November 22, 2024

expert reaction to closing stages of COP29

Scientists comment on the closing stages of COP29.

Dr Caterina Brandmayr, Director of Policy and Translation at the Grantham Institute – Climate Change and the Environment, Imperial College London, said: 

“The UK has returned as a world leader on climate. 

“A strong 2035 NDC target, the launch of the Global Clean Power Alliance and powerful showings by Keir Starmer and Ed Miliband at COP29 has reaffirmed the UK’s commitment to driving ambitious climate action at home and beyond. 

“In the wake of the US election, the UK has sent a strong signal that tackling climate change is the best way to futureproof global economies.” 

Dr Friederike Otto, World Weather Attribution Lead at the Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, said: 

“It’s been another shady, oil-stained COP.

“The presidency avoided mentioning fossil fuels at all costs, the chief executive was caught trying to make oil-deals on the side and more than 1700 fossil fuel lobbyists were welcomed to the summit.

“Should we be surprised? This was another COP held in an autocratic petrostate. Public interest in this COP has been low and cynicism feels like it has reached an all time high.

“There are many lives and livelihoods at stake, and people other than those bought by oil are fighting for real progress, and for all of us. In Brazil, I hope those voices will get amplified more and the urgently needed acceleration of the transition away from fossil fuels can happen for a safer, more equal world.”

Prof Kevin Anderson, Chair of energy and climate change, Tyndall Centre, University of Manchester, said:

“As COP29 stumbles towards another Groundhog Day, it’s all too easy to point the finger of blame at others. But any such pointing should be preceded with a long hard look in the mirror. The UK’s much heralded 81% reduction in emissions by 2035 is a case in point. Great headline, but do a bit of maths & the reflection in the mirror does not look so appealing. The UK Government and the CCC claim the 81% is in line with the Paris 1.5°C commitment. However, the emissions pathway that this value comes from entails total UK carbon emissions three times greater than is the UK’s ‘equal per capita share’ of the global carbon budget. So before pointing fingers at others, perhaps a little humility and integrity is needed by our policy makers. But the buck does not stop there. There is an urgent need for some critical self-reflection by us ‘experts’ and journalists who have become all too accepting of grand claims by our ministers & their allied institutions.”

Dr Stephen Lezak, Researcher at the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, said:

“There is a huge gulf between the ambition set out in today’s announcement and what the best-available science proves is needed for a climate-safe future. The consensus at COP is either an exercise in magical thinking or the cynical foreclosure on future generations. Neither is appropriate given what’s at stake.”

Dr Brian O’Callaghan, Lead Researcher and Project Manager, at the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, said:

“Hopes to meet Paris climate targets die with insufficient finance. Developing countries need certainty that enough finance will flow, but this latest draft fails to provide any certainty. It uses intentionally sloppy legal text to guarantee a total of $0 – not $250 billion and certainly not $1.3 trillion.”

Prof Joeri Rogelj, Grantham Institute Climate Change and Environment, Imperial College London, said:

“COP29 has set the scene for the big-ticket item of next year’s climate policy calendar: a new wave of national emission reduction pledges. It’s encouraging to see ambitious new targets from the UK and Mexico, and a commitment by others to make them aligned with the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C. 

“Much has been said about whether limiting warming to 1.5°C is still possible, and the odds are no longer in the world’s favour on this one. However, with every fraction of a degree of warming, life on earth will become much more dangerous. It doesn’t matter what the number is. Every country has to deliver emissions reductions that are as deep as they can possibly be.

Dr Elena Cantarello, Associate Professor in Sustainability Science, Bournemouth University, said:

“The COP Presidency should be reminded of their collective mandate from the outset to prevent inadequate outcomes like the NCQG (New Collective Quantified Goal). However, this should not be a reason to kill multilateralism, as its results surpass previous efforts.”

Prof Bill McGuire, Professor Emeritus of Geophysical & Climate Hazards at UCL, said:

“Three decades on from the first one, we find ourselves at COP29, held in a petrostate, presided over by a fossil fuel boss, and infiltrated by almost 2,000 fossil fuel lobbyists. Yet fossil fuels are off the agenda. As long as this elephant in the room is ignored, the climate COPs will remain dead in the water.

“I know that many climate scientists feel the same mixture of frustration, incredulity and fear as I do at the absence of progress. With emissions needing to fall by at least 43 percent in the next 60 or so months, to keep this side of 1.5C and have any chance of dodging dangerous, all-pervasive, climate breakdown, an ineffectual and compromised talking shop just won’t cut it. The truth is, if we seriously want to tackle the climate emergency, the world needs to be on a war footing and act accordingly.”

