, of the think tank Strategic Partnerships, said on the question of grants or loans, the draft text suggests “the need for grants and better access to finance”.

She added that the lack of numbers in the draft text could be a “bluff”. The COP29 presidency, which prepares the texts “should know more…than what they put on the table”, she said.

Andreas Sieber, associate director of global policy and campaigns at the environmental group 350.org said the text handed down this morning included a range of options, some bad, some good. “I’m pretty nervous that there are still so many outstanding options. There is a lot to be decided by ministers,” he said.

But Iskander Erzini Vernoit, director of Moroccan climate think-tank Imal Initiative for Climate and Development, said he was “at a loss for words at how disappointed we are at this stage to have come this far without serious numbers on the table and serious engagement from the developed countries”.

He said that some developed nations “are slowly waking up” to the fact that keeping warming to below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial times will require over a trillion dollars in finance. “But many are still asleep at the wheel,” he said.

Experts said on Thursday (Nov. 21) that a deal is still a long way off, and the summit appeared headed toward the same drama and overtime finish as seen in previous years.

Almost everyone in India is now vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, former chief scientist of the World Health Organisation Dr Soumya Swaminathan has said, underscoring the urgent need for cross-ministerial and international collaboration to address its effects on health, gender and economic stability in the country.

Swaminathan pointed to women and children as especially vulnerable to these climate-driven health risks.

In an interview with PTI on the sidelines of global climate talks COP29 here in Azerbaijan’s capital, Swaminathan called for a concerted approach, saying, “practically everyone in India is now vulnerable to climate change impacts, from extreme heat to vector-borne diseases. Addressing this requires close cooperation.”

“We know that climate change has disproportionate impacts on women and children,” she explained, noting how women, particularly in rural areas, face increased health risks due to continued reliance on solid fuels for cooking.

She emphasised that “access to clean energy for everyone is a priority.”

This, she argued, would not only reduce health risks associated with indoor air pollution but also lessen India’s carbon footprint, marking a crucial step toward sustainable development.

Climate-related health risks in India are varied, ranging from immediate effects such as respiratory illnesses due to air pollution, to long-term issues like malnutrition stemming from disrupted agricultural cycles.

Swaminathan noted that more than 80 per cent of India’s population is now exposed to these risks, emphasizing that “everybody is now vulnerable,” from rural farmers to urban migrants.

She highlighted the specific challenges faced by the urban poor, especially migrants who live in peri-urban areas with inadequate housing and sanitation, which exposes them to greater risks during floods and extreme weather events.

With health as a central theme, Swaminathan stressed the benefits of green public transportation, an initiative she described as a “win-win solution.”

“Carbon-neutral public transport will not only reduce air pollution but also promote physical activity and thereby improve health,” she said, adding that reducing pollution would positively impact public health by curbing respiratory and cardiovascular diseases.

She also highlighted that India’s urban centres are hotspots for these health issues due to dense populations and high pollution levels.

Swaminathan called for policies that integrate both health and climate objectives, stressing that this approach can drive development while building resilience against climate risks.

“If we do that kind of analysis, we can invest in actions that promote both development and reduce our carbon footprint,” she noted, advocating for policies that prioritise “development with a climate-resilient focus.”

Examples of such integrated actions include promoting clean cooking fuels, improving access to safe drinking water, and investing in infrastructure that can withstand extreme weather.

Dr Swaminathan went further to advocate for a gendered approach to climate policy, urging policymakers to “put a spotlight on women but also the poorest communities.”

She argued that gender equity and social equity are essential to effective climate policy, explaining that “by taking a gendered perspective in all policies, we can ensure more inclusive and effective climate action.”

Swaminathan called for greater research on climate impacts that are gender-specific, noting that this data would help policymakers create more targeted, meaningful interventions.

The economic costs of climate-driven health impacts are also severe.

Swaminathan pointed to recent studies indicating that climate-related air pollution alone costs the global economy trillions of dollars annually, affecting productivity, agriculture, and even tourism.

