The recent UN climate summit in Baku, Azerbaijan, concluded in turmoil, with accusations of betrayal and growing fears about the future of global climate negotiations. The conference, which began with a show of support for fossil fuels, as Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev called them a “gift from God,” ended with a climate finance deal that many developing nations found deeply disappointing. Wealthy countries, primarily responsible for the climate crisis, agreed to provide $300 billion a year by 2035, a figure that poorer countries dismissed as an insult. Experts argue that this amount falls far short of the $1.3 trillion needed to help vulnerable nations cope with the impacts of climate change, a crisis they did not create.
The bitterness surrounding COP29 has led some to question whether the entire UN climate process is losing its effectiveness. “The dismal outcomes of COP29 raise serious concerns about the integrity of the global climate negotiation process,” said Harjeet Singh from the Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative. With geopolitical challenges, including the election of a climate denier in the US, experts fear that the summit may mark the beginning of the end for multilateral climate action.
COP summits have always been challenging, but they have seen major achievements, such as the 2015 Paris Agreement, where countries committed to limiting global warming. Yet, nearly a decade later, the world is on track for record-breaking temperatures, and emissions continue to rise. “We are sleepwalking into a dystopian future,” said Payam Akhavan, a lawyer for the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law. “The COP process has failed because it relies on the good faith of major polluters, and instead of acting in our survival’s best interest, they are adding fuel to the fire.”
From the start, COP29 was set up for failure. Russia’s veto blocked European Union countries from hosting the summit, leading to Azerbaijan, a petrostate with limited experience in climate talks, taking the lead. The summit was chaotic from the outset. Many leaders from wealthy nations were absent, and Argentina withdrew its negotiators. As frustration mounted, some developing country groups even walked out of the talks.
The influence of fossil fuel interests was evident in Baku, with more than 1,700 fossil fuel industry representatives and lobbyists registered to attend—far outnumbering most country delegations. Saudi Arabia, a key player in blocking stronger climate action, openly rejected any mention of fossil fuels in the final agreement. Climate groups were furious, calling the deal a “band-aid on a bullet wound,” while the Least Developed Countries Group denounced it as a “betrayal,” accusing wealthy nations of dismissing the needs of developing countries and eroding trust in the process.
Despite the summit’s failures, many climate advocates argue that the UN climate process is still the best platform for global climate action. “It’s the only forum where nearly every country has a seat at the table,” said Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh, an international lawyer representing Vanuatu in climate litigation. However, the challenge now is whether the process can regain momentum and restore its credibility.
Looking ahead to COP30 in Brazil next year, expectations are low. This summit will be crucial as countries set their climate plans for the next decade, but it is expected to be an uphill battle. Experts like Harjeet Singh believe that the process must be reoriented to prioritize the needs of the most vulnerable, rather than the interests of polluters and fossil fuel lobbyists.
While the geopolitical landscape remains challenging, some still hold hope. “Even if there’s a short-term regression due to populist leaders and petro-states, there is no alternative but to return to a ‘bigger and better’ COP 2.0,” said Akhavan. Climate scientist Friederike Otto echoed this sentiment, warning that abandoning the current system would only play into the hands of climate skeptics like Trump and Putin. “We need to save the institutions we have,” she said, “or we’ve already lost.”
