While COP29 remains ongoing, the geopolitical implications of the negotiations deserve attention. I am not yet at the conference, but I am wary of the Party requests and coalitions that may serve as an indication for geopolitical behavior into the next decade.

Something that shocked me personally was a formal request from the BASIC countries: to add the issue of the “climate change-related, trade-restrictive unilateral measures” (clearly referring to the European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism [CBAM]) to the COP29 agenda. Ultimately, Azerbaijan opted not to include this agenda item, but this is no assurance for the future. As we know, COP30 will be hosted in Brazil, one of the BASIC countries; additionally, China has reaffirmed their stance against such measures, stating that they will lobby for the inclusion of the issue at COP30.

The EU’s CBAM has proved to be a divisive issue. From one angle, it is a noble attempt to combat carbon leakage and incentivize efficient utilization of carbon. From another angle, it could be considered unilateral economic protectionism that, depending on how you analyze WTO rules (if at all), may violate international trade law and may negatively affect developing countries’ ability to grow their economies. The latter conception is one that appears to be shared by the BASIC countries, which only seem to be increasing in their geopolitical influence.

The United States’ reelection of Donald Trump to the presidency seems to have diminished the United States’ bargaining power at COP29. This American debuff in negotiating presence, if true, empowers the BASIC countries more and may even isolate the EU and similarly situated developed countries. Although it is too early to tell, this is a phenomenon that could survive for the next four years and beyond.

There has also been substantial dialogue over the presence of fossil fuel lobbyists at COP29. While some celebrate their executives’ promises to invest $500m to expand access to sustainable modern energy (mostly in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia), others fear that these promises are merely an attempt to justify their presence at a conference whose objectives facially require a diminution in their industry. In other words, these fossil fuel executives could be saving face by making such promises in order to attend COP29 and lobby world leaders to pursue policies and negotiation outcomes that benefit the fossil fuel industry.

These promises also occurred in the context of the President of Azerbaijan, a major fossil fuels producer and supplier to Europe (especially following the invasion of Ukraine), declaring that oil and gas were “gift[s] from God.” From certain statements made by OPEC leadership in and around COP28, we know that the aforementioned underlying sentiment about fossil fuels is not unique to Azerbaijan. The exact future of the fossil fuels industry has yet to be determined, but they certainly retain very influential interest groups and will continue to be critical until the energy transition can be finalized.

As COP29 continues into its second week, I am very excited to attend. I have already learned so much from the UNFCCC Practicum’s guest speakers and my very own classmates, and I cannot wait to sit in on negotiations and attend the numerous side events. Stay tuned for more specific updates on my experience, and please leave a comment if you feel so inclined.