“If you look at the GDP loss and workplace productivity lost due to air pollution, it’s enormous – in the trillions,” she said. This, she argued, makes climate action not just a moral imperative but an economic necessity.

Addressing air pollution as a cross-border issue, Swaminathan noted that pollution does not recognise borders, making it crucial for India and other nations to engage in global collaborations.

“Air pollution today is the single largest risk factor to health,” she said, adding “It’s not a problem one country can solve on its own.”

She referenced the Our Common Air (OCA) Commission, a global effort she is part of, which has been working with international bodies like WHO and UNEP to promote global standards and monitoring mechanisms for air quality.

“We need a system where every country has air quality monitors and updates its data, including on super pollutants like methane and black carbon,” Swaminathan said, adding that these pollutants are highly dangerous yet often overlooked.

Swaminathan further explained the value of local data, which she argued would give a more accurate picture of pollution’s impact on different regions of India.

“Policymakers want to see data from their own regions; it makes the issue real for them and helps design local solutions,” she said.

Reflecting on the invisible nature of pollution’s health impacts, Swaminathan commented, “When the air pollution is visible, people recognize it as a problem, but often it’s invisible, and people become accustomed to it.”

She stressed that while death rates from pollution-related illnesses are often discussed, policymakers should focus on the widespread chronic illnesses caused by poor air quality.

“It’s not only about death – it’s about chronic ill health that impacts quality of life and productivity,” she said, pointing out that young children and the elderly are especially vulnerable.

For Swaminathan, tackling climate change is fundamentally linked to India’s development goals.

“For us, development is still a key priority,” she asserted. While India has made strides in increasing access to electricity and clean water, she stressed that much work remains, especially in rural areas where communities lack basic infrastructure.

Her vision for India’s climate adaptation involves not only mitigating health risks but also ensuring that development initiatives – from housing to sanitation – are climate-resilient.

Swaminathan expressed optimism about India’s potential to lead in climate adaptation through innovation, global cooperation, and commitment to sustainable development goals.

She pointed to Indian cities as potential leaders in air quality initiatives and green infrastructure, stating that “India can be a model for sustainable urbanization if we prioritize both development and environmental health.”

(This story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

BASIC countries, including India, have asked developed countries to honour their commitments to provide climate finance rather than “diluting obligations” and rejected attempts by the rich nations to shift their financial responsibilities during negotiations at the ongoing COP29
| Photo Credit: Reuters

BASIC countries, including India, have asked developed countries to honour their commitments to provide climate finance rather than “diluting obligations” and rejected attempts by the rich nations to shift their financial responsibilities during negotiations at the ongoing COP29 here.

As the annual climate change summit entered the fourth day on Thursday (November 14, 2024), Brazil, South Africa, India and China (BASIC) also reiterated the need to fully implement the Paris Agreement 2015, a legally binding international treaty.

The Paris Agreement aims at substantially reducing global greenhouse gas emissions to hold global temperature increase to well below 2 degrees Celsius and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels (with a baseline 1850-1900).

India, Egypt, and the Independent Alliance of Latin America and the Caribbean (AILAC) also called for clear pathways to convert financial pledges into binding contribution agreements.

Through the negotiations on Wednesday (November 13, 2024) and Thursday (November 14, 2024), the G-77/CHINA grouping which also includes India called for a balanced New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) on climate finance that is responsive to developing countries’ needs.

The grouping also sought a technology implementation programme supported by the operating entities of the Financial Mechanism.

The developed countries have emphasised the importance of increasing global climate ambition and have called for all nations, including emerging economies, to enhance their net-zero targets and implementation efforts.

However, these rich nations are facing criticism for not fully delivering on their own commitments, particularly regarding climate finance and support for developing countries.

In response, India, along with Brazil, South Africa and China as part of BASIC bloc, reiterated the need for full and effective implementation of the Paris Agreement.

“The BASIC bloc rejected attempts by developed countries to shift their financial responsibilities,” multiple negotiators confirmed to PTI.

