Prayers of gratitude and intercession

Monday, 11 November 2024, the 29th edition of the annual climate negotiations of the United Nations, COP 29, begins. COP stands for Conference of the Parties, and those Parties are the participating countries: almost all countries in the world. This time, the delegations of those countries will meet in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan. That is an oil country par excellence. Last year the climate conference, COP 28, was also held in an oil country: in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

How is that possible? After all, we know we have to stop using fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) as soon as possible!

Unfortunately, that is not so easy: the lobby from the fossil industry is enormous. Partly for that reason, rich countries are investing a lot in “auxiliary tools,” such as the capture and storage of the greenhouse gas CO2. They’ll try anything just to continue the use of fossil fuels.

An acquaintance of mine works as a scientist at Shell and is involved in the development of CO2 capture and storage. Just back from an international conference, he told me that little progress is being made, that the technologies are very expensive, and that they require a lot of energy.

So, they are not cost-effective or energy-efficient at all. It would make much more sense to switch to sustainable energy as soon as possible…

Unfortunately, many people apparently want to continue believing in dreams, and that is disturbing. Until they are roughly woken up from that dream, like the Californians whose houses are on fire. Or the Spanish in and around Valencia. The population there is very angry, because the warnings scientists had issued days in advance had not reached the people. The responsible politicians had not taken those warnings seriously, and only passed them on when it was already too late.

Does that remind you of something? Exactly. All those scientists who have been issuing one warning after another about the climate crisis for years, while (international) politics looks the other way. “Better remain good friends with the fossil industry’, because the financial interests are huge. In fact, in many countries the political scene is largely financed by that same fossil industry. For example, in America…

When will we wake up and stop letting ourselves be pushed back into any dream? It is time to join forces and push back! We, religious organizations, have been practicing just that for years. We rose our voices at climate COPs and will continue to do so.

This time the Multifaith Triple CoP Call for Action was issued: shared interest must come first, not the interests of individual countries. More will follow. I will keep you informed in the coming weeks.

The first day of COP 29 has more or less ended. That’s to say: talks always continue behind closed doors, even at night.

At the opening plenary the new COP president, Azerbaijani Mukhtar Babayev, gave a lengthy speech in which he laid out his expectations: more ambition, more action, more finance. As president, he could not be too outspoken, but the next speaker more than made up for that.

Simon Stiell, executive secretary of the UNFCCC secretariat, bluntly said that lack of climate action will cause global instability and loss of life, and will bring the global economy to its knees. Real climate finance is needed, not as charity, but in the self-interest of all countries, including the largest and wealthiest.

The global financial system needs to be adapted to the reality of the climate crisis.

Afterwards Parties struggled over the adoption of the agenda. It took them the whole day and many talks behind closed doors to finally do so. But there was also an early success around the new UN global carbon market to be set up. Two consecutive COPs failed to deliver the rules, now some were adopted as a package.

More work remains to be done, but the first step is there.

Several NGOs held opening press conferences.

The leader of Climate Action Network (consisting of more than 1 800 NGOs) was adamant about climate finance, the main topic of this COP. She said the Global South demands the repayment of the centuries-long debt that the Global North has accumulated by its new form of colonialism: the exploitation of nature, natural resources and the atmosphere.

This repayment should amount to at least US$5 trillion per year.

The way she shifted around the narrative around debtwas refreshing. Although other NGOs – including Indigenous Peoples’ organisations – did not mention that same number, their overall stances were the same: people are dying and suffering, the Global North has the historic and moral obligation to pay. And not in loans, but in grants from public money.

There may be much talk about investment from the private sector, but who is going to control that? Moreover, in the Paris Agreement there is no mention of investments by the private sector.

At the same time USA climate envoy John Podesta explained that the delivery of climate finance in the form of public money is limited. A large portion of climate finance needs to come from the private sector. Now that Trump has been elected president, the outlook is even more difficult: it can be expected that Trump wants to withdraw the USA from the Paris Agreement again, as he did during his first presidential term. However, Podesta reassured his audience that the USA, especially several states, will continue their climate policies and many climate-friendly investments will not be repealed. Also he stated that China could become the new climate leader, pointing out that China is already contributing to climate finance in various ways.

The above clearly illustrates the enormous gap between the perceptions of the Global South and the Global North.

Will this COP deliver a bridge, or at least the building blocks for a bridge?

The ecumenical team had its first evening session. Thanks to modern digital technology these meetings are hybrid: in situ in Baku and online for those who monitor the events online.

Some ecumenical events have already taken place:

• In the run up to this COP the multifaith Talanoa Dialogue was held on 6 November 2024. See https://oikoumene.org/news/interfaith-dialogue-on-climate-urges-action-compassion-and-resilience-ahead-of-cop29
• This morning, 11 November 2024, an online ecumenical prayer took place “for those in positions of power to make decisions that will improve the lives of climate-vulnerable communities and protect our children’s future, and for all of us to act now for climate justice.”
• And the World Council of Churches issued an advocacy video. See https://oikoumene.org/news/wcc-advocates-for-justice-driven-climate-action-at-cop29 

To be continued.11 November 2024, Marijke Van Duin

The second day of the climate summit brought bad news: Dutch courts overturned a Friends of the Earth’s 2021 victory. The oil giant Shell won its appeal against an emission reduction obligation on the oil giant Shell. You can bet that this has been noticed in Baku.

The negotiations are underway. In addition, the two-day World Leaders Climate Action Summit has started, at the same time as the High Level Segment. A fancy name to indicate that heads of state and government are expected. All will give a speech.

Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliyev kicked it off and did so in a decidedly undiplomatic way. He criticized critics who have called Azerbaijan a petrostate, despite the country’s investments in sustainable energy. And wasn’t it the European Commission that came begging for more gas when the war in Ukraine started?

