Written by Professor Juliane Reinecke
There is great irony around climate negotiations at COP29 held in Baku, Azerbaijan. On the one hand, there are frequent calls to hear the voices of the young and ensure those who will be affected will be part of the discussions. On the other hand, school students under 18 are not allowed in the ‘Blue Zone’ without their parents, even in an accompanied group. The Blue Zone is where the talking is done by policymakers and politicians. And, as part of the Oxford University, Saïd Business School, delegation I was in Baku for the talks – and for the finals of the 2024 Oxford-Burjeel Climate Change Challenge.
The Climate Change Challenge was set to be a beacon of hope, highlighting the ingenuity and passion of young people in coming up with solutions for climate change – a ray of optimism among the contentious debates. But we were told the final for the five teams of amazing teenagers and five teacher finalists from around the world, could not, after all, take place in the Blues Zone. They are too young.
Our event had support from COP and the government of Azerbaijan. But we were moved to the Green Zone’s Energy Room to celebrate our winners and finalists. At least the name foreshadowed the spirit of the day: we had a truly energising day.
Anyone could go in there – and our room was packed throughout the day, as the student and teacher finalists made their presentations. A panel of judges, which I joined, announced our eventual winners – three school students from the UAE and a teacher from India. They were as impressive and passionate as they were innovative. The change in arrangements had no impact on the celebrations or the Challenge. They were not the only hopeful young people at COP, my colleagues at Oxford Net Zero and Oxford’s Smith School brought very impressive Young Climate Leaders to Baku.
But moving us out of the Blue Zone, was very much the Blue Zone’s loss. The Climate Change Challenge final came at the beginning of the second week and the COP talks had got off to a lacklustre start – in light of a difficult geo-political situation and the failure of several key world leaders to attend.
Then, at the top of the agenda came finance: how much is needed and who is going to pay? In COP-speak: The “new collective quantified goal” (NCQG).
No one, particularly not finance ministers, likes to talk about money. And you could really sense the tension escalate – along with the likely sum that is forecast to be needed for poorer countries’ climate finance needs and the interrelated challenge not to lose the important focus on reducing emissions, including the hard-won compromise agreement in Dubai last to “transition away from fossil fuels”.
The situation was further inflamed by the opening remarks of Azerbaijan’s president, the host of COP29, who referred to oil and gas as a “gift from God.” The comment left a bitter taste for many. But can we entirely fault them? Azerbaijan, a young and ambitious nation straddling East and West along the historic Silk Road, has spent over 30 years carving out its independence from the Soviet Union. As the birthplace of the oil industry, oil has not only been a cornerstone of its national identity but also a vital lifeline, enabling it to assert its position amidst its imposing neighbours Russia and Iran. But can it once again serve as a bridge at the crossroads of East and West, richer and poorer nations? Failure to reach an agreement at COP29 would not only be a diplomatic embarrassment for the host country but would also hasten the mounting long-term costs for global efforts to tackle climate change.
The stakes are high since the three-fold costs amount to a potentially escalating chain reaction. Finance is needed for mitigation (to cut emissions and limit global warming in the first place). If this is not forthcoming, the cost of adaptation will increase (adapting to warmer temperatures that ensue because there has not been enough mitigation). And, finally, if there is not enough spending on mitigation and adaptation, the cost of disaster recovery – damage and loss – will increase, which needs no explanation.
Back in Copenhagen in 2009, nations agreed to mobilise $100billion of climate finance a year. But the longer we delay an agreement on finance for mitigation and adaptation, the higher the cost, as we are discovering. And today, conservative estimates put the annual finance needed for climate finance at a cool $1 trillion – and that is the conservative estimate. It was intended that a new figure would emerge from COP29.
There was no movement on finances until after the official end of the Conference. Even until the last day, there was an ‘X’ in the place on the official draft document, where the big number will go.
The subject of financial justice and equity continue to be very contentious, even with the ‘deal’ which was finally reached over the weekend. Many questions remain unanswered and we have not heard the last of finance.
Realistically, we did not get to the granular level of financial arrangements in Baku. That is likely to be again on the agenda in Belem, Brazil next year, where COP30 will be held. But, the financial chain reaction means, the longer we wait to finance mitigation and adaptation, the higher the eventual – financial and human – cost.
Many countries, states and organisations have already signed net zero pledges, promising to reduce their carbon footprints. My colleagues from Oxford Net Zero have been doing a fabulous job of tracking those pledges and commitments, keeping an eye on who has done what. It makes for sorry reading. A fraction of those making pledges have published any detailed plan (10% of nations, 3% of companies) for how they are going to be achieved.
But, we now know, even if those vague pledges were followed in full, it would not be enough. It is believed the temperature would rise by 2.7 degrees, even with all the pledges kept. Better pledges and better commitments will be needed.
We have to be decisive and take action. The longer we leave it, the worse it will be. But it is important, not to allow this to result in a sense of hopelessness – and then failure to take action. Several reports, including research in the Lancet, have revealed the rising level of climate anxiety of many young people. They are literally overwhelmed by a sense of hopelessness, fearing that nothing can be done in the face of global warming.
Our young Climate Change Challenge finalists – showed how much difference could be made, if we set our focus on bold transformations and creative innovations with real world impact on climate. They were realistic, enthusiastic and decisive – and they will make a difference. Their voices and ideas need to be heard.