The poor, developing countries also asked rich, developed countries to honour their commitments to provide climate finance rather than “diluting obligations”, a negotiator from Brazil said.

Meanwhile, the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) added that current financial pledges fall far short of what’s necessary for meaningful climate action, underscoring a call for urgent and scaled-up contributions.

With these pressures mounting, the co-chairs of COP29 announced they would prepare a draft decision to formalise these arrangements under both the COP (the Conference of Parties) and the CMA (Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement) frameworks, another negotiator said.

The Arab Group and the Republic of Korea further stressed that guidance for parties must align strictly with the Paris Agreement’s terms, defending the autonomy of nationally determined contributions (NDCs), actions taken by each nation to restrict greemnhouse gases’ emissions to collectively keep temperature rise under check.

India opposed any new top-down regulations imposed under the guise of “features,” arguing that they compromise national sovereignty in climate commitments.

“Developed countries, including Japan and the U.S., pushed for the quantification of climate goals by all nations and advocated aligning targets with the 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold — a position supported by the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) but opposed by India,” a negotiator said.

As discussions moved forward, the Arab Group urged developed countries to ramp up their financial support, while India, AILAC, and Egypt emphasised that developed nations must deliver on promised climate finance by formalising their pledges as binding contribution agreements.

Amid intense negotiations, the co-chairs extended the schedule to resolve these critical issues and pave the way for an ambitious, actionable financial framework.

Carbon offsets have become big business as more companies make promises to protect the climate but can’t meet the goals on their own.

When a company buys carbon offsets, it pays a project elsewhere to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on its behalf – by planting trees, for example, or generating renewable energy. The idea is that reducing greenhouse gas emissions anywhere pays off for the global climate.

But not all offsets have the same value. There is growing skepticism about many of the offsets sold on voluntary carbon markets. In contrast to compliance markets, where companies buy and sell a limited number of allowances that are issued by regulators, these voluntary carbon markets have few rules that can be enforced consistently. Investigations have found that many voluntary offset projects, forest management projects in particular, have done little to benefit the climate despite their claims.

I specialize in sustainable finance and corporate governance. My colleagues and I recently conducted the first systematic, evidence-based look at the global landscape of voluntary carbon offsets used by hundreds of large, publicly listed firms around the world.

The results raise questions about how some companies use these offsets and cast doubt on how effective voluntary carbon markets – at least in their current state – are in assisting a global transition to net-zero-emissions.

Which companies use low-quality offsets might surprise you

Our analysis shows that the global carbon-offset market has grown to comprise a rich variety of offset projects. Some generate renewable energy, contribute to energy-efficient housing and appliances, or capture and store carbon. Others preserve forests and grassland. The majority are based in Asia, Africa and the Americas, but they exist in other regions too.

Companies use these projects to boost their environmental claims in order to help attract investors, customers and support from various groups. That practice has skyrocketed, from virtually nothing in 2005 to roughly 30 million metric tons of carbon offset per year in 2022. Investment banking firm Morgan Stanley in 2023 forecast that the voluntary offset market would grow to about US$100 billion by 2030 and to around $250 billion by 2050.

For our analysis, we examined 866 publicly traded companies that used offsets between 2005 and 2021.

We found that large firms with a high percentage of big institutional investors and commitments to reach net-zero emissions are particularly active in voluntary carbon markets.

Our results also reveal a peculiar pattern: Industries with relatively low emissions, such as services and financial industries, are much more intensive in their use of offsets. Some used offsets for almost all of the emissions cuts they claimed.

In contrast, high-emissions industries, such as oil and gas, utilities or transportation, used negligible amounts of offsets compared to their heavy carbon footprints.

These facts cast a cloud of doubt on how effective voluntary carbon markets could really be at cutting global greenhouse gas emissions. They also raise questions about companies’ motives for using offsets.

Why companies rely on offsets: 2 explanations

One explanation for these patterns is that offsetting is a means to “outsource” efforts to transition away from greenhouse gas emissions. Companies with smaller carbon footprints find it cheaper to buy offsets than to make expensive investments in reducing their own emissions.