Despite quite a few cancellations by heads of state (widely reported in the media), Aliyev was able to announce that 72 000 registered participants from 196 countries and 80 heads of state/government are taking part in this COP.

The UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, may have been more polite but spoke harsh words. If no money is put on the table, a large part of the world’s population will pay the price. The G20 must lead, with much more ambitious climate plans that encompass the entire economy. There must be a reduction in the production and consumption of fossil fuels by 30% in 2030. Much more investment in sustainable energy is needed, also in poor(er) countries. And much more money for adaptation (to climate change) and loss and damage (as a result of climate change) is required.

The financing gap for adaptation alone will amount to US$359 billion per year in 2030 if nothing is done. That simply means that people, animals and ecosystems will die and development will be destroyed.

The current investments in sustainable energy go largely to the domestic market, with only 15% going to developing countries – China not included. So a course change is called for and an overhaul of the international financing system, starting with multilateral development banks.

While one speech after another was being made, the negotiations on the New Collective Quantified Goal continued.

The NCQG is the most important agenda item for this COP. That ‘goal’ refers to climate financing: how much, in what form, who pays and who receives? This has been a matter of debate for a few years.

The negotiating document that was drawn up in the run-up to this COP was swept off the table by the G77/China. The G77 is a large group of developing countries that work together and have now adopted a joint position on the NCQG. This must amount to at least US$1.3 trillion per year, to be paid by the rich countries, and available for both mitigation and adaptation and loss & damage. The rich countries, in turn, do not want to raise more than US$100 billion per year as long as other countries do not contribute as well. And they want the private sector to participate big time.

In short, the co-chairs of this negotiation track have a lot of homework to do. A new negotiation text is expected in the course of the week. But an outcome will probably not be reached until just before the end of this COP – if it ever comes at all.

Not only negotiators were considering climate financing and the energy transition. This so-called Just Transition is also a topic of discussion among a large coalition of Indigenous Peoples. They met in Geneva in October and issued a declaration that was presented in Baku today. The rights of Indigenous Peoples are ignored far too often, for example when their land is mined for raw materials that are needed for the energy transition. They state that any project that proceeds without obtaining “free, prior and informed consent “does not constitute “a just transition.”

There were more presentations.

The UNHCR, the UN refugee agency, has published a report on the link between armed conflict, climate change and forced displacement: No Escape: On the Frontlines of Climate Change, Conflict and Displacement. About 75% of the world’s population lives in areas that are vulnerable to climate change. There are currently approximately 117.3 million refugees worldwide, 70% of whom remain in their own region.

Not only the UNHCR High Commissioner had speaking time, but also a refugee from South Sudan. A resilient young woman who, separated from her family, had to choose between giving up hope or keeping hope. She had chosen the latter and founded an NGO: Root of Generations.

The World Health Organization, UNICEF and the medical journal The Lancet presented the report A Threat to Progress, Confronting the effects of climate change on child health and well-being.

The climate crisis is also a health crisis, especially for children. Health risks already start during pregnancy: heat stress leads to more premature births and stillbirths. Children need good food, but when crops fail due to climate change, malnutrition spreads, with all the consequences for their (neurological) development. In addition, deadly infectious diseases such as malaria spread faster and further.

Today our religious delegations made themselves heard again. There was a side event on climate finance, organized by the Interfaith Liaison Committee at the Faith Pavillion.

You can read about yesterday’s ecumenical prayer service here

Photos can be viewed here

To be continued.

Day three in Baku. An Argentine delegation had to leave the conference in a hurry, on the orders of their president, Javier Milei – a kind of mini-Trump who has called climate change a “socialist lie” and wants to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. Who will follow?

Because, despite the encouraging words of USA climate envoy John Podesta recently, it is not inconceivable that more countries will do so soon, the USA first. That is why in the corridors there is talk about a greater role for China, but also for the EU, Canada, the UK and Japan.

The Climate Action Network devoted a meeting to this today and asked experts from these countries for their opinion.

The UK recently announced stricter climate policies and Canada is setting up a solid climate fund, it was announced yesterday.

In Japan, it is mainly local authorities that are involved in climate policy; the national government has so far kept a low profile.

And what about the EU? It likes to present itself as a climate leader, but is that justified?

Judging by the participation of various EU countries in the High Ambition Coalition (HAC), you would think so. This is a loose coalition of countries that want more climate ambition and are praising themselves for it. Today, another magnificent statement was presented.

But on closer inspection, it turns out to contain a lot of window dressing. Because in the negotiations themselves, the EU regularly puts on the brakes, certainly with regard to the NCQG (New Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance), the target for climate finance.

Today, Brazil, host country for COP 30, released its new climate plan. It provides for an emission reduction of around 60% in 2035 compared to 2005. But there is a catch. Instead of reducing the use of fossil fuels, the country is relying on CO2 storage by its forests. The idea is that the Amazon rainforest can be better protected by selling carbon credits. Unfortunately, this can also lead to an expansion of the fossil industry…

Many NGOs warn of the same problem: a global carbon market sounds good, but the carbon credit system (where countries can sell emission credits that they do not use themselves to other countries) can also lead to an unwelcome delay in dismantling the fossil industry.

In fact, there is no dismantling at all, as evidenced by the Global Carbon Budget Report 2024 presented today. This fruit of collaboration between more than 190 scientists and 86 organizations from 19 countries shows that emissions from fossil fuels have never been higher, and the peak is not yet in sight.

That is not surprising, because all countries want to develop their economies. But since most countries do not have the money to switch to sustainable energy, they are dependent on fossil fuels.

It is not without reason that there were huge riots in Kenya a few months ago, when its government announced an increase in petrol prices. Those plans were then rapidly withdrawn for the sake of peace…

In short: a lot of climate money is needed to get all countries to participate in the energy transition. That is and remains the core point of the climate negotiations – 20 years ago, five years ago, and especially now.

