Over two weeks in November, more than 55,000 government negotiators, business representatives, activists and journalists gathered in Azerbaijan’s capital Baku for the annual conference of parties (COP) to the UN’s climate change convention (UNFCCC).
They were joined on the opening days of COP29 by about 105 heads of state and government who made back-to-back speeches. Most, like UNFCCC Executive Secretary Simon Stiell, emphasised the urgency of addressing the climate crisis. But the host, Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev, went the other way with a speech praising fossil fuels as a “gift of the god” and calling on leaders to be “realistic”.
Negotiators and ministers then got to work hammering out a new goal to finance climate action in developing countries after the current one runs out next year. Those talks inched forward for two weeks, with rich nations refusing to put a concrete offer on the table.
At the last minute, as the pavilions of the international trade show that accompanies COPs were packed away on the official closing day, the negotiations exploded. On that Friday, a number for the core finance goal was finally put on the table, sparking anger among developing nations which dismissed it as too low. On Saturday evening, negotiators from small islands and the world’s poorest countries stormed out – and a target of $300bn a year by 2035 was pushed through in controversial circumstances in the early hours of Sunday.
Fractious COP29 lands $300bn climate finance goal, dashing hopes of the poorest
Climate Home had a reporting team in Baku throughout, producing a bulletin and newsletter each day. As well as our explainer on what was agreed at COP29, below we bring you our five most dramatic moments from the Baku talks.
1.UN’s climate head gets personal
At the start of every COP, the head of the UN’s climate body gives what amounts to a motivational speech, calling on governments to do more to tackle the climate crisis.
This year, instead of reeling off statistics or listing climate-driven disasters, Simon Stiell got personal. He became emotional as he put up on a big screen a photograph of him hugging his neighbour Florence in front of her hurricane-destroyed house on their native Caribbean island of Carriacou (part of Grenada).
“At 85, Florence has become one of the millions of victims of climate change this year alone,” he said. In perhaps a coded reference to Donald Trump’s recent election as US president, he said Florence was “knocked down and getting back up again” – and government officials in the audience should too.
2. Host-nation leader calls fossil fuels “gift of the god”
On COP29’s second day, after a long cultural ceremony of music and dancing, Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev kicked off a series of speeches by the UN secretary-general and world leaders – and used it to double down on his past public backing of fossil fuels.
After attacking American”fake news media” and “so-called independent NGOs”, Aliyev repeated his claim that fossil fuels are “a gift of the god” and called out the European Union for criticising fossil fuels while doing a multi-year deal to buy gas from Azerbaijan.
He later used a summit of small island developing states to accuse France and the Netherlands of ongoing “colonial rule”, sparking a diplomatic spat with those countries and the European Union, which sprang to their defence. As a result, France’s environment minister decided to boycott COP29.
3. Finance goal: “Is it a joke?”
Nine days into COP29, developed countries had yet to put forward a proposal for how much they were willing to contribute to the post-2025 climate finance goal.
The most anyone had to go on was a Politico report that the European Union was considering $200bn-300bn a year – so the $200bn figure was raised by a journalist at a press conference of Bolivia’s chief negotiator Diego Pacheco, Uganda’s Adonia Ayebare and Kenya’s Ali Mohamed.
“Is it a joke?” asked Pacheco with a smile, to applause from climate campaigners in the room.
Ayebare laughed and repeated his words, before Mohamed added more sternly: “We don’t know where you’re getting the 200 but, joke or otherwise, the quantum we are putting forward is nothing near to what you have just suggested.”
This off-the-cuff remark led to the word “joke” being used repeatedly by campaigners and negotiators about the finance goal for the rest of the summit. The next day, the COP29 presidency published a $250-billion-a-year proposal, which increased to $300 billion in the final agreement.
View this post on Instagram
4. Vulnerable nations storm out
On the last night of the negotiations, all government delegations were summoned to a meeting room where Azeri diplomats showed them a copy of the latest draft text.
According to Michai Robertson, finance negotiator for the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), developed countries and big developing nations like China, India and Brazil had been consulted by the presidency the night before, with those conversations informing the new text.
But, he said, AOSIS and the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) had not been asked for their views. So after reading it, the chair of the LDC group Evans Njewa told the room: “We are not ready to associate with this paper and our sitting here means nothing to us.”
“If you want to continue discussing on this paper, then you can do so – this will allow us to leave this room – when you are done, maybe you call us back,” he added.
