COP29: more money for the climate – but is it enough?
The 29th UN Climate Change Conference in Baku has come to an end. For two weeks, delegates from around the world grappled over a new financial equalisation formula between industrialised and developing countries in global climate protection funding. In the end, they agreed on 300 billion dollars per year as of 2035. The estimated required sum was 1.3 trillion, however.
People for whom there is no tomorrow
Unfortunately the task of finding a solution to the problem is in the wrong hands, T24 laments:
“Old uncles and aunts with grumpy faces, relics of the Cold War, rule our world. They have perhaps 15 or 20 years left on earth. They don't understand what's going on, they have no clue about the potential solutions. ... They only know how to wage war. As if there were no tomorrow.”
Basis and amplifier of all crises
Večer summarises with resignation:
“The extent to which weak leadership of the conference, which brings together delegates from all over the world, can damage the talks became particularly clear this year. The situation has literally hit an oil-soaked low. Veterans of the climate negotiations expressed frustration at a process that has been completely hollowed out. They know full well that if this process dies too, all the world's conflicts will get worse and new ones will emerge. Climate change is the basis and amplifier of all crises! There is, however, a glimmer of hope in the fact that all delegations are still taking part in the negotiations and that an agreement has been reached, albeit painstakingly.”
At least the process continues
The Irish Times heaves a sigh of relief:
“It was perilously close to failure, which would have come at the wrong time geopolitically and undermined multilateralism more widely, as well as threatening climate action. ... The notable positives secured were a climate finance goal of 300 billion to be paid by wealthy countries annually by 2035 with a roadmap to move to 1.3 trillion. There was also a long overdue agreement on how carbon markets will operate with better transparency. Many vulnerable countries will have reluctantly backed the outcome, knowing it is not enough.”
Risks of nuclear energy unresolved
In answer to the trend to see nuclear energy as the answer to climate change, Neatkarīgā points to an unresolved issue:
“After 70 years of nuclear power, there is still a lack of consensus about what to do with the accumulated radioactive waste, some of which will remain hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years. The answer that many governments are looking for is geological disposal - burying waste in sealed tunnels deep underground. But only one country, Finland, has actually built such a facility, while environmentalists and anti-nuclear activists say that this type of disposal, which puts nuclear waste out of sight and out of mind, is too risky.”
An uphill battle for COP30
El País doesn't see any real progress:
“The conference in Baku must be seen in a geopolitical context. ... Trump's election and his threat to pull the US out of the Paris Agreement weighed heavily on the meeting. ... In addition, rich countries are struggling with a long list of fiscal and political constraints, including inflation, budget constraints and a surge in the influence of populist climate deniers. The chaotic role of the COP29 presidency also had a negative impact. Azerbaijan, like Dubai, is an oil state, which explains why the agreement did not include a commitment to phase out fossil fuels in the final declaration. Brazil which will be organising COP30, faces an uphill battle to achieve real progress there.”
Pathetic effort from the US and China
Politiken blames the meager results of the summit on two participants in particular:
“How pathetic. The world's two most powerful countries, the US and China, can't get their act together to tackle the greatest challenge of our time, climate change. When it comes to trade, war and ammunition, the two vie with each other to be the world's top dog, but when it comes to the real fight for the future they duck away. This became crystal clear at the climate summit in Baku, where the global community tried to reach a consensus on a new deal for financing the poor countries suffering most from the climate crisis caused by rich countries.”
Europe must get its own act together
Le Soir is scathing in its criticism:
“This is exactly how panic sets in: as a result of inertia or, even worse, denial, at a time when the concrete signs of the catastrophe humanity faces are multiplying in both the North and the South. ... Which of the current leading countries really puts climate protection at the top of its agenda? It's too easy to point to the return of Donald Trump and his band of climate sceptics and fossil-fuel lovers, or the irresponsible behaviour of China and India. The EU has also just swapped its green obsession for a new focus on defence and industry. ... It's not that easy? Who can seriously make that excuse today?”
At least a bit more money
COP29 did achieve something after all, La Stampa points out:
“In 2015, with the Paris Agreement it was decided that rich countries should allocate 100 billion dollars a year to combat the climate crisis in the most vulnerable countries. Only two years have passed since this figure was finally reached, but a new bar had to be set in Baku. The final text now adopted stipulates that this amount is to rise to 300 billion as of 2035. This is a slight increase compared to the last drafts of the agreement, which talked of 250 billion dollars. Although this is low, it is still a significant increase.”
Investment instead of compensation
Bertrand Piccard, chairman of the environmental NGO Solar Impulse Foundation, questions the current logic of financial equalisation in Le Temps:
“Who exactly will pay, to whom and why? ... Of course, the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases have a responsibility towards the rest of the world, and it's clear that the countries that suffer the most today must be supported. ... But the transition from a world that dumps fossil fuels to a world that saves renewables follows a different logic: that of investment rather than compensation. Here the billions cannot come out of the same source, because an investment is lucrative by definition. ... If all this is not more clearly defined, we will continue to have fruitless discussions.”