An Azeri Soldier and security camera guard the perimeter to COP29 in Baku, behind which a row of gas-powered turbine generators is visible. (Author)
By Owen Sears (POLS Major/ENGR Minor, Class of 2025, from Philadelphia, PA)
11 November 2024
Any scholar of politics can offer up a definition of the state, and the most common one cites Max Weber as asserting the state as the social body that maintains the monopoly on violence within a territory. This is only the beginning of understanding the nature of modern statehood, and Weber’s thesis (most famously expressed in Politics as a Vocation) allows the scholar to conceive of the state as an entity that can transcend countries and polities.
Enter the petrostate. Countries whose economies rely on carbon fuel exploitation are often referred to as such, especially in a derogatory sense by liberal commentators in the West. Ironically its connotation has become less acute in the modern moment after the painful thrust of the trident: the geopolitical and economic realignment caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the 8 October 2023 debut of the Zionist state’s ongoing campaign of its longstanding war against Palestine. In order to understand the modern petrostate it’s important to unpack the impacts of the trident. The pandemic led to record profits for many F500 companies, especially hydrocarbon firms, due to an increased demand for energy. On February 8, 2023 Reuters reported that Big Oil corporations more than doubled their profits in 2022 to $219 billion, going on to pay out a record $110 billion in dividends and stock buybacks to investors. These companies have opted to expand their operations, particularly in the Permian Basin of Texas and Oklahoma, further lowering production costs and increasing revenue. In February 2024 the Guardian reported that the supermajors (Exxon, Shell, BP, Chevron, and France’s Total) have raked in a whopping $281b since the beginning of the Russian invasion. The impact of the demolition of the underwater Nord Stream pipelines should not be overlooked. Far greater than just the effects of releasing a methane bomb into the atmosphere, the bombing of the pipelines (likely executed by Ukrainian divers acting with UK and US support) severed Europe’s connection to Russian gas and paved the way for the United States to become the world’s largest producer of oil and gas. The effects of the 2023-present Gaza campaign are a bit harder to discern from an energy standpoint, but the Guardian gives us a hint in a report from January 2024. “The planet-warming emissions generated during the first two months of the war in Gaza were greater than the annual carbon footprint of more than 20 of the world’s most climate-vulnerable nations,” according to research from the Climate and Community Project. It should be clear that war is terrible for the environment, and military campaigns degrade our shared future by:
Polluting the land through toxic explosive residue, debris from destroyed structures, and waste left by soldiers
Polluting the air through vehicle and aircraft emissions, including those of ships that supply forces with fuel and materiel. (Military vehicles emit significantly more carbon and criteria pollutants than civil vehicles due to their use of diesel fuel and limited regulation)
Requiring carbon-intensive reconstruction and remediation after the end of the war. (It is nearly inconceivable to imagine how Gaza will be rebuilt)
And other no less important impacts.
Modern warfare requires unholy amounts of fossil fuel. In the case of Palestine, the Zionist military receives its refined military fuels like jet fuel from the American empire, and it now mainly buys the rest of its hydrocarbons from the Republic of Azerbaijan, the country in which I am currently located.
I’m writing this from the lobby of my hotel in Baku, where I am attending COP29, the 2024 Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Baku has been built on a vast reservoir of oil so accessible that Marco Polo took note of its black geysers. The first well here was dug a decade before the first in America, and thus Baku can be considered the birthplace of the oil industry. One of Hitler’s goals for his ill-fated Operation Barbarossa, the largest land offensive in human history, was to seize the oil reserves of the Caucasus. His empire ultimately failed in this task, but succeeded in its other goal, which was to slaughter millions of Russians and Slavs to prepare for the German settlement of their lands. Blood and soil, blood and oil; the oil is the lifeblood of this land. The air is hazy and smoky, the three Flame Towers ripple into the sky illuminated in red. The old city itself is beautiful, the architecture and culture eclectic and rich. Everything new here was built by oil.
Azerbaijan is the definition of a petrostate. It is an authoritarian country with Ilham Aliyev as head of state, who took over as president following the death of his father Heydar. The elder Aliyev cut his teeth as a high-ranking officer in the Azeri SSR’s KGB and became a powerful apparatchik within the USSR. His son’s election in 2003 was universally decried as a sham, and a personality cult of the two leaders reigns to this day. I haven’t yet seen any oversized posters bearing their visages above nationalistic quotes or jackbooted troops brutalizing the unhoused, but the atmosphere of authority pervades. CCTV consists of eight swiveling cameras per pole like the spawn of Argus and Hydra. Police in reflective jackets and baseball caps roam the streets, smoking cigarettes and looking bored. At the conference grounds soldiers wearing yellow vests over fatigues stand vigil, planted every fifty meters along the perimeter like camouflage trees. They have batons in their holsters, not firearms, and the people pay them little mind. My interpretation is that repressive state forces are only really necessary if the economy disfavors the common man. In a well-run petrostate the citizen benefits from the strong oil economy and therefore has little gripe with even a completely undemocratic regime.
I describe how I perceive the Azeri state not to castigate the country’s governance structure but to draw parallels between this country and nearly every other. A heavy police presence and extensive surveillance infrastructure is to be expected in a major city. These days NYPD and Empire Shield soldiers conduct searches of subway patrons’ bags, often equipped with military weapons and equipment. In Amsterdam squads of cops encircle and beat antiwar protesters. In Western countries the deployment of chemical agents against demonstrators has become the norm. And of course the United States, as the world’s largest producer of oil and gas, has become the world’s leading petrostate.
However, the key to understanding the petrostate is to recognize that its existence transcends individual states. Governments themselves do not maintain the monopoly on carbon violence wielded by the petrostate: they financially and politically facilitate it, but the machinery of violence lies in the hands of corporations, not nation-states. Only oil and gas companies can produce oil and gas; in order to thwart their destructive plans we must disrupt their economic viability. My conclusion from the Conference is that we as global citizens cannot rely upon state governments, whether national or international, to save us from the impending climate nightmare. Transformative climate action must begin at home, at school, and at work. We must reject the expansion of carbon fuels, petroleum-derived chemical products, and other climate-impacting processes. Now more than ever it is crucial that institutions like Swarthmore make public their commitment to a peaceful future, not just by immediately ceasing their direct and indirect emissions, but primarily by divesting their extensive holdings in the global carbon industry and reinvesting in sustainable community enterprises. Divestment is the single most powerful tool available to those who care about our collective future.