In the evening session, members of the ecumenical team exchanged how they experience the mood in Baku. Various conversations revealed a lot of distrust and frustration. Two women from Uganda told how pledged climate money never arrived and expressed their dissatisfaction with the slow COP-process.

Also the current geopolitical tensions seem to play a greater role than at previous climate summits.

How could the ecumenical movement help build mutual trust?

Mentioned were, among other things, building coalitions with other groups/NGOs, addressing politicians and the media, and working on awareness-building in the churches themselves.

After all, many church members in the global North have no idea about the situation of their brothers and sisters in the South.

Pastoral presence was also mentioned, offering joint prayer and above all: bringing hope.

At a press conference today the multireligious cooperation at climate COPs was explained, and the COP 29 Interfaith Call to Action presented.

To be continued.

That was the outcry of a YOUNGO representative today. YOUNGO is the UN caucus in which young people from all over the world work together. In COP 29, many official negotiators are participating in this caucus because of their tender age. But is it a good sign that so many seasoned delegates have resigned? I fear that they have dropped out due to frustration at the lack of progress…

Young people live in fear of the future and demand action, for themselves and their possible children. If these will be born at all: various international studies have shown that almost half of young people worldwide are hesitant to start having children. Many suffer from uncertainty and depression.

Not only young people are vulnerable to the climate crisis, but also women, especially in developing countries.

That is why there has been a fight for years for agreements in the UN texts to support women and other vulnerable groups. There is even a special programme for this: The Enhanced Lima Work Programme on Gender. In theory, many countries consider this subject important. But as soon as it comes down to it, delegations back down. For example, the EU and the USA are currently blocking the inclusion of such text in the NCQG – the target for climate finance. While countries such as Russia and China have difficulty with phrases such as ‘gender-based violence’.

These and other (cultural) differences are seriously hampering the negotiations. In fact, I increasingly experience negotiators talking past each other, especially when it comes to climate finance. Also EU representatives acknowledged in a press conference today that the NCQG negotiators remain miles apart.

No wonder when you consider that the EU and other rich countries continue to insist on the involvement of the business community and are apparently unable to empathize with the point of view of poor countries.

In the words of a representative of the Women-Gender Caucus (yes, it exists too): “Colonial powers continue to determine what progress is! Despite the current polycrisis, rich countries spend $2.4 trillion a year on military resources. For comparison: the costs of COP 28 last year are equivalent to 2.4 hours of military expenditure and those of the Green Climate Fund (UN climate fund) to 2 days! The emissions from the war in Gaza are equivalent to those of 75 coal-fired power stations over a year. In short: there is enough money, but it is wasted on destruction instead of dedicated to climate policy!”

That leaves nothing to be desired in terms of clarity. But why is so much emphasis placed on public money?

Simply because it can be controlled, both in terms of the amount and the destination. This in contrast to private money, or investments by the business community. Governments can only push the business community in a certain direction through legislation. But the independence of many governments has been compromised in recent decades by becoming shareholders in many companies, and by allowing them to influence the very legislation in their field. Governments also often have little power because of international legislation that allows companies to sue governments if they want to take certain (climate) measures that affect the profitability of these companies…

Yes, that is the reality we live in. National governments don’t have as much power (anymore) as we think – and they have only themselves to blame for it. So what about that much-needed climate finance? One of the ideas going around is to try to attract more private money with public money, for example via development banks. If they, with the help of tax money (because that is public money), reduce the risks for companies to invest in climate-sensitive regions, that could be a win-win situation. That is the aim of the rich countries at the moment.

But there is a lot of criticism.

There is no guarantee that investments will be made where they are most needed. And why not use public money directly for climate projects? Why not support local businesses instead of coming up with complicated structures? Why not generate more public money by imposing extra taxes on the richest people on this planet? Likewise the most polluting companies, such as the fossil industry and international shipping and aviation?

This is exactly how we, concerned citizens, have been strung along for many years. A breakthrough has to come from multilateral conferences such as this COP. Meaningful international tax measures need to be taken jointly, and the international financial system needs to be overhauled to make it people- and planet-proof.

You would think that would be an obvious solution. And the EU would like to do just that, at least on paper. But when push comes to shove, the ‘leakage’ argument is used: “If we impose certain taxes here, the business community will disappear to elsewhere.”

Back to Baku itself, where talks resumed mostly behind closed doors. We observers are allowed in most negotiation rooms, but sometimes delegates need privacy and hold informal consultations. Fortunately, today some creative things happened. Such as a stunt, developed by a special working group within the ecumenical team. That stunt attracted a lot of attention and resulted in three interviews.

In the meantime, quite a few side events have been held in Baku, and more will follow. An overview tomorrow.

To be continued.

In climate jargon, “adaptation” means adaptation to climate change and its negative effects, such as droughts, wildfires, rising sea levels, floods and storms. We probably all know about that by now.

Unfortunately, the talks on national adaptation plans (NAPs) failed to deliver any progress today.

Again, climate finance was the culprit. Country groups from the Global South complained that, in spite of years of indicating the necessity, there was hardly any text on finance, and insofar as it was mentioned it was bracketed.

The idea is that all countries make national plans on how to address adaptation at home. However, to do so, many countries need financial assistance. Somehow the negotiators just can’t seem to get that into the text. While text on investments by the business community, which is very controversial, was indeed generously included in today’s document.

It is important to know that UN texts are negotiated until consensus is reached. I have already reported that this is hard to find. Perhaps it is time to not only talk about adaptation to climate change, but also about adaptation within the negotiation process. Adaptation in the sense of listening better to each other, making an effort to put oneself in another position and being ready to compromise. Because if things continue like this, consensus will really not come next week. Or is it time to start mediation?

