A COP29 post-mortem: why there are reasons for optimism

Posted on: 5 March, 2025

While much of the reaction to COP29 has been of frustration at the slow rate of change, December’s conference wasn’t without cause for measured optimism.

The word ‘COP’ has come to invoke a mixture of anticipation and dread in environmental circles. Today, it’s hard to deny that United Nations’ annual Conference of the Parties (COP) is recognised as (if not more) a media circus where countries are focused on what they can get out of negotiations, rather than a platform for collaborative change.

In the wake of the previous event and its controversial hosting by the United Arab Emirates, the buildup to COP29 was decidedly heated. Azerbaijan once again proved to be a highly divisive choice of host (especially when the country’s president, Ilham Aliyev, referred to Azerbaijan’s fuel reserves as ‘a gift of the gods’), while the event’s coinciding with a significant change in presidency in America meant optimism ahead of the conference was at a major low.

Yet while the controversy around and resulting from COP29 is worthy of its own detailed response, with so much noise already circulating around the negatives from the event, there are some positives to reflect on.

We sat down with several of our academics working across the sustainability space to unpack their thoughts and reactions to the conference.

COP29: all about finance

Even before proceedings began in Baku on November 11, COP29 had already been dubbed ‘The Finance COP’, with a new climate financial goal top of the agenda.

There were hopes of increased funding for developing countries, and a replacement of the annual $100 billion dollar funding that developed countries failed to meet by the targeted date of 2020, in the form of the New Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance (NCQG).

A Climate Finance Action Fund (CFAF) was also part of the agenda, with the goal of drawing on voluntary contributions from fossil fuel-producing countries and companies to support climate projects in developing countries.

A compromise on what was actually needed?

One of the biggest takeaways from the event was an agreement from developed nations to mobilise at least $300 billion annually to support mitigation and adaptation, in the form of the NCQG. By 2035, it’s hoped this will reach at least $1.3 trillion.

This agreement was the result of two weeks of intense negotiations, yet the response was mixed. UN Secretary-General António Guterres viewed an agreement at COP29 to be essential, but admitted that he ‘had hoped for a more ambitious outcome – on both finance and mitigation – to meet the great challenge we face’.

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace also expressed disappointment, claiming the conference ‘missed the mark’, and ‘was focused on scale but not enough on the how and what of climate finance’, which as ”.

From the outset, there was a clear failure to come to a collective understanding and agreement that balanced both what was considered possible and what was deemed necessary with regards to funding. As Dr James Ritson – Senior Lecturer at UCEM – noted:

“A couple of things that came from the floor were the fact that some of the big players are not as financially equipped as they once were. There was no single country that could have taken the lead on this, or was willing to… the overhang of the financial crisis and then COVID-19 has had a really, really significant impact.”

“We’ve even seen big oil states starting to tighten their belts, in relative terms, so coming into these negotiations, there was a feeling in the room that people were tightening their belts, and nobody was willing to step up… the economic side of things is perhaps not as easy as people have been saying.”

In this context, then, it’s worth viewing the $300 billion proposal as a step in the right direction – even if it falls short of what was originally targeted.

“It’s very easy to confuse millions and billions, and lose sight of the fact that these are still significant figures that are being discussed,” Dr Ritson said.

“We’ve got to have a collective approach and funding has to come from somewhere, so I think this will be looked back as a step forward.”

Progress made on carbon trading

Another major breakthrough from COP29 was that an agreement was reached on carbon markets – something that has been attempted at several previous conferences and taken almost a decade to negotiate.

A carbon market is a trading system that allows the buying and selling of carbon credits, which themselves represent reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. These mechanisms are intended to ensure emissions reductions happen in the most economically efficient way by encouraging investment in more sustainable practices and generating funds for climate change mitigation work.

The intention is for these agreements to help countries accelerate the delivery of their climate plans and make faster progress in emissions reduction. However, while the agreement that was reached on carbon markets is positive news, it’s important that countries remain vigilant in how this trading system is utilised. As Dr James Ritson noted:

“Carbon trading is going to play a big part. The challenge, however, is whether it will be used for good.”

“Carbon markets can potentially be used like carbon offsetting has in the past – to get people out of trouble.”

COP29: a step in the right direction?

“Everyone was very disappointed with COP29,” Dr James Ritson stated, “but there was movement in the right direction.”

“COP is one of the few times we get all of the nations together to do something good… It’s important not just to be critical but to be positive – this is a journey we’ve all got to go on. These are small steps, but they will build up momentum.”

Plans are already underway for the next event, COP30, which is taking place in Belém, Brazil later this year. While the focus will likely continue to be on finances and funding, Dr Larsen questioned whether the collective consensus had shifted to a competitive mindset rather than one oriented towards action.

“It’s good that a meeting like this between nations is happening, but what’s missing is something to mobilise these things into practice.

“I suspect we already have a lot of the technology, a lot of the tools and processes we need to combat climate change and achieve sustainability. Maybe we don’t have the legislation, regulation or financial frameworks, but they can be created.

“What we don’t seem to have is the consensus to bring about the change that actually works as one for the planet, and not be competitive against each other.

“We need to break the current financial norms and create new, exciting opportunities for ‘climate’…. Valuing it differently, creating financial products that make sustainability profitable… reframing how sustainability works in conjunction with financial models. After all, we created all of these financial models, so we can create new ones as well.”

This is the first in a series of articles discussing topical sustainability concerns with input from our academics. There will be more to follow in the coming weeks.