The 29th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change came to a laborious end in Baku, Azerbaijan, in November. In his speech, the president of this petrostate couldn’t resist showing his bias describing oil and gas as “a gift of god”.
The deliberations at the meeting were anything but smooth. The agenda was noticeably managed. Agreement was not reached on the outcome of last year’s COP28 which called on all countries to contribute to “transitioning away from fossil fuel” and to submit climate pledges aligned with the 1.5°C limit.
There was a clear divide between a new climate finance goal, and whether to carry forward COP28’s deal on transitioning away from fossil fuels. It ended by postponing the latter to the COP30 meeting next year in Brazil. Instead, attention was given to a new climate financial goal. One can easily understand this – it was reported that 1,700 fossil-fuel executives had registered to attend COP29.
When a draft from the presidency on climate finance was released, hinting also at a monetary figure, there was nearly universal disapproval of it. It was reported that the Least Developed Countries Group and the Alliance of Small Island States, walked out, even though temporarily, saying that as the moral voices of climate justice, they walked out of the talks as they refused to be associated with a text that undermines climate action for the next decade.
After a number of hiccups and many draft proposals and last-minute negotiations, the developed countries finally came to an agreement to pay the developing countries the sum of “at least” $300 billion a year by 2035, to support their efforts to deal with and help them face the negative impacts of climate change.
The details of this agreement still must be worked out and the deal raises a number of questions, both economic and ecological, which seem to have been comfortably completely swept under the carpet.
Will such an amount of money being paid by the rich, developed countries prevent drought in the future? Will it eliminate flooding problems the planet is facing? Will it contribute to stop a rise in the sea level? Will it stop the melting of ice caps?
Will it help to halt the ever-increasing biodiversity loss? Will it help developed countries avert environmental catastrophes which are being inflicted by the negative impacts of climate change, mainly due to the rich countries continual postponement in addressing the control of fossil-fuel emissions?
Will the money being paid by rich developed countries stop the melting of ice caps?- Alfred Baldacchino
Will it reduce the social, ecological, economic price that the rich developed countries will have to pay, along with the developing ones? Will the squandering of this “gift of god” be controlled in any way?
Meanwhile, temperatures and global emissions continue to increase. Climate extremes are occurring more frequently and with more severity than expected.
Carbon Brief – a UK-based website in climate science refers to an open letter by a former UN secretary general saying that: “The COP process is ‘no longer fit for purpose’ and that countries that do not support the phasing out of fossil fuels should not be able to take up the presidency.” COP29 vindicated such a statement.
At the next COP30, there will be the presence of the US (the world’s biggest historical emitter) with its new promise to pull out of the Paris meeting decisions. So, the pressure for the better control of the use of fossil fuel will be greater. It is being rumoured that in the absence of the US, the EU, the UK and China will be taking the leading role in controlling climate change.
So, how will climate change impact humanity and the planet? It seems the rich countries are happy to absolve themselves through a monetary solution rather than an ecological one. One would tend to conclude that by dishing out $300 billion to developing nations, the problem is gone. Problem solved. Climate change's negative impacts have been solved!
When the sound of the applause at the end of the Baku meeting has subsided, can one conclude that this is the most expensive kiss of the first step in bidding the future goodbye?
Alfred Baldacchino is a former MEPA assistant director.