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.
Links: UNFCCC COP29 website for documents | Azerbaijan COP29 website | COP29 Climate Justice Coalition | DCCEEW: COP29 Australia Pavillion | Carbon Brief: Who Wants What, Negotiating Text Tracker | Fossil of the Day awards |
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.
AOSIS Chair (Small Island States) told the Plenary:
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)
