Sorry Kids... latest research shows that increasing temperatures adding to extreme heat due to burning fossil fuels has a disproportionate impact in killing young people under 35 years. While this research is based on Mexico, it is highly likely it applies more widely, although there will be some caveats.
One of the authors of the study, Danny Bressler, said: "The concentration of heat-related mortality among younger people is quite disproportionate compared to other causes of death. Although just 16% of overall deaths from all causes are among under 35 year olds, 75% of heat-related deaths are among under 35 year olds. When we consider lost life years, the age-specific inequality is more extreme: 87% of heat-related lost life years occur among under-35-year-olds."
Meanwhile Australia's Environment Minister is set to approve another 3 coal mines pushing up the temperature and endangering our children's future.
Heat disproportionately kills young people: Evidence from wet-bulb temperature in Mexico (December 2024)
Australia has long tried to be two things at once – a trusted friend to Pacific nations in a bid to reduce China’s influence, and a giant exporter of fossil fuels. This diplomatic tightrope has become increasingly hard to walk, as Pacific nations see climate change as an existential threat.
This week, Australia’s government was forced to make a choice in a very public forum. It chose fossil fuels.
Disappointed by the slow pace of United Nations climate talks, Vanuatu and other Pacific nations launched a case at the International Court of Justice in the Netherlands to clarify the obligations countries have to prevent harm to the Earth’s climate system for current and future generations.
While international climate negotiations are often conducted behind closed doors, this case is being broadcast in public. We can clearly see the arguments Australia has laid out and the countries it has aligned itself with.
In the courtroom on Monday, Australia sided with major emitters and fossil fuel exporters such as Saudi Arabia, the United States and China to try and minimise their legal liability in contributing to climate change.
Outcome summary: Negotiations fail to conclude, but some progress made. Still wide divergencies in some areas. A resumed session in 2025 agreed to.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for a Global Plastics Treaty is holding its fifth meeting in Busan, South Korea from 25 November to 1 December 2024 to prepare a treaty by the end of 2024. This meeting is it.
Global Plastics pollution is an escalating Crisis that interlinks with the Biodiversity Crisis and Climate Crisis. The Health and environmental impacts of plastics, microplastics and nanoplastics are of increasing concern as more research is done.
The process for a Global Plastics Treaty was started in March 2022 at the resumed fifth session of the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA-5.2). See my reports of INC1, INC2, INC3, INC4.
A Zero Draft of the treaty was prepared at INC4 with elements of both common rules for all parties, and a nationally driven policy framework, and many procedural issues still to sort out. As this zero draft contained some 1500 brackets, in the interim the Secretariat has prepared a non-paper to try to streamline negotiations start.
IISD/ENB have a highlights report available with a summary of Final Plenary discussions.
They agreed to adjourn INC-5 in Busan, Republic of Korea, and convene a resumed meeting at a later date. Some countries wanted it early in 2025 not to lose momentum, while others like Saudi Arabia called for later - July or August.
delegates agreed to use the Chair’s revised Text as a basis for negotiations at the resumed fifth session of the INC (INC-5.2), and also other texts.
INC Chair Vayas resassured delegates that “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.”
While supporting it as the basis for negotiations at the next meeting, several delegations underlined that the Chair’s Text should remain open to additions and deletions. They noted that the text did not always reflect the discussions held during the week and excluded some countries’ “red lines.”
The Arab Group and the Russian Federation noted that the Non-Paper containing the draft text of the Chair of the Committee, circulated on Friday, 29 November 2024, better reflected discussions, but were willing to engage on the basis of the Chair’s Text
“We are not leaving Busan discouraged,” shared the EU, encapsulating the mood during the closing plenary.
Several delegations spoke, with Mexico and Rwanda speaking on behalf of 95 and 85 countries, respectively, to call for a strong treaty, which would include articles on production, hazardous plastics, and chemicals of concern.
