Advocating for Climate Justice Concerns at COP 29

by

Disasters and Climate Change

Special to United Methodist Insight | December 4, 2024

“We confess that the negative impacts resulting from the degradation of the natural world have fallen disproportionately on marginalized communities, including indigenous tribes, religious and ethnic communities, people living in poverty, and other vulnerable groups. We, therefore, pledge to resist all forms of environmental exploitation, neglect, and inequality…We oppose policies and practices that relegate marginalized communities to a permanent underclass status and ignore indigenous and other sources of communal wisdom, which call for air, land, and water to be treated with profound respect.”

--From “Community of All Creation” in the Revised United Methodist Social Principles

As United Methodists and as members of the coordinating committee of Fossil Free UMC, we take seriously these words from the Revised Social Principles that call us to stand in solidarity with those who are disproportionately harmed by damage to God’s creation, and to acknowledge indigenous wisdom and “other sources of communal wisdom” in calling for all parts of creation to be treated with “profound respect.” These words inform us as we consider the proceedings and outcome of COP 29 (UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties), the most recent international climate conference in Baku, Azerbaijan in November.

While the primary work of Fossil Free UMC is to promote the divestment from fossil fuels in the United Methodist Church, this focus is part of our larger concern for climate justice and the phaseout of fossil fuels for the sake of God’s creation. These concerns led us to identify with the climate-vulnerable developing nations in their demands to be heard at COP 29. Their demands were for “loss and damage” payments from the wealthy nations and for strong and binding climate action, including the phaseout of fossil fuels. They were disappointed by the outcome of the talks on both counts; and as allies, we were disappointed as well.

The integrity of the talks was marred by a leaked video of Elnur Soltanov, Deputy Minister of Energy of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the chief executive of Azerbaijan's COP29 host team, offering to facilitate fossil fuel deals ahead of the conference. This took place just one year after leaked documents revealed plans by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to strike oil and gas deals just before hosting COP28. These wrongdoings took place in the context of recent climate conferences that have been held in petrostates, that is, countries that are primarily dependent on the extraction and export of oil and gas.

No accord on calls for transitioning from fossil fuels

Recent COPs have also had more total delegates from the fossil fuel industry in attendance than delegations from any single country. It is no wonder that climate negotiations have gone on year after year without calling for a transition away from fossil fuels—until finally at COP 28.

At COP 28 in 2023, people hailed the landmark Global Stocktake Agreement, which calls for transitioning away from fossil fuels and aligning countries’ climate pledges with the agreed-upon target of keeping global temperature rise below 1.5°C. But in a setback, COP 29 parties couldn’t reach agreement on any references about transitioning away from fossil fuels; so, this topic was postponed until COP30 in Brazil.  

The talks featured conflicts between wealthy developed nations that have polluted the global atmospheric commons with greenhouse gas emissions, primarily from fossil fuels, and poorer developing nations that are experiencing the greatest harm from scorching heat waves, deadly droughts and fires, storms, floods, sea-level rise, and more. The impacts of such weather-related disasters cost developing nations hundreds of billions of dollars each year. These climate-vulnerable and indebted nations claim that high-income countries, responsible for the bulk of historical greenhouse gas emissions, owe trillions to the nations that are shouldering the costs. 

The conflict came to a head after talks had extended 19 hours over time, when the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and the bloc of Least Developing Countries staged a walkout. Both groups are made up of countries that are highly vulnerable to climate change, did little to cause it, and have few resources to cope with its impacts. The walkout alarmed delegates and observers, who entreated them to return to the talks.

In the end, the groups did return to prevent the talks from collapsing. They ultimately settled for a deal that has been called “woefully insufficient,” “utterly inadequate,” and “an insult to working people and the countries of the Global South.” Instead of guaranteeing payments by the wealthy countries, the final agreement approved mobilizing $300 billion annually in public and private funds by 2035. The agreement also acknowledged that $1.3 trillion is needed for developing nations; but it did not specify from where this money would come or who would pay it. Michai Robertson, finance negotiator for AOSIS, called the deal “unsatisfactory,” but said, “The best thing that came out of this is that they know we are a force to be reckoned with.”

Carbon market emissions offsets considered 'false solution'

Finally, the so-called solutions agreed upon at COP 29 primarily revolved around setting up a global carbon market to offset emissions. Most climate justice advocates refer to carbon markets, which trade in carbon credits and carbon offsets, decried by many as “false solutions.” There are several reasons why:

  1. They are not intended to limit or reduce emissions. They are offsets—that is, permits to pollute elsewhere.
  2. They can easily be gamed. The focus of much conversation in Baku was on how to prevent this.
  3. They often involve driving indigenous people off lands that they have been caretakers of for generations in order to set up a tree farm or other “green” project, despite clear evidence that lands fare better with indigenous stewardship.  The Indigenous Environmental Network (IEM) stands strongly opposed to carbon markets, stating:

As well as increased emissions, the legacy of carbon offsetting schemes so far has included conflict, corporate abuse, forced relocation, and threats of cultural genocide, particularly for Indigenous Peoples, smallholder farmers, forest dwellers, young people, women and people of colour. Carbon offsetting schemes are responsible for atrocities inflicted upon vulnerable populations around the world, and we reject them as a form of climate colonialism.

Because the powerful influence of fossil fuel interests are seen as clearly hindering progress on climate action, there are calls for fossil fuel representatives to be excluded from future climate delegations. There is also a movement calling on the government of Brazil to give Indigenous leaders a seat at the table as co-hosts of COP30 when it meets in Brazil in 2025.

At a meeting in Baku organized by civil society organizations during COP29, climate justice advocates pledged to maintain their efforts to attain climate justice. The organization 350.org wrote, “The conclusion of COP29 comes at the end of a record-breaking year for climate impacts, with rising temperatures, floods, hurricanes, droughts, and wildfires destroying communities and ecosystems worldwide. Every fraction of a degree matters, and we cannot delay action on climate any longer if we are to keep the hope of limiting the global temperature increase to 1.5°C alive.  As the world turns its attention to COP30 in Brazil, the message is clear: governments may stall, but people-powered solutions exist, and they are stronger than ever.”

The Rev. Sharon Delgado, a clergy member of the California-Nevada Annual Conference of The United Methodist Church, is the convener of Fossil Free UMC. She is author of The Cross in the Midst of Creation, Love in a Time of Climate Change, and Shaking the Gates of Hell. She blogs at sharondelgado.org.