Editor’s note: We are filing an abbreviated issue this week, as many of our American readers will be celebrating Thanksgiving on Thursday.  If you are one of them, we hope that you have a terrific holiday with friends and family.

By Ryan Boyle

We are prone to animal analogies when describing disorderly situations: like herding cats, like a barrel full of monkeys, like a dog’s breakfast.  Those visuals are downright orderly compared to the complexity of managing climate risk internationally.  The most recent Conference of the Parties (COP) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change had its 29^th gathering last week.  There was tension throughout its two week run, which ended chaotically.

An odd tone characterized “COP29” from the moment a site was selected.  The meeting was held in Baku, Azerbaijan—a state that relies on petroleum for 30% of its gross domestic product and 90% of its exports.  Azerbaijan’s president greeted the audience with a speech describing oil and gas as “gifts of God,” not typical language of a conference meant to reduce emissions. 

Part of the meeting was devoted to developing a climate trading scheme, in which countries and companies can set a price on emissions.  At best, these payments place a cost on pollution and reward those who emit less, though measuring and managing emissions can be difficult.

While those markets spin up, developing nations need more sizable and proximate funding to support their preparations for catastrophic climate events.  Emerging and frontier nations are generally too small to pollute significantly but are left bearing the greatest climate risks. The COP estimates that investments of $1.3 trillion per year will be needed to help poorer nations mitigate climate risks.  Negotiations over this issue carried on more than a day beyond the planned termination of the proceedings.  In the end, developed nations committed to $300 billion per year of support to poorer nations by 2035.  The agreement supplants a 2009 agreement to provide $100 billion per year by 2020, which rich nations struggled to honor. The larger target will be at the mercy of individual nations’ budgets for foreign aid, which are constrained and politically challenging.

Opinions on the outcome of COP29 differ.  The UN Climate Change Executive Secretary lauded the agreement as “an insurance policy for humanity.” The delegation from India decried a “stage-managed” deal yielding a “paltry sum.” For nations at risk, a bird in the hand is better than nothing.

These agreements take force in the shadow of a shift away from global coordination, most clearly seen in the U.S. election.  President Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement in his first term and is certain to do so again.  The leopard will not change his spots, as Trump campaigned on deregulation of the energy sector and more oil drilling.  Voluntary international climate agreements are about to lose a major participant.

The workhorses at the negotiating table emerged from the lion’s den with some progress made.  But complete global support for climate mitigation remains a unicorn.