At the same time, we found that emissions-heavy companies were more likely to reduce their own emissions in-house, because offsetting massive amounts of emissions every year for an indefinite future would be more costly.

A more pernicious explanation for the growth in voluntary offsets is that offsets enable “greenwashing.” In this view, companies use offsets to cheaply refurbish their image to naive stakeholders who are not well informed about the quality of offsets. Agencies rate offset projects on how likely they are to meet their climate claims, among other indicators of the trustworthiness of offsets. Our reviews of pricing data and ratings found that projects rated as low quality have substantially lower prices.

We found that relatively few of the 1,413 offset projects used by companies in our sample had been verified as high quality by an external carbon rating agency. Most offset credits used by companies were strikingly cheap. More than 70% of retired offsets were priced below $4 per ton.

These explanations are not mutually exclusive. We found that low-emissions companies could easily alter their peer rankings for ESG performance – how well they do on environmental, social and governance issues – by offsetting a small quantity of emissions.

Fixing the voluntary market for the future

Our findings have important implications as policymakers and regulators debate rules for the voluntary carbon markets.

The data suggests that voluntary carbon markets are currently flooded with cheap, low-quality offsets, likely due to a lack of integrity guidelines and regulations for voluntary carbon markets to ensure the transparency and authenticity of offset projects. This lack of guidelines may also encourage the use of low-quality offsets.

Ever since Article 6 of the Paris climate agreement created principles for carbon markets and ways countries could cooperate to reach climate targets, agreeing on how to implement those principles has been a challenge. For the principles to be successful, negotiators must agree on project eligibility and information disclosure standards, among other issues.

In April 2024, SBTi, the world’s leading science-based arbiter of corporate climate targets, added urgency to that process when it announced that it would allow companies to meet their carbon goals with carbon offsets to cover emissions in their supply chains.

The following month, the U.S. Treasury, Energy and Agriculture departments jointly released a policy statement laying out their own template for rules to govern voluntary carbon markets. “Voluntary carbon markets can help unlock the power of private markets to reduce emissions, but that can only happen if we address significant existing challenges,” U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said at the time.

Article 6 and standards for carbon offsets are on the agenda for the 2024 United Nations climate conference, COP29, Nov. 11-22 in Baku, Azerbaijan.

With many segments of voluntary carbon markets faltering, the COP29 summit may be a make-or-break moment for voluntary carbon offsets to become a viable contributor to decarbonization going forward.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here.

A woman demonstrates a sign on veganism at the COP29 U.N. Climate Summit, Tuesday, Nov. 12, 2024, in Baku, Azerbaijan.
| Photo Credit: AP

In a landmark decision on the first day of the global climate talks here, COP29 has officially adopted the new operational standards for a mechanism of the Paris Agreement under Article 6, setting the stage for a global carbon market.

Also Read: COP29 Summit LIVE Day 2

This adoption of Article 6.4, achieved during the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement (CMA), sets the stage for operationalising Article 6, which has faced years of deadlock.

Article 6 of the Paris Agreement facilitates international collaboration to lower carbon emissions.

It offers two pathways for countries and companies to trade carbon offsets, supporting the achievement of emission reduction targets set in their climate action plans, or nationally determined contributions (NDCs).

The first option, known as Article 6.2, allows two countries to establish a bilateral carbon trading agreement under their own terms.

The second, Article 6.4, seeks to develop a centralised, UN-managed system to enable both countries and companies to offset and trade carbon emissions.

The Article 6.4 Supervisory Body, tasked with creating a United Nations-governed carbon market, finalised essential standards covering carbon removal projects and methodology guidance.

These include guidelines on the development and assessment of methodologies and requirements for carbon removal activities. While previously delayed by conflicting views over transparency and quality, the early adoption of these standards is intended to streamline carbon market operations.

Despite the historic agreement, concerns arose over the process. Some delegates questioned whether the Presidency’s swift push to adopt these standards at the start of COP29 undermined traditional governance procedures.

