Category: Uncategorized (Page 3 of 74)

I arrived in Baku ready to support the AOSIS (Alliance of Small Island States) delegation with 3 objectives: 

1. Achieve a New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) target of at least USD 1 trillion per year 
2. Have a set percentage of the NCQG be reserved for Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and Least Developed Countries (LDCs)
3. Have the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage be part of the NCQG fund

We achieved none of these objectives. There was a presentation at the Oceans Pavilion led by ministers from Fiji and Palau, where they spent the entirety of the presentation flipping through images of islands that would be underwater by 2060. I made it a point to attend as many of the events led by delegates from SIDS as the negotiations schedule allowed, knowing that I could offer data solutions to some of the issues presented. I also did it wishing to find some hope for myself – that perhaps things were not as bad as I thought they were. Unfortunately, that hope was in short supply. It was hard to return to Durham without feeling some sense of despondence.

Coming into COP29, I knew achieving even one of these 3 objectives would be a tall order. I was always surprised to hear the relatively little importance given to the ‘climate finance COP’. Just by its very nature, the NCQG was always going to be contentious no matter what COP it was a part of. Creating and mobilizing a large, global, central fund for projects with risky to no returns on investment goes against so many fundamental principles of international trade and economics. Why would countries ever discuss, let alone sign up, for something like this? And yet, here we are, having had a year’s worth of discussion on this economics-defying fund, all because some individuals had the audacity to move the goalposts and advocate for contentious issues (like a Loss and Damage fund). I take some solace in that fact. 

On my last day at COP, I sat next to an environmental minister from South Sudan on the bus, his upbeat smile in stark contrast with my slouched shoulders. He had just exchanged contacts with a researcher from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, and was looking forward to partnering with him and raising awareness of the ocean’s weather impacts in landlocked South Sudan. 

While there should be more conferences like it, COP remains the one place where vulnerable countries can build access to the knowledge and resources they need to survive. Even though climate finance gaps remain unanswered till COP30, the technology and knowledge gaps can be bridged now. The work to empower countries and communities with the necessary knowledge and technologies to mitigate and adapt to climate change does not stop at COP – as a favorite comedian of mine once said, it is a lunch pail job day in and day out. See you tomorrow, ready to work.

During my time at COP29 in Baku, one theme has stood out repeatedly: the role of petrol states and oil companies in the broader climate dialogue. As someone attending my first COP, I’ve been struck by the polarized views on their participation. Many see these actors as adversaries to climate progress, pointing out their vested interests in keeping fossil fuels central to the global economy. Yet, dismissing or alienating them might be one of the most significant mistakes we could make.

I’ve heard delegates and activists express frustration about the presence of oil-exporting nations and fossil fuel companies in the discussions. Some argue that their involvement is mere virtue signaling or a strategy to greenwash their image. But this perspective, while understandable, ignores the reality that these states and companies are not just obstacles; they are stakeholders—stakeholders that we need to engage with if we hope to achieve meaningful progress.

Take Azerbaijan, for example. As a major oil and gas exporter, its economy is deeply tied to fossil fuels. It’s easy to see why some criticize the decision to host COP29 here. However, during the sessions and side events, I’ve come to appreciate how Azerbaijan’s position exemplifies the challenges and opportunities of transitioning away from fossil fuels. This nation, like many others, has much to gain from diversifying its economy and investing in sustainable alternatives. Alienating petrol states won’t encourage this shift; collaboration will.

The idea of “making polluters pay” resonates strongly in climate negotiations. It’s a necessary step toward accountability. However, if this is pursued in a way that vilifies entire nations or corporations, we risk pushing them further away from the table. As someone from Bolivia, a resource-rich nation also navigating the complexities of the energy transition, I understand that the conversation isn’t as black and white as many voices make it seem. Countries reliant on extractive industries often share the same goal—sustainable development—but their starting points differ.

