On November 12, as the esteemed host of the 2024 UN Climate Change Conference, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev extended his warm welcome to the 200 countries gathered to negotiate bilateral solutions to urgent climate change concerns. He kicked off the conference by uttering what would stand as the most shunned statement over the next two weeks of dialogue: oil and gas are “gifts of God.” His remark cast a shadow over the proceedings and set a grim tone for a conference primarily held to mitigate the negative effects of excessive oil and gas production.
The 29th installment of the Conference of Parties (COP29), like all prior, was an annual meeting of world diplomats to assess goals to mitigate pressing climate change concerns and negotiate terms on environmental deals. Previous negotiations at COP have resulted in landmark decisions like the Paris Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol and the Copenhagen Accords. However, this year’s conference stood out for two reasons. First, the host country’s stance directly clashes with the overarching goals of the event, similar to last year’s conference in Dubai. Second, the delegates faced a formidable challenge to tackle by the close of the two weeks — the monumental question of “climate financing,” or how countries can fund endeavors into mitigating and adapting to climate change.
With such daunting issues on the table, it’s no shock that numerous world leaders left COP29 disappointed, with a vast majority of this blame directed at the Azerbaijani presidency.
The Irony in a Petrostate Host
Criticism of COP29 was twofold: first, it targeted Azerbaijan’s controversial role as host given it is a petrostate, and, second, it focused on the increasingly fragile COP framework that allowed such a host in the first place. Azerbaijan is the third petrostate in a row to host the conference, following Egypt and the UAE. However, unlike its predecessors, Azerbaijan’s oil exports contribute a modest 1% to the global market. Domestically, though, fossil fuels are the lifeblood of its economy. Oil and gas production accounts for nearly half of the country’s GDP and over 90% of its exports. Azerbaijan has consistently defended resource-rich nations, arguing that responsibility for climate action should fall on the biggest consumers — like the U.S. and China, which together account for more than a third of global oil consumption — rather than solely on producers.
Nevertheless, Western countries have spent recent years urging Azerbaijan to embrace renewable energy, citing its enormous potential for diversification. The Azerbaijani Ministry of Energy estimates that Azeri wind energy alone could generate 2.4 terawatt-hour (TWh) annually, saving roughly 1 million tons of conventional fuel production. Despite this potential, the country — and the broader Central Asia and Caucasus region — has been slow to transition. Fossil fuel infrastructure continues to expand far faster than renewable capacity, and leading up to COP29, Azerbaijan’s renewable energy development appeared stalled. Aside from projects slated for completion by 2027, the nation showed no significant wind or solar initiatives in progress. Without concrete plans or pipeline projects to back the promise, many see this as emblematic of a broader lack of ambition in Azerbaijan’s green transition.
Hosting a COP conference does not inherently disqualify a petrostate from meaningful climate leadership. For instance, last year’s UAE-hosted COP28 marked a historic milestone: it was the first time in three decades that nations collectively agreed to phase down fossil fuel use. This achievement underscored that ambitious progress is still possible, even under the leadership of oil-dependent nations. However, the scrutiny that comes with such hosting may only serve as a temporary, surface-level motivator to appear committed to climate action. While the UAE made public commitments to transitioning away from fossil fuels, insider reports revealed that the conference also became a stage for private oil and gas deals, undermining its outward-facing ambition. Additionally, both Brazil and the UAE faced criticism this year for submitting new voluntary climate commitments that failed to address the phasing out of fossil fuels, raising concerns about the sincerity of their pledges. This year’s COP brought that fragility into sharp relief. Saudi Arabia, a major petrostate, refused to ratify any language that explicitly targeted fossil fuels, fracturing the unity achieved just a year prior. The discord raised questions about whether the progress seen under petrostate leadership can truly be sustained — or whether it is merely a veneer masking deeper contradictions.
Azerbaijan’s handling of COP29 also triggered exceptional frustration among diplomats. In one instance, member states accused Saudi Arabia of secretly editing official COP29 negotiation documents. The blame quickly shifted to Azerbaijan’s leadership, with accusations that they had “intentionally” granted editing access to the nation known for attempting to roll back last year’s fossil fuel reduction commitments. Meanwhile, tensions escalated when representatives of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) staged a walkout after the caucus dismissed their demands to set aside 30% of all negotiated funds for their own countries alone. Similarly, though not part of either group, Argentina’s negotiators withdrew from the conference entirely.
An Unfulfilling Final Deal
By the conference’s conclusion, critics focused their disappointment on the final deal itself, due to it falling short of the moment’s urgency.
The agreement pledged $300 billion annually by 2035 to fund climate action in developing countries — a figure three times the current target but still less than one-third of the $6 trillion the UN estimates is necessary each year. Beyond this, nations reaffirmed the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C (2.7°F) above pre industrial levels, as outlined in the 2015 Paris Agreement. Yet, 2024 is on track to be the hottest year in recorded history, with global temperatures already temporarily exceeding the 1.5°C threshold.
But perhaps the most troubling aspect of the financing framework is the choice to format financing as primarily loans, which has been deeply detrimental to developing nations over the past decade. Approximately 70% of all public climate finance consists of loans, many of which are non-concessional, meaning that they follow market interest rates and leave little wiggle-room for receiving countries to negotiate favorable deals. Low-income countries receive 64% of climate financing grants; however for some countries, loans constituted over 80% of the climate funding they received, adding to already unsustainable debt burdens.
