In a talk on global water access, quality and solutions on Tuesday, Maggie White, a senior manager at the Stockholm International Water Institute, described drought as “torture in slow motion.” Compared to flooding, she explained, drought receives significantly less media attention and public concern, despite having an equal capacity for devastation. The catastrophic impacts of a drought are less sudden than those of other natural disasters, and don’t demand your attention with the same howling intensity of, say, a hurricane. But these impacts build, first gradually and then not, until they become impossible to ignore.

The idea of this “torture in slow motion” slipping through the cracks of public concern got me thinking about both time and attention as they relate to the climate crisis in general. My takeaways from my first few days at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan could be summarized in one word: urgency. People from all over the world have disrupted their lives to come to this conference and tell others how the climate crisis has disrupted theirs. From natural disasters to unavailability of food to climate migration, the impacts of this crisis are inescapable. To even begin to sufficiently address them, action would have to be immediate. But I sat in the back of several plenary rooms as negotiations crawled on, struck by the lack of urgency in each of them. Their pacing starkly contrasts with the reality that the people on the front lines of the climate crisis already know, and that we will all soon have to reckon with: that our time to act is limited. 

COP itself is hectic and confusing. It’s a maze of disjointed rooms and displays. In the Blue Zone, delegates use convoluted language to say very little. In the Green Zone, organizations and companies vie for visitors’ attention. It’s easy to get lost among the pavilions offering pamphlets, coffee and candies. Members of the press constantly snap photos and the crowds are sticky and entangling. Chanting, music, banging gavels—the noise here can be overwhelming. In this way, it closely resembles our world. It’s so easy for the voices that we desperately need to hear—those of people who see the impacts of climate change firsthand and are working with their communities, whether local, national or global, to implement meaningful change—to get lost. I’m coming to the realization that as an observer at something as big and complicated as COP, the best that I can do is try to navigate the noise and find meaning and connection wherever I can. At this conference and amid our global climate crisis, hope and grief abound. I’m not quite sure what to make of it, but I know that we need to see action now. And it needs to be taken at full speed.

 

Amanda McCard is majoring in Journalism and Environmental Studies in the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences.

First two days of UConn@COP29 in the books. What a privilege it is to be able to attend this event and speak with leaders from across the world about the existential threat of climate change. It is overwhelming how many panel discussions, networking events, booths, negotiations, press conferences, and general meetings there are to attend. Although agreement on the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) for necessary climate finance given to poor countries by rich countries appears unlikely, the inspiring and essential climate action I’ve seen from folks working at the local level gives me hope.

From conversations and attending events, I’ve learned about multiple agroecological initiatives throughout the Global South focused on integrating ecological practices into the agriculture process while empowering farmers. For example, Leodegario Velayo, a Filipino farmer, highlighted how MASIPAG (an organization dedicated to farmer empowerment) empowered him to face severe weather events including ever more frequent typhoons and droughts through farmer-to-farmer education programs focused on the development of diversified, climate resilient farming systems. This mirrors initiatives throughout much of the Global South aimed at empowering farmers and promoting sustainable practices. For example, Save Soil, a global movement to address the soil crisis, adopts a multipronged approach to incentivize farmers to adopt sustainable practices while empowering them through regenerative agriculture training and the development of farmer collectives.

There are so many more people and organizations I could highlight as glimmers of hope at this global conference that has thus far been defined by global inaction. In more than one discussion, I’ve heard folks express that because countries aren’t making progress, we have to. This statement by no means excuses national governments from taking utterly essential action. Rather, it is a statement of defiance. An intentional, impassioned, and necessary decision made by NGOs, community leaders, and activists to continue doing the hard work to combat climate change and empower the disempowered regardless of whether that activity alone will be sufficient to address this global challenge. We all must follow their lead.

 

Thomas Bonitz is a Ph.D. candidate in Geography in the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences.

I will not lie. What I have witnessed thus far at the COP29 conference is quite disheartening. I am not an expert on this process. I have only attended a few panels and negotiations at the conference this year and maintain only a cursory understanding of the processes at hand, but my limited knowledge has left me without much hope for the future.

This year, the negotiations are centrally focused on addressing the expiration of a clause from the Paris Agreement that established an annual commitment of 100 billion dollars from “developed” to “developing” countries for “climate action.” This goal was met for the first time in 2022, eleven years after it was first agreed to and two years after the deadline initially set in that agreement. Currently, negotiators are aiming to raise that commitment by more than ten-fold. As recently reported in the Guardian, an estimated 2.4 trillion a year is needed for developing countries to cut their greenhouse gas emissions in line with the Paris Agreement.

This is just one fragment of the climate finance puzzle, with trillions more needed just to mitigate the climate disasters already plaguing countries around the world. Even if negotiators come to an agreement on the climate action contributions, we do not have decades longer to wait. Additionally, as a result of the recent Presidential Election, it is unlikely the United States will even be a member of the UNCCC a year from now. Without the contributions of the US, it is questionable whether a conversation on these finance objectives will even occur.

