By Daniela Belinschi
The war against climate change is undeniably stringent and demanding. However, for many countries in the Global South, the stakes are twofold: fighting the destructive impact of the climate crisis and managing the challenges that renouncing fossil fuels poses to their economies. COP29 sought to tackle this issue, but is it enough to make a meaningful difference?
Climate-Related Reforms as a Two-Edged Sword
The transition away from fossil fuels is essential for combating climate change. Measures such as phasing out coal-fired power, oil, and gas production; ending public financing for fossil fuels; and reforming fossil fuel subsidies are key norms to implement in order to attain climate goals. But this sword has two edges: while these norms are indispensable for achieving climate goals, such as those set in the Paris Agreement, they also raise important equity and justice issues.
The phasing out of coal-fired power has been a significant focus, as coal is the most emissions-intensive fossil fuel. However, many countries in the Global South rely heavily on fossil fuels, which are indispensable for their economies and emerging industries. As such, imposing rapid phase-outs without providing adequate support could exacerbate inequalities and hinder their development. Moreover, considering that their contribution to historical emissions is minimal compared to that of the Global North, the climate justice discourse becomes a question of (in)justice even more.
Another challenge concerns the financing of the transition, as developing countries often lack the resources to invest in renewable energy infrastructure. Additionally, many marginalised communities are heavily dependent on fossil fuel subsidies for their very existence. Ending fossil fuel subsidies in developing countries, where such subsidies often provide vital energy access to low-income populations, once again prompts issues of equity. Removing such subsidies could disproportionately impact rural households that lack access to alternative energy sources.
As such, for developing countries, the fight against climate change also involves the struggle to maintain their industries and advance economically, as relying on coal and gas is no longer a viable option. In addition, the social externalities arising from this transition must be addressed. The lack of alternative energy sources and insufficient funds to invest in such alternatives exacerbate the hurdle.
Therefore, anti-fossil fuel norms must account for social, economic, and environmental dimensions altogether. Phasing out coal should be synchronised with efforts to reduce oil and gas dependence, alongside financial and technical support for affected communities.
Did COP29 Deliver on Just Transition?
At COP29, developed nations pledged $300 billion annually by 2035, part of a broader goal to reach $1.3 trillion in climate financing. This commitment is seen as a major step in addressing the global climate crisis. The figure represents a significant increase from previous pledges, such as the $100 billion per year promised in 2009.
While some hailed the deal as a step forward, others, particularly representatives from vulnerable countries, criticised it as inadequate. Field-related activists also expressed their concerns, bringing several aspects to the forefront. First, it is argued that the agreed-upon climate finance target of $300 billion will not be disbursed for another decade. Additionally, the deal fails to establish clear goals for funding adaptation or addressing the loss and damage caused by climate disasters.
These shortcomings highlight the failure to deliver meaningful support to the world’s most vulnerable communities, who continue to bear the brunt of the crisis. Additionally, civil society groups, like the Alliance of Small Island States and Oxfam International, referred to this allocation as "insulting" and insufficient, arguing that it would not facilitate the transition to low-carbon economies, potentially hindering efforts to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, as set in the Paris Agreement.
Despite calls for more substantial financing, including figures as high as $5 trillion to $7 trillion annually, wealthy countries argue that mobilising such vast amounts of public money is not feasible due to their own economic challenges, including inflation, wars, and the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. The negotiations are complicated further by disagreements over the inclusion of a commitment to transition away from fossil fuels, with countries like Saudi Arabia pushing to remove such provisions.
A Step Forward or Standing Still?
Although the commitments made at COP29 and its predecessors are appreciable and strive—at least declaratively—towards addressing climate change issues, while partially giving consideration to the issue of climate justice, the real question remains whether these commitments will be implemented effectively and deliver the promised results. At COP29, developing nations sought $1.3 trillion annually by 2035 for renewable energy and climate resilience, but only $300 billion was pledged, leaving critical mechanisms like the loss and damage fund severely underfunded.
At the same time, China continues to classify itself as a "developing nation," offering only voluntary contributions; the U.S. is barely present, and India abstained from meaningful participation. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia resisted the reaffirmation of the transition away from fossil fuels.
Thus, without substantial financial commitments and unified global action, these summits risk being reduced to symbolic gestures. The critical question is whether the world can move beyond declarations and implement the transformative changes needed to address the growing climate crisis effectively.
Sources: CARE Climate Justice Center (CJC), Correspondent, Environment Institute, Global Landscape Forum, Guardian, Paris Agreement, Reuters, Statista, Stockholm, United Nations Climate Change
Written by Daniela Belinschi
Edited by Roos Hoogesteger and Karla Kohlhaas
Kommentarer