The first proposed agreement sent by the presidency of COP29 lasted until this Thursday and it pleased no one. This highlighted the divide that has stalled negotiations in Baku. Poor countries want a specific amount of money that developed states must transfer to them. Rich countries are evading some figures and demanding more discussions on how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The negotiations will take place at the ends of this divide, on the last day of the summit talks programme. On the one hand, there are those who demand more millions (or even billions) of dollars. And on the other, those which require attention to injecting less gas into the atmosphere. These are not separate processes, but in Baku this appears to be the case. “There is no climate action without climate financing,” repeats the ecological transition expert at Alianza-Action Aid, Isabel Iparraguirre.
The last stage of this game began like this: “The proposition [sobre financiación] “It is unbalanced, unacceptable and impractical,” as described by European Union representative Wopke Hoekstra. There were a few more adjectives that I could attach to the project developed by the team of the chairman of the negotiations, Muhktar Babayev. But US special envoy John Podesta found other areas of criticism: “All parties with capacity should be among those contributing financially. » Translated: they want China, which is officially a developing country, to invest in this financing for poor states.
Under these conditions, these poor countries showed themselves ready to block any agreement if a specific minimum amount was not included in the final text of COP29. This amount is called quantum and financial experts are not lowering their estimate of what is needed among the trillion dollars. “The amount must reflect the needs of developing countries,” according to the Zambian delegation.
“We cannot leave Baku without quantum”groups such as the G77+China have repeated this. As the summit president declared, “the text is rejected in its entirety,” expressed the States of the African Group.
The text on emissions mitigation: “Blank”
While money has been Azerbaijan’s number one priority from the start, the most developed countries – which remain vague on the amount they are prepared to invest – are pushing for more measures to be taken in terms of abandonment of fossil fuels (the main source of CO2 emissions causing climate change).
The director of the Spanish Climate Change Office, Valvanera Ulargui, explicitly described the mitigation text: “It is empty of content,” she said after reading the proposal and before resume negotiations. “This confirms the fear we had: no strong political signal is given so that countries’ next climate plans are consistent with maintaining the limit of global warming at 1.5°C.” One of the things the European Union wants is for these signals to indicate where the money should be spent: “Investments that go to renewable energy to move away from fossil fuels.”
But therein lies the friction. If groups like the Europeans or the United States do not meet the expectations of developing countries in the financial field, this boomerang will turn against them when it comes to obtaining from these States forget use oil or coal to stimulate their economy. “This emissions mitigation proposal is a step backwards,” criticized the Australian envoy. “Nothing that was achieved in Dubai [acordar la ”transición lejos de los fósiles“] It’s here,” the Americans emphasized. The former are major coal exporters. The latter are the main sellers of liquefied natural gas and 75% of their imports are crude oil.
The last eternal hour
And in this rarefied realm, big oil producers are finding all sorts of cracks through which to squeeze. Saudi Arabia, on behalf of the Arab group, said publicly – during Thursday’s plenary session, not behind the scenes – that it would never accept “specific sectors such as fossil fuels being defunded”. the gap”. Furthermore, they have clung to the “developing country financing target” to defend their products which are, ultimately, the heart of the climate problem.
The agreement options proposed by the presidency of COP29 generated “general disappointment”, say summit observers. Moreover, they arrived very late, after ten days of negotiations and with 48 hours remaining to theoretically close the summit. Once these projects were known, a plenary session was held with countless interventions – everyone wanted to express their discomfort – then the day was spent in closed-door negotiations.
Many veterans of these negotiations say that only when faced with the abyss of a no-deal outcome can the parties truly negotiate. To this, the spokesperson for the Panamanian delegation responded: “This leads to very weak texts. » The expected time is short, although the usual tendency is to extend the summit by hours or even a day.