Meanwhile, the conference and its delegates seem to just carry on as usual. The formality of it all, the gestures at so-called “climate justice” in every panel discussion and official statements, and posters reading “we support a just and equitable future,” in that light, are really a unique form of violence. It feels like some perverse dystopia walking through the halls of this conference, hearing so many words without substance; so many “experts” and “leaders” regurgitating their scripts; so much energy, time, and resources poured into polishing the weapons against people and our planet. The corporations and capitalists have clearly won. Thus far, I have only heard from one or two people that have actually attached any substantive power analysis to their vision for the future. Those few voices are drowned in the sea of corporate billboards, LED displays, and messages flooding nearly every remaining inch of visible space.

I appreciate that hovering in reality at this moment is bleak, but I am far more overwhelmed by the swarm of mistruth and micro-aggression at every corner. It was a particularly sharp violence hearing the American Petroleum Institute Vice President exclaim “great optimism” for the future as millions of lives are stolen, emissions continuously rise, and climate disasters reach record levels each year after the next. I am not concerned with whomever can build the “shiniest” renewable energy program. I am concerned with who can best defend the people being continuously dispossessed and extracted from around the world.

My hope for the future currently exists in knowing that this process will likely fail enough that a better system might be contemplated. Those who are exuding optimism are those that are currently primed to steal the greatest share of wealth from the collapse, or as one poster here read “finding the return on responsibility.” I think I am optimistic, but my optimism is difficult. It is rooted in knowing that there is a real challenge to overcome; that the systemic issues underlying the current crisis must be addressed and prioritized before we can make any genuine progress fighting that crisis. I just wish the UN did not claim to be building the solution. It isn’t. Not like this. Hopefully, for now, people can continue to fight in spite of it. A functioning COP will have to be the byproduct of their bravery.

 

Colin Rosadino is a law student at the UConn School of Law.

I write this report in Baku, Azerbaijan, with the clock set at three days left for international climate talks to achieve big change. According to the United Nations Emissions Gap Report for 2024, which was released at this year’s Conference of Parties (COP), we are rapidly losing grip on a 1.5° C world. The world set a record of 57.1 gigatons of carbon dioxide (GtCO₂) produced in the year 2023, constituting a 1.3% increase from 2022 to last year. Progress in fighting climate change has stalled, with Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) plateauing with countries still off track to deliver on already insufficient mitigation pledges for 2030. As of today, unconditional NDCs have reduced 2030 emissions by 4% and conditional NDCs by 10% relative to 2019 levels. The amount of reduction needed to stay in a 1.5° C world would be 42%. In summary, the situation is dire.  

So, in response 198 parties are gathering at this year’s COP (the 29th) to hammer out international agreements to smooth the pathway to achieving a substantial and global reduction in carbon emissions. While UN parties negotiate, numerous climate scientists, climate activists, representatives from non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and representatives from the private sector gather in the walkways and pavilions outside the grand delegation halls. To me, these halls constitute the pulse of this COP, which has largely been defined by a great disharmony. They range from protestors like the Asian Peoples’ Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD) which occupied one of the halls in the Blue Zone to call on developed nations to pay their climate debt, to the Azerbaijani state oil company, SOCAR, which occupied a large plot in the Green Zone to greenwash its public image.  

Conversely, as a UN observer, I have had the unique opportunity to watch multilateral climate negotiations happen in the hall in real time. My impression is that, while the purpose of these meetings is to broker collaboration, there has only been movement on the margins. As I am writing this, I sit on a negotiation regarding Article 13 of the Paris Agreement, which focuses on financial and technical support to developing countries for reporting and capacity building. On the outset the Arab Group (a party to the negotiations) requested to delete a paragraph outlining the responsibilities of the article, including the “financial, technical and capacity-building support to developing country Parties to address challenges in implementing the enhanced transparency framework, including the support received through bilateral, multilateral and other channels.” The United States challenged this but could not come to an agreement, so the issue was tabled. Next, the United Kingdom proposed deleting a paragraph in the article surrounding biannual transparency reports and reforming experience sharing with developing countries, saying that the language was too broad and undid much of the work done at last year’s COP on the issue. The African Group advocated for the paragraphs preservation as they said the language would make experience sharing easier for developing countries, improving the efficiency of using Global Environment Facility (GEF) funds. This too ended in stalemate and the issue was tabled. In the end, the co-facilitators announced that the parties were entrenched and that they would table the document for later.  

In all, the negotiations took nearly 90 minutes and resulted in only marginal progress (on the level of sentences and commas). I was warned of this by Professor Urban and Seth prior to coming to this year’s negotiations (both with years of COP experience), but being in the room while it happened still stung. Unfortunately, like the negotiation I outlined, every negotiation I have attended thus far has ended in disharmony.  

Going back outside the hall, I believe where the negotiations have served to obfuscate, every other element of COP29 has served to enlighten. I have attended meetings regarding sustainable agricultural practices, climate resilient infrastructure, sustainable agroecology, perspectives on climate change from subnational island jurisdictions, and speeches given by various climate activists and scientists that have given me information and perspective, tools, to bring back to the US in both my capacity as a graduate student in public policy and as a conservation fellow fighting for Connecticut land conservation. While the disharmony inside the hall may have temporarily disarmed progress, I feel that the disharmony outside the hall has propelled new and innovative solutions that are essential to meaningfully addressing climate change. To me, information and perspective sharing is the main event at COP29 and highlights why these large multilateral international conferences still matter, even when negotiations stall. 

 

Colin Piteo is pursuing a master’s degree in Public Policy from the School of Public Policy.