November 22, 2024

expert reaction to closing stages of COP29

Scientists comment on the closing stages of COP29.

On the overall outcome – Eliot Whittington, Executive Director of the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership (CISL), University of Cambridge, said:   

“These negotiations limped over the line with some shreds of progress, but represent baby steps forward when we need to be picking up the pace. Baku was billed as the ‘finance COP’, where new resources would be mobilised to support the most vulnerable countries and communities. However, in a badly managed set of talks that flirted with collapse, countries made only minimal progress – setting a new financial target that represents little increase in resources over what’s required to keep up with inflation, while widening the pool of ways to contribute to it. They have also called for a much more ambitious plan to be developed for next year’s COP, so there’s still room to do more.  

“In a year where any elections around the world delivered a shift away from international collaboration towards nationalist isolation, and where multilateralism seems in danger with a weak G20 and a collapsed biodiversity COP, we are at a dangerous moment. We need more collaboration internationally and we need more leaders willing to make the case for it. COP29 did little to increase faith in a difficult and slow moving process. Indeed in dropping the explicit naming of fossil fuels as the source of climate problems, in many eyes the talks will have gone backwards. But dialogue and discussion are vital tools for collective progress, and we need more collective leadership and ambition to raise the pace of action. 

“Beyond the negotiations it is worth noting that COP29 did include a huge range of positive discussions and interventions. Countries including the UK, Indonesia, Brazil and Mexico made commitments demonstrating real leadership. And the huge presence of business and civil society outside the direct negotiations showed that the green economy is alive and kicking and developing new plans to build and grow.” 

On the finance – Nina Seega, the Director of the Centre for Sustainable Finance, Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership (CISL), University of Cambridge, said:  

“COP29 was always going to be measured by two yardsticks: the ambition around the reset of Nationally Determined Contributions and amount of finance agreed to help developing countries mitigate, adapt to and compensate for losses from climate change. Coming at the end of what looks like another hottest year on record, the Baku COP kicked off with an agreement on carbon markets, which while not perfect has been a long time coming and so was seen as a positive sign.  

“While the final figure for the New Collective Quantified Goal of USD300bn is lower than what was expected from Baku, provisions around mobilisation of finance to least developed countries and small island developing states, along with the launch of a Baku to Belem roadmap to drive the figure closer to USD1.3trillion per year made it a palatable compromise. An ambitious vision of the future, however, it was not.  

“As ever, the pressure will need to stay to ensure that Baku to Belem roadmap delivers tangible results and lifts the finance goal much closer to the needs of developing countries. This will entail rewiring our financial architecture to allow public and private finance to flow seamlessly to where it is needed most. It also means aligning all financial flows with Sustainable Development Goals.  

“All of this will only be possible with ambitious leadership, skillful diplomacy and a commitment to drive sustainability into every financial and economic decision in 2025 and beyond.” 

On the UK’s role – Beverley Cornaby, Director of the Corporate Leaders Group, Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership (CISL), University of Cambridge, said:   

“At a time when global climate leadership was desperately needed and the overarching COP29 outcome, particularly on finance, is disappointedly unambitious, the UK has demonstrated it is firmly back as a global climate leader. As one of just a few parties that came forward early with an enhanced, 1.5 aligned national determined contribution (NDC) 2035 carbon emissions reduction target, the UK has set a high bar for others to follow. However, for the UK to firmly regain its position as a global climate leader it also needs to demonstrate leading by doing, and fast.  

“The announcements the UK made during COP29 demonstrate how it is ensuring implementation happens via the alliances and initiatives it is leading or part of. This includes launching the Global Clean Power Alliance and signing the Global Energy Storage and Grids Pledge, as well as financial pledges including £239 million to tackle deforestation, £45 million of funding for the World Bank’s Energy Sector Management Assistance Programme (ESMAP) to support developing and emerging countries addressing energy challenges, and £25 million for its NDC Partnership to support other countries in developing their NDCs. 

“The UK has demonstrated that even if the COP process does not produce an ambitious outcome, it is still possible for strong leadership at a national level that supports implementation globally. Over the coming months, pressure needs to remain for more of the parties to come forward with ambitious and investible NDCs. As governments will not be able to deliver these alone, as they need the private sector on board, these should set out the critical role of business and unlocking private investment in supporting their implementation.” 

Michael Wilkins, Executive Director and Professor of Practice at the Centre for Climate Finance and Investment, Imperial College London, said: 

“The new finance goal is a disappointingly small step, but one in the right direction. 

“COP29 has helped mainstream the simple fact that rich countries have a historic obligation to help poorer countries cut emissions and cope with extreme weather, and that doing so will benefit every country on earth – the return on investment is safer, more sustainable economies.

“Developed countries now need to step up their commitments to ensure a fair and just distribution of climate finance.”

Prof Chris Hilson, director of the Reading Centre for Climate and Justice,  University of Reading, said:

“Fossil fuels in the outcome of COP29: disappointment as usual but there’s an elephant in the room.

“The final text from Baku indirectly mentions the deal reached in the previous UAE COP, to transition away from fossil fuels. But it is very indirect (referring only to the paragraph number). And, like COP28, the Baku text also mentions the role of ‘transitional fuels’ in delivering that transition, which some controversially argue includes gas.

“However, the elephant in the room is the greenhouse gas accounting system for fossil fuel exports. This system is inbuilt in the Paris Agreement itself.

“These rules mean that major fossil fuel exporting countries like Saudi, Norway, Australia, and the US with LNG (set to increase with Trump’s ‘drill baby drill’) do not have to account for their scope 3 emissions from exports. Instead the emissions show up in the accounts of the importing countries where the fuels are consumed.

“This is out of step with the way companies are increasingly being held to account for their emissions, with most now being pushed to include their customers’ scope 3 emissions. Not all companies are on board. Saudi Aramco has failed to set scope 3 net zero targets. And some, like Shell and BP, have rowed back on theirs. But there is at least pressure for companies to play their part in reducing global emissions across their value chains.

“The question remains after this COP, just like it did after the last one: why are we lacking such pressure on fossil fuel exporting countries, who are conveniently offshoring their emissions while reaping the economic benefits? Until they have a proper incentive to reduce those export emissions (because they will show up on their own NDC pledges rather than someone else’s), COPs are likely to continue to disappoint on the mitigation of emissions from fossil fuels.”

Prof Richard Allan, Professor of Climate Science, University of Reading, said: 

“The climate system didn’t get the memo about COP29 and heat is continuing to accumulate, warming the oceans and the atmosphere above.

“Climate science has made good forecasts of rising temperatures, steadily worsening extremes of heat, drought and deluge, melting ice and creeping sea level rise. The solution is obvious – rapid and massive cuts in greenhouse gas emissions – but how we do this fairly is a monumental challenge of innovation, diplomacy and conciliatory action.

“A mighty collaboration across sectors from local groups, businesses and cities up to governments is a tantalising opportunity to end the firefighting and transition to a better, cleaner and kinder world.”

Prof Myles Allen FRS, Head of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics, University of Oxford, said:

“Whatever number is agreed, it will be dwarfed by what we spend every year on fossil fuels. Amid all the grumbling about another COP in a fossil fuel producer, we need to remember that we aren’t going to solve this problem until the fossil fuel industry itself becomes a partner (perhaps not an entirely willing one, but so be it), rather than an adversary, to the solution.”

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. With the level of warming that we are already experiencing, 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”

Kevin Anderson: “No interests to declare.”

Chris Hilson: I am a legal advisor to ClientEarth.

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