he annual Conference of Parties under the UNFCCC are more than scientific, technical or environmental activist gatherings; they are arenas where climate action collides with global geopolitics. These summits reveal the fault lines between industrialised and developing nations; the manoeuvring of fossil fuel-dependent economies; and the shifting dynamics of global leadership. At COP29, these geopolitical tensions were on full display, shaping outcomes as much as — if not more than — the science of climate change.
COP29, held in Baku, Azerbaijan, came at a critical juncture. The world faces escalating climate impacts, growing calls for climate justice and deep divisions over responsibility and financing. Despite broad acknowledgment of the climate emergency, the negotiations were marked by intense disagreements, particularly on issues of climate finance and the transition away from fossil fuels. It was a stark reminder that while science can highlight the urgency of action, it is diplomacy that ultimately determines progress — or the lack thereof.
Adding to the challenges was the lingering shadow of Donald Trump’s anticipated withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. The consequences of the US departure from multilateralism during Trump’s previous presidency continue to resonate. It eroded trust in collective global action; emboldened fossil-fuel-producing nations; and raised concerns about the rise of right-leaning governments deprioritising climate action. Germany, for instance, faces the possibility of snap elections next year, with projections suggesting that the new government may be less inclined towards ambitious climate commitments.
This trend created a dual effect at COP29. On one hand, it deepened existing divisions between developed and developing nations; on the other, it spurred countries such as the UK, Germany and China to reaffirm their leadership roles, demonstrating their resolve to advance global climate goals even in the absence of the US. This dynamic highlighted the resilience of multilateralism while revealing its fragility when key players retreat.
The negotiations at COP29 revealed stark divides between developed and developing nations. The latter, including small island states, are disproportionately affected by climate change despite contributing the least to global emissions. Many developing nations viewed the financial proposals from industrialised countries as insufficient and symbolic of a broader failure to address their existential challenges.
The initial offer of $250 billion annually by 2035 was met with widespread rejection. Delegations from small island states and African nations expressed frustration, viewing the proposal as a betrayal of trust. Some walked out of the talks, signalling their discontent with the perceived marginalisation of their voices. This episode revealed the inadequacies of the negotiation process, where the concerns of vulnerable nations are often sidelined in favour of politically expedient compromises.
Interestingly, the tensions were not confined to a North-South dichotomy. Divisions emerged within the Global South as well. Larger emerging economies had priorities different from those of smaller, climate-vulnerable nations. India, for instance, did not officially block the agreement but later expressed dissatisfaction with its provisions. This reflects the challenge of reconciling diverse national interests within the developing world.
Saudi Arabia’s resistance to phasing out fossil fuels exemplified the influence of fossil-fuel-dependent economies on climate negotiations. Supported by other oil and gas exporters, Riyadh pushed back against commitments that could threaten its economic interests. This resistance highlighted the enduring power of fossil-fuel-dependent nations, even as the world moves towards renewable energy transitions.
The expected phasing out of the US also indirectly spurred innovative approaches to climate finance. Emphasis shifted towards leveraging multilateral institutions and private-sector contributions, reflecting the growing recognition of non-state actors in addressing the climate crisis.
After nine years of the Paris Agreement, COP29 delivered a $300 billion annual financial package from industrialised nations. This commitment is to be supplemented by contributions from multilateral institutions and the private sector, aiming for a total of $1.3 trillion by 2035. While this marks progress, the amount falls far short of the $1 trillion annually that scientists deem the minimum necessary to avert catastrophic climate change.
Developing nations rightly criticised the heavy reliance on private-sector contributions, arguing that this component was more theoretical than actionable. The financial negotiations revealed contrasting priorities: developed nations, constrained by domestic fiscal pressures, the Ukraine war and domestic inflation, were reluctant to increase their contributions significantly. The EU, for instance, remained steadfast in limiting its pledges to $300 billion. The UK, however, emerged as a notable exception, showcasing renewed climate leadership with enhanced decarbonisation targets and greater flexibility in negotiations.
China’s strategic alignment with the G77 has played a major role in amplifying the voice and importance of coalitions in previous COPs. In Baku, too, acting as a bridge between developing nations and industrialised economies, China sought to amplify the demands of the Global South and was willing to raise its financial contributions provided the Global North could jack up its commitment to $500 billion.
Despite the challenges, COP29 saw some notable achievements. The finalisation of a global framework for international carbon market trading under Article 6.4 was a significant breakthrough. This mechanism offers less-wealthy nations a new avenue for raising climate finance, potentially enabling them to invest in sustainable development without compromising economic growth.
One of the most contentious aspects of COP29 was developed countries’ insistence on unveiling draft financial commitments only on the penultimate day of the summit. The COP presidency was against that approach as it led to the erosion of trust among developing nations, many of whom viewed it as a fait accompli. However, the developed nations were not willing to reveal their cards till the last moment.
As COP29 concluded, it became evident that the deal was imperfect but essential. It demonstrated the resilience of multilateralism while exposing its limitations. Ultimately, it also reaffirmed that while science provides the roadmap for urgent climate action, geopolitics often dictates which paths are pursued — or obstructed — highlighting that the fight against climate change is as much about power and priorities as it is about evidence and solutions. One can only hope that the global powers that be recognise the mounting cost of inaction and rise above narrow interests to deliver the decisive action our planet desperately needs.
The writer heads the Sustainable Development Policy Institute and is a member of the COP29 international advisory committee
This post was originally published on here