Another form of “adaptation” would be to no longer host the climate negotiations in countries that continue to expand oil and gas. An initiative to this end was launched today.

Signed by former Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC Christiana Figueres and former Secretary-General of the UN Ban Ki-moon, the letter calls on countries to establish “strict eligibility criteria to exclude countries who do not support the phase out/transition away from fossil energy.”

Another attempt to purge the climate negotiations of the fossil industry was also presented today, by a coalition of NGOs. There are more than 1 770 lobbyists on behalf of the fossil industry in Baku, more than the combined delegations of the 10 countries suffering most from the climate crisis.

Former Vice President of the USA Al Gore is still active in the climate movement, although he is obviously aging. Today he presented the interesting TRACE project: a database developed in the USA that signals various emissions, not only CO2, but also particulate matter and other particles.

TRACE combines satellite data with other data, mapping the entire globe. All corners of the world can now view their emissions, including by region, province, county and even city. And this data is updated monthly!

TRACE works together with the Drawdown project, which investigates the most efficient climate policy per situation.

Another monitoring system, MARS, maps methane emissions all over the world. Methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas, about 100x stronger than CO2, but it only remains in the atmosphere for about a decade (CO2 a century or more).

About 60% of the methane in the atmosphere comes from human activity, mainly the fossil fuel industry.

In order to keep the goal in sight of not exceeding 1.5°C of global warming, it is therefore essential to quickly reduce methane emissions. A few years ago, at COP 26 the Global Methane Pledge was launched for this purpose: a 30% reduction in methane emissions by 2030.

So far, nothing has come of this.

The UNEP report An Eye On Methane, released today in Baku, reports that of the 1 200 warnings of methane leaks in the past year, only 1% have been followed up by actual action. Repairs can be as simple as replacing a filter.

There is work to be done – especially for the G20 countries.

Global Methane Pledgehttps://www.globalmethanepledge.org/

Host country Azerbaijan, despite some diplomatic slip-ups a few days ago, has made efforts to make this COP a “COP of Peace.” A call to this end was made on the International Day of Peace, 21 September.

Today, this call was reinforced with a special meeting on the Baku Call on Climate Action for Peace, Relief and Recovery. The response to the initiative has been mixed, with some countries and organisations seeing it as a PR stunt. On the other hand, I think that every initiative to do something against war and violence deserves attention, especially in these times.

NGOs do just that in their own way. From the beginning of this COP, many people are walking around with Palestinian scarves. Banners against the war in Gaza can be seen everywhere, and a parallel is regularly drawn between the situation of the Global South in the climate crisis and the situation of the Palestinians. I am not sure whether that is wise. I understand it, but I also think it is rather simplistic.

This blog was supposed to mention the many side events by the ecumenical team and various partner organizations. I will postpone that until next time.

Tomorrow is the last day of the first week of negotiations; the ministers will arrive on Monday. They have a lot of work ahead of them.

To be continued.

Saturday was the last day of the first week of negotiations. The work has now been handed over to the ministers who will start work on Monday.

As usual, there was a long closing plenary session in the evening. The outcome of the first week, recorded in a long series of documents, had to pass. This has to do with the structure of the negotiations: many items and sub-items have their own work stream.

One of the most important items on which no consensus was reached was the so-called Mitigation Work Programme. Given the seriousness of the climate crisis, you would think that mitigation (reducing greenhouse gas emissions) would be a priority. That was indeed emphasized several times.

The rich countries in particular, including the EU, the UK and the US, expressed their deep disappointment that no progress had been made. They blamed other groups of countries, especially from the Global South, for blocking the negotiations.

All this may seem strange, but there is a big catch. Groups of countries from the Global South explained that it is not fair to expect them to participate in mitigation efforts. As one delegate put it (in my words): “the developed world leaves us no carbon budget, while we lag behind in development. Their emissions are even expected to increase, but they do not support us with sufficient climate finance. Moreover, it has already been agreed that the rich countries have to take the lead on mitigation.”

So all is not as simple as it seems. What is just? On closer inspection: the only way to enable both mitigation worldwide and the further – sustainable – development of poor(er) countries is a fairer distribution of money and clean technology. There is no other way.

So we are back to square one: we need a lot of climate finance.

On Sunday morning, European Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra was interviewed about this on a Dutch TV programme, just before he left for Baku. He leads the EU bloc in the negotiations, and said that $1 trillion in climate money is “not realistic”.

When I hear the phrase “not realistic,” I get a little irritated. What reality does Hoekstra actually mean? Not that of many countries in the Global South, I suspect. The point is of course to create a new reality together. A reality in which large sums of public climate finance can be generated, e.g. through specific tax measures and levies. I already mentioned that possibility in an earlier blog.

On Monday and Tuesday 18–19 November, the G20 will meet in Brazil. Let’s hope that such measures will be discussed there and that that will help the negotiations at COP 29.

Back to Baku.

Saturday was also the Global Day of Action. Climate marches were held all over the world, but not in Baku… The conference site here is under UN supervision, but is too small for a large march. And the Azerbaijani government banned a march outside the site. However, a powerful silent protest and more did take place.

