top of page
Writer's pictureLeyla Hacioglu

COP29: The Heavily Criticized Outcome

What is COP29?

COPs are the formal meetings of the Conference of Parties to assess the global efforts to advance the Paris Agreement aiming to combat global warming, a treaty adopted in 1992. They are convened under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), a treaty adopted in 1992. The COP serves as the main decision-making section of the Convention and represents all 198 states that are parties to it. The COP’s purpose is to discuss and adopt decisions necessary for the implementation of the Convention, review the communication and emission summaries of the Parties, and assess the effectiveness of the measures taken to reach the ultimate goal of the agreement: stabilizing greenhouse gasses.


The COP is held annually, and the hosting party switches between one of the five regions recognized by the UN: African States, Asia-Pacific States, Eastern European States, Latin American and the Caribbean States, and the Western European and Other States . It is held over the course of two weeks and has multiple days dedicated to different themes, such as world leaders' climate action, technology and innovation, finance and investment, and food, agriculture, and water. The 29th edition of the conference, COP29, was held this year (2024) between November 11 and 22, in Baku, Azerbaijan.


Political Uncertainty

COP29 was riddled with political uncertainty, which possibly played a major role in the overall dissatisfaction surrounding the conference. Only a week before the summit, Donald Trump was reelected as the president of the United States. The US has a significant impact on global warming in both causing and combatting climate change; it is not only the second-largest global emitter but is also responsible for the largest share of historical emissions. Trump’s reelection poses a threat to global action against climate change as he openly believes that climate change and environmental rules are a “scam” due to his antagonistic views towards the Inflation Reduction Act, a bill passed by the Democrats to support clean energy projects.


During his campaign, Trump promised to slow down climate action. His reelection means that he may try to withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement once again. This decision was one of his campaign pledges during his first candidacy, as he believed that the deal was “unfair” to the nation. During his previous term in office, he managed to briefly draw the US out of the agreement, but the period only lasted for around four months, with President Joe Biden taking office and filing papers to rejoin.


Now that Trump is once again the head of the nation, the measurements that the US will take against climate change are unclear. Although the Biden administration sent a delegation to the summit, no agreements will be binding for Trump’s government. This limited the US’s role in the summit; usually viewed as the “powerbrokers” of the conference, their delegates were observed to be much more subdued than normal.

Trump’s imminent arrival also impacted finance negotiations as it limited the potential US contribution. A European diplomat told Politico that they were of the opinion that Trump’s presidency made it crucial for developing countries to come to an agreement; however, some parties were of the opinion that developed countries used the threat of Trump’s presidency as a way of getting developing countries to settle on an insufficient deal.


The expected absence of the US also led to the question of who would be the leading force for climate over the next few years. Though nothing is certain yet, China is viewed as the obvious replacement. China is also a major contributor to global emissions, but because it is defined as a developing country by the UN, it is not obligated to make financial contributions or cut down greenhouse gasses. In spite of its freedom, China has still agreed to count its contributions in the overall fund for climate-vulnerable countries. This decision implies that the nation will become much more vocal and active in climate decisions in the future.


Lacking Finances

The main priority of COP29 was to come to an agreement surrounding the financial support developing countries received to combat climate change and cut down greenhouse gasses. However, the agreement released by the end of the summit was heavily criticized. It entailed a new finance goal formally known as the New Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance (NCQG) promising to devote an annual sum of USD 300 billion to help developing countries reduce emissions. Upon the pledge made in 2015, developing countries have since received $100 billion yearly. Although the new target is triple the amount that these countries have been receiving for the past nine years, it is a far cry from the ultimate promise of $1.3 trillion by 2035. Furthermore, the original proposal announced on the last Friday of the conference was a mere $250 billion, and the sum lifted to the current number only after it faced significant outrage at the lack of ambition that this goal insinuated.

Still, even after increasing the sum, many nations remain unsatisfied. The negotiator of India described the deal as a “paltry sum” that was “abysmally poor” compared to what was needed. Similarly, a Nigerian representative referred to the deal as “a joke.” Some countries even went as far as calling it a “travesty of justice.” The money’s purpose is to help developing countries cut down their carbon emissions and help their economies cope with the effects of the climate crisis. Unfortunately, not only is the sum determined in the agreement not enough to support developing countries but the document is also unclear in terms of legality.


“Developing countries have been forced to accept half-measures, COP after COP, but at COP29 these half-measures push the costs of climate change onto the people least responsible but suffering the worst consequences,” said Catherine Pettengell, an advocate for the NGO Climate Action Network UK. Her words highlighted how developing countries constantly get the short end of the stick in the fight against climate change. $300 billion is a measly sum for nations lacking the means to effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions while keeping their economies afloat. The shortcomings of the deal undermine the global effort to combat global warming and once again prove that insufficient deals are not enough to deter the planet from destruction.


Edited by: Melisa Altintas, Yağmur Ece Nisanoğlu

bottom of page