ECO 4, COP29

It isn’t just about getting funds – it’s a matter of justice.

At COP29, a worrying pattern is emerging: wealthier countries seem willing to not only shy away from their historical responsibilities, but are also intent on shifting their climate responsibilities to developing countries. Vulnerable regions in the Global South bear the heaviest impacts of climate disaster, paying the price of the Global North’s history of excessive emissions with lost lives and livelihoods. 

The numbers and facts are clear: the experience of the previous climate finance goal of US$100 billion agreed at COP15 in Copenhagen showed us that, instead of delivering straightforward public grants, these wealthier countries will prioritise private investments, while focusing almost exclusively on mitigation, and they will deny climate funds in favour non-democratic and opaque multilateral development banks (such as the World Bank and IMF), leading consequently to more and more loans.

In the context of adopting a new climate finance goal at COP29 (the “New Collective Quantified Goal” or NCQG), one would hope that lessons have been learned and that the focus this time will be on building a goal that is fit for purpose. However, ECO is observing  the same old tactics and strategies in the negotiating rooms that risk weakening the possibility of meaningful climate finance, while sidestepping the estimated US$5 trillion owed annually to the Global South as a historic climate debt. This approach not only goes against the principles of equity, but contradicts the Paris Agreement, which mandates direct climate finance from developed to developing countries.

The culmination of the climate finance negotiations at COP29 is in danger of turning into a weak compromise that further deepens inequality and injustice. Wealthy nations are pushing for ambiguous “multilayered goals” with “investment layers” that obscure accountability and favour profit-driven private finance. What should have been a clear-cut commitment to public grant-based funding has instead become clouded with complex terms and conditions. This is not accidental, while the lack of transparency is only adding to the confusion. Some countries, like the US, suggest a “global investment goal with all sources,” while others refer to an “investment layer for developing nations.” India has rightly raised concerns, pointing out that these “layers” do little but create confusion. And ECO sees through this.

For countries in the Global South, climate finance isn’t just about getting funds – it’s a matter of justice. And it’s actually pretty simple: developing countries need public, grant-based funding that directly helps them to tackle climate impacts, adapt to changes, and deal with the loss and damage they can’t avoid due to the climate crisis they did the least to cause. They don’t need “snake oil” investment schemes that only deepen their vulnerability, increase their debt burden, and bind them with policy conditions. If the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) ends up prioritising private investments over publicly funded grants, it will simply reinforce existing inequalities instead of meeting urgent needs. The solution is simple: ensure that the NCQG is based on a provision goal of minimum US$1 trillion based on a vast majority of grants, within a wider mobilisation goal. It must be focused on the Global North’s climate finance obligations towards developing countries, which it has historically neglected.

While conversations about wider financial flows and transitioning funds away from fossil fuels and other harmful activities are essential, they cannot be conflated with the discussions on this new climate finance goal. Luckily, the former have a dedicated place where they can be discussed: in the Sharm el Sheikh dialogue, to be concluded next year at COP30 in Brazil.

COP29 must not dissolve into yet another round of empty promises; it must be a turning point toward accountability, equity, and genuine climate justice. Wealthier nations have the tools to pay up the trillions of dollars needed for climate action by pursuing tax justice, implementing strategic levies and making polluters pay. Instead of dodging their responsibilities, like a billionaire dodges their taxes, COP29 must be the moment when these nations move from promises to real tangible action and that means fulfilling their long overdue obligations.

Time to play

Dear ECO readers – What a start to the climate conference! We would like to present the icing on the cake of the current negotiation backlog. In an ECO Special: The GST Negotiation BINGO (not the constituency). 

*The rules: Every completed line and row is able to bring you a BINGO.*

You already have more than BINGO? Well then it should also be clear for you that we will not be moving anywhere if the talks about the UAE Dialogue modalities continue like this. The dialogue was supposed to lead to improved trust and constructive cooperation, but it has achieved neither. And this is a time where we urgently need action. We are facing a situation where people and ecosystems are facing more climate related catastrophes; extreme inequality; profound injustices; ecosystem destruction; sea level rise; heat waves; forced climate  migration; conflicts and war; and loss of cultures, jobs, and lives.

Feel relaxed? You’re welcome!

Breaking news – Just Transition will get real!

New text just released shows Parties opted for the UAE Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP) to start delivering concrete outcomes to support the implementation of just transition on the ground.

Sounds beautiful, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, ECO can’t affirm this…yet!… Representatives came from all over the world, travelling all this way, but the only potential outcome at the table on Just Transition is to decide on a topic for the next dialogue – i.e. to keep talking about it. This despite ECO hearing many Parties expressing that they wanted actionable outcomes as soon as possible.

Parties, don’t make ECO a carrier of fake news! There is time to make this headline a reality as quickly as today! The Contact Group can bring this option to the table and ensure COP29 puts us on track to deliver dignity and prosperity for all. Onwards!

Why go just half the way? Let’s cross the adaptation bridge now that we’re here!

ECO is getting a good lesson in building adaptive capacity – running around the venue, going from being blasted with scorching temperatures in corridors one moment to losing feeling in our toes in AC-dominated meeting rooms the next. Never fully understanding which clothes to wear in this uncertain climate. Isn’t this what adaptation is all about anyway? Figuring out ways to adjust to a rapidly changing environment! 