By Ellie Zack ‘25: Environmental Studies, Peace & Conflict Studies and Linguistics
At COP29, I followed a series of side events on biodiversity and its connections with climate change. Biodiversity is defined by the United Nations as “the variety of life on Earth, in all its forms, from genes and bacteria to entire ecosystems such as forests or coral reefs.” Biodiversity and its nature-based solutions are the strongest natural defense to climate change. But at the same time, biodiversity can be a risk factor that contributes to worsening climate change. The United Nations treats climate change, biodiversity, and pollution as a “triple planetary crisis,” where each issue is treated as an individual sector, but it is recognized that they are intertwined. The UN Convention on Biological Diversity, or CBD, has its own COP every two years to work towards a goal of conserving biodiversity and sharing its benefits fairly.
But why is biodiversity important to the climate crisis? Biodiversity loss, which mostly arises due to land use and food production problems, threatens the health of carbon sinks on land and in the ocean. When carbon sinks start to release carbon instead of store it, changes to the climate accelerate. But climate change can increase biodiversity loss, too, increasing the mortality rate of plant and animal species from higher temperatures and disease rates. A reinforcing feedback loop is created where climate change accelerates the loss of biodiversity, which continues to exacerbate the effects of climate change even more. Because of this, climate change and biodiversity loss should not be treated as two separate problems.
A few weeks before COP29, the CBD COP16 was held in Cali, Columbia. 175 countries were represented this year, but the United States attended only as an observer instead of an official party. The US has never joined the Convention of Biological Diversity. The theme this year was “Peace in Nature,” and the biggest focus of the conference was to review the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which was put into place at CBD COP15. One of the key aspects of the new framework is the 30×30 target, where a goal is set to protect biodiversity in 30% of all terrestrial, inland water, and marine and coastal areas by 2030. This goal is the part of the biodiversity framework that is brought up the most in UNFCCC dialogue. COP16 was a venue for parties to work on their National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs), which are most often compared to the UNFCCC’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).
The COP16 logo from fall 2024
Over the past few years, there has been discussion at both COPs about how to include biodiversity into climate change solutions. COP27 had a thematic day for biodiversity, and COP28 had many discussions of how to include plans for the 30×30 target into NDCs.
I found biodiversity events almost every day during the second week of COP29, even when it was not part of the thematic day. Tuesday was unofficially labeled “Synergies Day,” where many of the side events discussed how to find intersectional solutions to climate change. I started my morning in the Capacities Building Hub inside the Blue Zone, where events tend to be more interactive. I went to an event called, “Effectively Delivering on Climate and Nature: NDCs, NAPs, and NSBAPs Synergies.”
A discussion on NDC, NAP, and NBSAP synergies at the COP29 Capacity Building Hub
The event discussed the need for an increase in coherence between the Paris Agreement and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, and how this can be possible. New Nationally Determined Contributions, parties’ action plans for how they will meet the goals of the Paris Agreement, are due in February 2025. This event called for alignment between the new NDCs and the current National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) and National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NPSAPs). At COP29, a new checklist was made that parties can use to assess their plans and set stronger goals. The main takeaway of the event was that there will be greater results in both sectors if these plans work together than if they work alone. Coordination between biodiversity and climate change promotes efficiency in actions and use of resources, ensures that efforts do not undermine each other, and improves collaboration and knowledge planning.
I went to a few biodiversity events at individual pavilions, too. The Arctic Pavilion held an event titled, “Ocean Climate Nexus Adaptation Strategies to Address Climate Change and Migration Approaches for Reducing Biodiversity Loss in the Ocean.” This event was run by members of YOUNGO, the youth constituency. They discussed specific examples of adaptation strategies that can be implemented to help promote biodiversity. These included preservation and restoration of coastal forests, wetlands, and mangroves. They also discussed the education of marine biodiversity, and how bringing training on waste and water management into schools and online courses can minimize the impact of biodiversity loss in local communities.
A YOUNGO panel at the Arctic Pavilion on reducing ocean biodiversity loss
I also went to an event in the World Wildlife Fund Pavilion, “Two Crises–One Solution–Biodiversity and Climate Nexus in the Caucasus Region.” Azerbaijan’s Deputy Minister of Environment spoke at the event, explaining how Azerbaijan is in the middle of a biodiversity hotspot, with nine of the 11 main climate types found in the country. The event promoted the idea that biodiversity and climate change are sisters, and that nature is necessary to be able to reach climate change goals. It also announced a change in the country’s conservation plan, increasing their funding and efforts to keep biodiversity alive.
Azerbaijan’s Deputy Minister of Environment speaking in the World Wildlife Fund Pavilion about biodiversity in the Caucasus Region
“Boost ‘UNEA Synergy Resolution’ – Synergy Building in National Climate and Biodiversity Strategies” was an event held at Japan’s pavilion. This event discussed the same cobenefit approach to finding solutions for both climate change and biodiversity simultaneously, maximizing synergies and minimizing tradeoff. Japan’s synergy planning includes a holistic environmental action plan, a conservation matrix, and their own synergy report that works along the UNFCCC one. The event also included a youth perspective—they said that the strengths of young people are time and passion. The panel included talk of how young people are capable of understanding how everything is connected, and how synergies are able to make big problems easier to understand.
A panel at the Japan Pavilion on synergy building between NDCs and NBSAPs
Canada’s pavilion also had an event on Synergies Day called, “Partnerships for Climate, Biodiversity and People: Canadian and Global Perspectives.” Canada was a co-host of CBD COP15, where the new biodiversity framework was created. They are a leader in biodiversity policy, aiming to understand the real costs to livelihoods and health that can come from biodiversity loss. The panel discussed the theory of change framework that is included in the current biodiversity plan—you describe the change that you want over a period of time and plan out what actions it will take to get there. Examples of biodiversity projects talked about in the panel included private sector projects, like planting specific varieties of trees in a local community, and funding for research, like the PATH plan for equitable adaptation. A similar thread was seen throughout the day: problems are joint, so solutions should also be joint.
A panel on biodiversity in the Canada Pavilion
This same idea was promoted at the World Bank Pavilion. They discussed how most social and environmental justice problems affect the same communities at the same time, so they will not be able to be stopped individually. The event was titled “Leveraging Nature Based Solutions for Resilience Adaptation.” The panel talked about how climate change is a feedback loop and nature can be a solution, and gave specific examples of what these nature-based solutions can look like. They included climate resilience projects like landscape restoration, agroforestry using native species, fire management strategies, and mangrove restoration.
The World Bank Pavilion’s event on nature-based solutions
There was not a lot of progress made at COP29 connecting the policies of climate change and biodiversity. The UAE dialogue from COP28 included a line about biodiversity, reaffirming “the importance of conserving, protecting and restoring nature and ecosystems…in line with the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.” However, the negotiations on the UAE dialogue were pushed to COP30, so it will be interesting to see if this line stays in the dialogue.
