I was expecting a conference of this size to revive my faith in our governing bodies and their ability to engage collaboratively across political, geographic, and economic differences. However, the “Finance COP” fell short of the financing goal proposed and pushed by Global South representatives—$1.3 trillion in grants annually. The final and approved document met 20% of the original goal at $300 billion in loans annually and included the promise to accelerate to $1.3 trillion annually by 2035. Although there was positive progress made with NDCs and a new UN backed carbon market, it was disappointing to say the least. 

I am sad to report I have returned pessimistic in the faith of this conference, but with a renewed interest in local and individual action. The biggest thing I learned was that where our governments fail us, communities and individuals will rise to the challenge. I know this is a big statement to make. But at every point in the conference, I was faced with the fact that individuals are and must continue to be a part of climate action.  

On my first day at the conference, I heard “Transforming Climate Narratives for Healthy Environments” by Enkhuun Byambadorj, who is a youth activist and the director of operations and co-founder of Breathe Mongolia- Clean Air Coalition. During Byambadorj’s presentation, only a mere 15 minutes, she shared that the death toll in Mongolia due to air pollution is considered too low for officials to intervene. She has been specifically told not to use the number of deaths because it won’t engage officials while hundreds of thousands are dying. 7,000 people die each year in Mongolia due to air pollution, which is every 1 in 10 deaths in the country. In the grand scheme of 8 billion inhabitants, 7,000 may seem very insignificant. However, those are individuals who shouldn’t be boiled down to only a number and deserve justice by solving the issues that killed them. Her discussion on narrative demonstrated that when the Mongolian government intervened, they did so through surface level changes and did not address the root of the issue. Her coalition has only begun the work that must be amplified by others and continued by the Mongolian government. This is a perfect example of individuals stepping up to solve the issues they were once relying on the government to tackle. 

On my last day of the conference, I went to the People’s Plenary. This included a large gathering of individuals from grassroots movements, civil society organizations, and affected communities to share their experiences and demands. It was both empowering and disappointing to hear people pleading to be heard and respected during these talks. It reminded me yet again that individual action is at the core of this fight. To quote the moderator, “We intend to increase our numbers, to amplify our voices, to demand our space at the decision-making table all in defense of our planet. We are the guardians of the earth. We are the children of the earth. Let us stand united in defense of our planet.” This is a motivating quote that I will take with me to UConn.  

Hearing this was daunting and overwhelming to be completely honest. As someone who struggled with eco-anxiety, it is difficult to translate my fears into action when I am paralyzed by them. I am not saying that, as a student, I am going to solve every issue or that I have the means to. But the purpose of this fellowship is to open our eyes to the fact that we need to start educating our communities and foster an environment for more climate solutions to develop at UConn. I can say with certainty that, with the time I have left at UConn, I will be more attuned to climate action. 

Naiiya Patel is an Accounting major in the School of Business.

Reflecting on my experiences in Azerbaijan, I can trace my frustrations with the conference’s conclusion to the significant disconnect between the negotiations and all other events at COP29. The impactful panels and discussions I attended highlighted the urgent need for climate action to address the human rights violations that are experienced on a global scale. In comparison, negotiations were rightfully described by Power Shift Africa director Mohamed Adow as a “betrayal of both people and planet,” ending in a climate financial deal with only a small fraction of the original funding goal. The lack of urgency displayed by negotiators— specifically those representing the Global North—demonstrates the importance of community organizing and local change to combat inaction on a national level.

One powerful event I attended was the People’s Plenary, themed “Pay Up, Stand Up: Finance Climate Action, Not Genocide,” which broadened my perspective on interconnected justice issues and further emphasized the need for financial action. The plenary featured speakers representing various groups, including indigenous communities, people with disabilities, and populations facing genocide. A mantra repeated throughout the event was that there is no climate justice without human rights; the correlation between these two causes is evident in the ongoing genocide and ecocide in Gaza. Israel’s genocide has killed over 45,000 Palestinians and displaced over 1.9 million people, and its ecocide has intentionally destroyed the natural environment across the Gaza strip. It is impossible to discuss plans of creating a sustainable future without addressing current conflicts, such as the genocide in Gaza, which are inherently unsustainable. Therefore, plenary speakers urged for a reallocation of funding from enabling genocide to supporting climate finance.

However, the messaging of the People’s Plenary was not reflected in financial action at negotiations. The conference concluded with a financial agreement allocating $300 billion annually in grants and loans from the developed world to developing nations, with a plan for the figure to reach at least $1.3 trillion annually by 2035. This final settlement reflects a mere fraction of the financial goal established prior to the conference. It is disheartening to see that developed nations failed to meet the earlier objective because the dire circumstances already being experienced due to the climate crisis necessitate swift and extensive action.