Kuwait, who spoke for the Like-Minded Countries, expressed concern that “at this session, expedient progress was undermining trust and inclusivity,” and noted “attempts to stretch” the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA) resolution mandate beyond its limits.
After report backs from the 4 contact group co-chairs, Chair has proposed the latest non-paper as a starting point for further negotiations at a resumed session 5.2 at some time in the future. Various Parties spoke in plenary, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, India, Ghana, Rwanda, Mexico, Uruguay, European Union, Finland. Panama, Russian Federation, Iraq, Canada, Cuba, Grenada, Samoa, Japan, Vanuatu, Jamaica, Armenia, Tonga, UK. Powerful statements by Rwanda on behalf of 85 countries and Mexico for 95 countries for an ambitious legally binding full-life-cycle treaty that addresses chemicals of concern.
2 December - International talks on curbing plastic pollution fail to reach agreement (Guardian)
Chair releases latest text. Some Delegates and Policy Experts have responded with this press release (GAIA):
Plastics Treaty INC-5: Global South Delegates and Civil Society Speak Out Delegates and Policy Experts React to the Chair’s Proposed Treaty Text
Busan, South Korea – Global South delegates and civil society leaders spoke at a press conference at BEXCO Convention Center this afternoon, to share their outlook on the negotiations thus far and what it means for the Global South. In the hour before the press conference, the Chair released his latest paper, which proposes text for the treaty to serve as a basis for the final bout of negotiations.
Arpita Bhagat, Plastics Lead at GAIA Asia Pacific states: “The Chair’s latest text is unacceptable to the majority of Global South countries and the billions of people they represent: people who are fighting for their lives for a strong treaty. Nor is it acceptable to people harmed by plastics in the Global North, including environmental justice, front and fenceline communities, and Indigenous Peoples who have long been sidelined in the process. It is not a reflection of the will of the vast majority of Member States, who support ambitious measures in a legally-binding, global instrument. Once again, as throughout this process, the Chair has bent to the will of the petrochemical states while dismissing the demands of the majority, in a completely non-transparent, exclusionary process. This is a matter of life and death, especially for Global South communities. Member States will not roll over and play dead. As long as ambitious countries hold on to their principles, civil society will have their backs.”
Cheikh Ndiaye Sylla, National Focal Point for Senegal, states, “This version of the text is…not acceptable…For life cycle, we have to negotiate this from the polymer, meaning the production. It is legally binding as per the title…No text is better than bad text.”
Dr Sam Adu-Kumi, Negotiator for Ghana, states, “The whole world is looking up to us…they are expecting something better that will protect the environment, human health, our brothers and sisters, and our young populations….So we are not here to accept anything short of an ambitious treaty.”
These elements in the new text are particularly problematic:
On core obligations:
Plastic production (“Supply”): the Chair’s text does not represent the strong language Panama and more than 100 other countries proposed, including a global target on production reduction; it is full of weak text options, such as referring to a reduction target as “aspirational.” This critical article must be strengthened with national targets.
Chemicals of concern: The Chair has stripped away systematic controls on toxic chemicals from this article, where we need the strongest measures to address the fundamental threat posed by chemicals of concern.
Waste management: the waste hierarchy has been removed; and “energy recovery” – code for waste-burning technologies– remains.
On means of implementation:
Financial mechanism: At least 126 countries support an independent, dedicated fund– the most widely supported provision in the instrument– yet the Chair’s text undermines it with weak, optional language that fails to provide adequate funds, such as through a polymer production fee.
The treaty infrastructure is weak:
No right to vote: The Chair’s text fails to give countries the right to vote, ensuring further paralysis of the process. This is not the “start and strengthen” treaty that we were promised.
The week in Busan started with petrochemical states threatening to derail the process if Member States exercised their right to call for a vote, which brought us to this point. Continuing the work in an INC 5.2 will only be worthwhile with a transparent process where states put an end to the tyranny of the minority.