Even still, there was a lot of discourse about the interconnectedness of biodiversity and climate change. Biodiversity is often overlooked as a strategy to reduce climate change—the potential for nature-based solutions can be overpowered by talk of new mitigation technology or adaptation plans. But it is now well understood that the solutions of climate change and biodiversity conservation need to work hand-in-hand. I will be curious to see how this conversation gets pulled into side events at COP30 in Brazil, which is going to be located on the edge of the Amazon, one of the world’s largest biodiversity hotspots. As synergy becomes a more common topic of conversation at both COPs, countries will hopefully start to coordinate their NDCs and NAPs with their NBSAPs.
On Thursday, November 21st, 2024, I attended, in my opinion, the most powerful and emotionally stirring event of Conference of the Parties-29 (COP-29) in Baku, Azerbaijan: the People’s Plenary, or the People’s COP.
Before I can discuss what I saw at this People’s Plenary, I think it is important that I address the purpose of the event. The People’s Plenary is a space where Indigenous Peoples, youth groups and delegations, including YOUNGO, women, farmers, environmental NGOs, and other activists gather together to voice their frustrations with the COP processes, but also their hope for what they believe the future can look like if large actions are taken to advance climate justice. This year, these groups called for an increase in climate finance, because COP-29 was billed as “The Finance COP”.
Given that COP was hosted in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, it was understood before COP began that protests and activist activity would be limited, given the repressive nature of the Azerbaijani government. I did see activists outside the Side Event rooms, but they had strict guidelines to follow, and had to conclude their presentations and clear the hall after their time-slot ended. The People’s Plenary is a forum where activists’ work is accepted and can be celebrated, and criticism can be voiced safely and heard by empathetic peers.
This event, while listed on the official UNFCCC schedule of COP, is scarcely attended by negotiators. In fact, when queueing to enter the Caspian Plenary Room, where the event was being held, those with yellow observer-designated badges had priority. This is not the case for most rooms where negotiations are held. The room filled up very quickly, with observers and side-event speakers from all over the world and from many different walks of life when the security guards finally allowed access.
My view from the front row of the audience of the stage in the Caspian Plenary.
On that particular day at COP-29, the official theme of the day was, “Indigenous Peoples, Gender Equality, Nature & Biodiversity, & Oceans & Coastal Zones”. However, the theme of the People’s Plenary was, “Pay Up, Stand Up: Finance Climate Action, Not Genocide”. This title accurately expressed the frustrations of the many speakers and the groups they represented, especially because many hail from the Global South, where communities disproportionately face the effects of a climate catastrophe that they did not contribute to nearly as much as corporations and governments in the Global North.
The banner of the COP-29 People’s Plenary.
The first speakers, introduced by the Chair of the Plenary, spoke on behalf of Palestine, Lebanon, and South Sudan. All women, they expressed their anguish about the suffering their people have faced. They highlighted the compounding negative effects of climate change that threaten the lives of people whose lives are already endangered, and how war and devastation of cities likewise contribute to climate change and pollution. Each speaker conveyed her hurt and anger that the name of her respective homeland would not and could not be uttered in negotiations.
This resonated with me deeply, as an Armenian-American woman. My grandfather’s family fled Armenian when my grandfather, John Kerimian, and his twin brother, Ray Kerimian, were infants, and his sister, Jacqueline Kerimian, was a young teenager. Currently, there are more Armenians living in diaspora than in Armenia. Recently, millions of indigenous Armenians living in Artsakh, or Nagorno Karabakh, were forced to leave their homeland when Azerbaijan asserted that the territory belonged to them and occupied the region. In the halls of the Conference of the Parties-29, I did not hear anyone mention Armenia either.
The introduction of the People’s Plenary provoked deep emotions within me. As I wiped away tears, I made eye contact with the women around me, and felt a sense of solidarity and understanding pass between us. The mood of the rest of the Plenary, though, was more fiery, with attendees calling for “Trillions, Not Billions”, referring to the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG). The NCQG is a target established in the Paris Agreement in 2015, which was formerly 100 billion USD. The purpose of the NCQG is to raise climate finance for developing countries, which can help these nations fund mitigation efforts, adapt to climate change, and recover when natural disasters destroy industries and displace people.
One of the speakers that I found very riveting, was an activist fighting in the larger Global Climate Justice Movement. He spoke passionately and emphasized that the struggle for climate justice is inextricably linked to the global push to end genocides and wars. This intersectionality was not unknown to me, but hearing it stressed at a prestigious conference was empowering. Sitting in that vast room, I thought of the work of my peers and my own environmental justice work, and felt a wave of resolve to continue advocating for and standing with people being unfairly harmed by climate change pass through me.
At the end of the Plenary, citizens of the Global North were called to stand and recite a pledge to support the Global South and push for justice wherever and whenever, no matter what. Now COP has ended, and the NCQG was actually set at 300 billion USD, when nations from the Global South stated that 1.3 trillion would be needed to combat climate change. While it may seem like this would be devastating to the attendees of the People’s Plenary, I suspect they will maintain their hope, passion, and action, and continue to push for climate action.
Overall, I am grateful that I was able to attend COP-29, and attend the People’s Plenary. It will be a memory I cherish for a long time, especially as I plan to attend law school, and persist in my activism.
Emily Kerimian ’25, Swarthmore College; Honors Environmental Studies major and Honors German Studies minor
Before arriving at the Conference of the Parties-29 (COP-29), I had a fairly clear idea of what I would see in this international and multilateral climate change conference hosted by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC): busy, tense negotiations, where every word, comma, and bracket is scrutinized, side events and press conferences, where adaptation, mitigation, and loss and damage are discussed at length, and pavilions, where delegate Parties (i.e countries) host events to show off their progress in achieving their goals and discuss future ambitions and other non-Party groups can educate visitors about their role in combating the climate crisis. I even expected to see protests, even if in a diminished form. All these events take place in the Blue Zone, where you need a badge, indicating your name, affiliation, days of access, and classification. I attended this conference as an observer, a role meant to inspire negotiators to action, serving as the general public’s eyes. My badge only became active on Tuesday, November 19th. Thus, on Monday, November 18th, I entered the Green Zone.
The Green Zone is an area of COPs that does not host negotiations. Instead, it features rows upon rows of booths set up for varying purposes. Typically, at these booths, you can find activist groups, or non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and spaces to interact with highly-informed people from all walks of life. This year, at COP-29, I saw many booths dedicated to businesses. One particular business that stood out to me happened to be SOCAR, the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan. The prevalence of business in the Green Zone disheartened me. However, I continued to explore the Green Zone, seeking for something to re-inspire me.
While searching for the Art Pavilion in the afternoon, I stumbled across the “Azerbaijan” area at the center of the Green Zone. When I inquired about the Art Pavilion at the information desk, I was informed that there was indeed art and demonstrations occurring in the Azerbaijan Pavilion of the Green Zone. The kind volunteer steered me to the other side of the space, where I was handed a complementary cup of tea and a plate of traditional Azerbaijani sweets. Having not eaten since breakfast, I was grateful for the respite. After I finished my unexpected treat, I floated from demonstration to demonstration, absorbing more culture and kindness. Artisans from across the country, including remote villages, had been brought to the conference to share their talents and traditions with the visitors of COP. First, I learned how to make a shabaka, or shebeke in Azerbaijani, a stained-glass window. These intricate, lattice wood and glass structures captured my eye, but proved to be difficult to assemble. However, the artist was patient, guiding my hand, allowing me to mirror his work.