The disconnect between COP29 events, such as the People’s Plenary, and negotiations is a concerning indicator of climate inaction on a global scale. But rather than dwelling on the existential dread this reality can elicit, it is essential to refocus attention on community-based advocacy and consider the value of smaller scale change. In a roundtable meeting, “Nature, Health, and Resilience in Cities,” there was a key focus on building resilience on a sub-national level and leveraging the power of cities to address the climate crisis. While there may be inaction at a national level, there is significant power in creating change at a local level, as it sets an example and adds pressure for action on a larger scale. Activist organizations can help to initiate this sub-national change to ensure a fair green transition despite institutional barriers and insufficient financial support.

Sources:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/23/cop29-agrees-13tn-climate-finance-deal-but-campaigners-brand-it-a-betrayal

https://waronwant.org/news-analysis/cop29-climate-talks-fail-global-south-theres-hope

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/longform/2023/10/9/israel-hamas-war-in-maps-and-charts-live-tracker

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.

This year is the 29th iteration of the Conference of Parties (COP) which is an international and annual conference held by the United Nations (UN) around climate action and decision-making. This year it is hosted in Baku, Azerbaijan. I have the delight to attend with the UConn@COP cohort, to become my second COP I have been able to attend, this time as the Sustainability Coordinator for Regional Campuses and Environmental Justice at the Office of Sustainability.

For my first two days at the Conference, I only had access to the Green Zone due to variation in badge allocation for many universities in the Global North. In previous years, our delegates had five days of Blue badge access for the duration of our time in the COP host country, but this year we only have 3-4 days for each student and faculty/staff delegate. The Green Zone is open to the public by securing free tickets two days in advance. While the Green Zone can vary every year depending on how the host country organizes the Conference, this year the Green Zone consisted of the Extreme Hangout Zone, with panels, speakers, and performances throughout the day, and several pavilions representing more industry and business. 

The Blue Zone at COP is where the delegation pavilions are held, including nations and other convening parties, and the negotiations. The negotiations are the major purpose of the annual COP gathering. This year was designed at the ‘Finance COP’ due to the need and urgency for negotiators to solidify climate finance agreements to deploy trillions of dollars needed for the mitigation and adaptation of climate change. 

This unfortunately is where COP29 this year falls flat.

Nations are failing to agree on a $1 trillion deal for climate investments in developing nations after a week of negotiations. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called for G20 leaders, which is a group of 20 sovereign nations making up 80% of global emissions, to step up in the global responsibility to cut emissions. G20 Leaders, who met in Rio De Janeiro on Monday, did issue a declaration calling for urgent action on climate change and global armed conflicts including a ceasefire in Gaza and Lebanon and peace in Ukraine. However, talks around climate finance are stalled over the final amount of climate finance needed, the type of financing (i.e. public vs. private investments and loans), and who should pay. 

COP29 negotiations around ‘transitioning away from fossil fuels’ also nearly collapsed after opposition from oil-rich Saudi Arabia and other developing countries. A decision to postpone talks until next year was originally made, but efforts were made to restore these talks on Monday. The pledge to ‘transition away from fossil fuels’ was first made at COP28 but left out of the climate and biodiversity decision at COP16 in Colombia this year. Many delegations want to discuss further the process on how to move forward with fossil fuel transitions such as stopping building coal power plants or numerical targets for reductions including methane and deforestation. However, many countries contested this as being ‘inflexible’ and that goals in agreements should be ‘non prescriptive’. Conversations around mitigation might be delayed until the mid-year climate talks in Bonn Germany. 

A press release by the White House on November 17th announced that President Biden and his administration had surpassed the U.S. goal of providing $11 billion in annual international climate financing over the course of his administration. This makes the US the largest bilateral provider of climate finance in the world. This press release also announced commitments for $50 million for the Amazon Fund and additional investments in Amazon. While a historic feat, many advocates from the Global South still call for more financing necessary to meet the scale of mitigation, adaptation, and loss and damage needed.

President Biden and his administration are attempting to negotiate an agreement with the OECD governments that would end $41 billion in annual oil and gas export finance. This would enforce binding climate negotiators before the Trump Administration and hopefully unblock larger conversations around climate finance to the Global South at COP moving forward. There is a need to get as much funding and financing out of fossil fuels before Trump’s attempts to accelerate the industry.

