This year’s UN climate summit in Baku, Azerbaijan, began with a contentious celebration of fossil fuels and concluded with a deeply divisive climate finance agreement. Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev hailed fossil fuels as a “gift of God,” while developing nations denounced the resulting finance deal as an “insult,” a “joke,” and a “betrayal.”
The central issue at COP29 was determining how much wealthy nations, which bear the most responsibility for climate change, should contribute to support poorer countries that suffer its worst impacts. The agreed-upon figure was $300 billion annually by 2035—a sum affluent nations defended as the best they could offer. However, developing countries condemned it as “abysmal,” far below the $1.3 trillion economists estimate is required to address a crisis these nations did not cause.
The summit’s bitter conclusion has left many questioning the effectiveness of the UN’s COP process. Critics argue that its diminishing ambition risks rendering it irrelevant. Amidst geopolitical turbulence, including the election of a U.S. president dismissive of climate change, some believe Baku could mark the decline of multilateral climate negotiations.
Harjeet Singh of the Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative voiced his dismay, stating, “The dismal outcomes of COP29 … have raised serious concerns about the integrity of the global climate negotiation process.”
Fossil Fuel Dominance at COP29
While COP summits are notoriously challenging, they have achieved significant milestones, such as the 2015 Paris Agreement, where countries committed to limiting global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius, aiming for 1.5 degrees. Despite these commitments, the world is now on track for its hottest year ever, with greenhouse gas emissions at unprecedented levels.
Payam Akhavan, representing the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law, criticized the reliance on goodwill from major polluters. “The COP process has thus far failed, because it depends on the good faith of the major polluters, and instead of doing what is necessary for our common survival, they are literally adding fuel to the flames,” Akhavan said.
COP29 was fraught from the outset. Russia, wielding its UN veto power, prevented any European Union country from hosting, leaving Azerbaijan—a nation heavily dependent on fossil fuels and inexperienced in leading high-level climate talks—to mediate discussions on climate finance.
The summit quickly descended into chaos. Key leaders from wealthy nations were notably absent, Argentina withdrew its negotiators, and frustrations boiled over as some developing country representatives walked out during negotiations.
While COPs have been hosted in petro-states before, fossil fuel interests appeared particularly emboldened in Baku. This may have been influenced by the anticipated inauguration of Donald Trump in the U.S., a leader who has vowed to promote extensive oil drilling and abandon the Paris Agreement. Over 1,700 fossil fuel lobbyists and industry representatives attended the summit, outnumbering many country delegations. Saudi Arabia, a longstanding opponent of ambitious climate action, openly rejected any mention of fossil fuels in the final agreement.
The resulting deal drew fierce criticism. Climate advocacy groups likened it to a “band-aid on a bullet wound,” while developing nations expressed their outrage. The Least Developed Countries Group on Climate Change described it as “not just a failure; it is a betrayal,” stating that the dismissal of their needs “erodes the fragile trust that underpins these negotiations and mocks the spirit of global solidarity.”
The End of Multilateral Action?
Despite its shortcomings, the UN climate process remains the only platform where nearly all countries can participate in shaping global climate action. Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh, an international lawyer representing Vanuatu in climate litigation, emphasized its significance, saying, “It’s the only forum where nearly every country has a seat at the table.”
However, the COP process’s credibility is increasingly under threat. Critics argue that fossil fuel interests have hijacked the agenda, undermining the negotiations’ integrity. To regain momentum, Singh urged a systemic overhaul: “The whole system needs reorienting to serve the interests of the most vulnerable, rather than those of fossil fuel lobbyists and polluters.”
Rebuilding trust and ambition will be an uphill battle, especially as geopolitical dynamics shift in favor of leaders who champion fossil fuels and dismiss climate action. Nonetheless, some experts see hope. Akhavan expressed cautious optimism, stating, “Even if in the short-term there might be a regression because of populists and petro-states, there is ultimately no choice but to return to a ‘bigger and better’ COP 2.0.”
Friederike Otto, a climate scientist at Imperial College London, warned against abandoning the COP process altogether. “By lamenting on the broken process, we just add to the stalling and delay,” she said. “We need to save the institutions we have. If we throw them in the gutter, Trump, Putin, and Co. have won already.”
Looking Ahead to COP30
The focus now shifts to COP30, scheduled to take place in Brazil next year. Dubbed the most critical climate summit since Paris, it will provide nations with an opportunity to outline their climate strategies for the next decade. Ensuring the summit’s success will require addressing the systemic flaws highlighted in Baku.
While the road ahead is challenging, many climate advocates believe the COP framework can still drive meaningful action. For this to happen, countries must recommit to the principles of solidarity and equity that underpin global climate agreements. The stakes could not be higher, as the decisions made—or avoided—will shape the planet’s future.
