Opinion: Baku's appointment with destiny on climate action

As the sun sets over the Caspian Sea, the world turns its gaze to the Azerbaijani capital for the United Nations (UN) Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP29). This year, Baku isn't just a geographical meeting point; it's a symbolic crossroads where nations must decide our planet's future. At the same time, Azerbaijan finds itself at the intersection of traditional energy systems and climate imperatives. While slow progress in the transition away from fossil fuels is due to increased energy demand from a growing economy and population, the importance of COP29 cannot be overstated - it is a destiny date for climate action.

The choice of Baku to host COP29 is a statement in itself, but it is also controversial. On the one hand, Azerbaijan, located at the crossroads of Europe and Asia, embodies the bridge between developed and developing countries. But critics say Azerbaijan's status as an authoritarian "petro-state" with a questionable human rights record makes it an unlikely host. Azerbaijan's economy is built on fossil fuels, with oil and gas exports from the state oil company SOCAR accounting for almost 90% of the country's exports. SOCAR is now a major source of income for the government of President Ilham Aliyev. However, Azerbaijan must also do its fair share to achieve a rapid and fair phase-out of fossil fuels, even if the country can be considered the cradle of the hydrocarbon industry.

Meanwhile, Baku has played a crucial role in strengthening the European Union's energy security, as Azerbaijan has supplied Europe with transit gas. Although Azerbaijan cannot fully replace Russian energy supplies in the foreseeable future, as it now accounts for less than three per cent of total EU gas exports, it has already significantly increased gas exports to the EU and has promised more in the future. Baku says it could replace Russian gas transiting through Ukraine by the end of 2024. This resource remains a cornerstone of today's energy landscape, as alternatives to fossil fuels have yet to fully meet global demand.

Nevertheless, this year's meeting is crucial. COP29 comes at a critical juncture in the global climate debate. The window of opportunity to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels is closing fast. Despite previous commitments, global emissions continue to rise, and the impacts of climate change are becoming increasingly tangible - from unprecedented wildfires to devastating floods. The challenge at this year's COP will be to reach an agreement on finance to keep climate negotiations on track.

One of the key issues being discussed at COP29 is the implementation of more aggressive Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). Countries are being asked to submit updated plans that reflect the urgency of the climate crisis. There is also a strong focus on climate finance, particularly the unmet commitment of $100 billion per year from developed countries to support adaptation and mitigation efforts in developing countries. Negotiations are focusing on increasing the current climate fund from $100 billion a year to possibly $1 trillion, although Western countries are reluctant to commit.

Another pressing issue is the further development of loss and damage mechanisms. Vulnerable countries are calling for concrete financial support to deal with the irreversible impacts of climate change - impacts they have often done the least to cause. In this context, COP29 must agree to fully finance the Loss and Damage (L&D) Fund established at COP27 in Egypt. While initial resources were pledged at COP28 in Dubai and the World Bank has established the institutional framework for the fund, ensuring that it is fully funded to fulfil its mandate would be an important milestone.

COP29 should also strengthen the global commitment to phase out fossil fuels. According to the IMF, fossil fuel subsidies reached a staggering $7 trillion in 2022, or $13 million every minute - far more than the $2.4 trillion needed annually to meet global climate goals. Shifting even half of these subsidies to climate finance would raise $3.5 trillion, far more than is currently pledged.

COP29 is crucial to turning promises into action. The Paris Agreement laid the groundwork, but without rigorous implementation and accountability, it risks becoming a well-intentioned but ineffective document. The conference is an opportunity for countries to move beyond rhetoric and establish binding commitments, robust monitoring mechanisms and transparent reporting.

However, on 6 November 2024, COP29 was hit by a major new political obstacle: the election of Donald J. Trump as president-elect of the United States. The climate sceptic Republican has promised to pull the country out of the Paris Agreement again, as he did in 2017 - the US rejoined in 2021 under Joe Biden. During his first term, Trump rolled back dozens of environmental regulations. Trump wants to slow down the energy transition and massively increase fossil fuel production again. Without the US, developed countries are likely to find targets on climate finance harder to meet. This will increase pressure on Europe and China to lead international progress on limiting global warming.