As we confront the potential failure of the negotiations, we remind Member States that, as they themselves have stated, no deal is better than a bad deal.
Panama makes an Impassioned plea alongside all high ambition countries at the global plastic treaty negotiations in Busan. We can’t be dragged down by those with low ambition. Treaty must reduce plastic production & address chemicals of concern. Its not a waste a management treaty
30 November 2024 - Saudi Arabia Leads Pushback Against Global Plastic Treaty (New York Times) "Saudi Arabia, Russia and other producers of petroleum, which is used to make most of the world’s plastic, have pushed back against measures that would address plastic pollution by placing curbs on excessive plastic production. The Saudis and their allies have also said they oppose any treaty that would start to list and phase out chemicals present in plastic that are thought to be harmful to health."
November 30 - Day 6
According to Break Free from Plastic: "The sixth day of #INC5 negotiations for a #PlasticsTreaty have been spent in informal closed door meetings that are extending to the late evening."
Marine Biology Professor Rebecca R Helm reports: "Citizens at the UN plastics negotiation are no longer allowed in rooms. This is, in some ways, abnormal. But it’s also not unexpected. Rumor has it a key sticking point is on capping plastic production. Now we wait."
Will INC-5 deliver a treaty? With only a day left for delegates to negotiate, the answer to this question generated mixed responses. Amidst the “aura of confusion” at the venue, some country delegates felt that the light at the end of the tunnel was “getting brighter.” “There are some articles that we can already agree on,” referring to issues such as information exchange; public information, awareness, education and research; final provisions; and the establishment of the conference of the parties (COP), subsidiary bodies, and the secretariat. Others, however, were more cautious, sharing that the clean articles need to be attached to strong language on production, design, waste management, and finance. “We are not there yet.”
For some “stakeholders,” though, being excluded from the talks at this crucial stage sent a “dark signal.” At a press conference of the International Indigenous Peoples’ Forum on Plastics on Saturday, Indigenous representatives stressed, “We have been silenced and strategically undervalued” in these negotiations. “How can you talk about a just transition, when we are not given a space at the table?” Another delegate shared, “we are rights holders in this process,” and “this treaty must guarantee not only our participation in the negotiations, but also in the implementation of measures to tackle the onslaught of plastic pollution, which disproportionately affects our communities, relatives, and Mother Earth.”
Will it be a plastics treaty, or a plastic waste treaty? “It is worrying that at this stage in negotiations, we are still unsure,” opined one participant. The text circulated on Friday has elements that, if agreed, “could give us a plastics treaty, with upstream measures related to production and design.” On the other hand, “if we cannot agree on these, we will go home with a plastic waste treaty,” she said, noting that this would be “a real waste.” Another delegate was overheard lamenting, “If after all this, we end up with a plastic waste treaty, which countries can implement domestically if they want, does it even make sense to call this an international treaty? Will it have been worth our efforts?”
One seasoned delegate wondered out loud whether there was still time to change the working modalities of the negotiations. “By now, we have come to the end of the line on contact-group-like negotiations, with every state commenting on every line,” drawing attention to the fact that the informal closed-door negotiations seem like “contact groups, just without the transparency.” He described several formats that could “push negotiations over the finish line,” including the round-table Vienna setting, which would bring the Chair and key coalitions together in face-to-face discussions. He wondered whether, “we may have run out of time” to switch gears in this way.
With the informals going on upstairs, delegation after delegation held bilaterals with the INC Chair downstairs, perhaps in a bid to break the deadlocks on core issues. However, at the end of the evening, it was still unclear whether “we’ll be shedding happy tears on Sunday, or weeping.” In hushed conversations throughout the day, some were heard discussing “plan B options,” in the event that INC-5 does not deliver a treaty. “Who will fund a resumed meeting of the INC, if it comes to that?” queried one delegate. “Should we keep hope alive?” asked one delegate. The jury is still out.