Negotiations had previously faltered due to divergent views on how permanent and reliable carbon credits should be.

At COP28, disputes over forest credits and deforestation risks hindered progress, leading some stakeholders to worry that the expedited adoption at COP29 could set a precedent for sidestepping scrutiny.

Environmental organisations expressed cautious optimism.

John Verdieck, Global Climate Policy Lead at The Nature Conservancy, noted, “The Art 6.4 decision is a helpful start to COP29. We need every financial mechanism we can get to solve the climate crisis.” Florence Laloe, Senior Director of Climate Policy at Conservation International, added that the adoption of standards under Article 6.4 moves the market closer to full operationalisation, helping overcome a procedural hurdle and enabling countries to address other critical issues at COP.

Experts also emphasised the need for continuous improvement. Dhruba Purkayastha from the Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW) praised the methodological standards, especially the provisions for “downward adjustment” to ensure credible baselines.

However, he flagged remaining issues, such as the lack of clear standards for post-crediting monitoring periods and reversal risk assessments, which he noted are essential for long-term market reliability.

The Article 6.4 mechanism is seen as an important tool in bridging the climate finance gap.

As Laloe noted, “Science shows that it is mathematically impossible to meet global climate goals without nature.” The mechanism aims to enhance climate finance flows to countries with carbon-rich ecosystems, supporting both environmental integrity and equitable access to funding.

Despite this achievement, significant elements under Article 6 remain unresolved, especially Article 6.2, which governs bilateral trades between countries.

The EU and the U.S. remain divided over transparency requirements, and these talks will continue throughout COP29.

For Article 6.4, additional standards on insurance policies, stress testing of the Reversal Risk Buffer Pool, and monitoring frameworks are still needed to ensure rigor and investor confidence.

As negotiations advance, stakeholders urge continued commitment to a transparent, equitable, and functional global carbon market, stressing that the urgency of the climate crisis demands both ambitious action and robust oversight.

Baku:

Tens of thousands of people from around the globe will gather next week for COP29, the annual UN climate summit, in Azerbaijan’s capital of Baku.

But as each year’s summit has produced its own set of promises, plans, and paperwork to chase, the rationale for these discussions can be hard to follow.

Here’s what you need to know about why COP, short for Conference of the Parties, matters:

Why do we have a yearly COP?

Because climate change will affect every country, regardless of whether it contributed to the problem, it demands global solutions that can address the diversity of needs across countries.

In signing the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that launched the global negotiations, the parties that agreed to it took pains to differentiate between the wealthy nations that caused the bulk of warming and poorer countries that suffer disproportionately from it.

Put another way, the talks are framed around the idea that the countries that benefited the most from industrialising should take the most responsibility for dealing with the warming that resulted.

Addressing that imbalance has become more difficult as developing countries’ economies have grown and rich nations juggle competing costs including war.

What can a yearly summit achieve?

The summit provides a place for countries to discuss solutions, including energy policies, financing schemes or funding needs.

Nearly every summit is also attended by world leaders, giving an important signal that their countries are committed to the UNFCCC goals. The leaders’ presence also helps countries hold one another accountable for past promises.

But the annual COP is just the main event in a continuous process. Country representatives meet year round to build support for new climate action proposals ahead of the COP, where they can be agreed by consensus of all countries.

Is the process working?

While each summit is meant to advance global climate action from the year before, the event also offers countries a chance to show their citizens the problem is being addressed.

Importantly, the exercise has seen countries counting and reporting their emissions, and has helped move hundreds of billions of dollars in climate aid to developing nations.

By requiring decisions by consensus, the process also ensures strong global support for agreed actions, improving the chances these actions will be implemented.

But the pace of progress has been too slow to contain the rise in global temperatures. Since COP summits began in 1995, both emissions and temperatures have continued to rise, meaning the world is on track for extreme climate change.

Proponents of the UNFCCC process say there is no alternative for negotiating major socioeconomic changes to try to limit global warming.

What will we get out of COP29?