In 2022, global public debt hit a record $92 trillion, with developing nations bearing the brunt. Private creditors hold a growing share of the debt, imposing sky-high interest rates. For context, African countries on average pay four times more for borrowing than the United States and eight times more than Europe’s wealthiest nations. The result is a vicious cycle: loans intended to fund climate action often worsen sovereign debt, leaving nations with little fiscal space to prioritize other critical needs. Efforts to address debt forgiveness at COP29 were largely sidelined, stifled by the fragility of broader negotiations. The UN has described this as a systemic failure, with nearly half of humanity — 3.3 billion people — living in countries where debt interest payments outweigh spending on health or education.
Perhaps the clearest case study of this harsh tradeoff is Pakistan. The country owes a staggering $100 billion to creditors like the Asian Development Bank, World Bank and IMF, as well as to wealthier nations such as China, Japan and the United States. In 2022, Pakistan experienced catastrophic flooding that caused over $30 billion in damages. The flooding took 17,000 lives and left over 30,000 homeless in 2023. Scientists found that while rainfall in the area is common, climate change caused 75% more water to fall during the monsoon. The paradox is devastating: Pakistan is responsible for less than 1% of global greenhouse gas emissions, yet it faces the mounting costs of climate disasters largely driven by emissions from wealthier nations. With every new disaster, the cycle deepens. Pakistan takes on more debt to rebuild from climate impacts the country itself did not cause, leaving it to bear the escalating financial burden of a crisis it had little hand in creating.
Many critics highlight this inability to confront these structural inequities at COP29 as what underscores the ever-widening gap between lofty climate pledges and the harsh realities faced by the most vulnerable nations.
Open Letter Calls for Reform
On November 15, 2024, over 20 climate leaders, including former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, published an open letter to the UN urging urgent COP process reforms. They called for streamlined decision-making, greater accountability and transparency in climate financing but emphasized two key demands.
First, they proposed stricter criteria for host nations, disqualifying countries unwilling to transition from fossil fuels or meet Paris Agreement goals and criticizing the trend of petrostates hosting recent COPs. Second, they highlighted the imbalance at COPs, with COP28 admitting 2,456 fossil fuel lobbyists — nearly four times more than COP27 — outnumbering scientific, indigenous and vulnerable nation representatives. They called for limits on corporate lobbying and a fairer platform for those most affected by climate change. The letter stressed the irony of those profiting from the crisis dominating discussions, urging reforms to restore balance and integrity. Reform, the leaders argued, is necessary to restore balance and integrity to the COP process.
The Less-Bleak
Despite the many frustrations stemming from this year’s conference in Azerbaijan, negotiators managed to rally around two key concrete successes.
Establishing a Global Carbon Market
Several longstanding discussions from previous COPs lingered unresolved, including debates over Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. This pivotal section outlines a framework for the trade of carbon credits, enabling countries to buy and sell emission limits. For example, if India wants to produce more carbon, but Suriname doesn’t need to produce much carbon, India would buy some of Suriname’s “limits” on carbon production off of them. The amount of total carbon allowed in the atmosphere remains the same as Suriname now produces less than their limit and India can produce more than their limit, by the same amount. Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), which are commitments made by countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, are what determine these limits. In essence, this section proposed a global carbon market mechanism — an innovative concept but one that has been mired in gridlock for years due to disagreements over the rules governing such trade. Remarkably, this year’s conference broke that impasse. On the very first day, delegates successfully finalized the framework, officially recognizing the creation of a global carbon market.
Transparency and Adaptation Reports
On transparency, 13 parties, including China, Russia, the US, the EU, and Azerbaijan themselves, submitted the first Biennial Transparency Reports. These reports are meant to record the data collection and cleaning process for each member state in order to ensure interpretability of data is easy. Additionally, convening countries established a robust review process to monitor the accuracy and consistency of these reports, reinforcing accountability across nations. This milestone coincided with the launch of the Enhanced Transparency Framework, which introduced a comprehensive set of tools, technical training, and support tailored for developing countries.
On the adaptation front, member states took significant steps to aid countries grappling with the severe impacts of climate change. A key achievement for LDCs was the establishment of support programs, such as additional committees and funding sources, to implement their National Adaptation Plans (NAPs). These plans, similar to NDCs, are meant to be written by and for developing countries to self-identify what they find to be the most pressing issues in their own countries. Importantly, an accelerated submission deadline for NAPs was set for 2025, signaling a renewed sense of urgency in addressing the adaptation needs of the world’s most vulnerable regions.
Critical Crossroads
COP29 will likely be remembered as a moment of profound frustration, yet there still exist numerous successes that establish this year as a flag of progress. While tangible gains signal incremental steps forward, the broader narrative underscores the persistent inadequacy of the global response to climate change.
In the face of rising challenges, COP29 serves as a stark reminder: the global community must act not only with greater ambition but also with unprecedented urgency, equity and accountability. Time is a luxury the planet no longer has.
Image Credits
Photo by Dean Calma, licensed under Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0). Source: link to original page.
The Gate 
Leave a comment