30 November 2024 - Greenpeace challenges petrochemical tanker as Busan plastics treaty talks enter final stage (Greenpeace)
Greenpeace International activists have boarded a tanker that is set to load toxic plastic chemicals from South Korea’s Hanwha TotalEnergies complex. They are urging governments to resist fossil fuel and petrochemical industry interference in the talks and to deliver a treaty that firmly cuts plastic production, which on current trends is set to triple by 2050.
“We are taking direct action here today – stopping this plastic shipment – to urge world leaders to listen to the voices of the millions of people around the world, along with scientists and businesses – who are demanding they cut plastic production to stop plastic pollution,” said Alex Wilson, Greenpeace UK climb team volunteer.
They continued, “As we protest here, petrochemical industry lobbyists are out in force in Busan. They are using their power, money and access to try to ensure that the treaty fails to do what it must – turn off the tap of plastic production.
Climate and Energy Minister Chris Bowen delivered his third annual Climate Statement to Parliament today.
The Government set an interim emissions target of 43 percent emissions reduction by 2030 based on 2005 levels. And in this statement Chris Bowen says that the Government is projected to meet 42.6 percent reduction by 2030, and be able to exceed this target with extra measures to come.
To help achieve this a Renewables target of 82 percent by 2030 was also set. The intrduction of the Capacity Investment Scheme means that more renewables are being invested in and built which will enable this target to be met.
The government has introduced a New Vehicle Emissions Scheme that will start from 1 January 2025 and progressively reduce light vehicle transport emissions.
The speech outlines the positive actions on renewables and energy transition already taken, critical minerals and steps to become a renewable energy super power.
But the elephant in the room is that Australia continues to approve new coal and gas projects for the export market, which is not compatible with a safe climate.
The continued approval of new coal and gas projects primarily for the export market. Scope 3 emissions are not included in Australia's greenhouse gas inventory
The Safeguard Mechanism to reduce emissions of the largest polluters is built upon carbon offsets, which have integrity issues.
Australia's carbon accounting is highly reliant on Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) which indicates that there has been minimal reductions in many sectors other than the electricity sector.
Australia has not addressed Fossil Fuel Tax subsidies currently running at about $14 billion per year
This being said, the Opposition is pushing forward with a Nuclear plan that would be hugely expensive, risky, would expand domestic gas use, and would fail to meet the gap between when coal plants retire in the early 2030s and the earliest Nuclear plants coming online in the 2040s. Adding Nuclear to the energy mix would continue with greenhouse gas emissions from gas well past the 2050s, so would breach the Net Zero 2050 target. Nuclear is a distraction from both Labor and Coalition Parties supporting fossil fuel coal and gas expansion.
The latest Victorian Greenhouse gas emissions report is for 2022 and contains the headline details for Victoria's emissions profile. It was tabled in Parliament by Climate and Energy Minister Lily D'Ambrosio.
The report is 16 pages long, and contains considerably less detail than reports from previous years which broke down data more finely and were often over 6o pages in length. So only headline details are shown, which is very disappointing and may hide particular problems in some sectors.
This is also a Net zero emissions which takes into account Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) carbon sequestration. This is notoriously difficult to estimate accurately.
While the long term trend is decreasing emissions, in 2022 emissions actually increased. This is most likely a rebound effect with regard to recovering from the Pandemic.
Total net emissions in 2019 were 86.8 MT CO2e, in 2020 86.2MT, in 2021 80.4MT, and in 2022 84.7MT. So between 2021 and 2022 net greenhouse gas emissions (CO2e) increased by 4.3 megatonnes.
Negotiators at the COP29 climate conference in Baku have struck a landmark agreement on rules governing the global trade of carbon credits, bringing to a close almost a decade of debate over the controversial scheme.
The deal paves the way for a system in which countries or companies buy credits for removing or avoiding greenhouse gas emissions elsewhere in the world, then count the reductions as part of their own climate efforts.
