The United Nations (U.N.) negotiations, also known as the Conference of Parties (COP), have the potential to address the issue of climate change, but there are limitations to what they can achieve. The recent U.N. climate summit in Baku, Azerbaijan, which concluded on Sunday, left many developing countries and climate activists dissatisfied.
Their expectations were high as they arrived at the summit on November 11, hoping that developed nations would agree to increase their annual contribution of $1.3 trillion to support developing countries in transitioning to cleaner energy sources and adapting to extreme weather conditions caused by a warming planet. However, the final agreement fell short of their demands and was deemed a “muddle.”
After intense negotiations that lasted through the night, wealthy nations agreed to provide $300 billion per year by 2035, which is an increase from current levels but still far from what developing countries had asked for. The deal also set an aspirational target of $1.3 trillion per year, but this would depend on private sector funding and left many unresolved issues for future discussions.
The outcome of the summit was met with disappointment, with one delegate from Nigeria calling it “a joke.” Tina Stege, climate envoy for the Marshall Islands, expressed a slightly more positive view, stating that while it is not enough, it is a start. She reminded countries of the purpose of the summit, which is to save lives.
Some commentators argued that the funding agreement was the best that could be achieved, considering the impending withdrawal of the United States from global climate agreements and the ongoing geopolitical turmoil in Europe. However, the general sentiment was one of disappointment.
As a reporter who has covered six U.N. climate summits since 2017, I have observed that they often end with attendees feeling ambivalent or even angry. Governments struggle to reach a consensus on how to effectively combat global warming, and the final compromise often involves watering down language and making vague promises to do better in the future. This pattern has become all too familiar.
We are currently experiencing difficulties in retrieving the article content. Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings. Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode, please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for full access to The Times.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access. Already a subscriber? Log in. Want full access to The Times? Subscribe now.