As mentioned before, an impressive number of side events were held in the first week. Side events are meetings during COPs – not the official negotiations – on a specific climate-related topic, often organized by large organizations. Last week, the ecumenical movement and its partners presented, among other things:

• Beyond numbers: A dialogue on the NCQG ((New Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance) from faith and ethical perspectives – Interfaith Liaison Committee (ILC)

• Beyond material loss: exploring non-economic impacts of climate change through faith-based perspectives – All Africa Conference of Churches (AACC), Lutheran World Federation (LWF), World Council of Churches (WCC), Dominicans for Justice and Peace, Franciscans International, Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (BKWSU)

• Accessibility and utility of Loss & Damage funding for community resilience: Advocating local accountability mechanisms – AACC, LWF, Christian Aid, Kenya Initiative

• Human Rights and non-economic losses; Addressing the challenges of human mobility – ACT Alliance, Bread for the World
• The role of faiths and science at the climate negotiations – Interfaith Liaison Committee
• Exploring non-economic impacts of climate change; Faith based insights on Loss & Damage – AACC, BKWSU, WCC, LWF, Dominicans for Justice and Peace, Franciscans International
• Reimagining climate financing: Harnessing unique contributions from Faith-Based Organizations (FBO) – LM International
• Reckoning with debt: The major barrier to climate action – Anglican Communion
• Why do we need public finance at the heart of the new finance goal? – Christian Aid, Action Aid, Climate Action Network (CAN) International and Center for Social and Economic Rights (CESR)
• Innovative sources for Loss & Damage funding: Introducing the Climate Solidarity Alliance – Dan(ish)Church Aid, International Peace Institute, Oxford Climate Policy
• Dialogue and partnerships for Just Transitions: Faith, labour and policy – WCC
• From policy to practice; how faith actors can promote locally-led adaptation – Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Episcopal Church in America, Buddhist Tzu Chi Foundation et al
• The moral imperative of climate finance: Addressing ecological debt in the Loss & Damage era – Caritas Internationalis, Catholic Relief Services, Maryknoll Fathers and Brothers, Scottish Catholic International Relief Fund
• Ambitious adaptation finance in the NCQG and its delivery: demands by vulnerable groups and nations – ACT Alliance, Bread for the World, Christian Commission for Development in Bangladesh, Coptic Evangelical Organization for Social Services

What really makes us safe? Peace, climate finance and climate action in an existential time – Friends World Committee for Consultation, Quaker Earthcare Witness, Quakers in Britain, Soka Gakkai International et al.

An impressive list! And this is not all. There were also all kinds of meetings in the Faith Pavillion, stunts, press conferences and press releases. The FBOs are making themselves heard!

To be continued.

The ministers who have arrived were already very busy today. After all, hardly any progress was made last week. There were intensive consultations and roundtables, and statements were issued in various rooms.

The stalled consultation on mitigation was finally put back on track – with some ingenuity. It was supposed to be postponed until next year. But a number of delegations did not allow that to happen; after all, emission reduction is urgently needed. The decision of COP 28 to ‘transition away’ from the use of fossil fuels deserves an immediate follow-up, they stated. Also NGOs were pleased that this agenda item has been saved for this COP, although the question remains how to proceed. A number of countries, including Saudi Arabia (no surprise…), the African group of countries and India do not want to set new mitigation targets. That is partly understandable (see my blog from yesterday).

The COP presidency will now consult with ministers and will announce on Wednesday how things will proceed.

Another important consultation today was about the so-called Just Transition. This means the transition that all countries must go through towards a sustainable economy.

A special work plan has been drawn up for this, the Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP). Using a number of discussion questions, one minister (or other politician) after another explained how he/she envisioned its implementation.

How disconcerting it was to hear, again, on the one hand, the same wonderful statements and on the other hand, the same pleas for more money. The EU, through the voice of (among others) European Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra, made a passionate plea to not lose sight of the 1.5°C; to implement ambitious national climate plans; to ensure economic growth; and, above all, not to leave anyone behind in the transition.

But other countries, such as the small island state of Tuvalu and Ethiopia which spoke for all the poorest countries, had a completely different story.

For them, it is first and foremost about access to energy, poverty reduction, job creation, coastal defence and other adaptation measures. For all of this, international solidarity is needed in the form of a great deal of money and technology transfer.

The difference is striking. For one, it is about strengthening the ‘green’ economy, for the other about survival.

At an EU press conference, Hoekstra admitted that the geopolitical context is challenging, but he stated that this COP must and can nevertheless deliver bold results.

The EU will continue to play a leading role as a bridge builder. After all, that is in the EU’s DNA, according to Hoekstra.

He was asked a few tough questions, particularly about the NCQG (the target for climate financing) and the carbon markets. He was surprisingly positive about voluntary contributions to the NCQG.

In preparatory consultation rounds for this COP, the EU was adamant: countries such as Saudi Arabia and China must also contribute. This has to do with the UN classification of developed countries on the one hand (such as EU countries, the US, etc.) and developing countries / countries in transition on the other. A country like China is on that second list, but of course has grown enormously economically in recent decades.

Hoekstra said that it is not that easy to get from one list to the other, and therefore all voluntary contributions are welcome. He even hinted that this might be an acceptable compromise for the negotiations on the NCQG. (Discussions are undoubtedly ongoing with China about this.) He did emphasize that the carbon markets must make an important contribution to climate financing, although the verification system must be considerably tightened up for this. The latter is also evident from a recently published research report that shows that these markets have been 6x less effective than is assumed.

Interesting was a press conference of CANGO: the Chinese Association for NGO Cooperation. While we usually see China as a very authoritarian country, there is apparently a movement of civil society going on. No less than five experts explained what they are doing in their organization; one worked on agriculture and sustainable food supply, others on water, air pollution, forest planting, gender equality and more. How refreshing to hear Chinese allies for once, however difficult their English sometimes was to understand.

In our daily team meeting it was reported, among other things:

• a press conference at the start of the 2nd week, see https://actalliance.org/act-news/cop29-press-release-concerns-and-hope-as-cop-enters-week-2/
• an appeal from LWF/WCC to the G20 that started today, see https://lutheranworld.org/news/church-leaders-call-g20-halt-growing-inequality-ramp-climate-action
• the ecumenical team has its own booth again!
•  various stunts are being prepared for the coming days.

And, less pleasant: a member of our team was blackmailed in a taxi to the airport. Apparently it has happened more often. It has been reported to the UN who will take it up with the local authorities.