This year’s summit is hoping for a few headline agreements: a new annual climate finance target, a deal to get multilateral carbon credit markets working, and more aid money pledged for countries already hit by costly climate disasters.

Beyond that, negotiators will continue to work on technical agreements that build on work done at previous summits.

Outside the formal COP framework, groups of countries could launch their own initiatives or pledge funding for specific projects. Companies will likely announce commercial deals related to climate action, while financiers try to raise cash for climate investments.

What is Azerbaijan’s role in COP29?

Azerbaijan holds the presidency of COP29 this year, when the rotating COP presidency fell to Central and Eastern Europe.

Next year Brazil will serve as Latin America’s host for COP30.

As summit host, a country works the entire year to steer pre-summit negotiations and lobby other governments for ambitious action. This gives the presidency an important part in defining the summit’s priorities.

What else happens at COP?

Beyond the country negotiations, the COP summit offers a chance for anyone to try to draw attention – or funding – to their cause.

Hundreds of side events see activists and scientists rubbing shoulders with industry lobbyists and banking heavyweights.

Public-facing conference stages host panel discussions on topics from ocean acidification to designing carbon offset projects.

An exhibition hall, dubbed the “Green Zone,” features discussions led by national delegations, non-profit organisations and corporations.

While some summits have seen big organized protests, such as the rally of thousands outside of COP26 in Glasgow in 2021, the last two conferences in Egypt and the United Arab Emirates have allowed for protests only in designated, roped-off areas.

Azerbaijan, which also has banned public protests, will likely see little civic action outside of the high-security conference site.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

A view shows a sign of the COP29 United Nations Climate Change Conference with a backdrop of the cityscape in Baku, Azerbaijan October 31, 2024.
| Photo Credit: Reuters

This month’s U.N. climate summit – COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan – has been dubbed the “climate finance COP” for its central goal: to agree on how much money should go each year to helping developing countries cope with climate-related costs.

That discussion could be tough following Tuesday’s re-election of former U.S. President Donald Trump, a climate denier whose campaign vowed to remove the top historic greenhouse gas emitter and leading oil and gas producer from the landmark 2015 Paris Agreement to fight climate change for a second time.

COP29 delegates will also be looking to advance other deals made at previous summits.

Here are some of the top agenda items for the Nov. 11-22 summit.

Climate finance

The acronym dominating this year’s summit is NCQG – which stands for the New Collective Quantified Goal.

That refers to the new annual climate financing target, which is meant to kick in when the current $100 billion pledge expires at the end of this year.

Wealthy nations have only sometimes met that annual goal since 2020, leading to growing mistrust among the world’s climate-vulnerable nations.

As COP29 aims to set a much higher target for the years ahead, wealthy nations insist the money cannot come entirely from their budgets.

Instead, they are discussing a far more complex effort that would involve reforming the global multilateral lending complex in ways that de-escalate climate-linked financial risks and encourage more private capital.

It is unclear how much of the total annual target would be offered by rich nations. Also unresolved is whether fast-developing nations like China or the Middle East Gulf oil states should also contribute, a position championed by the United States and European Union.

By reforming the global banking system, countries hope to drive up the annual climate finance sum. U.N. agencies estimate that trillions of dollars are needed yearly, but officials with the COP29 host Azerbaijan said that a number in the “hundreds of billions” has a more realistic chance of being approved by consensus.

Fossil fuel transition

Last year’s COP28 summit in Dubai ended with countries agreeing for the first time to “transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems.”

Since then, however, both fossil fuel use and export sales have continued to rise globally, while new areas have been approved for oil and gas production in countries like Azerbaijan, the United States, Namibia, and Guyana.

With countries and companies unclear in their resolve to quit coal, oil and gas, negotiators said COP29 was unlikely to deliver timelines or stronger language on fossil fuels, though some countries might push for a halt in new coal plant permitting.

Countries will also be discussing progress in their pledge to triple renewable energy capacity and double energy efficiency, as a way of easing demand for fossil fuels.

Rules for carbon market

Governments are eager to resolve rules for trading carbon credits earned through the preservation of forests and other natural carbon sinks.

