As I sit here, waiting to depart Baku, I am distraught, exhausted, disappointed, concerned, and ready to get the heck out of here.
I usually don’t say that when traveling to foreign countries. While Baku (and Azerbaijan) is beautiful, the people are kind, and I am going next to another neighboring country for some respite, I don’t know what to say to folks back home.

I have to begin by naming: This COP was an outright failure. What could and should have been an opportunity for transformative climate finance, re-committing to goals and pledges, and a step towards a just transition, ended up being yet another playground for oil tycoons and a chance for Global North countries to show just how much they don’t care about the rest of the world. We just condemned the world to burn.
That sounds bleak, but frankly, it is bleak.
We could have set new goals on climate finance, and we did not. I stayed up until 2 am my last night, both because i have been coughing for over a week due to the air quality, pollution, and exhaustion that has triggered my environmentally-sensitive bronchitis, and also because negotiations, or what one could attempt to call negotiations, went through the night, finally concluding around 6 am. Environmental defenders, folks standing for justice, and negotiators sat in empty hallways and plenary rooms in the Olympic Stadium that COP29 was hosted, dropping like flies as the night went on. Indigenous representation dwindled to 3 people, two of whom I know. Representation of other marginalized communities stood strong, albeit sparse in numbers, as water stations were taken away, food was cleaned up and carted off, and yet, no final draft text or decision was to be had until the wee hours of the morning. One could say that the negotiations were taking policing strategies of getting people exhausted, hungry, and overworked to the point that they would agree to anything as long as it got them out of there in some sort of timely order.
But the time for timeliness has come and gone, and this COP was a prime example of this. I am still struggling to find the words as all I know is that we have shirked our responsibility to the Global South and to our communities at home and abroad, and locked ourselves into a decade of inaction.

In the best way I can describe it, from a non-climate finance background — developing countries have consistently emphasized the need for trillions in necessary climate finance, primarily through grants-based funding. Instead, entities like the U.S. and the European Union countries, have again pledged (not guaranteed) billions. The forced agreement (which most developing countries did not agree to), projects that in ten years’ time, developing countries will receive $300 Billion per year, which, today, equates to roughly $175 billion. This is mere pennies more than the aforementioned commitment of $100 Billion per year. This means that developed countries have no hope of being able to address the ongoing climate crisis, compounded by debt and financial exhaustion, and that the world has no hope of keeping 1.5 degrees within sight. We have blown past that goal, even being asked to consider 2.5 or more degrees of global annual temperature increase. This is sure death for over half of life on earth.
I don’t know how else to say it, other than how could we have let this happen?

How could we go through 29 Conferences of the Parties and still be at this point? How can we continue, year after year, to expect that the entire globe will bankrupt themselves, breathe poisoned air, eat poisoned food, drink poisoned water, and still contribute equally to climate finance? I am outraged, and I am not the only one.
We (the United States, for primary example) expect that if we are to give out climate finance, it will be in the form of loans and voluntary contributions, which continues to line our government’s pockets and other wealthy individuals and entities that could care less about clean air and water. Not to mention justice of any kind. We have effectively written into law that we will never accept accountability or take the lead to righting wrongs or accepting our fair share of responsibility. This outcome, or lack thereof, makes a mockery of previous commitments, the Paris Agreement, and clearly tells disaster-prone communities that their fate is signed and sealed, and it won’t cost us a dime.


At this COP, my fourth, we were faced with a chance to take a stand for the future of the world, and make an active choice to be on the right side of history. And it didn’t happen. We prioritized capital gain, ongoing colonialism, cognitive dissonance, and a blatant disregard for life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. These things clearly come second to the amassing of wealth and perceptions of power. We failed.

And yet, those of us that work on the ground, in community, in service of collective liberation and reparation, can and must forge ahead. We didn’t have the option before the last two weeks, and we certainly don’t now. It is not an option for us to give up this fight, because the world and its future hang in the balance. I am livid. I am sad. I am invigorated. I will continue this, with any and every tactic that I must. And so it is.
Analyah is a Climate Generation Window Into COP delegate for COP29. To learn more, we encourage you to meet the full delegation, support our delegates, and subscribe to the Window Into COP digest.

Analyah Schlaeger dos Santos is a young Afro-Brazilian-American woman born and raised in North Minneapolis, Minnesota. After living in Atlanta, Georgia, she moved back to Minneapolis in 2015 to study Global Relations and Environmental Justice at the University of Minnesota and the Higher Education Consortium for Urban Affairs. She has been an aquatic guide to all ages for 12 years and counting and loves to infuse environmental wellness into her frameworks.
She is currently the International Campaign lead at MN Interfaith Power & Light, and serves on the board of multiple local organizations.
The post Final Thoughts on COP29 appeared first on Climate Generation.
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
