COP29 talks on measures to cut emissions and progress a landmark agreement on “transitioning away from fossil fuels” had to be rescued from the brink of collapse by the COP presidency after opposition from oil-rich Saudi Arabia and some other developing countries.
Countries failed to reach an agreement on mitigation over the weekend and a decision was taken to postpone talks until next year. But COP29 president Mukhtar Babayev announced efforts to restore talks on Monday at a plenary, backed by many countries supporting a strong outcome in Baku this week.
“COP29 cannot and will not be silent on mitigation. We will address the matter [in] every direction,” Babayev told the COP plenary.
Governments have struggled to reaffirm a pledge first agreed at COP28 last year to “transition away from fossil fuels” in other agreements this year. It was left out of a climate and biodiversity decision at last month’s COP16 in Cali and reports suggested it also struggled to make it into the G20 ministerial statement.
Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, former COP president and WWF climate and energy lead, said finance for the energy transition will play a key role in unlocking progress on mitigation, as developing countries called for funding for the energy transition.
“After a faltering first week, Parties now have a second chance to work together and build consensus around the climate solutions we need to reduce emissions quickly. It is essential that this COP sends a strong signal that countries need to raise their game on emission reductions,” Pulgar-Vidal said in a statement.
Brink of collapse
Late on Saturday, when many COP29 delegates were letting their hair down after a long first week, negotiators failed to agree on a path forward for discussions on cutting emissions.
A coalition of developed countries, small island states, the least developed countries (LDCs) and some Latin American nations want to discuss how to take forward last year’s global commitment to transition away from fossil fuels through the so-called Mitigation Work Programme, a negotiating track set up at COP26 in 2021 with the goal of enhancing efforts to cut emissions.
They had pushed to set up an emissions-cutting “ facilitation process and platform” and “urge” governments to do things like stop building new coal-fired power plants and phase out (not just, as previously agreed, phase down) coal, according to observers.
The coalition wanted to set numerical targets for reducing methane emissions, curbing deforestation, increasing energy storage and improving grids to enable the roll-out of renewable energy.
But, speaking in Saturday night’s plenary, Saudi Arabia said this was an attempt at “eroding the flexibility developing countries depend on” and that there should be no new targets or goals.
Bolivia, speaking on behalf of the LMDC group which includes China, also rejected “targets and outlandish proposals”. Iran and India supported this, with India saying that the talks’ conclusions were supposed to be “non prescriptive”. The African group also rejected “attempts to impose new requirements”.
With governments divided over the purpose of the talks, their co-chairs suggested on Saturday not continuing the mitigation negotiations into the second week and delaying them for six months until the mid-year climate talks in the German city of Bonn. That would have meant scrapping all the work done in the first week. A consensus could not be reached to carry on with the talks in Baku.
Andreas Sieber, associate director of policy and campaigns at 350.org, said Saudi Arabia wants to be as “unconstructive as they can be when it comes to fossil fuels” and is “happy to be destructive”. He added that civil society “disagrees” with this stance because there is a need to talk about implementing last year’s decisions on energy transition as well as financing arrangements for that to happen including through the new climate finance goal.
Presidency steps in
On Monday, COP29 President Mukhtar Babayev said he would make efforts to prevent the talks from collapsing, appointing ministers from Norway and South Africa to consult countries on the way forward.
At a plenary session, several countries expressed disappointment with the state of the mitigation talks, saying a strong outcome on emission-cutting measures was a priority for them. They also refused to postpone discussions until next year.
Australia, on behalf of the Umbrella Group of developed countries, said “some parties consistently blocked” progress and welcomed the presidency’s efforts to keep the talks going.
The AOSIS group of small islands said they would not leave Baku without “a strong mitigation outcome”. “The fact that those discussions are stalled is extremely concerning for our group,” a negotiator from Samoa told the COP plenary.
The COP president said his team will run consultations with countries, which will be facilitated by Norway and South Africa and will conclude by Wednesday. He also ruled out the possibility of a cover text, which is a high-profile general statement signed off by all governments but not linked to any particular strand of the negotiations.
New climate plans
Speaking at the Monday plenary, Switzerland noted that decisions made in Baku on mitigation will serve to inform the next round of national climate plans, which are due to be submitted by early next year. “It’s not acceptable that in the very body meant to reduce emissions we do not have a clear message going forward,” the Swiss negotiator said.
The European Union waded into the debate on Monday afternoon, with its climate commissioner Hoekstra saying it was “imperative” to send a strong signal from Baku to inform the next round of nationally determined contributions (NDCs). “We must follow on our historic decision in Dubai to truly transition away from fossil fuels,” he added.
He praised the announcements of 2035 emissions reduction goals from the UAE, Brazil and the UK before and during COP29 as “positive and promising”.
He also added that the EU would put together an ambitious NDC in line with the 1.5C warming limit, and is on the right track, cutting greenhouse gas emissions by more than 8% in 2023, compared to the previous year. “We need – and we will continue to keep the pace,” he said, without clarifying when the EU’s updated NDC would land.
(Reporting by Sebastian Rodriguez; editing by Matteo Civillini)
The post Fossil fuel transition talks rescued from brink of collapse at COP29 appeared first on Climate Home News.