To be continued.

“Nobody will come to save us.”

That was said by an African climate expert during the daily press conference of Climate Action Network (CAN). If the necessary climate financing does not materialize, the continent will quickly be in big trouble. That is why $1.3 trillion per year is a must, and not in the form of loans, of which the continent already has enough. (Mozambique got heavily into debt with the World Bank after the devastating floods in 2023. And that is just one of many examples.)

Similar insights came from the African Union (AU) in its own press conference. Many countries on the continent are already struggling to recover after a climate-related disaster. There is simply too little money and time before the next disaster strikes. That is why adaptation is so important for the African continent.

The AU is not coming to Baku to ask for aid, but for justice: the developed countries must meet their obligations and pledges. Investments are also urgently needed and achievable, because Africa has many critical minerals that are needed for the energy transition. But these must be fair investments, not the plundering of raw materials that the continent is often dealing with.

Another form of capital provision can come from the carbon markets. But only if the carbon price increases considerably, and if the African countries are prepared for it, including with legislation.

To that end, the AU has drawn up an action plan with guidelines on how the member states can benefit from these carbon markets. Participating in emission reduction is difficult for the continent, because of the existing infrastructure for fossil fuels and the need for economic growth. The AU would prefer to switch to sustainable energy, but then more money must be forthcoming…

Unfortunately, the G20 (meeting 18-19 November 2024) has done little to get the negotiations on climate finance moving. In the statement that was issued today after the two-day summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, only the hope for a successful NCQG[KB1]  outcome was expressed. It is up to the delegations here to achieve that.

Today, the second part of the High Level Segment opened, which means the resumption of an endless series of speeches by heads of state and government. At the same time, work on the various documents continued, albeit often in informal meetings.

One of the most difficult aspects of UN negotiations is the fact that there are many parallel tracks, each with its own text. But many topics appear in multiple texts, so they all have to be coordinated. New, updated text is expected tomorrow, which should form the basis for the final days of negotiations.

In addition to the official negotiation process on mitigation, which is proceeding with great difficulty, there are also initiatives in the spirit of the process.

For example, during COP 28 last year, an alliance was established that wants to help the transition away from fossil fuels: the Coalition On phasing out Fossil Fuel Incentives including Subsidies (COFFIS). This coalition started with 13 countries, is led by the Netherlands, and now has 16 countries on board. The secretariat is located at the renowned International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD).

The participating countries – Antigua and Barbuda, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Spain, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Colombia – want to (finally) start abolishing subsidies on fossil fuels.

In order to achieve this, an inventory will first be made of all forms of fossil subsidies. According to the Dutch Minister for Climate and Green Growth, Sophie Hermans, abolishing fossil subsidies is a sensitive subject, because it directly affects people’s wallets. That is why it must be done carefully and step by step. The International Energy Agency (IEA) is thinking along in this regard.

European Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra expressed his support for the initiative and gave the assurance that the next European Commission will take it up vigorously, also in the next EU budget round.

That all sounds exciting, but I wrote “finally” for a reason.

In 2002, I saw a plea for abolishing these subsidies in an official UN document from the early 1990s. But it has been blocked and delayed for decades, so there is absolutely no reason to be proud now. Certainly not when you consider the amount involved: $1.5 trillion for fossil subsidies worldwide, in the year 2022 alone. How much was the requested amount for the NCQG again…? [KB2] 

In another press conference, an interesting line-up of speakers gave an insight into the preparations of the Faith Based Organizations (FBOs) for COP 30, next year in Brazil.

Brahma Kumaris called for introspection, silence and meditation. In this way, there is less risk of depression and loss of hope. People get back in touch with nature and can make better decisions. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of people doing this has grown strongly.

The Quaker delegate called attention to the peace-tradition that can be found in all major religions.

For more security, the connection between climate and peace is of great importance. The greenhouse gas emissions of the global military are estimated at 5.5% of the total, and that does not include the wars since 9/11, including those in Ukraine and Gaza. Israel dropped more bombs on Gaza in six months than were used in the bombing campaigns of Hamburg, Dresden and London combined in the whole of WWII. (See https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/amount-of-israeli-bombs-dropped-on-gaza-surpasses-that-of-world-war-ii/3239665)[KB3] 

In 2023, $2.4 trillion was spent on military spending; if this trend continues, it will be around $17 trillion in the period 2024-2030.

Who said there is no climate money…?

A church leader from Australia made a plea for climate action: “I see how rising sea levels are swallowing my native island. If we don’t stick to 1.5°C we are destined to lose the Pacific.”

Churches and the ecumenical movement in Brazil are already preparing for COP 30. Young people are also participating. There is certainly attention for the climate crisis, after the recent terrible floods in the south of the country, and huge forest fires that left a large part of the country in smog for days.

To be continued.

It’s waiting day in Baku. Waiting for the final negotiation texts, streamlined by the COP president and his staff, and with input from the ministers who have been consulting in various contact groups in recent days.

The text on the NCQG[KB1] , the goal for climate finance, will probably cause the most headaches.

This morning, the state of affairs was explained in a plenary session. The various country groups and countries still have diametrically opposed positions. All kinds of target amounts are mentioned, varying from the well-known US$100 million as a basis, via $440 million, $600 million and $900 million to $1.3 trillion.

Developing countries want the majority of that in the form of concessions and grants, which is a ‘red line’ for others, or in other words: non-negotiable.

Some groups of countries are still keeping their cards close to their chest until it is clarified who will contribute and what the sources of climate finance are: private money yes or no, and how.

There are even countries that believe that this discussion should not be held at climate COPs at all. But abandoning that would mean undermining the Paris Climate Agreement as for its articles and paragraphs on finance. Because that agreement clearly states that rich countries must support poor(er) countries with climate financing.

