2024 will mark the hottest year in recorded history as global production of fossil fuels reaches record highs. Climate-related natural disasters continue to devastate the planet in the form of unprecedented floods, droughts, hurricanes, and wildfires, with marginalised and Indigenous communities, situated in the Global South, exposed to its worst impacts.
Global North countries have contributed the most to cumulative historical emissions and bear the most responsibility for the unfolding climate crisis. This year’s UN Climate Change Conference or Conference of Parties, COP 29, concluded with little evidence that could demonstrate whether the world leaders are responding to the climate crisis with urgency. The Global North governments left COP without pledging sufficient funds to support developing countries’ low-carbon energy transition and adaptation to climate impacts.
Another COP, another petrostate
COP 29 was held in a petrostate for the second year in a row; Azerbaijan is one of the world’s top producers and exporters of fossil fuels. Even before COP 29 had commenced, the President of Azerbaijan announced his country’s intention to expand its production of fossil fuels, estimated to constitute 60% of state finances and 90% of export revenues.
The current COP 29 President glorified fossil fuels as “gifts from god that are meant to be consumed”; a Senior COP 29 official was exposed in an investigative journalism report as using the COP 29 forum to strike fossil fuel deals; at least 1,773 and 2,456 fossil fuel lobbyists attended COP 29 and COP 28 respectively, higher than delegations of most states and the 10 most climate-vulnerable countries combined; and the presiding officers of the last two COPs were both former fossil fuel industry executives. These reports aren’t isolated incidents of misconduct, instead, they reveal entrenched conflicts of interest and Big Oil’s stranglehold on climate negotiations.
The Global North’s complicity in climate sabotage
Formed to act on the climate degradation eating away at our planet, COP has been reduced to an annual spectacle for global leaders and expo halls for fossil fuel industry’s false solutions.
While industry lobbyists may not sit in the negotiating rooms themselves, their attendance at COP shapes its outcomes. Fossil fuel companies no longer publicly deny the existence of climate change instead obstruct progress through the promotion of false climate solutions. These include carbon capture and storage, algae-based biofuels, ammonia co-firing, solar geoengineering, and other technologies, which are costly, unscalable, and scientifically dubious. These technologies also extend the life of fossil fuel infrastructures and legitimise the fossil fuel industry’s continued extraction.
The huge corporate presence at COP shifts the focus from public to private solutions, placing a downward pressure on the scale of finance Global North states are willing to provide. This year’s COP was promoted as “the finance COP”. States of the South, backed by independent experts, demanded $1 trillion per year by 2030 rising to $1.3 trillion per year by 2035 to fund climate action. Instead, the Global North agreed to only mobilise, not provide, $300 billion per year by 2035 in loans, not grants.
The contentious COP 29 negotiations saw rare public rebukes by India, Nigeria, and Bolivia on behalf of the Global South. Global South representatives, the UN’s Youth Constituency YOUNGO, and climate activists strongly objected to the “abysmally poor” sum, and the undemocratic means through which the deal was imposed on the Global South. These calls came in a country hostile toward climate activism and political dissent, where human rights groups allege the government used COP to target environmental defenders.
Reforming COP
COP is failing to secure the agreements and policies needed to slow climate breakdown. Only a radical overhaul can salvage this institution and rescue the forum from its crisis of legitimacy. Mohammed Yunus, Nobel Laureate and Bangladesh’s interim leader slammed wealthy nations of the Global North and rightly questioned the continued need for negotiations: “Why should there be a negotiation? You [developed nations] are causing the problem, then you solve it”.
COP processes require unanimous consent to reach an agreement, which creates an opening for undemocratic obstruction, as happened in the case of COP 29 where the US, New Zealand, Switzerland and Saudi Arabia blocked numerous climate finance and fossil fuel phase-out agenda items. Introducing agreement approvals by a 75% supermajority instead of unanimity would meet the urgency needed to act on the climate crisis. A supermajority reform (more equitably representing the interests of states and the world population) would limit obstruction by a handful of wealthy nations and petrostates to advance popular climate proposals.
The COP presidencies play a leading role in shaping the respective agenda of the COP they preside over. While successive COPs have failed to address the root cause of the climate emergency—fossil fuel industry emissions—the last two COPs in particular have pushed this institution into a terrain full of obvious conflicts of interest. Moreover, states that detain climate scholars and activists must be excluded from presiding over the conference. The UNFCCC must enact stricter guidelines for which countries are eligible to preside over COP to ensure its legitimacy and maintain the trust of parties negotiating in good faith.
In this spirit, future COPs must institute a ban on the chief contributors to the climate crisis–the fossil fuel industry–as these corporations have a clear interest in maintaining a global energy order reliant on fossil fuels. Increased scrutiny of COP pass issuances should prevent hundreds of passes from going to fossil fuel lobbyists. Future climate conferences should only discuss technologies and solutions that are scientifically proven, such as wind and solar power, and refrain from engaging with false solutions that delay the rapid phaseout of fossil fuel power.