Some have argued the agreement provides crucial certainty to countries and companies trying to reach net-zero through carbon trading, and will harness billions of dollars for environmental projects.
However, the rules contain several serious flaws that years of debate have failed to fix. It means the system may essentially give countries and companies permissions to keep polluting.
The UN climate conference, the 29th Conference of the Parties (COP28) is ocurring in Baku in the Azerbaijan from Monday November 11 to Friday November 22, 2024 (but may also go into overtime).
This is my digital diary of Australia at COP29 in Baku. CIEL used a metaphor to describe this COP outcome: “COP29 was a dumpster fire. Except it’s not trash that’s burning— it’s our planet. And developed countries are holding both the matches and the firehose."
President-Designate for COP 29 is Mukhtar Babayev, Azerbaijan's Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources. Azerbaijan is a repressive state with a poor human rights record according to Human Rights Watch in leadup to a meeting in Bonn in June.
Australia is represented at the ministerial level by Climate and Energy Minister Chris Bowen. See Tracking Australian Ministers and Australian pledges at COP29. Australia is lobbying to hold COP31 in 2026, and an announcement of host is likely in Baku. The city of Belem in Brazil is holding COP30 in 2025.
I'll be including detail from IISD Earth Negotiating Bulletin for each day. I might pluck details from the full report, especially relevant to Australia, and will post the 'In the Corridors" section which provides a concise 'vibe' summary on the negotiations. I might include details from other sources as needed.
24 November 2024 - COP29 closed at 5.31am Sunday morning with a climate finance deal that many say is not nearly enough, pushback by Saudi Arabia to undermine transition away from Fossil Fuels and ramping up renewables energy transition.
Climate Finance: The NCQG. The US$300 billion funding deal by 2035 is a floor, but from multiple sources. No Distinct allocation for Loss and Damage. Includes a stretch target with private investment capital of $1.3 Trillion. Many developing countries were not happy with the deal, and some were outright furious.
Biodiversity deleted. The ink is barely dry on the texts from biodiversity COP16, where governments agreed to bring climate and nature conventions together. Yet at COP29, all mention of biodiversity deleted from nearly every text. Almost all mention of ecosystems and food systems has been stripped from latest texts, despite it being the cheapest form of mitigation, adaptation and resilience.
COP31 2026 decision: between Turkey and Australia pushed to the SBTI meeting in Bonn in June 2025
International Carbon credit trading: On Saturday evening, rules were agreed on how countries can create, trade and register emission reductions and removals as carbon credits after years of deadlock on article 6 of the Paris agreement. It paves the way for top emitters such as Germany and Japan to buy cheap removals and reductions from decarbonisation schemes in developing countries such as renewable energy schemes, rainforest protection or tree-planting, counting them towards their own targets. Trading could begin as soon as 2025 once technical bodies have agreed on the finer details. (Guardian) But there are many dangers in carbon trading in terms of credit integrity, additionality, double counting, transparency issues, and outright fraud.
If countries break UN carbon market rules when trading emissions with one another, the consequences, according to the new texts, are getting called naughty and being allowed to carry on regardless. Carbon Market Watch described the poor accountability and limited transparencyas a cowboy carbon market: “disappointing set of rules for a disappointingly open framework,” (Carbon Market Watch)
See also
Climate Land Ambition and Rights Alliance (CLARA) response on approval of Article 6 Market Mechanisms (CLARA Media Release PDF)
Kate Dooley from Melbourne University: Guest Post: After nearly 10 years of debate, COP29’s carbon trading deal is seriously flawed (Climate Citizen)
Isa Mulder, Policy Expert, Carbon Market Watch:
"The outcome of Baku leaves the framework for Article 6.2 dangerously loose and opaque, tailor-made for those pushing to turn it into a free-for-all. Instead of strong measures to ensure accountability, we're left with minimal guidance that puts all the chips on name-and-shame rather than meaningful oversight. Meanwhile, the adoption of Article 6.4 rules on removals risk repeating the inadequate measures of the voluntary carbon market that guarantee permanence in name only. And thus, the question emerges whether Article 6 carbon markets will help to achieve our climate goals at all."