After thanking the man, and taking a quick picture of my handiwork, I approached a table covered in several detailed embroidered canvasses. Takelduz, or the art of embroidery, is a long-standing folk art tradition in Azerbaijan. Back in the United States, on Swarthmore’s campus, my best friend, who is incredibly gifted at embroidery, would have been delighted. I, meanwhile, timidly approached the table, to admire the craft. The woman making quick stitches beckoned me, and began to show me how the pattern takes shape. I copied her, falling into the easy rhythm, making the outline of her newest design take shape. This is a skill that I can see myself adapting into my own life, as it offers a great chance to be deliberate and contemplative, especially when topics, like the threat of climate catastrophe threaten to become overwhelming.
Next, I observed a woman weaving a rug by hand. She sat at a low bench, hands fluttering over a loom with a third-of-the-way finished rug. The volunteer returned, to let me know that the finished rug would take months, if not a year to complete. To me, the process of making a complex silk rug requires a similar brand of patience and faith that is necessary when waiting to see the outcomes of climate negotiations. Inspired by watching a silk rug being woven in real time, I made sure to bring home a small traditional rug for my parents, who to this day lament about passing up an opportunity to buy a large, shimmery silk carpet on a trip to Turkey.
The topmost rug with the circular pattern was the one I brought home for my family. It now sits in my parents’ dining room.
In the same vicinity, I saw village women, darning with spools of wool. Again, I relied on the translation skills of the volunteer. She explained to me that in more remote areas, outside Baku, the capital, families make their own clothes out of wool. They work in phases, gathering the fibers and threads, spinning them into wool, dying that wool, and finally making items of clothing. In a world where the allure and ease of purchasing fast fashion abounds, seeing this strong example of reliance on personal skills and local resources made a strong impression on me at COP.
I then noticed that the table where a copper-smith was sitting was vacant. I took a seat and felt the grooves where he had etched a design into the copper. I summoned my courage and attempted to initiate a conversation in Russian. As a third-semester student, I feel my abilities are far from polished, but Russian is the second-most spoken language in Azerbaijan, and I enjoy making an effort to engage with people in a local language, if I am able. The man understood my Russian, and asked me how I learned, which gave me the chance to say that I was a student. While we chatted, I noticed he was working on a small piece. The volunteer looped back to the table to tell me he was making a ring for me. When he finished the piece, I noticed it had “COP-29” etched on it. It is a keepsake that will remind me of the beautiful and impactful time I spent in the Green Zone on my very first day of COP, and the connection I made in my third language.
For my last station, I visited a woman drawing henna. I had never had henna drawn, and the volunteer seemed thrilled on my behalf for my first henna experience being in Azerbaijan. As I watched the woman ink out a delicate flower, complete with leaves, and “Baku” with a heart, I reflected on this portion of my day. I had expected to be inundated with climate and UNFCCC lexicon, and negotiation updates. I did not expect an intimate look at the fascinating culture of COP’s host country. While I do not agree with the government of Azerbaijan, and still harbor mixed feelings about the decision to host COP-29 in an authoritative petrostate that has a recent history of ethnic cleansing, I feel nothing but love and respect for the people who took time and care to show visitors to COP the crafts of their homeland.
by Eder Ruiz Sanchez ’25, Sociology & Anthropology and Spanish
Upon our arrival to Baku for COP 29, it was clear the city was prepared to welcome over 50,000 attendees. The airport displayed banners, posters, and staff in COP-themed uniforms. Electric powered shuttles and newly introduced electric taxis also bore COP 29 labels, cementing Azerbaijan’s role as the global focus for climate discussions. However, soon after leaving the airport glamor, I saw an oil drill hidden behind some trees. Then, I saw another one in the center of a neighborhood. And several others in neighborhoods and on the side of the roads. This situation undeniably highlighted Azerbaijan’s status as a petrostate hosting a climate conference.
Taxi zone outside of the Baku airport
Baku airport baggage claim with COP banner
This year’s COP follows COP 28, held in the UAE, where a spectacle of flashy tech was coupled with a major commitment to the “beginning of the end” of fossil fuels. At the same time, the UAE stands as a major oil producer and human rights abuser, undermining not only its credibility as a host but the credibility of COP as a whole. Notably, 2023 was the hottest year on record and 2024 is on track to top that record. A year later and nearly a decade after the Paris Agreement, fossil fuel emissions are projected to reach new record highs. Climate skeptics, like Javier Milei in Argentina and Donald Trump in the U.S., have risen to power, threatening the global climate commitments made thus far. Additionally, reports came out revealing that the COP 29 CEO, Elnur Soltanov, also a board member of SOCAR (Azerbaijan’s state oil company), reportedly used the event to secure fossil fuel deals. In the lead up to COP 29, many Azeri climate activists, economists, and political opponents were arrested.
[SOCAR pavilion in the Green Zone of COP29. The Green Zone is a free but ticketed zone usually dedicated to civil society, youth, and businesses; however, this year it was predominately Azeri businesses]
After studying the UNFCCC frameworks earlier this semester, I felt prepared to engage with the COP processes. However, an increasing amount of information revealed the façade and greenwashing that COP enables for countries like Azerbaijan to do. My skepticism, however, wasn’t directed at the will of the people participating in COP but at the frameworks that allow petrostates and human rights violators to host such events, as well as allow an increasing number of fossil fuel lobbyists into the venue.
Despite its flaws, COP remains a vital space where hundreds of environmental defenders and climate justice activists—particularly those from the Global South and most effected by climate disasters—come together. They recognize the imperfections of host countries, COP frameworks, and innate slowness, but also view COP as an opportunity to organize, build capacity and solidarities, and use the global spotlight to draw attention to their realities. Entering COP, I experienced a mix of emotions, balancing these contradictions with a strange sense of anticipation.
Line to enter the opening ceremony plenary
At the opening ceremony, COP 29 President Mukhtar Babayev urged for enhanced ambition and action for climate finance, the mobilization of financial sources for developing countries all ranging from public to private sector contributions towards a New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG). While the previous NCQG was $100 billion (set in 2009), the acceleration of climate change disasters on developing countries has experts and activists’ expectations of the NCQG being in the trillions. Babayev also acknowledged that current policies are leading us to 3ºC warming, if not more. Despite this, the adoption of the agenda was significantly delayed to later in the evening, stalling negotiations and wasting valuable time.