Fossil fuel transition talks rescued from brink of collapse at COP29
Climate Change
Equity, Benefit-Sharing and Financial Architecture in the International Seabed Area
A new independent study by Dr Harvey Mpoto Bombaka (Centro Universitário de Brasília) and Dr Ben Tippet (King’s College London), commissioned by Greenpeace International, reveals that current International Seabed Authority revenue-sharing proposals would return virtually nothing to developing countries — despite the requirement under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) that deep sea mining must benefit humankind as a whole.
Instead, the analysis shows that the overwhelming economic value would flow to a handful of private corporations, primarily headquartered in the Global North.
Download the report:
Equity, Benefit-Sharing and Financial Architecture in the International Seabed Area
Executive Summary: Equity, Benefit-Sharing and Financial Architecture in the International Seabed Area
https://www.greenpeace.org.au/greenpeace-reports/equity-benefit-sharing-and-financial-architecture-in-the-international-seabed-area/
Climate Change
Pacific nations would be paid only thousands for deep sea mining, while mining companies set to make billions, new research reveals
SYDNEY/FIJI, Thursday 26 February 2026 — New independent research commissioned by Greenpeace International has revealed that Pacific Island states would receive mere thousands of dollars in payment from deep sea mining per year, placing the region as one of the most affected but worst-off beneficiaries in the world.
The research by legal professor Dr Harvey Mpoto Bombaka and development economist Dr Ben Tippet reveals that mechanisms proposed by the International Seabed Authority (ISA) for sharing any future revenues from deep sea mining would leave developing nations with meagre, token payments. Pacific Island nations would receive only USD $46,000 per year in the short term, then USD $241,000 per year in the medium term, averaging out to barely USD $382,000 per year for 28 years – an entire annual income for a nation that is less than some individual CEOs’ salaries. Mining companies would rake in over USD $13.5 billion per year, taking up to 98% of the revenues.
The analysis shows that under a scenario where six deep sea mining sites begin operating in the early 2030s, the revenues that states would actually receive are extraordinarily small. This is in contrast to the clear mandate of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which requires mining to be carried out for the benefit of humankind as a whole.[1] The real beneficiaries, the research shows, would be, yet again, a handful of corporations in the Global North.
Head of Pacific at Greenpeace Australia Pacific Shiva Gounden, said:
“What the Pacific is being promised amounts to little more than scraps. The people of the Pacific would sacrifice the most and receive the least if deep sea mining goes ahead. We are being asked to trade in our spiritual and cultural connection to our oceans, and risk our livelihoods and food sources, for almost nothing in return.
“The deep sea mining industry has manipulated the Pacific and has lied to our people for too long, promising prosperity and jobs that simply do not exist. The wealthy CEOs and deep sea mining companies will pocket the cash while the people of the Pacific see no material benefits. The Pacific will not benefit from deep sea mining, and our sacrifice is too big to allow it to go ahead. The Pacific Ocean is not a commodity, and it is not for sale.”
Using proposals submitted by the ISA’s Finance Committee between 2022 and 2025, the returns to states barely register in national accounts. After administrative costs, institutional expenses, and compensation funds are deducted, little, if anything, remains to distribute [3].
Author Dr Harvey Mpoto Bombaka of the Centro Universitário de Brasília said:
“What’s described as global benefit-sharing based on equity and intergenerational justice increasingly looks like a framework for managing scarcity that would deliver almost no real benefits to anyone other than the deep sea mining industry. The structural limitations of the proposed mechanism would offer little more than symbolic returns to the rest of the world, particularly developing countries lacking technological and financial capacity.”
The ISA will meet in March for its first session of the year. Currently, 40 countries back a moratorium or precautionary pause on deep sea mining.
Gounden added: “The deep sea belongs to all humankind, and our people take great pride in being the custodians of our Pacific Ocean. Protecting this with everything we have is not only fair and responsible but what we see as our ancestral duty. The only equitable path is to leave the minerals where they are and stop deep sea mining before it starts.
“The decision on the future of the ocean must be a process that centres the rights and voices of Pacific communities as the traditional custodians. Clearly, deep sea mining will not benefit the Pacific, and the only sensible way forward is a moratorium.”
—ENDS—
Notes
[1] A key condition for governments to permit deep sea mining to start in the international seabed is that it ‘be carried out for the benefit of mankind as a whole’, particularly developing nations, according to international law (Article 136-140, 148, 150, and 160(2)(g), the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea).
For more information or to arrange an interview, please contact Kimberley Bernard on +61407 581 404 or kbernard@greenpeace.org
Climate Change
North Carolina Regulators Nix $1.2 Billion Federal Proposal to Dredge Wilmington Harbor
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers failed to explain how it would mitigate environmental harms, including PFAS contamination.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers can’t dredge 28 miles of the Wilmington Harbor as planned, after North Carolina environmental regulators determined the billion-dollar proposal would be inconsistent with the state’s coastal management policies.
North Carolina Regulators Nix $1.2 Billion Federal Proposal to Dredge Wilmington Harbor
-
Greenhouse Gases7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
