COP29 starts next week in Baku and, focused on finance, it could be crucial. But rumblings are already in the works over the climate jamboree, not least given its location at the heart of an oil state.

The climate summit is expected to see international leaders and financiers thrash out the detail of the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG). This is the target for wealthy nations to deliver on the $100bn per year pledge to help developing countries manage and adapt to climate change.

The event is taking place just weeks after UN Climate Change issued a report showing global climate efforts are off track. There will be a renewed focus on what nations can do to address their emissions.

The report, published at the end of October, found that carbon-cutting plans from nearly 200 countries would result in a 2.6% emissions drop by 2030. Scientists say the reduction needs to be 43% on 2019 levels to achieve net-zero carbon by 2050.

Stand and deliver

UN Climate Change executive secretary Simon Stiell said this conclusion was “stark but not surprising”. The Baku meeting “must be a stand and deliver COP”, he said.

“Ambitious outcomes at the annual meetings are vital to enable bolder climate actions that boost economies and strengthen societies everywhere,” Stiell continued

“At COP29 in Baku all governments must agree a new goal for international climate finance that truly responds to the needs of developing countries. And we must make climate cash count, wherever possible leveraging more private finance and sending signals to financial markets that green is where the gains are.”

Delegates will discuss important matters like their countries’ commitments to transition away from fossil fuels.

But fears of a lack of key decision-makers may render the conference futile. While it is vital for world leaders to work out the terms of the NCQG, President Macron of France and President Xi of China are among those yet to confirm their attendance. The conference occurs days after the US presidential election, making it unclear whether President Joe Biden’s successor will attend.

According to the Financial Times, senior executives at Bank of America, BlackRock, Standard Chartered and Deutsche Bank – key players in financing agreements – are planning to avoid the event. They have cited “difficult logistics” and reluctance to attend if their peers are also staying home.

“You only go to the party if everyone is going,” the paper quoted one finance executive as saying.

Some big names will be in attendance, such as TotalEnergies’ Patrick Pouyanne and Adnoc’s Sultan Al Jaber. But can they bring the required substance to the talks?

Hard target

According to Ben Stansfield, a partner at Gowlings and a member of the UK Environmental Law Association, part of the problem is that choosing Baku for COP29 is difficult. This is because Azerbaijan is seen as an oil country and Baku itself is harder to travel to than recent COPs.

“I was in Dubai last year – it’s a global commercial centre with lots of local business and finance folk who went because it was on their doorstep, but it’s harder to find direct flights to Baku,” he said.

“Dubai was about an oil state’s efforts to put itself on the global map and Azerbaijan has a similar perspective. Climate campaigners might not be happy about fossil fuel states hosting these things, but we need to have them in the room. There’s no point running ahead and waiting for them to catch up – you need to pick them up and carry them.”

However, just because people with differing viewpoints are in a room does not mean they will reach agreement. This is particularly true on something as complicated as debates around the NCQG.

Real risks

Laia Barbarà, acting head of climate strategy at the World Economic Forum, said that the NCQG “seeks to address the persistent gaps in climate finance”. It will “foster a global partnership for climate action” between developed countries that can “transition away from fossil fuels, bypass further hydrocarbon development and implement clean energy solutions across their economies” and developing ones that cannot.

The original $100bn annual target set in 2009 was only met in 2022. Reaching consensus on which countries should contribute and how much they should chip in is going to be extremely challenging.

That’s why Irish environment minister Eamon Ryan, who is jointly leading his country’s negotiating team in Baku, believes there is a “real risk” of failure.

“It’s not certain we will get agreement in Baku,” said Ryan. “It’s not an easy issue when you come down to discussing the financial future and … multilateral co-operation is not exactly the flavour of the month at the moment. So there’s a real risk we might not get agreement.”

Evolution not revolution

Last year’s meeting was historic, when nearly 200 countries agreed to transition away from fossil fuels, even while they disagreed on implementation.

Not all are happy with the inclusion of oil states, though.

Campaign group Global Witness argued wealthy countries and “fossil fuel lobbyists” can attend the conference each year and prevent real progress. Those who are at most risk climate change are less able to attend. The NGO said a “coalition of petrostates, including Saudi Arabia and Russia … ensured that the text of the final pledge was diluted”.

For Stansfield, arguing that the watering down of agreements signifies failure misses the point of COPs. Each year there’s noise before COP about unchanged agendas and lack of decisions.

Instead, Stansfield believes the focus should be on what COPs can achieve collectively.

“These meetings are about the chipping away of a problem,” he says. “Last year it established a fund for oil wealthy, industrialised countries – those more responsible for climate change – to pay into to help those most affected by it. This year is about understanding how those contributions get turbocharged and allocated. We know the problem and we have the structures, now it’s about getting it moving.”

Stansfield cited the UN emissions gap report as evidence of why COPs are essential.

“Climate change is the biggest threat to humanity but COPs aren’t like the G20 summit where the agenda changes every year. It’s great to have an annual conference with the same agenda to say ‘nothing’s changed, we need to redouble our efforts’. My main hope is around how all that is communicated – these are technical issues and we need citizens to change their ways, but that’s tricky.”

Related Content

No supply chain investment? No CfD!

Britain’s crumbling climate consensus

Will the stars align for Clean Power 2030?

The Budget and a tale of two windfall taxes