BAKU (The Thursday Times) — As COP29 unfolds in Baku, world leaders from diverse backgrounds wrestle with the paradox of climate action and fossil fuel dependency, pushing for deeper, more robust responses to the climate crisis. The gathering, which highlights the widening rift between climate-vulnerable countries and fossil-fuel-dependent economies, has so far been marked by appeals for urgent climate finance and debates on the role of natural resources, with a notable absence of key G20 leaders.
COP29 is happening against a backdrop of climate extremes, with 2024 poised to be the hottest year on record, underscoring the urgency for transformative change. Yet, the meeting in Baku has drawn a stark contrast between calls for immediate action and the defence of fossil fuels by leaders of resource-rich countries. Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev framed fossil fuels as an economic necessity and “a gift of God,” urging nations to acknowledge the benefits of natural resources while also recognizing the importance of balancing economic growth with climate responsibilities. This perspective resonates with several leaders, notably Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who advocates for continued reliance on oil, gas, and nuclear power even as Europe confronts the impact of rising temperatures and climate instability.
Division on a green transition
The issue of fossil fuels has underscored a profound ideological divide at COP29. Some leaders view the transition to renewable energy as a necessary, albeit gradual, process that must account for the economic realities of countries dependent on fossil fuel revenues. This faction, led in part by Azerbaijan and Hungary, argues that energy security should not be compromised in the pursuit of environmental goals. They contend that abrupt moves away from fossil fuels could destabilise economies, particularly those heavily reliant on energy exports. This viewpoint has drawn criticism from climate-vulnerable nations, which argue that delaying action only compounds the cost and impact of climate disasters on their populations.
This debate raises questions about whether COP29 can reconcile the conflicting interests of energy-producing and climate-affected nations. The growing demand from climate-vulnerable countries for decisive steps toward phasing out fossil fuels highlights the conference’s challenge: balancing the immediate needs of climate-impacted populations with the entrenched interests of resource-rich nations. The divergent positions underscore the complexity of achieving a cohesive global strategy for climate action, as countries continue to prioritise national agendas over shared goals.
Climate finance
Amid these debates, climate finance has emerged as a focal point. Developing nations, often on the frontline of climate impacts, are urging wealthier countries to fulfil their promises of financial support. The existing $100 billion annual pledge, established over a decade ago, remains unmet and is now widely seen as inadequate given the escalating climate crisis. Leaders from small island states and countries experiencing severe climate events have called for a substantial increase in climate finance to facilitate adaptation and mitigation efforts. Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley suggested taxing fossil fuel extraction, shipping, and aviation, which could generate billions for climate action, while Maldives President Mohamed Muizzu pointed out the disparity between war funding and climate adaptation support.
These demands have met with resistance from some developed nations, who argue for a more equitable donor pool that includes wealthy emerging economies like China and Gulf states. The reluctance of certain emerging economies to contribute has stalled consensus on climate finance reform. For developing nations, this represents not only a question of financial responsibility but also a test of global solidarity, as they face climate risks for which they are minimally responsible. Without adequate funding, they warn, their ability to meet climate targets and support their populations will be severely compromised, casting doubt on the effectiveness of the international climate agenda.
G20 absences
Notably absent from COP29 are the heads of some of the world’s largest polluting nations, including U.S. President Joe Biden, China’s Xi Jinping, and India’s Narendra Modi. Together, G20 countries are responsible for nearly eighty percent of global emissions, and their absence has prompted questions about the depth of their commitment to climate action. These nations have sent lower-level delegations in their place, signalling, for some, a lack of urgency in tackling climate issues head-on. The absence of G20 leaders has dampened hopes for substantial progress at COP29, raising concerns that critical negotiations may be deferred, diminishing the impact of any agreements reached in Baku.
This absence has also shifted attention to UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, one of the few high-profile leaders in attendance. Starmer’s pledge to reduce UK emissions by a significant margin by 2035 has positioned Britain as a leader in climate diplomacy at COP29. However, with major G20 leaders choosing not to participate, the conference’s capacity to drive collective action is increasingly uncertain. For many attending nations, the apparent ambivalence of top polluters suggests a dissonance between their public climate commitments and their willingness to take part in critical negotiations, potentially undermining the global climate response.
For leaders from climate-vulnerable nations, COP29 is seen as a critical juncture. Countries like the Maldives and Barbados argue that without meaningful funding and decisive action from wealthier nations, they will struggle to protect their citizens from the escalating impacts of climate change. These leaders contend that current aid levels fall short of addressing the true cost of climate adaptation and resilience, which includes infrastructure repairs, disaster response, and community relocation in the face of rising sea levels. They advocate for a transformative approach to climate finance that goes beyond traditional aid models, incorporating innovative funding mechanisms and levies that could create a more sustainable and equitable support system.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has emphasised the urgency of securing a deal in Baku, warning that failure to reach an agreement would leave developing nations “empty-handed” and exacerbate existing inequalities in climate resilience. The mounting calls for action underscore the gravity of the situation facing vulnerable countries, which are already experiencing severe consequences from climate-induced disasters. As COP29 progresses, the pressure on wealthier nations to demonstrate genuine commitment is intensifying, with developing countries demanding that rhetoric translate into tangible support that addresses the immediate and long-term challenges posed by the climate crisis.
The outcome of COP29 will likely have far-reaching implications, not only for the immediate goals of climate finance and emissions reduction but for the broader credibility of international climate governance. Leaders and activists alike are watching closely to see if the conference will mark a turning point in global climate efforts or if it will echo previous summits where lofty promises overshadowed meaningful action. The stakes are high, with many leaders warning that the cost of inaction will be borne disproportionately by the world’s poorest and most vulnerable communities. The voices at COP29 reflect a growing frustration with the slow pace of progress, and for many, this summit represents a crucial opportunity to push the international community toward a more ambitious, inclusive, and effective climate strategy.