Erika Lennon, Senior Attorney, Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL):
“With the adoption of lax rules for transparency and accountability, governments now face the real possibility of having created a Paris-sanctioned carbon market that could be worse for people and the planet than the scandal-ridden voluntary carbon markets. With the gaveling of standards on methodologies and removals on the opening day of the COP, the Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism has flung open its doors to removal activities that are nothing more than a dangerous distraction and then failed to ensure additional controls are put in place to keep it from causing harm. Going forward it will be essential to ensure this mechanism enforces its standards and, as the text says, considers other relevant environmental agreements that place a moratorium on geoengineering. Paying to pollute will never be a climate solution, and carbon markets will never be climate finance, but rather a climate disaster.”
Here is an explainer on Article 6.2 and 6.4 by Down To Earth from India:
IISD / Earth Negotiations Bulletin summarised the outcome:
Update: Plenary reconvened after midnight for parties to elect Adonia Ayebare (Uganda) as new Chair of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice and Julia Gardiner (Australia) as new SBI Chair. After another long suspension, parties reconvened to consider the issues that remained outstanding up to that point. Eventually they:
set a goal of at least USD 300 billion per year by 2035 for developing countries, from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources, with developed countries taking the lead, and developing countries encouraged to make contributions on a voluntary basis;
provided further guidance on the definition of indicators for assessing progress towards the Global Goal on Adaptation;
extended the enhanced Lima work programme on gender for 10 years; and
provided guidance on future global dialogues and investment-focused events under the Mitigation Work Programme.
They could not reach agreement on, among others, the dialogue on the implementation of the outcomes of the Global Stocktake and on the just transition work programme, with discussions to continue at the Subsidiary Bodies’ sessions in June 2025.
With regard to the new finance goal, India, Bolivia, and Nigeria registered their concerns and characterized the goal as an “insult that did not represent developed countries taking the lead.” The LDCs lamented the lack of ambition in light of developing countries’ needs, exclusion of loss and damage, and missing minimum allocation floors for the LDCs and SIDS. Pakistan identified critical gaps in the overall package and, pointing to the next session of the Subsidiary Bodies, called for a return to the negotiation table with renewed commitment.
The European Union, Environmental Integrity Group, AOSIS, the Independent Alliance of Latin America and the Caribbean (AILAC), and the Umbrella Group lamented the lack of progress on taking forward the outcomes of the Global Stocktake and urged rapid progress on energy transition.
The Baku Climate Change Conference closed at 5:31 am, on Sunday, 24 November.
Adam Morton at Guardian Live said that Australia was not happy with parts of the decision and the way Saudi Arabia acted:
Some developed countries have made barely veiled swipes at Saudi Arabia over its obstruction of the text including an explicit restatement of some of what was agreed in Dubai last year – particularly, goals of transitioning away from fossil fuels, tripling renewable energy by 2030 and doubling energy efficiency by the same year.
Instead, the text just refers to paragraph 28, in which the transition commitment was made, calling on countries “to contribute to the global efforts referred to in paragraph 28”.
Speaking on behalf of the umbrella group of developed countries, Australia said it was disappointed that some countries had “stalled or stymied discussion” on those issues. But they said that countries were accelerating towards the global goal of net zero emissions and moving to capture the economic opportunities of renewable energy to create jobs for their communities.
Read about the collusion between the Presidency and Saudi Arabia: Revealed: Saudi Arabia accused of modifying official Cop29 negotiating text. Exclusive: News of changes to usually non-editable document ‘risks placing climate summit in jeopardy' (Guardian)
India was furious when the decision was gavelled, accusing the process of being stage managed. Adam Morton at Guardian Live reports:
India has responded furiously to the climate finance goal being quickly gavelled through by the president, saying it is a “paltry sum” and it was not given the opportunity to express its strong opposition to it.