While COP has been and will continue to be an inspirational, educational, and incredible experience for the UConn@COP team, we cannot lose sight of the goal and intention of COP  – to make progress on climate change and have successful negotiations that cut our world’s emissions. While COP29 thus far has proven unsuccessful in terms of important negotiations, we can only wait, hope, and demand that our global leaders end this week with some goddamn climate action. 

Sydney Collins is a Campus Climate Action Corps Connecticut – Climate Action Leader with the Office of Sustainability. She was also a UConn@COP Fellow in 2022.

COP incredibly brings people together from every part of the world to include them in negotiations, panels, and events, but it is clear that not all groups receive the representation and support they deserve. We are still seeing the global powers dominate worldwide environmental action. Developing nations continue to experience the worst effects of climate change, but do not receive enough international help to adapt to and rebuild from the crisis. One interesting example I saw was in a panel on island nations including representatives from St. Helena and the Canary Islands. They spoke about being territories of wealthy, developed nations, increasing the total biodiversity of their countries. However, they are not receiving nearly enough support from their governments in facing the climate crisis. In addition, it is more difficult to receive international financial support from organizations such as the UN because these island nations are still part of wealthy countries. 

 

Another issue I noticed is very little representation of LGBTQ+ people. Queer people are disproportionately affected by climate change, yet their voices did not hold a place at the table. I attended a negotiation on gender and climate, and the majority of the delegates attending were cisgender women, with no obvious queer representation. The gender and climate policy discussed at this negotiation did not mention the wide range of gender identities such as trans, two-spirit, and non-binary. For the past three years, COP has taken place in countries where gay marriage is not recognized by law and anti-gay discrimination is legal and rampant. It is a risk for queer people to enter these countries, and open discussions on LGBTQ+ rights may not be difficult. The one place where I saw the LGBTQ+ community discussed was in a feminist climate justice protest, where activists demanded rights for women, non-binary, and trans people.

In discussing with other conferences attendees, I’ve noticed similar criticisms about the lack of justice-based actions at COP29. Nevertheless, seeing the massive amount of people and power coming together for climate keeps me hopeful for growth towards a better future. 

 

Kamala Chuss is a Marine Science major in the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences.

In my first few days at COP29, I have gained critical insight into global perspectives on furthering sustainable initiatives through discussions and panels in the Green Zone. A unique aspect of this area of the COP is it is open to non-accredited delegates, meaning it is more accessible to the public. It has been exciting to see how the Green Zone values young perspectives in climate discussions, as exemplified through a youth-focused venue. However, there is still evidently room for improvement, as policy makers seemingly fail to treat youths in high regard.

Coming to COP, I was admittedly skeptical that youth perspectives would be respected. I did not anticipate that younger generations would be included in discussions, much less given an entire venue. I was proven wrong upon arrival to the Extreme Hangout, which is an inclusive space in the Green Zone that provides youths with a dedicated place to learn about and discuss climate issues.

I attended several youth-led presentations at the Extreme Hangout which provided a refreshing perspective on the climate crisis. One notable lecture was “Transforming Climate Narratives for Healthy Environments” by Enkhuun Byambadorj, who is a youth activist and the director of operations and co-founder of Breathe Mongolia- Clean Air Coalition. Byambadorj provided insight into the air pollution crisis in her Mongolian hometown and the direct health consequences of coal dependence, which have been met with inaction. It was incredible to hear the story of a young individual working to educate others on climate injustice and create tangible change in policy making. Byambadorj’s story demonstrates the importance of amplifying the voices of youth activists, as this representation is crucial to inspire future climate leaders.

Despite the representation provided by the Extreme Hangout presentations, youth voices still lack sufficient regard in policy making conversations. This was evident in another presentation I attended, “ActNowFilm: Youth Climate Leaders as Agents of Change,” which highlighted the experiences of two young climate leaders, Dorcas Mugo and Dawda Cham. A significant topic of conversation in this panel was how youth activists are treated in the realm of policy making. It was evident that Mugo and Cham’s perspectives are not sufficiently considered due to their age, despite their viewpoints being critical to policy decisions. It is especially important to consider how young perspectives are disregarded during climate change conversations while at COP, as youth delegates must be treated with increased consideration to help find climate solutions.

Significant strides have seemingly been made to bring youth perspectives into the climate change space. However, it is essential for their viewpoints to be taken seriously to make progress in addressing the climate crisis at hand.

 

Jackie Flaherty is majoring in Marketing and Urban & Community Studies in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.