Livestream in the overflow room of Mukhtar Babayev, President of COP29, speaking at the opening ceremony
Plenary room with screens displaying that the opening ceremony will resume at 19:00
Day 2 and 3 featured the World Leaders Summit. Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev’s opening speech further underscored major contradictions. Criticizing “Western political hypocrisy” over Europe’s increased reliance on Azerbaijani oil and gas since the start of the Russian-Ukraine war, Aliyev doubled down on framing natural resources as god’s divine gifts (“gifts from God”), defending fossil fuel extraction, saying “we must also be realistic.” His tone also began to resemble that of authoritarian global leaders calling out “fake media” and took on a dissenting stance against those boycotting this year’s COP. I was even more disturbed when suddenly the plenary and overflow rooms broke out with applause following this statement.
Ilham Aliyev, President of Azerbaijan, speaking at the World Leaders Summit
Antonio Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations, speaking at the World Leaders Summit
UN Secretary-General António Guterres followed and captured the urgency, warning, “The clock is ticking. We are in the final countdown to limit global temperature rise to 1.5ºC.” Acknowledging the increasing global wealth inequality and it’s connections to climate change, Guterres said:
“This is a story of avoidable injustice. The rich cause the problem, the poor pay the highest price. Oxfam finds the richest billionaires emit more carbon in an hour and a half than the average person does in a lifetime.”
Climate change is inherently tied to the wealth inequality of capitalism. Those in the Global South, as well as individuals of lower socioeconomic status in the Global North, disproportionately bear the consequences and lack the finances to rebuild and invest in adaptation efforts. In other words, climate change doesn’t affect everyone equally—we are not all on the same boat. Throughout the evolution of the UNFCCC, the discourse has focused on the potential threats posed by climate change. However, for many marginalized communities, these threats are not abstract and have been manifesting itself as daily realities of violence and the loss of life and alternative worlds.
Lanyard with activists’ NCQG expectation of $5 Trillion
Given that COP29 is the the “Finance COP,” it is crucial to connect the concentration of wealth among billionaires to climate change. Wealth is heavily concentrated in the hands of a few. The link between climate justice and economic justice is clearer than ever. Addressing climate change requires confronting the systemic mechanisms that allow the wealthy few to amass emissions-intensive wealth at the expense of the many who endure the consequences. This injustice is a form of violence on the behalf of the wealthy few (and the systems that enable this situation to occur) that views the rest, particularly the Global South, as disposable.
My goal throughout week 1 was to attend 2-3 negotiations on adaptation per day. I often felt confused, unsure on whether I was misunderstanding the process or if there was a lack of progress. Daily reports, along with the frustrated expressions on faces of negotiators and observers, confirmed my observations: there was a clear lack of action. At one point, I heard crickets, literally.
Negotiation on the global goal on adaptation
Regardless, it was valuable to witness firsthand the dynamics of negotiations. In the hallways, you could see negotiators huddled together like a sports team, strategizing their approaches. During one session, the African-Group called for a five-minute break to regroup, and suddenly, around 50 people gathered in the corner intensely discussing how to proceed.
At the same time, it was clear not all negotiators were equally active. In an event at the Ocean Pavilion titled “Ethical Horizons: Navigating Climate Intervention and Solutions” with Axel Michaelowa, Margaret Leinen, and Alia Hassan, they highlighted the capacity gaps in the Global South. Although the conversation was focused on technology, Hassan explained how the gaps in technology are also mirrored at COP in how some delegations are stretched thin, running between sessions due to their small size and others simply lack the capacity to defend their countries’ positions effectively. Despite being agreed upon, many agreements at COP result in developing countries compromising to countries with more power who do not have the same urgency as those already being affected by climate change. The adaptation negotiations I attended were largely dominated by the US, Australia, and African Group, while many remained silent.
“Ethical Horizons: Navigating Climate Intervention and Solutions” event at the Ocean Pavilion
Seeking further meaningful engagement, I turned to other pavilions, where I found the Indigenous Peoples Pavilion. With four booths offering live interpretation ranging from Indigenous languages to Portuguese, the small pavilion space consisted of a vibrant energy of love and solidarity, despite being at the forefront of climate change disasters.
International Indigenous Peoples’ Forum on Climate Change pavilion opening
Here, panelists highlighted inequities in COP, where the Global North enjoys larger, better-equipped rooms, while marginalized groups fight for inclusion. However, they made it clear that being present is not enough but what matters is the capacity to advocate effectively. Namely, language barriers further exacerbate inequities, as English dominates and UNFCCC jargon often excludes those most impacted by climate change.
An event titled “Decoding UNFCCC Language” that I attended, provided a collaborative space to address these issues while fostering connections across linguistic and cultural differences. Through case studies and group discussions, participants—including activists, scientists, and lawyers—demystified technical terms. Facilitators encouraged participants to pay close attention to the verbs and diction being used in the writing of texts at negotiations, particularly texts that assert some sort of obligation, as the use of certain words can weaken agreements. The event ended with a chanting of “intergenerational climate justice” in every person’s native language.
“Decoding UNFCCC Language” event featuring someone from my work group sharing definitions we came up with!!
Worksheet on defining Mitigation & Adaptation and Loss & Damage
Worksheet on defining the “Just Transition”
One of the most memorable events I attended was on Indigenous perspectives on carbon markets titled, “Carbon trading for whose benefit.” At the event, Ghazali Ohorella, the lead Indigenous Peoples Caucus negotiator for Article 6, reiterated the concerns and objection of carbon markets. Article 6 of the Paris Agreement establishes a market solution to address climate change through the buying and selling of mitigation outcomes. Indigenous Peoples and other climate activists and lawyers argue that this market mechanism allows polluters to buy offsets rather than truly mitigate their emissions. Ohorella stands for the Caucus’s positions but also recognized the clear dismissal of Indigenous voices, saying that another one of their core efforts is ensuring the “free, prior, and informed consent” from the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is upheld. Due to the finance nature of this year’s COP, Article 6 is a major focus and its quick adoption has brought up several concerns on its integrity.
Indigenous Peoples’ pavilion on carbon markets with Ghazali Ohorella
Ohorella continued to mention how although there is a rightful hesitancy among Indigenous Peoples on engagement with carbon markets, learning about it is essential as it can be leveraged as a tool for sovereignty. He referenced the ways in which the Yurok Tribe used California’s carbon offsets program to buy their land back.
At the pavilion, I had a conversation with Tom Goldtooth, the executive director of the Indigenous Environmental Network. He’s attended all COPs, except for the ones he’s been banned at due to his organizing efforts and criticism of the UNFCCC and carbon trading. He pointed out at how activists like him are censored while the number of fossil fuel lobbyists grow every year. In the UNFCCC, every comma, letter, and space carries significant weight. Goldtooth highlighted how Indigenous Peoples organized to ensure the inclusion of the plural “s” in “Indigenous Peoples” as a deliberate effort to remind negotiators, who too often overlook their voices, that they stand as a collective.
“Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Annual Youth Round Table” event, featuring Tom Goldtooth speaking. He’s also right in front of me in the light pink shirt!
At a press conference with Earthworks, Indigenous Peoples from different social cultural regions from the Amazon to the Artic gathered to present principles and protocols for a true just transition. Many recounted the ways in which “Just Transition” projects essentially became landgrabs by corporations backed by the state and military. “All these big geopolitical power wars between China and the US and Mexico, are felt back home by Indigenous Peoples,” said Nicole Yanes in reference to the Plan de Sonora. She also noted that at the summit to prepare the principles and protocols, many Indigenous Peoples found similarities and in fact are facing the same companies, tactics, and strategies that violate their rights. Again, they reiterated the importance of the “free, prior, and informed consent” of Indigenous Peoples as being core to having a Just Transition. In other words, their rights are not optional and lives are not disposable. Janene Yazzie, ended the press conference, calling not for a just transition, but a just transformation.
Earthworks press conference
I also attended a discussion on the criminalization of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities. The speakers presented a map highlighting where earth defenders are killed, with Latin America being the deadliest. Colombia and Brazil were the highest, but the Congo and Philippines were also amongst the top.
Criminalization of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities event with the map highlighting where earth defenders are killed in the background
Juan Carlos Jintiach, a shuar leader from the Ecuadorian Amazon and Nobel Peace Prize nominee, stated, “We are threats, threats to the global system, and that’s why we’re being killed.” Other speakers also drew connections between state and corporate violence, especially in the context of mineral extraction for the “just transition.” Another speaker emphasized: “We are not against the just transition, as some portray us. What we demand is self-determination; free, prior, and informed consent; and the dignity of Indigenous Peoples to be respected.
As I was heading out for the day, I noticed a large crowd gathered at the Global Center on Adaptation pavilion. I decided to stop and see what was happening not realizing that the people were there for the catered reception. While four women were being honored for their locally led adaptation efforts, the vast majority of people in the crowd were on their phones waiting for the reception to follow. Among one of the speakers was Lastiana Yuliandari, the founder of Aliet Green, a women-owned enterprise based in Yogyakarta, Indonesia focused on empowering local farmers through regenerative organic agriculture and the promotion of fair trade practices. I was captivated by her work and spoke to her following the event.
Global Center on Adaptation pavilion honoring four locally-led adaptation efforts led by women. Lastiana Yuliandari is in the middle with blue highlights!
She shared her story, explaining how following her undergraduate studies — “just like you right-now,” she said — she initially worked for NGOs, a path she was encouraged to follow. However, she grew frustrated with the way these organizations would move from one project to another without any meaningful sustainable work being implemented, often being led by outsiders to the communities. Instead of continuing, she found her own path, returned to her community, and empowered women, who do the brunt of the farming labor in her hometown.
Activists, from lawyers to youth, continued to protest at this year’s COP, representing voices from across the globe. While it was inspiring to witness, I noticed how thousands of people simply walked by the protests without a glance and even scolded demonstrators with an unwillingness to listen. At finance and investment-focused events I attended, speakers often emphasized the need of including voices of the Global South, farmers, and Indigenous Peoples so they’re “not just the ones protesting.” I found this contradictory, as many of the protestors were the same people leading critical discussions in panels and engaging directly with stakeholders.
Ojibwe Elder Great Grandmother Mary Lyons, for example, actively participated in protests and also moderated a session with high-level officials like Senior Advisor to the President John Podesta and Acting Deputy Administrator of the EPA Jane Nishida. Similarly, members of the Palestinian youth delegation, who I saw speak at multiple panels and negotiations, also met with Antonio Guterres and the Green Climate Fund. Other activists also made a heavy presence in negotiation rooms as observers, diligently taking notes. The voices of the Global South, farmers, and Indigenous Peoples are here and have been here making themselves heard through negotiations, high-profile panels, and protests.
It seemed like these protests were dismissed for their disruptions rather than being understood for their intent—to challenge the norms that have driven record fossil fuel emissions, granted lobbyists disproportionate influence, caused record-breaking temperatures, and perpetuated human rights abuses. Disruption of the status quo that the UNFCCC and COP has upheld is the intention.
This brought me back to something else that Tom Goldtooth shared at a panel: “They will divide us [(Indigenous Peoples and the Global South)]—by bringing the ‘good Indian’ to the table, rather than those who will demand the systemic changes and serious conversations we truly need.”
The protestor’s demands were clear: guaranteeing public finance, reducing the private sector’s dominance; stopping genocide and ecocide; ensuring free, prior, and informed consent; and securing $5 trillion for the NCQG.
Itemized climate invoice with different climate change disasters with country names whitened out as per COP demonstration guidelines.
Demonstration on accelerating climate finance with signs reading “TRILLIONS NOT BILLIONS,” “FILL THE LOSS AND DAMAGE FUND NOW,” “GLOBAL NORTH GOVERNMENTS, YOU OWE US.” The itemized list lays on the floor. One of the protestors is chanting using a bullhorn indoors.
Demonstration calling for an end to genocide and ecocide in Palestine with a big sign reading “STOP FUELING GENOCIDE” and smaller ones reading “NO CLIMATE JUSTICE WITH BLOOD ON OUR LANDS” and “DEMILITARISATION, COLLECTIVE LIBERATION.” The demonstration ended with singing and humming.
As Guterres said, “Time is not one our side,” and the lack of action I witnessed during week one was deeply concerning. However, there is so much happening on the ground, led by frontline communities. COP29, just like all past and future COPs, cannot afford to be a failure. The growing number of officials, such as Swat alumnae, fellow Soc/Anth major, and former UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres—chief negotiator of the Paris Agreement—critiquing COP for enabling human rights abusers and petrostates is a hopeful sign. It shows that people are noticing the contradictions and flaws of the systems they themselves are part of.
While Indigenous Peoples, the Global South, and other vulnerable communities have long understood these issues, more people are finally waking up. The urgency for ambition and meaningful action has never been greater.
by Mahika Shergill ’26, Honors Economics & Environmental Studies
BAKU, Nov 15 – At the 29th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP29), held in Baku, Azerbaijan, finance is taking center stage as global leaders, climate advocates, and representatives from the public and private sectors discuss ways to scale up financial commitments to combat climate change. Dubbed the “Finance COP,” COP29 has prioritized the mobilization of significant climate finance to meet the urgent needs of mitigation and adaptation. Central to these discussions is the establishment of the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) on climate finance, intended to replace the previous $100 billion annual commitment made at COP15 in 2009.
