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.