It hasn’t escaped ECO that the negotiators are also displaying some sharp adaptation skills, coping with heated agenda items and overflowing hours of negotiation as informal notes come raining in and colours dance like rainbows in texts. ECO’s watchful eyes spotted negotiators showing a strong commitment to adaptation agenda items in the negotiation rooms and we are here for this renewed drive and rigour!  

Of course neither ECO’s adaptation skills nor those of the negotiators come even close to what was faced in Sri Lanka, Brazil, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kenya, Syria, Bangladesh, the Philippines, France, India, Italy, Yemen, Mali, Sudan, Morocco, Nepal and Spain. And the year isn’t even over yet. The floods, droughts, landslides and devastating storms, have revealed the growing vulnerability to and risks of escalating climate hazards in both developed and developing countries. And thus, it is imperative to deliver substantial adaptation outcomes at COP29 and to not perpetuate the foot-dragging nature that has characterized adaptation talks for the past 30 years.

Now, dear negotiators, while ECO recognises your efforts, this doesn’t mean you can rest on your laurels just yet. There is a lot more bridge-building to be done over the stream of decisions awaiting to be made. In the discussions on the National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) item, it is becoming increasingly clear that holding onto the lifeline of private sector finance won’t be enough to stop people and communities from drowning. Rather, our collective lifeline hinges on gender transformative, ecosystem-based and intersectional approaches, integrated with the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). Under the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA), it is time to agree on the way forward to reach the shore with Means of Implementation (MoI) indicators at global and national levels before the tide is too high. Under adaptation agenda items, nothing could help us more to arrive ashore than to re-establish the trust of the crew and work together.

Ultimately, the flow of adaptation discussions needs to cascade into the finance conversation. Ambitious adaptation commitment proposals are needed under the New Cumulative Quantitative Goal (NCQG), especially from developed countries who are still swimming against the tide of what climate justice requires.

Don’t believe big oil promises

Earlier this week, ECO almost bumped into the CEO of ExxonMobil in the corridors. Before ECO could get over its surprise, ECO discovered that ExxonMobil had been speaking in a high level roundtable on energy transition and Paris targets – telling everyone else to do more?!

How could that be? How could the biggest of big oil companies be taking center stage?

Of course, that’s not the first time the big oil and gas companies have taken the podium in this space. In Dubai last year, big oil and gas CEOs crowded around the presidency to launch the Oil and Gas Decarbonization Charter, with all the biggest, oiliest polluters on the list – like ExxonMobil. On Monday, the Charter celebrated its first birthday by publishing a self-congratulatory report that couldn’t even quantify what emissions it saved – if any.

Let’s be crystal clear about what Charter members have done since making their “climate commitments” at COP28. In 2024 alone, these companies approved 68 new oil and gas fields – a $250 billion investment in planetary destruction. When burned, these new fields will release nearly 5 billion tonnes of CO2, as much as the entire United States emits in a year.

The Charter’s fundamental deception? It only addresses operational emissions – a mere 5-20% of oil companies’ total climate impact – while completely ignoring the elephant in the boardroom: the massive pollution from burning their products. This is exactly what ExxonMobil does too, and it’s like promising to use less water while flooding the house. Or claiming to solve lung cancer by making cigarettes more efficiently.

While they’re trying to pose as clean, the companies’ production plans reveal the truth behind their promises: a 17% INCREASE in oil and gas production by 2030, when science demands a 20% DECREASE to keep 1.5°C alive.

The Charter isn’t just inadequate – it’s dangerous. It provides diplomatic cover for the world’s biggest polluters to expand fossil fuel production while pretending to care about climate action, and gives the biggest polluters an excuse to step onstage. This isn’t climate leadership; it’s climate sabotage.

As negotiators gather at COP29, they must reject this industry-engineered distraction. We need binding agreements to phase out fossil fuels, with finance to back them up, not voluntary pledges from the very companies driving us deeper into climate chaos.

Brazil has just landed a Schrödinger’s NDC

Brazil, the top-emitting Troika member, host country of COP30 and all in all a nice country, has just landed its second NDC. Ahead of schedule, as promised (claps). ECO has read the 45 page document, which reminds us of Schrödinger’s cat paradox: it is at the same time reasonably ambitious and remarkably unambitious.

First of all there is the issue of the “bandwidth”: it’s not one emissions target, but two very different ones, 850 MtCO2e and 1,050 MtCO2e (a 59% or 67% cut from 2005 levels, respectively). The difference between the two is equal to Belgium’s emissions. The government says it aims for the most ambitious one, but the NDC text really says otherwise. The cat is dead and alive.

Ditto for deforestation, which could either be zero, as promised by President Lula, or not.

On fossil fuels, Brazil, one of the world’s top expanders, is silent about its own production. But the NDC hides a jewel: it says the country would “welcome the launching of international work for the definition of schedules for transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner, with developed countries taking the lead”. If the notoriously savvy Brazilian diplomats follow up on this statement and use COP30 to advance the implementation of a fossil fuel phase out, then the 1.5°C cat may have a chance to stay alive. 

––
Download file: http://ECO-14-11-2024-.pdf