1 day over time at the #COP29 & LDCs walked out in protest for the iteration of the new #NCQG which is far from the €1.3trill needed in public grant based #ClimateFinance @social_rights https://t.co/cfUnICc9Qf pic.twitter.com/ZuRvMhFUls
— MariaRonBalsera.bsky.social (@MariaRonBalsera) November 23, 2024
He called for the meeting’s suspension, stood up, picked up his bag and walked out. So did the rest of the negotiators for his group and those of AOSIS.
Robertson was among them. He told Climate Home the walk-out was unplanned and spontaneous.
Video of the #COP29 walkout from Panama’s lead negotiator Juan Carlos Monterrey: pic.twitter.com/9H2HM0oDA4
— Richard Delevan Wicked Problems Climate Tech (@rdelevan) November 23, 2024
Robertson said the presidency then gathered representatives of the LDCs, small island developing states (SIDS) and developed countries upstairs, where the LDCs and SIDs won compromises like a commitment to triple the amount of finance that goes through multilateral UN climate funds like the Green Climate Fund.
On their way to that meeting, rich-country negotiators were mobbed by climate campaigners and journalists who had gathered in the hall outside the meeting rooms. Germany’s climate envoy Jennifer Morgan rushed out, leaving journalists running after her as she refused to answer questions on her way to the presidency’s private office.
US climate envoy John Podesta, meanwhile, walked off more slowly and was surrounded by security and TV cameras as a campaigner shouted “shame” and “you’re selling us out”. He told reporters that he hoped this was the “storm before the calm”.
US climate envoy John Podesta heckled with cries of “shame” after climate vulnerable countries (temporarily?) walk out of finance talks #COP29 https://t.co/VnsmUcEE1L pic.twitter.com/bh8tmKEOf8
— Joe Lo (@joeloyo) November 23, 2024
5. India ignored?
As negotiators huddled in the plenary room in the early hours of Sunday morning, a rumour spread to journalists at the back of the room that India was preparing to block the agreement on the post-2025 finance goal.
Their objection, it was said, was over language that recognised “the voluntary intention of [governments] to count all climate-related outflows from and climate-related finance mobilised by multilateral development banks towards achievement of the goal”.
A big chunk of climate finance comes from multilateral development banks (MDBs) like the World Bank. These banks are mostly owned by developed countries – but big emerging economies like China and India also have stakes in some of them.
Currently, developed countries are only given credit for 70% of the climate finance flowing through MDBs – roughly equivalent to their share in these banks. But the change in the new goal to include all of it could count developing countries’ share of MDB funding as well, making it easier for developed nations to meet the target without mobilising additional money.
Shortly before 3am on Sunday morning after a string of mundane decisions, COP29 President Mukhtar Babayev invited the room to adopt the draft and without pausing for a second, banged down his gavel to signal official agreement.
Some negotiators stood up to applaud, some stayed sitting and clapped politely, while others looked on sternly. Babayev and Stiell hugged on stage and Azerbaijani negotiators punched the air.
Three members of the Indian delegation rushed onto the stage where Babayev was presiding, said something to the officials there and walked back looking angry.
When given the floor to speak, India’s head of delegation Chandni Raina said: “This has been an unfortunate incident and it is in continuation of a string of such unfortunate incidents that we have seen of not following inclusivity”.
She said she had informed the UNFCCC and COP29 presidency that she had wanted to make a statement before any decision was made. “However,” she said to whoops and applause, “this has been stage-managed and we are extremely, extremely disappointed with this incident.”
Later in the plenary, Nigeria’s climate envoy Nkiruka Maduekwe said she “lent [her] voice to India”, adding that “we have a right as countries to choose if we are going to take this or not – and I am saying that we do not accept this.”
“It is 3am and we are going to clap our hands and say this is what we are going to do – I don’t think so,” she finished. “Your statement will be reflected in the report,” replied Babayev.
Despite the objections of two nations representing a fifth of the world’s population, the deal appeared to have been done. Joanna Depledge, who researches climate talks at Cambridge University, said that “once a decision has been gavelled through, it would be a really big thing for it to be overturned”.
(Reporting by Joe Lo and Mariel Lozada; editing by Megan Rowling)
The post COP29: Five most dramatic moments from the UN climate summit in Baku appeared first on Climate Home News.
