A Keen Observer Expresses Skepticism about the Outcome of COP29

In my podcast series, “Environmental Insights: Discussions on Policy and Practice from the Harvard Environmental Economics Program,”  I’ve had the pleasure in my podcast conversations of chatting with a number of smart, well-connected journalists who cover climate change and environmental policy.  In my latest podcast episode, I was joined by Max Bearak, an energy policy and global climate negotiations reporter for the New York Times, who shares his perspective on the recently concluded 29th Conference of the Parties (COP 29) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).  (You can read my summary and assessment of COP29 here.)  You can listen to our complete conversation here.

Hosted by the former Soviet republic of Azerbaijan in the capital city of Baku on November 11-22, COP29 concluded with a pledge by developed nations to contribute $300 billion annually to developing countries to address climate change, short of the $1.3 trillion developing countries were hoping to obtain. Bearak expressed some disappointment with the outcome.

“What ended up coming out of this COP was a kind of kitchen sink approach where developed countries said, ‘we will take the lead in trying to get together around 300 billion dollars a year, and not starting right now, but starting a decade from now,’” he says. “And the additional trillion will be made up by a huge variety of sources in the private sector, in multilateral development banks, carbon markets, you name it, basically everything else. And developing countries were left with a sense that their needs were not being taken very seriously.”

Bearak says the sentiment felt by developing nations was reflected in comments delivered shortly after the conferenced was gaveled to a close.

“The first speaker after that gavel was the representative from India, Chandni Raina, who is a spokesman for the Indian Finance Ministry. And she gave one of the most scathing speeches I’ve ever heard at a COP really tearing down the Azerbaijani presidency as leading essentially a sham process that did in the end push through a resolution that most developing countries found to be an insult,” he notes.

Negotiators settled for a less-than-ambitious agreement, Bearak argues, due to the nature of the COP’s decision-making process.

“The final agreement [falls within] the boundary between what is politically possible and what’s needed. And so, you get to the lower end of what’s needed, which is the higher end of what’s politically possible, and that’s essentially what happens every year,” he says. “Watching that boundary tells you exactly where we are, and I think that’s what is fascinating about COP is the distillation of where that line is on a given year.”

Bearak says the American delegation had a voice during the COP, but because the outcome of the recent presidential election is almost certain to presage U.S. withdrawal from future global climate negotiations, the delegation’s impact in Baku was limited.

“Sitting down with John Podesta, the U.S. Climate Envoy, for example, he would tell you the U.S. was extremely active in these negotiations,” Bearak remarks. “I think they certainly may have been active, but I’m not sure that anybody felt like they could plan on U.S. support being there in the coming years, which ultimately puts a lot more pressure on both China and the European Union as the most likely sources of bilateral climate finance.”

The next round of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), aimed at achieving net zero carbon emission goals, are due to be presented at COP 30 next year in Brazil, but Bearak says he isn’t very optimistic about those negotiations.

“I think the reason that we even got a deal despite so much discord in Baku was the feeling that if we don’t get a climate finance deal now, we might have to wait half a decade before having that kind of multilateral spirit come back,” he states. “So, I think the COP in Brazil is going to be… hampered. The vibes are going to be more pessimistic [than they were in Baku], and it’s just going to be really tough for them to provide a sense of optimism and the sense that the world is making progress and taking a step forward, which is ultimately what all of these COPs [are designed to do.]”

For this and much more, please listen to my podcast conversation with Max Bearak, the 64th episode over the past five years of the Environmental Insights series, with future episodes scheduled to drop each month.  You can find a transcript of our conversation at the website of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program.  Previous episodes have featured conversations with:

“Environmental Insights” is hosted on SoundCloud, and is also available on iTunesPocket CastsSpotify, and Stitcher.

Share

Author: Robert Stavins

Robert N. Stavins is the A.J. Meyer Professor of Energy & Economic Development, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Director of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program, Director of Graduate Studies for the Doctoral Program in Public Policy and the Doctoral Program in Political Economy and Government, Co-Chair of the Harvard Business School-Kennedy School Joint Degree Programs, and Director of the Harvard Project on Climate Agreements.