In one of today’s sessions, an insightful point was raised: many of these so-called polluters would benefit significantly from solutions like renewable energy investments and economic diversification, especially if they are developing nations. Engaging them as partners, rather than adversaries, could unlock critical resources and momentum. The energy transition will only succeed if it includes everyone—especially those with the most at stake.

As COP29 continues, I’m reminded of why the decision to host it in Azerbaijan makes sense. This setting challenges the global climate community to reckon with the uncomfortable truths about fossil fuels and their role in our world. It’s not an endorsement of fossil fuels; it’s a call to confront the realities of our interconnected economies and political systems.

Let’s hope the conversations here inspire a more inclusive and pragmatic approach to climate action—one that works for everyone, not just the already converted.

It is impossible to ignore the permanent shadow that the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) will cast on the reputation of COP29. With this COP dubbed the “Finance COP,” expectations were high for developed nations to increase their annual climate finance commitments from the $100 billion initially agreed upon in 2009 and finally achieved in 2022. The NCQG was intended to set a new target for annual climate finance by 2030, with research suggesting that a figure as high as $1 trillion would be required annually (source: WRI).

As negotiations dragged into overtime, optimism waned. Delegates from the Association of Small Island States (AOSIS) walked out in protest over a proposed $250 billion goal, calling it a betrayal to vulnerable nations (source: BBC). The eventual agreement of $300 billion annually by 2035 was widely criticized. Developing nations like India voiced strong objections, calling the rushed deal inadequate, while economists highlighted that the deal’s failure to account for inflation further eroded its effectiveness (source: New York Times, The Guardian).

In contrast, COP29 made unexpected progress on Article 6 – the mechanism for trading emissions reductions. After nearly a decade of negotiations, this agreement provides a  framework for emissions trading under the Paris Agreement to support nations in meeting their nationally determined contributions (NDCs). This deal will have wide-ranging repercussions in the voluntary carbon markets, which will likely adapt to mirror many principles from the Article 6 framework (although the voluntary markets will not be bound to this framework). Unfortunately, the deal on Article 6 did fall short of establishing robust accountability standards, particularly for credits with data inconsistencies (source: Carbon Market Watch).

The outcomes of COP29 reveal a pattern of imperfection. Some negotiators argued that no deal would have been better than an imperfect one, but the COP presidency prioritized securing agreements at all costs. The presidency wields considerable power, from setting agendas to managing the release of draft texts ahead of negotiations. Critics noted that this COP’s logistical mismanagement and opaque processes contributed to rushed, late night agreements that many parties accepted under duress.

It is worth questioning whether COP29’s deals might have been more comprehensive and less hurried if managed by a host country more committed to climate urgency. The Azerbaijani president’s opening remarks, referring to oil as a “gift from God” (source: BBC), underscored the nation’s friction with the conference’s goals.

Still, the blame cannot rest solely on logistical failings. Developed nations have consistently shirked their responsibilities in addressing the climate crisis. The $300 billion financing commitment is far below what is needed, and the inability of wealthier countries to push for a higher target is disheartening.

Looking ahead, 2025 will be a pivotal year for climate action. Nations will submit updated NDCs, the U.S. faces federal leadership hostile to climate initiatives, and COP30 will convene in Brazil’s Amazon Rainforest. Whether these milestones bring progress or further frustration remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: the urgency for meaningful climate action has never been greater.

Continuing the previous article on how to navigate COP, a host country provides numerous opportunities to explore.

In general, while COP is happening within eleven days, the country’s exploration is manageable to plan. It makes little difference whether to attend COP for five or four days, but it makes a huge difference whether to explore Azerbaijan for one or zero days. As such, with Jacob Wilentz, Duke ’24 alum, we had the pleasure of seeing the gorgeous sceneries of Azerbaijan. From the flame mountain with the constant burning of natural gas to the mesmerizing Caucasus Mountains, we couldn’t stop being impressed by the beauty of local views.