COP29: Five most dramatic moments from the UN climate summit in Baku
Governments at the COP17 nature summit in Armenia agreed on Saturday to scale up their policies to protect the planet’s shrinking biodiversity, and for the first time invited large emerging economies like China and Gulf states to take on donor responsibilities to help fund those efforts.
For the past two weeks, countries held talks in Yerevan under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity to outline a plan to ramp up currently “insufficient” policies to conserve land and marine ecosystems. A recent UN progress report found the world is off track to meet 22 out of 23 global targets aimed at reversing species loss and protecting 30% of land and seas by 2030.
While a response plan, called the “Global Review of Collective Progress”, was expected to be the main outcome of COP17, negotiations struggled to advance amid a deadlock over the controversial subject of how to finance the boost in conservation measures needed.
After an all-night session on Friday, delegates agreed to invite developing countries to voluntarily signal their interest in assuming donor funding obligations alongside developed nations. Negotiators repeatedly warned that any stronger provisions on expanding the donor base would collapse the deal.
COP president: Results beat expectations
An exhausted COP17 president Hambardzum Matevosyan, Armenia’s environment minister, told journalists in the early hours of Saturday that “we’ve achieved more than we could’ve expected” given the “importance” of the decisions being taken.
“It was 100% possible that those items did not made it through. 100% possible,” he said, adding that the conference had made progress on “all the most important items”.
Speaking at the closing plenary, the group of Pacific Islands said that, while the summit had achieved “great outcomes”, delegates are also departing Yerevan “with realities not reflected in the official text”, such as the low replenishment of the Global Environment Facility (GEF), a key funder of nature projects.
-
Lula’s election win in Brazil raises hopes for zero deforestation drive
Lula’s re-election makes it more likely Brazil can meet a key goal to end forest loss in the Amazon and builds confidence in a new fund to protect the world’s rainforests, experts say
Some observers also said the deal did not go far enough. Steven Guilbeault, a former Canadian environment minister who helped broker the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), said the Yerevan package of action is “an important step forward”, but still “falls short of what is needed to meet our 2030 commitments”.
An Lambrechts, biodiversity politics expert at Greenpeace International, said COP17 had kept things moving forward and set well-intentioned promises, but added that these “won’t remove major roadblocks to implementation” such as insufficient finance and debt constraints in developing countries.
WWF chief conservation officer Daudi Sumba noted that financial issues were not fully resolved. Despite the deal in Yerevan, “I fear finance will remain the key issue that continues to haunt the UN biodiversity summits,” he said in a statement.
‘Yerevan Pathway’ tackles nature plans and subsidies
In the lead-up to the summit, the UN assessment report showed countries are falling short on virtually all targets in the GBF, the 2022 global deal often referred to as the ‘Paris Agreement for nature’.
They include a landmark target to protect at least 30% of the planet’s land and sea by 2030. If countries all stick to their current national goals, about 26% of land would be protected and only about 12% of marine ecosystems would be under conservation measures.
The main COP17 decision – named the Yerevan Pathway by the presidency – calls for countries to revise their biodiversity plans, subject to available funding, with a particular focus on addressing the gap in coverage of “marine, coastal and inland water ecosystems”.
It also urges the over 60 countries who have not submitted a biodiversity plan yet to finalise them “as soon as possible” and taking into account the gaps identified by the UN progress report.
Countries also agreed to tackle the drivers of biodiversity loss by “accelerating” the reduction of subsidies for activities that damage nature. Subsidy reform, covered by Target 18 of the GBF, is where countries have made the least progress so far, according to the assessment report.
Jill Hepp, director of nature and marine policy and incentives at green group Conservation International, said singling out subsidies in the Yerevan Pathway “gives a strong signal” that closing the gap for biodiversity action requires “more urgent efforts to reform harmful incentives and scale up positive incentives”.
“Timid” steps to expand base of donors
Having failed to meet a target to channel $20 billion for biodiversity conservation by 2025 and faced with shrinking aid budgets, the EU pushed a proposal to expand the list of which countries count as donors, so that wealthy emerging economies like China and Saudi Arabia could also voluntarily contribute. The group of Arab nations strongly opposed this.
During the talks, Irish minister of state for nature, Christopher O’Sullivan, whose country holds the EU presidency, said the bloc wanted the world’s “new realities” to be reflected in the donor list.
Negotiations remained gridlocked for most of the two-week talks, until a last-day compromise was struck to invite developing countries that may want donor status “to indicate to the [Convention on Biological Diversity] secretariat their interest in being included in the corresponding list”.
