COP29: Expert comments on summit outcomes

COP29 has concluded after the summit agreed for richer countries to aim for $300bn in funding per year to support poorer countries dealing with the impact of climate change. 

Professor Rosalind Cornforth, Professor of Climate and Development and Director of the Walker Institute, and Professor Chris Hilson, Director of the Reading Centre for Climate and Justice, react to the outcome.

Professor Rosalind Cornforth, University of Reading, said: 

"The outcomes from Baku highlight an uncomfortable truth in climate policy: incremental diplomatic progress is vital, but it is out of sync with the accelerating pace of climate change. How do we expedite action recognising that both the diplomatic pathway and implementation are needed urgently?

“The new financial commitments are welcome and reflect the inclusive framework of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Without this, the world would be heading on a destructive trajectory with no cooperation on climate change. 

“However, whilst the multi-lateral process remains important, we also need to be clear-eyed about the growing gap between current commitments and the scale of transformation needed.

“The scientific evidence and people’s stories of change from the ground signal the need for more ambitious cross-cutting action that targets communities and countries that are most vulnerable. 

“Implementation requires the global community of stakeholders, scientists, civil society, business and government agencies to work together in and outside of the COP process to champion evidence-informed policy and translate science-based interventions into viable adaptation options relevant across boundaries.”

Professor Chris Hilson, University of Reading, said: 

"The final text from Baku indirectly mentions the deal reached in the previous UAE COP, to transition away from fossil fuels. But it is very indirect (referring only to the paragraph number). And, like COP28, the Baku text also mentions the role of ‘transitional fuels’ in delivering that transition, which some controversially argue includes gas.

"The elephant in the room is the greenhouse gas accounting system for fossil fuel exports. This system is inbuilt in the Paris Agreement itself.

"These rules mean that major fossil fuel exporting countries, like Saudi, Norway, Australia, and the US with LNG, set to increase with Trump’s promise to ‘drill baby drill’, not having to account for their scope 3 emissions from exports. Instead the emissions show up in the accounts of the importing countries where the fuels are consumed.

"This is out of step with the way companies are increasingly being held to account for their emissions, with most now being pushed to include their customers’ scope 3 emissions. Not all companies are on board. Saudi Aramco has failed to set scope 3 net zero targets. And some, like Shell and BP, have rowed back on theirs. But there is at least pressure for companies to play their part in reducing global emissions across their value chains.

"The question remains after this COP, just like it did after the last one: why are we lacking such pressure on fossil fuel exporting countries, who are conveniently offshoring their emissions, while reaping the economic benefits? Until they have a proper incentive to reduce those export emissions, because they will show up on their own NDC pledges rather than someone else’s, COPs are likely to continue to disappoint on the mitigation of emissions from fossil fuels."