“Is it a joke?” was the answer given by the spokesperson of a large group of developing countries when asked during a press conference whether they could accept a financing target of US$200 million.

That amount, to be precise US$200 to 300 million, has been circulating in recent days as an offer from the EU. The G77 – another group of developing countries – and the AGN, the African Group of Negotiators, endorsed that answer. All three reiterated that $1.3 trillion is an absolute must, and that climate finance is not about aid but an obligation under the Paris Climate Agreement.

“What would the developing countries want to say to the populations of the rich countries,” was the next question. After all, they will have to cough up at least part of that climate money through taxes?

Oh well, was the laconic answer: as long as the rich countries spend trillions on warfare, there is enough money. And if not, they will find other ways, they are creative enough.

Such a way presents itself this week: in Paris, OECD countries are negotiating an agreement that could put an end to oil and gas export finance, worth US$41 billion per year. If similar measures are added, that could free up $5 trillion per year, according to the analysis of an expert NGO: Oil Change International.

When asked whether the developing countries are prepared to leave the conference if their target is not met, the AGN spokesperson answered diplomatically that it is too early for that.

And yes, I know from experience that a victory can still be achieved at the very, very last moment. In 2015 in Paris, too, negotiations about one or two words continued until the very last second. The tension was palpable, but the Agreement was reached. So who knows.

The fact that it is not easy to maintain hope became clear from a little survey in the ecumenical team. We were all given the opportunity to tell how we felt. Most were tired, angry, frustrated and sad. But there were also positive sounds: grateful for our collaboration, nice to learn so much, and some hope for the future.

For me, apart from frustration about the umpteenth repetition of positions and texts, I actually feel numb. I close myself off emotionally until the conference is over. Then we’ll see.

However, I am deeply grateful to be born in a rich country like the Netherlands and allowed to live there. The contrast with other countries is enormous…

To be continued.

Early this morning in Baku, the new negotiation texts were released, followed by a plenary session that lasted for hours in which all Parties had their say.

The ball was opened by the EU/Hoekstra. It was immediately clear what the EU – and as it turned out also the other rich countries – wanted to push for: more mitigation. Without far-reaching agreements on mitigation worldwide, the 1.5°C warming cannot be achieved, was the argument. The current text was therefore rejected, as was the text on the target for climate financing, the NCQG.

A quantum (amount for the NCQG[KB1] ) could not yet be named, because that would depend on who would contribute and which sources would be eligible. We’ve heard this before…

On the other hand, other groups of countries – including the G77/China, the African Group, the group of Latin American countries and the small island states – emphasized the need for climate finance. Mentioning the well-known arguments: without financing, these countries can’t make climate policies, cannot develop further and have difficulty contributing to mitigation. They stated: without quantum we do not know where we stand and that will have an effect on our national climate plans (the Nationally Determined Contributions, NDCs) that have to be submitted next year.

Moreover, they said, those NDCs are a matter for the countries themselves; top-down directives cannot be given! Because that would mean that the burden of climate policy would end up with the wrong Parties.

In this way, the ball was passed back and forth a number of times, without mutual rapprochement.

As important as mitigation is of course, I could not help but get the impression that by emphasizing it over and over again, the rich countries were making a detour, in order to divert attention from the previously agreed main agenda item of this COP: climate finance. Witnessing that was very painful. There is a major problem underneath: the leading role of the Paris Climate Agreement itself is under pressure. In addition: nothing stops the rich countries from tackling mitigation themselves vigorously…

The ping-pong was interrupted by two contributions from Latin American countries: Colombia and Panama. These delegates didn’t care about trench warfare and spoke from their hearts.

Colombia: A week after the biodiversity summit in Cali, that region was hit by floods. Stop playing geopolitical games and deliver the money! We and many other countries need it.

Panama: You think $1.3 trillion in climate funding is an extreme demand…? You know what’s extreme: spending $2.5 trillion on war! Our people are dying, losing everything and games are being played here. Stop that circus and start delivering!

Both received great applause.

The above is of course a rough summary, but it shows the clashing worldviews.

On the one hand, the powerful Western countries that are trying to implement climate policy in their own way (much too late), provided that others join in. They may be willing to help, but only on their terms and under their leadership.

On the other hand, a very large part of the world with much less power, that trusts the UN as the only body that can achieve any justice.

What will it be: unwanted control by the West, or steering by the UN?

The Latin American countries mentioned also had substantive suggestions, which could possibly help to build bridges. Mentioned were the initiative to reform the international financial system, debt relief, or the use of debt for sustainable projects (debt swaps), taxing the richest people on earth, abolishing fossil subsidies and use that money as climate finance, and more.

Use the coming year to find that out so that COP 30 can make good decisions.

And China unexpectedly, and somewhat in passing, came up with a possible opening for the NCQG. The requested amount of US$1.3 trillion could be mobilized in 2030, of which 500 billion would be provided as public money. That would create room to gradually build up the amount.

The Holy See also made a contribution: climate financing is a must, including for adaptation and Loss & Damage. Finally put those national interests aside, and act ambitiously and in solidarity in the interest of all!

The ecumenical team has been quite active again.

Today there was a stunt about gender that resulted in no less than 5 interviews, including with TV channels from Turkey and Australia. This morning a press release was issued about the new negotiation texts.

And yesterday the annual statement was presented in the High-Level Segment, for the first time not by a Christian organization (in the past usually the World Council of Churches), but by Islamic Relief. This was achieved thanks to the multi-religious cooperation during the COPs. The High-Level Segment (with all those speeches) was concluded this afternoon.

The end of COP 29 itself will, however, take some time.

Officially, tomorrow is the last day, but experience shows that there are often at least 24 hours more. Rumor has it that many delegations are rebooking their flights home to Monday. Tonight, bilateral consultations will feverishly attempt to bring the negotiations to a successful conclusion.