In a fiery address, Chandni Raina, the Indian representative said: “India opposes the adoption of this document and please take note of what we have just said from the floor of this room. We seek a much higher ambition from the developed countries.”
“We had informed the president we had informed the secretariat that we wanted to make a statement prior to any decision on the adoption but however - and it’s for everyone to see – this has been stage managed and we are extremely disappointed with this incident.
“We’ve seen what you have done … gavelling and trying to ignore parties from speaking does not behove the UN system and we would want you to hear us … we absolutely object to this unfair means of adoption.”
She was scathing of developed countries for failing to act to address the climate crisis, and said they should agree to advance their net zero targets and become net negative soon after. She said there was a lack of trust in the system.
“Unfortunately, the paper on the NCQG does not inspire trust that we will come out of this grave problem of climate change.”
The president said India’s position would be noted, but the acceptance of the climate goal stands.
We had more hope that the process would protect the interests of the most vulnerable and those with the least capacity. Nevertheless, we once again have shown how the global community can come together to find solutions that serve humanity.
Make no mistake. The urgency for taking climate action to address the ever-worsening impacts of climate change remains. The level of ambition for taking climate action needs to be much, much higher. And it is our great hope that the additional finance administered as a result of the new goal will help get us there.
Climate Action Network Issued the following statement on the COP29 result:Betrayal in Baku: developed countries fail people and planet
Climate Action Network wholeheartedly rejects the outcome of COP29 in Baku. The linchpin of the climate talks was public finance, and developed countries did not deliver despite their historic responsibilities. The figure for the climate finance goal is wholly inadequate, the quality of finance is missing with no equity or justice reflected in the text, and the direction of finance from developed to developing countries did not come through. The goal completely missed the mark in responding to the needs of developing countries.
Developed countries are to blame – they have used the US election result as an excuse to push through this weak outcome. The US has been trying to dismantle the Convention and the Paris Agreement for years, Trump or no Trump.
Two years of progress on Just Transition, where Parties were starting to shape a common vision, were trashed due to bad process, showing dismay for the millions of people concerned about their lives, jobs, livelihoods. In COP29, justice was not served on any front.
Erin Ryan, Senior International Campaigner, Climate Action Network Australia said,
“We travelled across oceans but high-income countries and the COP presidency barely moved an inch. An annual finance goal of USD $300b by 2035 leaves us where we started: with low-income countries struggling to shoulder the rising costs of a climate crisis they never caused. Countries like Australia need to realise that you can’t draft an ambitious text on fossil fuels with one hand while tightening the world’s purse strings with the other.”
Lisa Cliff from Better Futures Australia said on BlueSky:
"On COP29: Baku was a win for Fossil Fuel lobbyists—more watered-down compromises, with climate finance commitments & the mitigation agenda failing to align with science & justice. A few steps back from COP28's acknowledgement of the need to Phase Out Fossil Fuels"
Union of Concerned Scientists issued a statement: Wealthy Nations Imperil Global Climate Goals with Grossly Insufficient COP29 Finance Agreement. Dr. Rachel Cleetus, the policy director and a lead economist for the Climate and Energy Program at UCS, attending the U.N.’s international climate talks in Baku, Azerbaijan.
“The Azerbaijani COP29 Presidency’s ineptitude in brokering an agreement at this consequential climate finance COP will go down in ignominy. The last ditch, highly insufficient agreement barely came together deep into overtime and its low amount, quality, and unambitious timeline raises significant concerns that future financial flows will fail to measure up to what’s needed.