Mainstream Italian and European media have tried to downplay the scope of this chilling election with distorted, euphemistic language.
Alternatives to COP
The blows to COP’s reputation after years of obstruction and the growing realisation that 1.5°C is out of reach call for alternative pathways to international climate action. Progressive leaders in the Global South need to find new ways to prise the reins of the process from the grip of governments of the Global North and fossil fuel companies.
Global South states could follow the lead of small island nations in seeking recourse for climate justice through international law. The ongoing case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) initiated by small island states seeks legal consequences for failing to curb emissions and provide clarity on the obligations of nations to protect the environment. This is set to be the largest case in ICJ’s history with nearly 100 countries expected to join legal proceedings. Global South states could collectively pursue a similar judicial pathway to seek climate reparations and climate finance for just transition, adaptation, and loss and damage from the Global North. Although ICJ’s advisory opinions aren’t legally binding, its rulings could be used in domestic lawsuits and multilateral diplomacy and negotiations, including at future COPs.
The Earth Social “anti-COP” Conference reimagines the concept of an international environmental deliberative forum and calls for the dismantling of COPs. The first Earth Social Conference was held in Casanare, Colombia, in December 2023, and the second in Oaxaca, Mexico in November 2024. Grassroots activists from across the world gathered to outline mobilisation strategies to end fossil fuel proliferation around the globe. These forums enable civil society to shape the agenda, build coalitions, and increase domestic political pressure for stronger climate action.
The Progressive International spoke with Indian climate activist Harjeet Singh at COP 29 who discussed his work on initiating the legally-binding Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative as an alternative to COP’s voluntary mechanism. A growing bloc of 14 nation-states has adopted the Treaty, calling for an international mandate to phase out fossil fuels, eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, and halt new fossil fuel production. The Powering Past Coal Alliance (PPCA) offers valuable lessons in mobilising support for Paris-aligned phaseout agreements. The PPCA sets 2030 coal phaseout targets for Global North countries and 2050 for others, with membership from 50 national and over 100 subnational governments.
While alternative forums and voluntary treaties have gained momentum in recent years, they don’t directly address the issue of financing for Global South countries. Given COP 29’s failures to set more ambitious funding targets from the Global North, Southern states need new strategies for obtaining climate finance for energy transitions, adaptation, and loss and damage. These new strategies should serve as anchor points in future negotiations.
Multilateral cooperation on climate change outside of the COP is not a radical idea. The Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs), which dedicate a collective US$47 billion in financing to support the energy transitions of South Africa, Senegal, Indonesia, and Vietnam sparked initial enthusiasm since the announcement of the first agreement with South Africa at COP 26 in Glasgow. These agreements provide a new mechanism for iterative and ongoing climate finance discussions between select Global North country partners and Global South recipient governments. As the financing terms of JETPs became clearer, it became evident that they rely primarily on private financing, not direct public funds. This raised concerns about debt justice, as Global South governments may struggle with high interest rates and mounting debt burdens.
To strengthen their leverage in climate finance negotiations, Global South countries can adopt a dual strategy of rewards and rebukes toward the Global North. Spontaneous financial and technology transfers from rich nations would accelerate energy transitions and clean energy production in the Global South aiding the entire world in the fight against climate change. Delays, obstructions, and distractions can be met with sanctions and financial isolation for the Global North.
For example, Global South states could adopt the multi-currency framework that BRICS is laying out to challenge the fiscal hegemony of the US Dollar. Since 80% of oil and gas transaction shappen through the US Dollar, adopting an alternative BRICS payment mechanism for green technology transfers could present both a moral and fiscal win for the Global South. Global South countries can strengthen their position in climate negotiations by seeking preferential trade agreements or by controlling exports of raw materials in high demand, as Indonesia did with nickel and Zimbabwe with lithium. Fiscal and diplomatic sanctions could serve as a powerful last resort for the Global South to leverage against wealthy nations that repeatedly obstruct international climate action.
Building Global South solidarity
The effectiveness of COP reforms and alternative pathways to achieve international climate action discussed above hinge upon a united and bold Global South that is ready to stand in solidarity against decades of climate injustice. To that end, Global South states should consider an annual/biennial conference among themselves to collectively position their demands and negotiating tactics ahead of COPs or climate finance discussions happening in parallel. The Progressive International’s forums like the Havana Congress for exchanging ideas, networks, and methods among progressive governments, organisations, and activists in the Global South could be a model for a ‘Global South COP’. The ascendency of a second Trump presidency in the U.S. and right-wing governments across the Global North necessitate strategic civil society resistance and a united Global South. Only through transnational and cross-movement solidarity can the influence of the powerful fossil fuel lobby and the rising wave of political self-protectionism be challenged.
Republished from The Internationalist, Dec 2024