The NCQG aims to recognize the enormous financial demands of effective climate action. Initial estimates suggest that climate action requires at least $1 trillion annually, with some projections reaching higher to meet ambitious climate goals. The NCQG not only sets a new target but also shifts the approach from a purely public-funded framework to one that encourages substantial private sector contributions — by the end of the two weeks, the COP Presidency and 198 parties attending hope to reach consensus on what this NCQG means for the climate and its people, and how much money will be committed to it.
As a junior studying economics and environmental studies with a particular interest in climate policy and law, I tracked discussions around climate finance and carbon markets during week one of COP29. Over the 25+ events and negotiations I attended over the course of the week, a key idea that was repeatedly talked about was the collaborative potential between governments, Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs), and the private sector, all working to unlock the financial flows necessary for meaningful climate progress.
Cross-Sector Collaboration: Public-Private Partnerships as a Catalyst for Climate Finance
At COP29, the necessity of private finance for impactful climate action was a recurring theme. Public funds alone are insufficient to meet the vast investment requirements for a low-carbon transition; therefore, COP29 discussions frequently focused on how to engage private capital effectively. The NCQG itself aims to shift from a purely public-funded model to a framework that prioritizes robust public-private partnerships, emphasizing private sector participation as central to meeting climate targets.
A key insight from the panels came from discussions on the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which has catalyzed significant private investment in clean energy both domestically and internationally. Karen Fang, Managing Director and Global Head of Sustainable Finance at Bank of America, noted the IRA’s role in sparking what she called a “manufacturing renaissance” within the U.S., with renewables like solar energy storage becoming one of the most cost-effective energy sources. Both BP and ExxonMobil, traditionally seen as fossil fuel giants, have publicly recognized the economic opportunities in clean energy, suggesting that their investments are not only about compliance but are also driven by the profitability and long-term stability that renewable energy offers — this has meant that companies plan to maintain their climate investments regardless of potential shifts in U.S. or global politics. Ali Zaidi, White House National Climate Advisor, underscored this resilience, noting that the momentum from the IRA and other climate commitments is too entrenched to be reversed by changes in administration.
Governor of Washington State, Jay Inslee, and White House National Climate Advisor, Ali Zaidi, at a US Pavilion event on sub-national level climate action and the Inflation Reduction Act.
The collaboration between governments, MDBs, and private investors continues to be identified as crucial to mobilizing climate finance at scale. Ajay Banga, President of the World Bank, elaborated on this approach, emphasizing that MDBs are positioned to act as “first risk-takers” in sustainable finance initiatives. Through platforms like the soon-to-be-launched Frontiers Opportunity Fund, the World Bank is setting up guarantee mechanisms to absorb early-stage investment risks, making projects in renewable energy and infrastructure more appealing to private capital. By leveraging public and philanthropic funds in this way, MDBs aim to de-risk high-impact projects in middle-income countries, offering private investors a clear pathway to sustainable returns.
‘Unlocking Financing for the Green Transition in Emerging and Developing Economies’ at the World Bank and IMF Pavilion with Mohamed Jameel Al Ramahi, CEO of Masdar, Nadia Calviño, President of the European Investment Bank, Ajay Banja, President of the World Bank, and Kristalina Georgieva, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (left to right).
This collaborative model resonates across private sector perspectives as well. Rich Lesser, Global CEO of the Boston Consulting Group, highlighted that consistency in public-private collaboration is key to scaling these efforts. He pointed out that a stable regulatory landscape and clear policy signals allow businesses to confidently commit to long-term, high-impact projects. Similarly, Andrew Forrest, Executive Chairman of Fortescue Metals Group, noted that Fortescue’s decarbonization strategy had proven financially viable without relying on offsets or carbon capture, underscoring how profitable low-carbon ventures can become within the right partnership frameworks.
High-level Panel facilitated by the World Economic Forum on the interplay between private and public finance.
By facilitating these collaborations, week one of COP29 has showcased how public-private partnerships serve as more than just financial support. They are a means to harness the expertise, resources, and influence of private entities, turning climate finance into a scalable, profitable venture that aligns with global climate goals.
Carbon Markets as a Pathway for Private Sector Involvement
Article 6 of the Paris Agreement which I track closely — carbon markets — emerged as a critical area for engaging private finance in climate solutions. The first day of the conference marked a breakthrough with the operationalization of Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement, setting the stage for a globally regulated carbon market. This development has sparked significant interest among private sector participants, who view carbon markets as a key entry point for scaling their climate impact while accessing profitable opportunities in emissions reduction.
Carbon markets allow companies to invest in emissions reduction projects and trade carbon credits, creating a financial incentive for lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Simon Fellermeyer, Article 6 negotiator for Switzerland, emphasized during a panel that the successful implementation of Article 6.4 allows countries and companies to engage in international carbon markets with greater confidence. With established standards and removal guidance, this mechanism provides transparency and legitimacy to carbon credit transactions — factors that are crucial for private investors seeking stable returns.
For many companies, carbon markets represent an opportunity to align financial goals with sustainability commitments. Rachel Mountain, speaking at an event titled, Connecting the Dots between Policymakers in the Global South and the International Private Sector, noted that policy and regulatory clarity are essential for attracting large-scale private investment, as it enables companies to project long-term financial returns without fearing abrupt policy shifts. However, she also emphasized that fragmented regulations across regions could deter investors, stressing the need for a harmonized approach to carbon markets.
Beyond the corporate level, carbon markets offer developing countries a pathway to access private finance. Through revenue generated by carbon credits, countries can fund sustainable projects that might otherwise remain financially unviable. Tajiel Urioh from South Pole explained at the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) Pavilion how carbon credits provide critical financial support for locally tailored projects in low- and middle-income countries. He highlighted the importance of setting up robust national registries to coordinate with international regimes, ensuring that carbon credit revenue flows effectively and sustainably to support these communities.
Despite the optimism, negotiations around the specifics of carbon market regulations are ongoing. Indigenous communities and climate justice advocates have expressed concerns about carbon markets, fearing they may lead to exploitation of land and resources without adequate protections for local populations. Many argue that, without strict safeguards, carbon markets could enable companies to offset emissions without making meaningful reductions, thus allowing “business-as-usual” emissions in wealthier countries. These voices are pushing for continued dialogue and accountability measures within carbon market frameworks to ensure they uphold equity and respect for Indigenous lands and livelihoods — it will be key to see how Article 6.2 and 6.4 negotiations end by week two.
The Path Forward: Mobilizing Trillions for Effective Climate Action
COP29’s discussions have underscored the vast scale of resources required to meet the NCQG and address the global climate finance gap. With projected funding needs estimated in the trillions, this COP has seen strong calls for wealthier, developed nations to increase their financial commitments. Many countries from the Global South, backed by climate justice advocates and protest groups at COP29, have stressed that high-emitting nations — particularly G20 members — should contribute a larger share, given their historic and ongoing emissions. The principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” remains central, asserting that while all nations have a role, those with greater resources and historical emissions bear a heightened obligation to lead in funding climate solutions.
