As the COP29 summit wrapped up in Baku, Azerbaijan, it left a legacy marked by political dysfunction, inadequate commitments and the shadow of resurgent populism. Instead of serving as a beacon for global unity against the escalating climate crisis, the summit became a battleground of geopolitical rivalries, a showcase for populist climate denialism and a grim testament to the fragility of international cooperation.
This year’s conference arrived at a critical juncture, as the planet nears the 1.5°C threshold with alarming speed. The global climate crisis intensified in 2023-2024, marked by unprecedented droughts in East Africa and raging wildfires across southern Europe.
Asia in 2023 bore the brunt with 79 water-related disasters affecting millions. This year, India endured its longest-ever heat wave – with Churu in Rajasthan reaching 50.5°C – and saw 733 heat-related deaths as per one estimate.
Latin America faced accelerating deforestation in the Amazon and glacier retreat, while the Libyan floods alone inflicted $1.65 billion in damages.
While devastating climate disasters worldwide demanded urgent action at COP29, the summit’s limited outcomes highlighted the growing challenge of achieving meaningful climate progress amid increasing global political division.
Populism’s undermining of climate diplomacy
The re-election of Donald Trump on November 6 cast an immediate shadow over COP29. His administration’s climate scepticism and opposition to multilateralism threaten to unravel years of progress. Trump’s vow to withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement would mark the second such exit if followed through with, dealing a severe blow to global climate governance.
As the world’s second-largest emitter historically and a key player in climate negotiations, the US’s absence under Trump could embolden other leaders to deprioritise climate action.
Also read | COP29 Betrays Asia: Why it’s a Climate Pact Without Justice
Argentina’s abrupt exit, orchestrated by newly elected President Javier Milei, further underscored populism’s corrosive impact. Milei, who dismisses climate change as a “socialist lie”, pulled his delegation from the talks, undermining South America’s representation in discussions on climate finance and adaptation. His alignment with Trump suggests a growing bloc of populist leaders prioritising short-term economic gains over long-term environmental sustainability.
The momentum of climate scepticism gained troubling ground at COP29, exemplified by Hungary’s Viktor Orban’s vocal advocacy for fossil fuels. The conspicuous absence of key figures – Emmanuel Macron and Olaf Scholz consumed by domestic politics, along with Joe Biden and Ursula Von der Leyen’s non-attendance – created a significant leadership vacuum that undermined the summit’s gravitas.
This retreat of major powers reverberated through the negotiating halls, where developing nations, particularly from the Global South, voiced growing frustration over climate justice being sidelined.
The convergence of populism with fossil fuel industry interests has created a concerning dynamic, reinforcing a status quo that continues to favour wealthy nations while marginalising vulnerable populations impacted by climate change.
Geopolitical rivalries and their climate implications
COP29 also revealed how geopolitical tensions can obstruct climate cooperation. The strained relationship between Azerbaijan and France reached a boiling point when President Ilham Aliyev accused Paris of “colonial crimes”, prompting France’s climate minister to boycott the summit.
Selecting Baku as the COP29 venue presented a complex paradox. Azerbaijan, deriving significant wealth from oil and gas exports, seemed an unexpected choice to lead global climate discussions. The nation’s deep economic ties to fossil fuels and Aliyev’s emphatic support for oil and gas development – notably calling them a “gift from God” – appeared to stand in contrast to the summit’s core mission of accelerating the transition to clean energy.
Meanwhile, the intensifying rivalry between the US and China further complicated negotiations. Both nations, the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitters, prioritised national interests over collaborative efforts. The US demanded stronger commitments from China, while Beijing resisted, framing such demands as an attempt to undermine its status as a developing nation.
This impasse hindered progress on the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) for climate finance, with China urging developed nations to fulfil their financial obligations and the US pushing for contributions from emerging economies like China and India.
With developed nations failing to meet their $100 billion annual climate finance pledge and the NCQG falling short of expectations, developing countries feel increasingly sidelined. The inability to deliver on these promises risks exacerbating inequalities in climate action, leaving the most vulnerable nations to bear the brunt of a crisis they did little to create.
The implications extend beyond financial shortfalls. As trust erodes, the willingness of smaller nations to engage constructively in future summits diminishes.
Also read: Just $250B For Climate Finance Annually; ‘Watered-Down’ Amount ‘Disgrace’, Say Developing Nations
COP29’s modest gains amidst political turmoil
Despite the overwhelming challenges, COP29 witnessed a few glimmers of progress. Over 200 countries agreed to more than triple the amount of money available to help developing countries deal with rapidly rising temperatures, promising “at least” $300 billion per year in climate finance by 2035.
Asset owners worth $10 trillion committed to climate action at COP29, while multilateral development banks projected $170 billion in annual climate finance.
Leaders like Italy’s Giorgia Meloni and Turkey’s Recep Erdogan, despite their right-wing political leanings, emerged as unexpected climate advocates at COP29. Meloni advocated for a hybrid approach that includes nuclear power alongside renewables.
Erdogan’s agenda proved equally ambitious, with Turkey targeting net-zero emissions by 2053 and planning to quadruple its wind and solar energy capacity from 31,000 to 120,000 megawatts by 2035.
The UK also unveiled a comprehensive climate action plan, aiming to reduce emissions by 81% by 2035. Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s announcements, which include investments in offshore wind, carbon capture and nuclear energy, signalled continued leadership despite global setbacks.
However, these efforts pale in comparison to the scale of action required. The NCQG, described by many as “grossly inadequate,” fell far short of the over $1 trillion needed annually to combat climate change. Vulnerable nations, represented by the Alliance of Small Island States, expressed frustration, warning that the lack of ambitious financing threatens their very survival.
The path forward: salvaging climate diplomacy
The aftermath of COP29 underscores the urgent need for a recalibration of global climate governance. To restore faith in climate diplomacy, nations must prioritise accountability and inclusivity. Developed countries must honour their financial commitments, including the long-overdue loss-and-damage fund. Simultaneously, emerging economies like India must play a more constructive role, balancing their development needs with global climate responsibilities.
The role of middle powers and subnational actors will be crucial in filling the leadership void. Cities, states and private-sector players have already demonstrated their capacity to drive meaningful change, often surpassing national governments in ambition and execution. Harnessing these efforts can help bridge gaps left by geopolitical and populist disruptions.
As the world looks to COP30 in Brazil, the stakes have never been higher. The success of future summits will hinge on their ability to adapt to an era of rising populism and fragmentation. COP29 may be remembered as a low point, but it also serves as a clarion call for transformative change in how global leaders approach the climate crisis. The question now is whether nations will rise to the occasion – or let the window for action close permanently.
Ashraf Nehal is a South Asia analyst based out of London.