We also couldn’t avoid noticing lots of oil and gas extraction sites. One of the pictures I didn’t take was the COP29 sign in front of a petrol jack pumping oil. Not to diminish the critiques of a country’s economy, which is primarily fueled by oil and gas export, it’s important to see a broad picture (e.g., Azerbaijan’s oil and gas export is less than 1% on the world’s market).

Some other notable observations around Azerbaijan include countless surveillance cameras, metal detectors in the metro, and manicured Baku. As I have visited over 40 countries, I recall only three cities where one should take a bag through a metal detector when entering public transport, such as the metro: Baku, Moscow, and Shanghai. This peculiarity of having a high level of security plays a role in organizing such a sizeable event. Not a single time have we waited in line for security or badge checks for longer than a minute or two. The accreditation, security and shuttle organization of the conference were flawless.

Finally, the last part is after the COP. When prospective students reach out to me for advice, the one idea I always emphasize is thank you notes and follow-ups. When someone gives me their business card, I try to write a few words on the card right away, like ‘COP29, date, and a few topics we discussed.’ Starting with the people who impressed me the most and with whom I want to stay in touch, I would send a note to most of the people whom I met. As with so many things happening at the conference, it’s never too early to follow up.

The impression of COP29 results were highly polar. The presidency claims breakthrough and delivery of a new financial goal. However, opposite to the hosting country, many call this year’s COP a failure: ‘Three hundred billion dollars till 2035 is a joke, and it’s not something we should take lightly. I do not think it’s something we should clap our hands and force us to take it’ – said a delegate from Nigeria, Nkiruka Maduekwe, NPR reporting.

To conclude, despite many calls for the COP to set our society back, as a student, one still greatly benefits from observing such a vital event, however successful or not the outcome is. From pure learning while attending events to getting to know other delegates, COP is like any other conference but more.

During my second day at the COP29, I decided to look at the High-Level Ministerial Dialogue on Adaptation finance. I was surprised to witness a session that sounded much like the first one. Every speech seemed like an opening statement calling for goodwill to cooperate, referring to some data on climate change impacts, and -in the least of cases- discussing some actions.

I tried to understand what was happening and I thought of these two options: either they already had a draft they were not showing at that moment (that would explain the slow pace of the session despite being so close to the final day of negotiations) or they were ready to postpone decisions. It appeared they were there to talk out loud so the press in their respective countries would have material about them addressing climate-change issues, but not necessarily making specific commitments. That is what the group concluded as well during dinner that day.

The sentiment of a COP29 that was looking forward to COP30 was louder. And, from the decision maker’s perspective, I understood that. Among other factors, the negotiators are facing uncertainty regarding what the next US administration is going to do on these matters. f they make big decisions now despite such an unstable basis, the risk of discontent and envy from the next US administration to leave the table would be greater.

After that, I headed to the Delegations pavilions. There, I feel, we could find the proof that not everything is decided in the UNFCCC negotiations and that bilateral cooperation, public-private partnerships, academia, and ONG have advanced and will continue to look for options. That day, I attended the presentations on building resilient infrastructure in Brazil and India (the latter, in the Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure -CRDI- pavilion). In both cases, mapping, monitoring, and design of resilient infrastructure were fundamental, however, the CRDI highlighted the need to perform risk assessment during the infrastructure lifecycle. I could not help but think about this need in Mexico, my home country.

The next day, I spent a few hours in the China pavilion, where they handled the “Enterprise Day”. I was surprised listening to US and Chinese officials talk together about what they have done and what they can do together to enhance climate change. They specifically presented 3 joint reports on circular economy derived from the tasks of the U.S.-China Working Group on Enhancing Climate Action in the 2020s. The first report was focused on Eco-design Guidelines and Voluntary standards for Plastic Products; the second on Remanufacturing; and the third on Circularity and Efficiency Improvements in Construction Materials.

Despite disagreements on trade and even on the quantum and sources of the new collective quantified goal, it was interesting to see how these two countries still joined efforts to improve practices in large emitter industries. Of course, major commitment and actions are needed from the bigger emitters, but it was somewhat refreshing to see that not everything is lost.