COP29: The summit that wasn’t enough

The COP29 summit in Baku, Azerbaijan, has left the global community feeling more disillusioned than hopeful. Once again, the climate crisis was at the heart of international discussions, but the outcome has many wondering if the COP process is really up to the task at hand. The promises made were ambitious, but the results, unfortunately, fall short. The questions now are hard to ignore: Has the COP process become too ineffective to address the monumental climate challenges we face?

One of the biggest disappointments from COP29 was the issue of climate finance. Developing countries, already struggling to cope with the effects of climate change, had been calling for at least $1.3 trillion annually to support their efforts. Instead, after tense negotiations, developed nations committed to providing only $300 billion a year by 2035. The gap between what was promised and what was agreed to is stark, leaving the world’s most vulnerable nations in a position of uncertainty and frustration. Many developing countries rejected the draft agreement, calling it a “bad deal,” and accused wealthier nations of pushing them into accepting far too little support. While the summit did set a long-term goal of raising $1.3 trillion annually by 2035, the details were vague and the promise felt weak. In the eyes of many, this was a commitment without substance, as climate finance continues to be bogged down by political wrangling, leaving the most affected countries without the necessary resources to tackle the crisis.

Another glaring issue at COP29 was the undeniable influence of fossil fuels. Azerbaijan, a petrostate, was an unlikely and controversial choice to host the summit. Oil and gas make up 90% of its exports and account for two-thirds of its government revenue. Critics immediately raised concerns about the conflict of interest this presented, especially as over 1,700 fossil fuel executives attended the summit. The Azerbaijani president, Ilham Aliyev, made it clear that his country views oil and gas as a “gift of God,” and discussions about phasing out fossil fuels were quickly sidelined. The decision to push off critical discussions about transitioning away from fossil fuels to COP30 in Brazil only added to the frustration, as it highlighted the truth that fossil fuel interests still hold considerable sway over the climate talks.

The way COP29 was managed also raised serious concerns. Behind-the-scenes deals, rushed negotiations, and a lack of clear direction made the summit feel disorganized and ineffective. Even more concerning was the decision to skip a “cover text” summarizing the summit’s outcomes. This only emphasized the lack of unity and coherent strategy. There were also allegations of preferential treatment, especially regarding Saudi Arabia’s influence on the negotiation process. The result was a weak agreement that many feel does little to address the magnitude of the climate crisis.

The specter of former U.S. President Donald Trump also loomed over COP29, casting doubts about the future of international climate cooperation. With Trump’s reelection campaign heating up, fears resurfaced that the U.S. could once again pull back from its climate commitments, as it did during his previous term. The U.S. delegation’s tepid participation and Trump’s open hostility toward the Paris Agreement only deepened the uncertainty. Many developing nations, in particular, are left questioning the future of climate negotiations if the U.S. continues to undermine global efforts to combat climate change.

By the end of COP29, divisions were clearer than ever. Tensions over climate finance, the lack of progress on fossil fuel transition, and the growing divide between global powers created an atmosphere of uncertainty. Argentina’s withdrawal, diplomatic clashes between France and Azerbaijan, and fractured negotiations all pointed to a deeper rift in global climate leadership. The European Union, the UK, and China are increasingly stepping in to take charge, leaving the U.S. in the shadows. But is this shift enough to turn the tide? Can we rely on these fragmented leaders, or is it time for a new approach to address the climate crisis?

The issues exposed at COP29 go beyond just failed agreements; they underscore the broader failure of the current international system to adequately address the climate crisis. Millions are already suffering from the devastating effects of climate change: from extreme heat in Syria to floods in Bangladesh, droughts in Peru, and rising seas threatening low-lying nations. The lack of meaningful financial support for adaptation and recovery is leaving vulnerable communities in the lurch, and the failure to act on fossil fuel dependence only prolongs the damage. The political games, vague promises, and watered-down agreements are no longer enough. The climate crisis demands bold action, not half-measures. The clock is ticking, and the window for effective action is closing fast.

As we look to COP30 in Brazil, there’s a glimmer of hope that the international community can get it right. But the question remains: will world leaders rise to the challenge, or will we continue to stumble through vague commitments and weak promises? The time for action is now. The planet can’t wait any longer.