We will hopefully know by Saturday at the latest whether this will succeed.

To be continued.

Today should have been the last day of the COP, but as expected, that is not the case.

The new version of the negotiating text on the NCQG [KB1] was released around 9 am (Baku time). It stated: US$250 billion per year for developing countries by 2035, from all sources – both public and private –, and a ‘call’ to reach US$1.3 trillion by 2035.

The anger from developing countries and NGOs that arose after this is beyond words.

Phrases like “a death sentence for vulnerable countries,” “trust is totally shattered,” “an insult to our populations,” and “this is like a doctor who gives a good diagnosis but then refuses the medicine” were heard on all sides. It was repeated once again that this process is not about charity, but about justice as enshrined in the Paris Climate Agreement.

The target of the developing countries: $1.3 trillion in public money, did not come out of the blue. It was based on three years of at least 11 multilateral consultation rounds, plus research reports from various independent organizations.

Also our team found the text seriously inadequate. Quick calculations, including inflation effects, showed that this new amount would burden the rich countries even less than the previous US$100 billion, because private money can be included. Left and right one could hear “better no deal than a bad deal,” but also the warning that the multilateral process of the climate COPs must be maintained. But should it mean that, in order to maintain that process, a bad deal should be accepted?

In the hours that followed, developments unfolded in rapid succession. All CSOs had gathered for a joint consultation. People from our team also participated. In that meeting, two letters were drafted: one to the G77/China with support for the rejection of this NCQG deal, and one to the USA, EU, UK, Canada, Japan and other rich countries with an unmistakable condemnation of their position. The letters have been co-signed by ACT Alliance.

See https://bit.ly/G77Baku  and https://bit.ly/DevdBaku

The delegation of the Episcopal Church (USA) organized a prayer and a vigil for yesterday and today. People could sign up for that via a Google document. It seems to me that prayers and vigils are also in order for tomorrow and the day after.

The COP Presidency announced tonight that consultations will take place all night long, after which a last version of the NCQG text will be published.

You can bet that things will get heated tonight… It really is the last chance to save this COP.

The next plenary session will be tomorrow (Saturday) at 10:00 Baku time at the earliest. But it could also be in the afternoon or evening. Hopefully we can conclude by next Sunday at the latest. I will try to stay informed and will write my last blog when the COP has actually ended.

To be continued once more.

India said this shortly after the decision on the NCQG had been pushed through. There is no denying it: this was cooked up behind the scenes. The video of the closing plenary session can be viewed on the UNFCCC website:

The agenda item NCQG starts at just after 2 hours into the video.

India repeated three times that it could not accept the adoption of the draft decision. Other countries joined in. They received a lot of applause.

There was also applause after the decision was hammered down. But the video shows that the COP president did not look around the conference hall first. Normally, at least a few seconds are allowed to give the Parties the opportunity to speak; instead, he drilled down immediately.

This course of events made me sick. Here the rich countries are hijacking the UN process and pressuring other countries to accept their proposals. This means a further undermining of the UN, even though it is the only multilateral platform to discuss global problems and jointly find solutions.

What has actually been decided? From 2035 onwards, the rich countries will make $300 billion available annually to the poor(er) countries for both mitigation and adaptation. Loss & Damage is not mentioned in this. The amount can come from all kinds of sources, including private ones.

At the same time, an attempt is being made to increase the amount to $1.3 trillion by 2035, with developing countries being encouraged to contribute voluntarily. There is no definition of climate finance.

Anyone with any knowledge of the matter understands that $300 billion is equal to a handout.

• Firstly, it will take 11 long years before the goal has to be achieved – that is far too long.
• Secondly, the amount is far too low. This is evident from various studies carried out by independent institutes in recent years. The NCQG document itself also states that the costs for developing countries up to 2030 are estimated at around $455–584 billion per year for mitigation alone, and $215–387 billion for adaptation. You can do the math yourself.

This means that poor countries are hanging by the neck in a noose. Either they become increasingly poorer because they have too little money for economic growth based on sustainable energy, or they contribute increasingly to climate change by continuing to use fossil fuels – of which they themselves will be the first to suffer the consequences.

A devil’s dilemma, quite literally. And an eye-opener that sustainable development of developing countries is in the interest of all countries!

Fortunately, there are a few somewhat hopeful paragraphs in the decision.

• First of all, intensive efforts will be made next year to actually achieve the target of $1.3 trillion, with the help of the Baku to Belém Roadmap to 1.3T. COP 30 will be held in Belém, Brazil, next year, and progress will be reported there.
• There are also paragraphs on reforming the multilateral financial architecture, facilitating access to capital and the importance of climate financing that is not based on loans.

But whether this can actually be achieved depends on the boards of financial institutions and credit rating agencies. Especially now that Trump will be president of the USA again, it is very questionable whether anything will come of it.

Trump’s re-election has probably also contributed to the EU’s intransigence: $300 billion and not a penny more. Considering the current situation, this is somewhat understandable. If all the rich countries were on board, measures such as phasing out fossil fuel subsidies, introducing carbon taxes and higher market prices, and taxing international financial transactions as well as ridiculously rich individuals could quickly generate more climate money. But under the current circumstances, unfortunately, the US can be expected to become a kind of free port.

All the more reason for the EU and China to work more closely together on climate policy.

And all the more reason to stop waging war as soon as possible: apart from all the suffering it causes, it wastes a lot of money.

Our team has really worked their socks off. A handful of people stayed in Baku until the very last minute in the wee hours of Sunday morning and were able to keep the others, who were already on a plane back home or were participating digitally, informed. The cooperation was fantastic, partly thanks to a good messaging service (not WhatsApp!). However bitter the aftertaste of this COP may be: the fight continues.

Thank you for your attention.