While these credits are meant to be issued to nations as optional offsets to their countries’ emissions, they can also be traded on open markets. Business leaders are looking for COP29 to set rules for guaranteeing transparency and environmental integrity in projects logged with the Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism (PACM).

Still to decide are key issues including how the PACM supervisory body will set standards, if credits should be evaluated before being traded, and whether and when credits can be revoked.

Boosting transparency

Azerbaijan hopes countries will submit their first climate action progress reports during the summit ahead of a Dec. 31 deadline, but it is unclear if countries will do so.

These so-called Biennial Transparency Reports (BTRs) are meant to describe a country’s progress in reaching its climate goals – and how much further they need to go in setting fresh goals by February. As it stands, national pledges to cut emissions still fall far short of what is needed, the U.N. said last week.

The BTRs will also offer insight into how much finance is currently needed in developing countries, both for transitioning their economies away from fossil fuels and for adapting to the conditions of a warmer world.

Adaptation in focus

Countries last year committed to a framework of guidelines for national plans to help people adapt to climate disruptions such as warmer days, rising sea levels or parched farmlands.

But the framework for adaptation lacks details, such as quantifiable targets for measuring progress or strategies for linking projects with climate finance.

Countries hope to set more specific adaptation goals during COP29.

Money for loss and damage

Two years since Egypt’s COP27 summit agreed to help poor countries with the costs of climate-driven disasters like extreme floods, storms or drought, about $660 million has been mobilized through the newly created Fund For Responding To Loss and Damage, that will be headquartered in the Philippines.

Climate-vulnerable countries will call on wealthy nations to offer more for the fund.

File picture of a volunteer pouring water to cool a man off during a hot day in Karachi, Pakistan. 2024 will be first year over 1.5 degree Celsius hotter than pre-industrial period
| Photo Credit: AP

This year is “virtually certain” to eclipse 2023 as the world’s warmest since records began, the European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) said on Thursday (November 7, 2024). The data was released ahead of next week’s U.N. COP29 climate summit in Azerbaijan, where countries will try to agree a huge increase in funding to tackle climate change. Donald Trump’s victory in the U.S. presidential election has dampened expectations for the talks.

C3S said that from January to October, the average global temperature had been so high that 2024 was sure to be the world’s hottest year — unless the temperature anomaly in the rest of the year plunged to near-zero.

“The fundamental, underpinning cause of this year’s record is climate change,” C3S Director Carlo Buontempo told Reuters.

“The climate is warming, generally. It’s warming in all continents, in all ocean basins. So we are bound to see those records being broken,” he said.

The scientists said 2024 will also be the first year in which the planet is more than 1.5C hotter than in the 1850-1900 pre-industrial period, when humans began burning fossil fuels on an industrial scale.

ALSO READ: Zeroing in on methane diplomacy, at COP29 

Carbon dioxide emissions from burning coal, oil and gas are the main cause of global warming.

Sonia Seneviratne, a climate scientist at public research university ETH Zurich, said she was not surprised by the milestone, and urged governments at COP29 to agree stronger action to wean their economies off CO2-emitting fossil fuels.

“The limits that were set in the Paris agreement are starting to crumble given the too-slow pace of climate action across the world,” Ms. Seneviratne said.

Countries agreed in the 2015 Paris Agreement to try to prevent global warming surpassing 1.5C (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit), to avoid its worst consequences.

The world has not breached that target – which refers to an average global temperature of 1.5C over decades – but C3S now expects the world to exceed the Paris goal around 2030.

“It’s basically around the corner now,” Mr. Buontempo said.

Every fraction of temperature increase fuels extreme weather. In October, catastrophic flash floods killed hundreds of people in Spain, record wildfires tore through Peru, and flooding in Bangladesh destroyed more than 1 million tons of rice, sending food prices skyrocketing. In the U.S., Hurricane Milton was also worsened by human-caused climate change.

C3S’ records go back to 1940, which are cross-checked with global temperature records going back to 1850.