To meet these ambitious goals, private sector investment is seen as critical. Nadia Calviño, President of the European Investment Bank, speaking on green bonds and debt-for-climate swaps, emphasized that innovative financing methods are vital to meaningfully involve private investors. Similarly, a high-level panel held by the World Economic Forum discussed the importance of streamlined permitting, consistent carbon pricing, and risk mitigation strategies to create an investment-friendly landscape, particularly in infrastructure and energy sectors.
As I look ahead to week two, I will be closely following the continued negotiations surrounding the NCQG, which will ultimately determine the scale and structure of global climate finance commitments. The outcome of COP29 will be crucial in shaping how effectively the world mobilizes to fund a sustainable future, with the balance of public and private finance likely to serve as a determining factor.
“Africa is NOT the Global South! Africa is the center of the world!” So exclaimed an attendee at the Yasunize Movement demonstration I observed at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan. Yasuní is a national park located in the Ecuadorean Amazon which UNESCO has declared a world biosphere reserve in recognition that Yasuní features the highest biodiversity of any singular ecosystem on our planet. In August 2023, the Ecuadorian people voted to halt all future oil drilling within the borders of Yasuní National Park, representing a threshold moment for a true transition away from a fossil fuel economy that does not involve the abstract mathematical manipulation of instruments via a carbon market. As such, “to Yasunize” has emerged as a new rallying cry for an environmental geopolitics that questions economic growth and dependence on oil as the only markers of development. Thus, it was evocative for this demonstration at COP29 to signal not only a new paradigm for just transition, but to reorient our global compass and our directional imagination of civilization away from the North-South stratification that constantly places the Global South in a position of extraction and need relative the political economic imperialism of the Global North, specifically North Atlantic modernity in its Euro-American latitudinal influence. In this new cartography of climate action, neither Africa nor Ecuador are the “Global South” relative to an overdeveloped Global North; these locations, and the stalwart climate activists that call them home, are the center of the world, leading us into whatever semblance of a sustainable future we may yet bequeath posterity — if we are so lucky.
Yasunize the World Demonstration @ COP29
I open this year’s reflections on COP29 for the Swarthmore @ COP blog with this anecdote because it signals the indomitable energy of resolution that many negotiators and delegates from the so-called Global South have taken upon themselves, especially in light of the impending second administration of Donald Trump. Our week 1 delegation left Swarthmore just 4 days after Election Day, traveling to Baku, Azerbaijan in a swirl of affect that threatened to derail the intentions of COP29 before it even began. Here, it may be useful to refresh our memory of “the long national nightmare” that was Trump 1.0: less than 18 months after the historic adoption of the Paris Agreement of 2015, President Trump pulled the United States from complying with our Nationally Determined Contributions both in our attempts to scale-down our fossil fuel dependence as well as our pledges to provide financing and cash payments to those developing nations of the Global South who need variously to adapt, mitigate, and/or respond to the losses and damages of climate change and extreme weather events. During the first Trump administration, the common sense sentiment began to emerge that it was necessary for the US, as the world’s largest and most-developed economy, to “reclaim the global lead” on climate action, with the lack of such leadership representing a stumbling block to the climate governance regime enacted by the UNFCCC. (The folks who honestly spout such rhetoric are usually blind to the American exceptionalism of their argument, and the patronizing, Marshall Plan-style way it addresses the globe, but I digress). The United States remained out of compliance with the Paris Agreement until President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act, the largest investment in climate resiliency in US history. President Biden, thus, made a triumphal return to COP27 in Sharm El-Sheik, Egypt, where he gave a speech from the plenary hall to thunderous applause. Now, just 2 years later, and with only 12-15% of the IRA’s funding appropriations actually paid out, the United States is, once again, on the brink of puling out of the Paris Agreement, and perhaps from leaving the UNFCCC regime entirely.
(I am old enough to have been a perspicacious 7th grader who observed President Clinton sign the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, the first binding multinational agreement on climate emerging from the UNFCCC. I am also old enough to have been a 10th grader who remembers the newly-elected President George W. Bush refuse to cooperate with Kyoto, and I recall the 95-0 senate vote against its ratification. The UNFCCC has watched the United States, like a geopolitical pendulum, swing both ways many times before, flaunting the climactic reality and thumbing its nose at the world.)
Environmental and Energy Study Institute Press Conference Panel featuring American politicians/policy makers
Thus, one might speculate the mood at COP29 would be grim, pessimistic, forlorn even. But instead, the energy here is one of urgent confidence, as the rest of the 198 Parties to the Conference are resolved to fill the void left by the withdrawal of Trump’s America from the global world. Indeed, one might even detect a whiff of “good riddance” on the part of the Parties who remain, steadfast in their conviction that we are the last generation of humans who can effectively hold planetary warming to an average increase of 1.5 degrees celsius (perhaps 2.0 would be a more realistic, yet less ideal benchmark).
To this end, the delegates and observers — including Swarthmore’s week 1 students — have engaged the conference in eager pursuit of keeping the intended goals of COP29, namely, settling the business of the New Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance (NCQG), a plan first agreed upon in 2015 to set a new goal building upon the floor of $100 B USD. Beginning in 2021, an ad hoc work program was established to facilitate technical discussions around the NCQG and to take stock of progress made in 2022 and 2023. The plan for this year is to tabulate these needs and set the NCQG — with or without the United States, this work must continue.
But what, exactly, is to become of the United States? I observed a press conference panel hosted by the Environmental and Energy Study Institute featuring Serena McIlwain, the Secretary of Environment for the state of Maryland, Wade Crowfoot from the California Natural Resources Agency, and Melissa Logan, mayor of Blytheville, AR, located along the banks of the mighty Mississippi River. These three American politicians and policymakers — two Black women and one indigenous man — instigated renewed hope as they confidently and boldly projected a plan of action at the state and local municipal levels to mobilize “boots on the ground” in support of maintaining America’s NDCs, despite the Trump Administration’s impending dereliction of duty. In particular, Mayor Logan passionately promoted the Mississippi River Cities and Town Initiative which includes a bipartisan collaboration between over 150 mayors whose towns and cities line the Mississippi River, one of the world’s most critical lifelines, a waterway whose transited goods supply 1/12 of the globe’s population with their necessary provisions. The work of sustainability will continue because it must!
Across the next two weeks, two groups of Swarthmore students will observe the proceedings of COP29, networking with likeminded advocates and documenting the progress of the NCQG. This blog will feature several of their reflections and form a digital guide for the broader Swarthmore community to follow. Additionally, our students will takeover the Swarthmore Instagram page, and we are planning a spring 2025 on-campus panel to help contextualize the stakes of COP29 for our local campus and borough community. Be sure to follow along!