Dr Rob Bellamy, Senior Lecturer in Climate and Society, University of Manchester, said:

“The newly agreed standards for a centralised carbon market under the UN open the door to risky and reversible carbon credits from so-called ‘natural’ climate solutions.”

Dr Shaun Fitzgerald FREng, Director of Centre for Climate Repair and Director of Research at Cambridge Zero, University of Cambridge, said:

“COP29 continues to demonstrate that the overall COP process is not getting us to where we need to be fast enough. I didn’t meet a single scientist at COP who thought that keeping the world below 1.5C was still achievable based on any plausible mix of emissions reduction and greenhouse gas removal. And yet this is not being said in the negotiating rooms.

“On a sad but positive note though, most scientists we spoke to are of the mind that we now need to look at other options to keep a lid on temperatures whilst we figure out how to get to a position of not just net zero, but net negative in order to actually reduce greenhouse gas levels from where they are today. This means building our knowledge base on things like methods to reflect more of the sun’s radiation back out to space. This could involve pumping sea water onto sea ice to help it grow more in winter and therefore last longer in summer with the benefit that it then reflects more than an otherwise dark blue ocean. Or it could involve creating more sea spray in the middle of the ocean to provide more cloud condensation nuclei and hence white clouds over the ocean which reflect more sun. There are a number of potential ideas. But we simply don’t know enough about them to determine whether any of them might actually work. But if they did, then we might be able to keep the worst effects of climate change at bay whilst we fix the fundamental problem of greenhouse gas levels.

“I am hopeful that we will see progress in research in solar radiation modification. The UK government is launching a research programme in this area, and there are other funding bodies who are becoming more concerned about the lack of progress at COPs and increasingly interested in developing options beyond emissions reduction.”

Dr Colin Summerhayes, Emeritus Associate, Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge, said:

“It is disappointing to see that, far from falling, CO2 emissions increased by a further 0.8% in 2024, according to the 2024 Global Carbon Budget report. Hence, we are not yet on track for the much hoped for promise of Net Zero (which requires as much CO2 to be taken out of the atmosphere as is added). The rising emissions conceal a slight continuing fall in emissions from the land surface, balanced by an increase in the burning of fossil fuels. According to Carbon Action Tracker (Nov 2024), although emissions are expected to plateau at a maximum value close to current levels between 2030 and 2080, the average will remain near 40Gt/yr for that period, guaranteeing a global temperature of about 2.7degC. Current CO2 levels are about 422 ppm, but these COP discussions leave out the fact that the basket of emissions molecules (CO2, CH4, N2O and CFCs) adds up to a CO2 equivalent of 534 ppm (https://gml.noaa.gov/aggi/). This is 112ppm higher than the CO2 value alone, which is rather worrying. The last time Planet Earth saw values like that was during the middle Pliocene warm period 3 million years ago when global temperatures averaged 4-5degC above today’s values, Greenland’s ice melted away and gave way to forests, and Antarctica lost about half of its ice, with the result that sea level rose by between 10-20m. We are thus facing a Creeping Catastrophe, which will create havoc for our planetary civilization over the next couple of hundred years. This is a wake-up call for Big Government action, since leaving things to markets simply will not work (after all, where’s the profit?).”

Prof Hugh Hunt, Deputy Director, Centre for Climate Repair, University of Cambridge, said:

“The energy in COP29 seems to be in the Delegation Pavilions rather than in the negotiation rooms.  The drive to take action on emissions reductions is clear yet it is looking unlikely that the negations will agree a strong line on the transition from fossil fuels.  Nor will there be much in the pot for climate finance to aid mitigation and adaptation in countries affected by climate change.  Increasingly there is talk in the Pavilions about geoengineering and its governance for research.  Maybe it is about time that this vexed topic makes in onto the formal agenda for when COP30 convenes in Brazil next year.  The word going around is that there is no chance of 1.5C without climate intervention.  Emissions reduction alone is insufficient.”

Declared interests

Shaun Fitzgerald: “I am Director of the Centre for Climate Repair and involved in research into greenhouse gas removal and climate engineering. This involves raising funds for the research as well as being directly involved in a number of the research projects.”

Bill McGuire: “None”

Colin Summerhayes: “None”

Hugh Hunt: “No conflicts of interest to declare”

For all other experts, no reply to our request for DOIs was received.