Always on the edge of the abyss. The anguish that occurs in the corridors of COP 29 is similar to the apathy that is generated in the global population when it is known that the agreement will be at the last minute and minimal. It’s a classic. Reaching a minimum agreement that satisfies all parties is the basis of the climate consensus in recent years. Ambition is neither there nor expected.
Disappointment at these summits is a feeling that must be dealt with because it has become common. This does not mean that the COPs are becoming less and less irrelevant, but rather it shows the complexity of bringing all countries to agreement, with their differences in development, economic, capabilities, political and social. It is mandatory to sit them face to face once a year and confront each other.
On this occasion, the final agreement is based on the fact that developed countries agreed to “channel at least” $300 billion a year to developing countries until 2035 to support their efforts to confront climate change. However, for developing countries it does not represent progress and they expressed their complaints. This led to a commitment to raise $1.3 trillion each year from a wide range of sources, including private investment, by 2035.
To put the rickets of the figure into perspective, according to data from Bloomberg NEFOnly the investment for new electrical networks in 2023 was 310 billion dollars, China invested 676 billion dollars in decarbonization and the world invested 1.8 trillion during 2023 in energy transition. With the figure agreed at COP29, and taking into account that it is until 2035, we would be talking about around 16% of what all countries invested. It is ridiculous if we seek to equate economic and technological developments to stop the worst effects of climate change.
The new agreement will supposedly help inform each country’s commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2035, as well as the next round of climate talks at COP30 in Brazil. Many developing countries highlighted that the smaller-than-expected financial commitment would delay their transition to emissions-free energy and limit their ambition to set carbon reduction targets due in February.
However, it should be noted that developed countries are not exactly in a situation of buoyant coffers, taking into account that China and the US were not present. Currently there are certain restrictions due to the increase in the tax burden, limited budgets in fragmented parliaments, policies at risk due to the advance of conservatism and the denialism of far-right parties and, of course, rampant inflation. The shadow of Donald Trump’s election and his threat to withdraw the United States from the historic Paris climate agreement also hung over Baku. They will lose their opportunity to lead, because the ecological transition is non-negotiable and the only thing we can agree on and debate is the pace, which is more urgent every day.
But I don’t want to lose the main message of this article: stop focusing on how much and focus on where. What technologies do we invest in to accelerate the fight against climate change. Here, I want to stop to highlight the error and retarded interests of some gas companies, as is the case of Naturgy in Spain. In this case, inferring disadvantages to a technology such as the heat pump to promote and boost their business with biogas. An absolute nonsense that goes against the scientific consensus and in favor of their interests, without denying the role of biogas.
Therefore, these 300,000 million annually must have a very strong component of adaptation and direction, that is, aid is previously programmed for the different tools or technologies that are most suitable for the country or region where they are destined. Only in this way can we really advance in developing countries. If a country has a greater geothermal or photovoltaic resource, the main bulk of the financing has to be allocated to one technology or another, highlighting that in many cases the combination of both is usually the correct answer. There is no impartiality in the energy transition because we cannot waste and finance projects that do not fit with the resources and demand that the real population of a given region has. Much less, expand extractivist practices with private and public investment at the state level, in order to export whatever final and decarbonized product. This is the reality in some cases.
An example to avoid is the Namibia project that will produce 2 million tonnes per year of green ammonia for regional and global markets. In addition to German companies, the Namibian government itself is involved in financing. The plan consists of building wind farms and photovoltaic plants with a total capacity of seven GW to produce green ammonia and export it more than 10,000 kilometers away. All very sensible and reasonable.
In short, the quantity is as crucial as the way it is used to satisfy the most basic and pressing mitigation and adaptation needs of different countries. The technology is ready, without sounding like a techno-optimistic speech. Now we just have to link it to the social and economic needs of each region, this link being crucial for the COP’s agonizing commitments to be practical, tangible and improve people’s well-being and stop climate change at the same time.
#COP29 #matters