“Rich nations, including the United States and E.U. countries, have exercised brute power here at COP29 to force a deeply unfair and inadequate climate finance outcome that imperils the science-based goals of the Paris climate agreement. Despite their starring role in causing the climate crisis, this wealthy coalition of the unwilling collectively offered a grossly insufficient $300 billion annually by 2035, with a weak provision to review in five years and numerous loopholes to evade responsibility for ensuring the majority is grant-based public finance. This is nowhere near what lower income nations need to quickly transition away from fossil fuels to clean energy and protect people from the ravages of the climate crisis they’re already enduring. By reneging on their climate finance responsibility and continuing to boost fossil fuel interests, richer countries are stymying the world’s ability to cut heat-trapping emissions quickly and unjustly foisting the costs of deadly climate extremes onto those who have contributed the least to the problem...."
Former US vice-president Al Gore, a prominent voice on climate matters for decades, highlighted the deep flaws in the UN Climate Change Conference process:
While the agreement reached at Cop29 avoids immediate failure, it is far from a success. On the key issues like climate finance and the transition away from fossil fuels, this is — yet again — the bare minimum.
We cannot continue to rely on last-minute half measures. Leaders today shirk their responsibility by focusing on long-term, aspirational goals that extend far beyond their own terms in office. To meet the challenge of our time, we need real action at the scale of months and years, not decades and quarter-centuries.
This experience in Baku illuminates deeper flaws in the Cop process, including the outsized influence of fossil fuel interests that has hobbled this process since its inception. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been particularly obstructive. Putting the future of humanity at severe risk in order to make more money is truly disgraceful behaviour. Reforming this process so that the polluters are not in effective control must be a priority.
24 November 2024 - Centre for International Environment Law (CIEL) described the result in a metaphor: “COP29 was a dumpster fire. Except it’s not trash that’s burning— it’s our planet. And developed countries are holding both the matches and the firehose."(CIEL)
24 November 2024 - Revealed: Saudi Arabia accused of modifying official Cop29 negotiating text (Guardian)
The Fossil of the day Daily count for COP29. The best of the worst....
Day
Gold
Silver
Bronze
Dishonourable Mention
Solidarity Award
Nov15
G7: United States, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom
Nov 16
Italy
Nov 18
South Korea
Finland
Palestinian People
Nov 19
Russia
Costa Rica
Nov 20
Europe
Switzerland
Ukraine
Nov 21
USA
Nov 22
Azerbaijan
Ray of the COP Columbia
Colossal Fossil
Annex 2 Countries (Developed Countries) Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, European Commission, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States of America
The Fossil of the Day awards were first presented at the climate talks in 1999, in Bonn, initiated by the German NGO Forum. During United Nations climate change negotiations members of the Climate Action Network (CAN), nominate and vote for countries judged to have done their ‘best’ to block progress in the negotiations in the talks, or in a wider context for actions in their own country at odds with implementing climate action n alignment with the Paris Agreement and its targets..
This year Australia moved backwards two places in the annual Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI). The national experts cited the still substantial fossil fuel subsidies and policies to incvrease Fossil Fuel production.
The report lists 3 key outcomes:
Australia drops two ranks in the current CCPI, to 52nd and among the low-performing countries
Fossil fuel subsidies have declined and been redirected to other industries. However, some major fossil fuel subsidies remain.
Key demands: stop approving and signalling support for the expansion of fossil fuel production
The National Experts explained:
Australia dropped to 52nd and among the low-performing countries. It receives a medium rating in GHG Emissions, low in Renewable Energy and Climate Policy, and very low in Energy Use.
Australia’s 2030 national target is to reduce GHG emissions by 43% from 2005 levels. The country plans to achieve net zero by 2050. The CCPI national experts welcome these targets and Australia is now nearly on track to achieve its 2030 emissions reduction target.
The experts further note that since the election of the current government in mid-2022, fossil fuel subsidies have declined and been redirected to other industries. However, some major fossil fuel subsidies remain, including the Fuel Tax Credit scheme which subsidies the fuel taxes paid by a range of sectors, including fossil fuel mining. Australia is among the 10 countries with the largest developed coal and gas reserves, and is currently planning to increase its production.
