COP29 and G20: the struggle for climate justice continues
By: Dr Haroon Aziz
In an over-extended 13-day period, between 11-24 November 2024 two historic events took place: COP29 Baku Azerbaijan Summit followed 12000km away by G20 Rio de Janeiro Summit. The theme of COP29 was ‘investing in a livable planet for all’. The theme of G20 was ‘building a just world and a sustainable planet’.
Share It :
Both summits were interwoven with the conflicting interests of ‘rich’ and ‘poor’ nations and of ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ countries. The rich nations maintained a money-centric approach and the poor nations, a human-centric approach.
The immediate essence of climate justice is emissions-reduction targets in line with net-zero goals and 1.5C. Although the poor nations are not the primary cause of the injustice, they experience the full force of its violence.
African Group of Negotiators (AGN)
African climate leaders were united as the African Group of Negotiators (AGN) and had consensus on a New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG of UNCC) of $1.3-trillion per year by 2030 as the true cost of adapting to climate change, building resilience, and investing in renewable energy – in line with the developing countries’ needs. Seven of the ten most vulnerable countries are in Africa.
They also demanded financial accountability from the world’s wealthiest nations. Article 43 of the G20 Rio de Janeiro Leaders Declaration states, ‘We reiterate the New Delhi Leaders Declaration (2023) recognition of the need for rapidly and substantially scaling up climate finance from billions to trillions from all sources.’
The G20 Declaration, refers to about sixty-three international agreements, documents, and financial institutions, and states that it looked forward to a successful NCQG outcome and pledged support to the COP29 Presidency and to successful negotiations.
NGN together with the developing countries made justified, actionable, and reliable demands not only for themselves but also for the entire planet. They did not beg for charity but asserted that NCQG was the rightful obligation of the wealthiest nations as shared global responsibility.
COP29 began with a ten-year deficit of $100-billion annual pledge. Africa like the rest of the developing countries is paying for the deficit in human, natural, food, energy, and material costs. This to the big banks is an opportunity to profiteer. The developing countries do not need the burden of interests to accumulate on the preexisting burden of debt.
Africa has argued for affordable and sustainable financing that addresses economic and social challenges. The global banks and financial institutions that were present at Baku were guilty of unfulfilled climate finance ‘commitments’, in line with the Paris Agreement of 2015 (COP21).
Africa’s leaders together with the poor nations and civil society were compelled to be very vocal about the deliberate systemic obstacles and bureaucratic procedures to accessing climate finance grants and concessional finance. They were averse to market-based instruments.
The criticism of NCQG was that it was not substantiated quantitatively. The unresolved issues are: who should pay; how much; and funding type. The EU and USA refused to reveal their contributions until the scope of any agreement was much clearer. Was this a stalling tactic to evade legal responsibility?
G20 Rio de Janeiro Summit
Brazilian President Lula da Silva, the host of G20 Summit (November 19, 2024) called on the wealthiest G20 countries to bring forward their carbon neutrality targets from 2050 to 2040 or 2045.
He highlighted his own country as an example by stating at COP29 Baku that he had committed Brazil to reducing its emissions by 67% by 2035, up from the previous target of 59%.
He pointed to the deforestation of the Amazon tropical forest, which covers 60% of Brazil, and he declared, ‘We will not compromise on environmental crimes. Deforestation will be eradicated by 2030.’
(CCSC) Collective civil society constituencies’ letter to G77+China
About 357 civil society constituencies addressed a letter to G77+China, dated 22 November 2024. They wholeheartedly supported the G77 in rejecting the then current negotiating text because it was absolutely unacceptable and it gave the developed countries a complete exit from the obligations to provide climate finance for developing countries.
As the intransigence of the developed countries persisted in negotiation the delegates from the Least Developed Countries (LDC), Landlocked Developing Countries (LLDC), and Small Island Developing States (SIDS) walked out.
G77 has expanded into 135 members and is the largest intergovernmental organization of historical developing countries in the UN. It is a powerful institution for the advancement of the economic interests of the Global South. It has a total population of 6.7-billion people who constitute 84% of world population.
CCSC letter to the developed countries
CCSC letter to the developed countries CCSC addressed another letter, dated 22 November 2024, to the USA, EU, UK, Canada, and other developed countries at COP29 in Baku. They stated their deep outrage at the destructive role in creating an absolutely unacceptable NCQG draft negotiating text on the final day of COP29.
They stated that they would not be fooled because the major powers would interpret the text as a complete exit from the legal obligations to provide climate finance for developing countries, as was agreed in the UN Climate Convention and the Paris Agreement (COP21: 2015).
They stated that the major powers were blocking progress in Baku because of their demands that developing countries do more to reduce emissions while failing to deliver the finance and technology, which are needed to reduce emissions, adapt to the impacts of climate change, meet the costs of Loss and Damage and a just and equitable transition to greener and fairer societies.
In conclusion, they stated that the major powers were required to fulfill their commitments under the Paris Agreement and the Climate Convention. They demanded of them to deliver fully in Baku. If COP29 ended with a weak or non-existent outcome they would be the ones to blame and be held responsible both in Baku and after their return home.