A delayed road to COP30

While COP29 addresses many critical issues, some of the most contentious debates have been deferred to COP30 in Brazil. Chief among these is the global carbon market mechanism outlined in Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. The complexity of establishing a fair and effective carbon trading system has led negotiators to postpone the discussion in the hope that more time will lead to consensus.

In addition, the debate on deforestation, particularly in the Amazon Basin, has been scheduled for greater discussion in Brazil. This shift is strategic, allowing the host country Brazil - home to a significant proportion of the world's rainforests - to lead the conversation on preserving these critical carbon sinks. The success of these talks will determine the global commitment to reducing deforestation and tackling climate change.

The delayed talks are not without controversy. Critics argue that postponing decisions on carbon markets and deforestation undermines the urgency needed to address these issues. The lack of consensus on Article 6 is holding back potential investment in renewable energy projects and hampering international cooperation.

In addition, deforestation remains a glaring problem. Forests are essential for carbon sequestration and their destruction accelerates climate change. It is hoped that hosting COP30 in Brazil will galvanise action, but the postponement raises concerns about the immediacy with which these issues will be addressed.

As COP29 unfolds, the world is watching with bated breath. Baku has the opportunity to cement its place in history as a turning point where nations chose cooperation over complacency. Participants must remember that in the face of escalating climate emergencies, incremental progress is no longer enough. The time has come for bold commitments, innovative solutions and unwavering political will.

Source: Maximiliaan van Lange is the Deputy Director of LINKS Europe and a Senior Research Associate and Editor of commonspace.eu.
Photo: A worker walks past the COP29 sign ahead of the COP29 United Nations climate change conference in Baku, Azerbaijan. Getty Images

The views expressed in opinion pieces and commentaries do not necessarily reflect the position of commonspace.eu or its partners

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Editor's choice
News
UN Security Council Presidential Statement on the Role of Diplomacy during Active Hostilities

UN Security Council Presidential Statement on the Role of Diplomacy during Active Hostilities

The United Nations Security Council is today expected to adopt a presidential statement on the role of diplomacy during active hostilities. The draft text, which was authored by Pakistan, underscores the importance of maintaining diplomatic engagement even after the outbreak of armed conflict, with a view to containing escalation, facilitating cessations of hostilities and ceasefires, and creating conditions conducive to peaceful political settlements. Resolution 2788 of 22 July 2025, which was initiated by Pakistan, reaffirmed the Council’s commitment to the peaceful settlement of disputes under Chapter VI of the UN Charter. A year later, on 23 July, the Council convened an open debate to review the resolution’s implementation and examine ways of making more effective use of the peaceful dispute settlement tools available under Chapter VI.   The draft presidential statement builds on previous Council products, such as resolution 2788, but it is the first to focus specifically on the role of diplomacy in containing and de-escalating active hostilities. Since the open debate in July, Council members have continued to call for intensified efforts towards de-escalation and dialogue, although differences persist over how proactively the Council should promote mediation and other peaceful means of dispute settlement, particularly in situations where the consent of the parties is contested. In his statement opening the general debate of the 81st session of the General Assembly on 22 September, Secretary-General António Guterres highlighted the devastating consequences of ongoing conflicts in Ukraine, Sudan, and the Middle East, warning that these and other crises illustrate what happens when “force outpaces diplomacy” and stressing the urgency of sustained diplomatic engagement. The negotiations on the draft presidential statement do not appear to have been particularly contentious, although Council members expressed differing views on some elements of the text. Pakistan circulated the initial draft to Council members on 14 October. Following informal consultations with Council members to address comments on the initial draft, Pakistan circulated a first revised draft on 23 October, incorporating several proposed amendments. On 29 October, Pakistan circulated a second revised draft, which it placed under silence procedure until the following day (30 October). After the US broke silence, a third revised draft was circulated on 3 November and placed under silence procedure until this morning (4 November). The draft subsequently passed silence. The agreed presidential statement emphasises the importance of maintaining direct and indirect channels of communication between parties to armed conflict to reduce the risk of miscalculation and create opportunities for sustained political engagement. (click image to read more)

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)