COP29: Lessons Learned From The UN Climate Change Conference

As the dust settles from COP29 in Baku, we are left to ponder the mixed success of this so-called “Finance COP”.

COP29 refers to the 29th annual Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It is a global summit where countries, organizations, and observers convene to discuss and negotiate actions to combat climate change.

Celebrated by some as an important stepping stone and criticized by others as a missed opportunity, the outcomes of COP29 serve as both a reminder of the challenges ahead and an urgent call to action.

A Fragile Compromise on Finance At COP29

At its heart, COP29 was meant to address climate finance—how to fund the urgent and escalating costs of mitigating and adapting to climate change.

The resulting agreement on the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) targets $300 billion annually from 2026 and by 2035, a figure dwarfed by the $1.3 trillion estimated as necessary by the High-Level Expert Group on Climate Finance.

This gap reflects more than numbers; it underscores a crisis of trust. While the inclusion of private sector contributions in the total aims to broaden the funding base, it also raises concerns about accountability and governance.

Many developing nations, already bearing the brunt of climate impacts, see the predominance of loan-based finance or other financial instruments than grants as a further burden, increasing debt rather than fostering resilience.

It is understandable that countries which are most vulnerable to sea level rise are furious. Papua New Guinea did not attend the meeting, stating that the COP meetings “are a total waste of time”.

The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) staged a walkout from COP29 the day before its conclusion, expressing frustration with the proceedings. However, they returned for the final session, where the agreement was adopted.

It’s not just those nations frustrated with the process. Former UN leaders Ban Ki-moon and Christiana Figueres (UNFCCC) have called for a fundamental overhaul of the COP process, arguing it must shift from negotiation to implementation to meet the urgency of the climate crisis.

While acknowledging the process’s achievements, they emphasized that its current structure is too slow and inadequate for delivering the systemic changes needed to secure a safe climate future.

And yet, there were glimmers of progress. Agreements on carbon market mechanisms under Article 6 hold promise for more structured and transparent international cooperation. If implemented effectively, these mechanisms could enhance quota trading by ensuring the genuine climate benefits of projects and preventing double accounting.

COP29’s Fossil Fuel Headache

The contentious absence of any mention of fossil fuels in the final text reveals the enduring influence of entrenched interests, notably those of petro-states, which resist aligning their rhetoric with the scientific consensus.

Specifically, the COP28 agreement made in Dubai was not reiterated and confirmed in full. Saudi Arabia was the most vocal opponent to reiterating the term “transitioning away from fossil fuels”.

What Is A “Developing” Country?

Some of the difficulties in the discussions stem from outdated definitions of “developed” and “developing” countries established in 1992, which COP29 chose not to revisit.

Nations like China, Saudi Arabia, UAE and South Korea, still categorized as “developing,” now resemble developed countries in terms of economic and emissions contributions.

This mismatch undermines trust and complicates climate finance, particularly when wealthier nations classified as “developing” in principle could benefit from funds meant for vulnerable countries.

While COP29 included provisions for south-south contributions (e.g., China’s support for African countries) within the $300 billion annual target by 2035, the gap between this goal and the $1.3 trillion estimated as necessary remains vast.

The refusal by China and others to reconsider the outdated classification of countries as “developing” highlights a strategic effort to avoid binding climate finance obligations while maintaining voluntary contributions.

Meanwhile, fears of legal liability under the principle of historical responsibility continue to deter developed nations from addressing loss and damage. This tension highlights the need for equitable frameworks to rebuild trust and reconcile past emissions with present-day capabilities. Easier said than done.

The Plastics Paradox: A Parallel Crisis

While COP29’s focus was finance, its ripple effects are already evident in other global negotiations. The recent Global Plastics Treaty talks in Busan faltered, exposing deeper interconnections between the climate and plastics crises.

Plastics, over 99% of which are derived from fossil fuels, represent a growing environmental catastrophe, with less than 10% of global plastic waste recycled and microplastics infiltrating ecosystems and food chains. However, resistance from fossil-fuel-rich nations such as Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Iran mirrored the challenges seen at COP29.

Saudi Arabia strongly opposed measures to cap plastic production, arguing that the problem lies in pollution, not production, and advocating for a focus on waste management.

To further its stance, Saudi Arabia launched the Global Coalition for Plastics Sustainability alongside countries including Russia, Iran, Cuba, China, and Bahrain. This coalition promotes improving waste management rather than introducing production limits.

These debates highlight the urgency of addressing plastics as both an environmental and climate issue. Integrating solutions—such as promoting closed-loop recycling systems and leveraging carbon capture for end-of-life plastic disposal—could bridge the gap and strengthen global responses.

COP30: Ambitions and Accountability in Brazil

As Brazil prepares to host COP30 in Belém in November 2025, the stakes could not be higher. The conference will not only take stock of global progress but also serve as a stage for more ambitious Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), which are due for submission by February 2025.

The symbolism of Belém, situated at the edge of the Amazon rainforest, is apt. It is a stark reminder of the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss.

However, expectations for COP30 extend beyond mitigation. The deferred conversations on adaptation and loss and damage must find resolution in Brazil, particularly for vulnerable nations that have repeatedly called for equity and accountability in climate finance.

This is also a further opportunity to revisit and modernize the definitions of “developed” and “developing” nations under the UNFCCC framework.

Moreover, the concept of the social cost of carbon needs to take center stage. By quantifying the hidden costs of inaction, we can better frame the economic rationale for immediate, ambitious interventions. After all, the costs of delay—both financial and human—will far outweigh the investments required today.

Bridging the Trust Deficit

Perhaps the greatest challenge for COP30 will be rebuilding trust. The fragmented outcome of COP29 left many questioning the entire process.

To move forward, leaders must deliver not only on promises but also on tangible actions that reflect shared responsibility. This includes holding all nations, developed and emerging, accountable for their roles in both causing and solving the crisis.

Notably absent at COP29, in terms of representation at the highest levels, were China, India, France, Germany, and the United States.

Adding to the tension was an undercurrent of concern regarding the incoming Trump administration and the potential implications if the U.S. were to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.

As we look to COP30, the message is clear: the time for incrementalism has passed. Whether on climate finance, fossil fuels, or plastics, bold leadership and innovative solutions are not just desirable—they are necessary. Future generations will demand nothing less.