The role of Climate Action Network International (CAN)
CAN is an international network of more than 1900 civil society organizations in about 130 countries. It mobilizes for collective and sustainable action to fight climate crisis in order to achieve climate justice as part of the wider social justice. Its role is to convene and coordinate civil society at the UN climate talks and other international fora. It focuses on centering people, ending fossil fuels, implementing action plan (Paris Agreement), and pushing for the strongest political outcomes.
The developing country groups included the Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDC), the Independent Alliance of Latin America and the Caribbean (AILAC), the Alliance of Small Island Developing States (AOSIS), and GroupSUR (Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina).
In addition, there was the COP29 NGO Coalition with 108 foreign affiliates from 30 countries.
There was a total of 3631 NGOs. The informal groups were the faith-based organizations; Education and Communication Stakeholders; and Parliamentarians. The Disability Caucus was also present.
Preventing conflicts of interests
Although the UNDP Ethics Office has a policy on preventing conflicts of interests the UNFCCC has not developed its own framework like WHO has with its Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, with similar constraints on the pharmaceutical industry relating to pandemic treaty. At the heart of ethical conduct is the maintenance of the standards and objectivity for global public good.
Although the UNFCCC has taken little measures on transparency and accountability to control attendance of bona fide delegates at its annual talks by requiring disclosures of affiliation during registration imposters seeped through the grey zone of ‘ethics’. This allowed in 1773 fossil fuel lobbyists at the Baku conference, according to ‘Kick Big Polluters Out’ (a non-profit watchdog group of 450 organizations). According to EuroNews of 19 November 2024, DeSmog and The Guardian found 204 agricultural ‘delegates’ attend the conference. The agricultural industry produces a third of global greenhouse gas emissions. Its emissions from livestock alone constitute a third of methane emissions (UNEP). According to NGO Carbon Pulse (21 November 2024), the oil companies lobbying at the climate negotiations were tied to 17-million heat deaths since the Paris Agreement of 2015.
The lobbyists prioritized corporate profits over human and environmental goals. Civil society demanded the barring of lobbyists from climate summits. Since COP28 fossil fuel companies invested $250-billion in oil and gas projects.
Let’s not be detracted
As the rich nations developed the climate agenda to serve their own business interests the poor states should not be solely focused on the reduction of CO2 emissions and allow themselves to be detracted from their abundant water resources and its renewability. Water is the key to agriculture, aquaculture, and food sovereignty. It requires large-scale infrastructure for purification, transportation, and storage. The three major basins of the Congo, Amazon, and Borneo-Mekong rivers are the life-water of 80% of the world’s tropical forests that breathe out oxygen and breathe in carbon dioxide. It is where big corporate practice deforestation. Just as multipolarity is being diplomatically developed around climate justice so it should be developed around water justice, with sovereignty over data collection and environmental and water resources monitoring.
According to a new scientific study, plants do ‘scream’ when hurt. Properly stated, they emit popping or clicking noises in ultrasonic frequencies outside the range of human hearing that increase when the plant becomes stressed. It points to the negative impact of environmental degradation on the biochemistry of plants.
The final no-deal
The final ‘deal’ was the deal of, by, and for the rich that was arrived at ‘democratically’. On Sunday, 24 November 2024, after a 30-hour delay the COP Presidency hurriedly manipulated procedures by excluding the vociferous developing countries from motivating for the rejection of the no-deal. They were given a voice only after the no-deal. The delay was caused by a closed-door session on Saturday when there was bitter wrangle to exclude the term ‘fossil fuel’ from the final text, led by the rich nations.
At the heart of the no-deal was the clear and deliberate evasion of the specifics of climate finance and the imposition of a carbon market, which tantamount to the commodification and monetization of toxic air for profit. According to the IEA CO2 Emissions Report, the total CO2 emissions amounted to 37.4-billion tons in 2023, which makes for a highly profitable business and for carbon laundering. It seemed that the Covid-19 lesson on the primacy of oxygen has been lost to the rich nations.
The majority of the 72000 participants from 196 countries (down from Dubai’s 97372 participants) were from developing countries.
The Baku Summit did not explicitly repeat Dubai Summit’s call for a historic transition away from fossil fuels and the tripling of renewable energy capacity within this decade.
The costs of natural disasters
According to the USA Office of Coastal Management (modified on 22 November 2024):
The costs of recent hurricanes – Ian, Maria, Helene, and Milton (2017-2024) – was $378.9-billion.
The costs for the period 1980-2023 was $2.6-trillion. According to the National Centers for Environmental Information (to be released on 9 December 2024), the costs for the 400 natural disasters (1980-2024) was $2.785-trillion.
Against such costs, the vague and undefined climate finance of $300-billion is a pittance.
The $300-billion was predetermined on the 14 November 2024 at the two panel discussions conducted by Bloomberg TV ‘Green at COP29’.
Conclusion
The historical continuity to COP29 like all its predecessors is from the North Atlantic slave trade, racism, Berlin Conference of 1884, colonialism, and imperialism, which have distilled into present climate neocolonialism.
The struggle for climate justice continues!
Haroon Aziz’s primary discipline is quantum physics. His secondary disciplines are history and biography. He is the author of more than twenty-five books spanning natural science and the humanities.