Stay up-to-date with Trócaire's work overseas, get news on key global social justice issues, and find out about our latest campaigns in Ireland and how you can get involved.
COP29, the ‘Finance COP’, has resulted in a new climate finance goal that flies in the face of climate justice. It allows rich Parties to evade their responsibilities and is at odds with the action needed to keep the world within the 1.5°C global warming limit.
A silent protest at COP conveys how campaigners’ demands have not been listened to. Photo: Sinéad Loughran/Trócaire
1. Failure – the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) on Climate Finance Undermines Climate Action
Despite high expectations for this ‘Finance COP’, the Least Developed Countries group described the eventual decision on the NCQG, the new finance goal to replace the wholly inadequate $100 billion annual commitment from rich to climate vulnerable countries, as ‘is not just a failure; it is a betrayal’.
The NCQG needed to deliver a minimum of $1 trillion in public, non-debt-creating finance. The paltry $300 billion included in the new goal falls far short of this, and is further undermined by the goal’s focus on private finance and investment that promotes more inequity by pushing countries further into debt, and allows developed countries to shirk their responsibilities. When inflation is taken into account, and the expansion of what can be counted as climate finance under this new goal, this decision represents a step backwards in ambition from the wholly inadequate commitment set in 2009.
The money needed exists, and rich countries need to utilise innovative sources such as taxes on high polluting industries and extreme wealth to redirect finance to climate action; rich countries could raise up to $5 trillion annually in this way.
Private finance and investments have failed to deliver for climate action. This decision further entrenches the triple-edged injustice for climate vulnerable countries; the intensifying impacts, the bill they are left to foot in the absence of needs-based, adequate climate finance, and the diversion of money from basic services such as healthcare and education to pay for climate impacts and loan repayments.
2. Loss & Damage ignored in climate finance agreement
Another major shortfall of the new climate finance goal is its failure to include the third pillar of climate finance, Loss & Damage, in the new goal. This exclusion shows a complete undermining of the agreement to set up a Fund for responding to Loss and Damage, which was a major success of COP28. This suggests that richer countries have no interest in being held accountable on Loss and Damage and this is reflected in the paltry pledges to the fund.
Destroyed maize crops in Zimbabwe. Loss and Damage finance is a key pillar of Climate Justice. Photo: Patricia Chikumura / Trócaire.
This COP gave a glimpse into the marginalisation of Loss & Damage that looks set to continue now that it has been omitted from the NCQG. During an ironically titled ‘Pledging event’ at COP29, just one country (Sweden) made a new pledge to Loss & Damage finance needs. Another pledge was later made by Australia, but total pledges to date stand at less than one fifth of 1% of estimated annual needs ($731 million compared to $400 billion needed annually).
3. Green Light for Carbon Markets and False Solutions
Decisions on carbon markets also caused major headlines from COP29, particularly related to the procedurally flawed approach to decisions gavelled through. Procedural shortcomings aside, longer term concerns loom on the horizon. Carbon credits are not a means of providing climate finance, but the NCQG and the carbon market decisions made at COP29, pave the way for these mechanisms to be counted as climate finance.
Climate finance is an obligation for rich, historically high polluting countries to provide to climate vulnerable countries. It is part of an ecological debt owed to the Global South, and cannot be provided with conditions or clauses attached, and it cannot be provided in exchange for a license, or a credit, to pollute or continue with business-as-usual activities. Rich countries must provide their fair share of climate finance and rapidly reduce their carbon pollution; they can’t use their efforts in one area to reduce their obligations in another.
4. COP2: A Platform for Polluter Power:
At least 1,773 fossil fuel lobbyists attended COP29, which is more than the delegations of the 10 most vulnerable countries combined. While this is down from 2,456 fossil fuel lobbyists at COP28, the overall number of attendees was lower this year, so the ratio of fossil fuel lobbyists to other delegates has remained consistent.
With at least 480 representatives at COP29, the number of Carbon Capture, Utilisation, and Storage lobbyists was higher than the core Party Negotiator delegations from the U.S., Canada, UK, and the delegates of EU institutions combined.
Almost 200 of these fossil fuel and false solution lobbyists were invited to COP29 as special guests of the COP Presidency.
Protesters depict the creeping continual influence of the fossil fuel lobby. Photo: Sinéad Loughran
5. Civil Society Space pushed to the margins
This special treatment for fossil fuel and false solution lobbyists coincided with severe curtailment of civil society space in both negotiating spaces as observers, and in gathering for peaceful actions and demonstrations. Since COP27, civil society actions have been confined to inside the COP venue. However, this year saw an increase in restrictions, where the annual demonstration was confined to a plenary room, and once participants left the room, they could only hum or click their fingers, no chanting, speeches, or marching through the venue allowed. We look forward to a much different reception at COP30 in Brazil.