Countries also asked the secretariat to send an invitation to emerging economies wanting donor status at each subsequent COP, and requested a technical report on “the implications of inclusion in the list” for emerging economies.
Swiss lead negotiator Gabriela Blatter said during one of the sessions that her country had expected greater steps towards expanding the base of contributing countries, but added that “if we’re mutually unhappy, it’s probably the closest we can get on these very delicate political compromises”. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, also noted their dissatisfaction but said it had expected “a lot less”.
The fragile deal was approved in a package of decisions together with the Global Review, after some delegations including Brazil and China appealed to the plenary not to make further changes to the text at the risk of collapsing the whole agreement.
In a statement delivered to the closing plenary, the EU said the finance outcome had delivered “timid” progress towards fully broadening the base of donors.
Cali Fund still not operational
Adopted two years ago at COP16, the Cali Fund was seen by some observers as a way to channel private-sector finance into biodiversity conservation, as governments struggle to find public funds. But it is still struggling to get up on its feet.
The fund allows big corporations to access certificates for the use of genetic material found in biodiversity in return for a financial contribution, which experts estimate has the potential to raise up to $6.9bn for biodiversity. While voluntary, companies are encouraged to pay 1% of their profits or 0.1% of revenue into the fund.
But since its creation, the fund has received little more than $10,000, which Guilbeault argued is because the rules for disbursements to local communities and the operation of the fund had yet to be fleshed out. This was due to happen at COP17.
Yet, while the final decision on the fund laid out some of the rules – including how companies can earn “Cali Fund certificates” – some key technical details were left to the next COP in 2028 in Ecuador. This includes the issue of whether companies can pay a lower rate if they use genetic data for only a small portion of their products.
“By punting essential decisions to two years from now, parties have all but ensured the fund remains empty until then,” said Pakhi Das, a public policy advisor at NGO Plant-for-the-Planet.
The post COP17 delivers fragile deal to boost conservation and funding for nature appeared first on Climate Home News.
COP17 delivers fragile deal to boost conservation and funding for nature
SYDNEY, Thursday 30 October 2026 — In response to reports that the Albanese government is set to introduce draft legislation this year that would seek to ban data centres in Australia’s suburbs, Joe Rafalowicz, Head of Climate and Energy at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said:
“These reports are a testament to the growing community opposition to these completely inappropriate AI factories that have sprung up across our suburbs, and Big Tech corporations should take heed — the data centre build-out must not happen without the endorsement of the Australian people.
“But the government can’t simply ship this problem out to regional Australia without addressing the fundamental issues with this extractive new industry.
“We’re already seeing a trend of AI data centre proposals moving to the regions, in areas that are more water-scarce, more environmentally sensitive, and next to sources of fracked and coal seam gas to support their massive BYO gas-fired power plans — a pattern we’ve seen play out in the United States.
“From the Beetaloo Basin in the NT to the Western Downs in Qld, we’re seeing a wave of AI data centre proposals that would see new gas fast-tracked to support their massive energy demand, and threaten to completely derail Australia’s energy transition.
“Just as suburban Australians are asking, “what for?”, regional communities like Berry Springs and Dalby do not want dirty data centres setting up shop with absolutely no benefit to their communities. Greenpeace is calling for a moratorium on AI data centre developments until strict and enforceable safeguards are in place to protect our climate and our communities.”
-ENDS-
Media contact
Kate O’Callaghan on +61 406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
AI data centre ban in suburbs would not address fundamental issues: Greenpeace
In the thick of the COP29 climate summit in Azerbaijan in 2024, the UN climate talks were rattled by what can only be described as a major PR disaster. The BBC, Reuters and The Guardian all carried headlines, attributed to leading climate policy experts, that the COPs were “no longer fit for purpose”.
The articles outlined a series of reforms called for in an open letter signed by 22 eminent scientists and politicians, including a former UN secretary-general and previous UN climate chief, with a further 150 lending their support. The headlines shook confidence in the COP process, just as governments were wrestling over a new climate finance goal.
The Club of Rome – which handled the media relations for the letter – hurried to say that its “constructive, supportive ideas” had been “misinterpreted”. Negotiators kept calm(ish) and carried on, in the end landing the finance goal after some high-stakes drama on the final day.
-
Early speakers’ list suggests few powerful leaders will attend COP31
Just 77 heads of state or government are scheduled to address the COP31 climate summit in Antalya, a third less than the COP28 peak
