Energy and Our World

This article originally ran on Forbes.com on November 29, 2024. All rights reserved.

Daniel B. Markind is a Forbes.com energy column contributor. The views expressed in this article are not to be associated with the views of Flaster Greenberg PC.

The 29th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP29) ended at 2:40 am local time in Baku, Azerbaijan on Saturday, with the nations involved finally reaching agreement to provide financial aid to developing countries to help fight climate change after it had earlier appeared that this might not be attainable. (Source). In fact, hours before the final agreement was reached, groups representing less developed countries (LDCs) and island countries threatened by rising sea levels had even walked out of the conference, claiming that the developed countries were not serious about a transfer of sufficient funds to meet the perceived dangers.  From the start, COP29 had focused heavily on financial issues, and thus it was even more politically charged than earlier UN sponsored COPs on climate change had been, including the now well-known Paris Climate Agreement of 2015.

In the end, the COP29 agreement involved wealthy countries collectively pledging $300 billion annually by 2035 to help poorer countries fight the climate threats to themselves and their citizens.  However, that number was panned by many critics both before and after the agreement was reached.  In fact, minutes after the final gavel, Indian representative Chandni Raina stated that: “…in our opinion, (the amount of funds pledged) will not address the enormity of the challenge we all face.  Therefore, we oppose the adoption of this document.” (Source).   The LDCs and island nations had demanded at least $1.3 trillion to be put up by the wealthier nations, with the money being in the form of grants and not loans.

As alluded to above, the basis for the agreement was the Paris Climate Agreement of 2015, in which 197 countries had earlier agreed to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. The 2024 U.N. Emissions Gap report, however, stated that currently the world is on pace to see up to 3.1 degrees Celsius warming by the end of this century. (Source).

The final deal at COP29, however, laid bare the key contradiction inherent in these types of climate agreements. That is, China, the world’s biggest polluter and largest emitter of carbon emissions by far, is not required to pay anything; it is only “encouraged” to do so in the COP 29 agreement.  Thus, the country that emits more carbon into the world atmosphere than even the United States and the European Union combined is not required to contribute anything financially to help alleviate the worldwide costs of its own pollution.  In fact, as part of the earlier Paris process, each country was required to make a Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) as to how it would contribute to the fight against climate change. (Source). The United States pledged to cut overall greenhouse gasses by 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025, a goal which it is presently on track to meet.  China, however, argued to link its NDC to its economic activity, meaning that China is actually permitted to increase its total carbon emissions until approximately 2030, while the rest of the developed countries must, as noted, cut their emissions through 2025, at least.  Meanwhile, as China continues to pollute, other countries are now being told they must collectively pay $300 billion each year to help offset the impacts of CO2 emissions caused by themselves, but also caused by others.

The reason for such imbalance lies in the belief that richer countries should pay more to offset the costs of climate change than poorer countries, regardless of their actual or relative contributions of greenhouse gases into the environment.  Which countries, however, are rich enough to contribute financially? (Source).  That question almost killed the entire COP29 conference.

In the end, if climate change is as big of a challenge and a danger as has been stated, and as is widely believed, all countries will need to contribute something. Pollution and carbon emissions know no national boundaries, and exempting certain countries from these obligations not only makes no sense scientifically, but it also dooms to failure the prospect of the world making any real progress in reversing climate change at the end of the day.  In short:  The countries of the world can reach a real climate agreement, or they can reach a social justice agreement. At the end of the day, they cannot have both.

By insisting that rich countries pay disproportionately and allowing poorer countries (plus China) to continue to pollute nonetheless, the LDCs have made the COP29 process easy prey for the incoming United States President Donald Trump, who has long called the whole concept of climate change a “climate hoax,” despite much scientific proof to the contrary. (Source).  If Americans are being told they must now pay real money (in taxes and otherwise) because of carbon emissions while China – which unarguably emits far more carbon than any other country and is a huge international competitor to all other developed nations -- not only does not have to pay at all but can also continue to increase its emissions until 2030, any moves made by Trump to kill this process likely will find large public support in this country.

At the end of the day, the LDCs will thus face the consequences of their own demands. The United States will withdraw from the process; the money demanded by the LDCs won’t materialize at all: and the entire COP29 agreement likely will fail. Until the world reaches agreement on how much a threat it believes climate change really presents, and until it acts accordingly, aspirational (and unbalanced) agreements like COP29 seem bound to be little more than a self-imploding footnote in history.