COP29: Responses to criticisms of climate conference

A former UN secretary general and former UN climate chief have said the United Nations' COP climate talks are "no longer fit for purpose", according to BBC News. 

Theo Keeping, research scientist at the University of Reading’s Walker Institute, is attending COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, and Professor Chris Hilson, Director at Reading Centre for Climate and Justice, offer their reaction. 

Professor Chris Hilson comments: 

“The COP letter today from the climate great and the good was a welcome wake-up call but also misunderstands the inherent limitations that the Treaties themselves place on the COP.

“One - the wake-up call comes from its governance reminder about petrostate hosts and fossil fuel lobbyist attendees. The key goal of the Paris Agreement on climate change is to lower global greenhouse gas emissions to stay well below 2°C and preferably within 1.5°C of warming. 

“Having a COP host who has a direct conflict of interest with that goal because their economy is heavily dependent on oil and gas production should be prevented by the rules. Avoiding conflicts of interest is a key principle of good governance. Good governance also requires controls on fossil fuel lobbyists at COPs, so that those private companies profiting from taking us in the wrong direction are likewise not able to capture the agenda.

“Two - the misunderstanding is around what the COPs can realistically do without a change in the Treaties themselves. It is true that we already have many of the pieces in place and that it’s now more a matter of ensuring that they are properly implemented. But the nature of the Paris Agreement is that it was agreed as a more ‘bottom-up’ instrument, with states setting their own homework in the form of ‘nationally determined contributions’ (NDCs). The COP letter is effectively calling for a stricter set of teachers to mark that homework. That is much needed, but it can only really come with a strengthened Agreement. Unfortunately, the prospects of getting state parties to agree are no better than expecting the consensus-based COPs to deliver the necessary delivery kick that is needed. That takes us back to (1). Any kick that COPs do produce comes from leadership, typically from the host country. Where that country’s self-interest points in the wrong direction, that leadership is unlikely to come.”     

Theo Keeping comments: 

On the intervention from Ban Ki-Moon and Christiana Figueres:

“The former UN Secretary-General and UN Climate Chief are right to say that current climate action is not delivering change at the necessary speed. The reality is that even with all governments’ policies carried out, we would sail past the Paris Agreement target of keeping global warming below 1.5°C. Seeing global warming of two, or even three degrees would mean more frequent and more devastating extreme weather, including floods, storms, heatwaves and wildfires.

On COP being in another petrostate:

“Petrostates exist. The best use of delegates’ time is to reach an agreement that allows all countries to phase out fossil fuels. That means building international systems to retrain workers in the petrochemical sector, as well as presenting a vision of a fossil fuel-free future to countries with a reliance on them.”

On COP being a pointless talking shop:

“At this COP, we are talking about the transfer of potentially hundreds of billions of dollars per year from developed to developing countries to slow climate change in order to help developing countries adapt. With this amount of money on the table talks will inevitably be controversial and slow. Despite this, nearly 200 nations are working on how to stop climate change and protect those most affected by it."