COP29: Parties fail to deliver, but local governments push on
Champa Patel, Executive Director for Governments and Policy
Two weeks of deadlock, division and delay at COP29 leaves us with little to celebrate when it comes to the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) on how much climate finance is needed to support developing countries. In the end, the world agreed to US $300 billion a year with US $1.3 trillion to be mobilised by 2035, but that is completely inadequate to what is actually needed – which is at least US $1.3 trillion per year.
The goal also has numerous fudges – it isn’t clear how much will be provided by developed countries and how much is mobilised by a wider set of actors; we don’t know how much of this is for adaptation and loss and damage; and the thorny issues of whether some developing countries should contribute was parked with a nod that this could be done voluntarily.
That there is any number at all is a miracle given how many leading economies turned up with no figure to offer. Instead of putting transformational finance on the table now, they have just kicked the can down the road to COP30, hoping Brazil’s leadership can lift us out of the quagmire. And for developing countries, who are also expected to deliver ambitious NDCs (climate action plans) next February, it is hard to feel confident when it is not clear where the financing will come from.
The numbers may seem enormous but let’s not forget US $1.3 trillion is only 1% of global GDP. Against a backdrop of inflationary pressures, and many countries battling cost-of-living pressures at home, we saw a glut of misinformation saying that climate finance will come at the taxpayer’s cost. That’s not the case – through the ‘polluter pays’ principle, it is possible to raise substantially more climate finance. Whether through carbon pricing, diverting the trillions of dollars in fossil fuel subsidies, raising import taxes on fossil fuels, upping the prices of frequent flyers and introducing a shipping tax, there are plenty of ways to get to US $1.3 trillion a year.
There was some limited progress on other fronts. After nearly a decade of negotiations, COP29 did finally agreed on carbon trading under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. This included both measures on country-to-country trading as well as a new international carbon market.
There were many complaints about the lack of consultation on the proposed rules and how they were pushed through. That being said, there is now a starting point for further discussions.
But it is much too early to proclaim the passing of Article 6 as a success. For a start, transparency and accountability rules are not very strong. There are no real penalties indicated for countries that don’t abide by the rules and try and game the system. This was a missed opportunity. Carbon markets could be a boost for climate finance but pushing through the rules without clear framework to hold countries accountable leaves the door open for failure.
Missed opportunity to reinforce fossil fuel phase-out
Toby Walker, Senior Manager, International Advocacy
Fossil Fuels. These two words accounted for roughly 91% of global emissions in 2022. Yet all the central COP29 documents – Finance (NCQG), Mitigation Work Programme (MWP), and Global Stocktake (GST) – failed to mention them.
That is 21 pages of text, outlining the path to curbing global warming, without touching upon the number one driver of global temperature rises. The climate crisis is a fossil fuel crisis and COP29 abysmally failed to recognise that.
At COP28, nations agreed for the first time to “transition away from fossil fuels” under the first Global Stocktake. A landmark text that only took 28 years of international climate negotiations to achieve.
Fast forward one year and countries failed to agree how the COP28 UAE dialogue should be taken forward – instead shunting the decision to COP30 in Brazil. That is one opportunity missed.
The primary resistance to phasing out fossil fuels stems from their deep entrenchment in global economies. Not to mention that COP29 host Azerbaijan, who drilled the world’s first oil well in 1846, was producing over half of the world’s oil by the 19th century – and still depends on oil and gas for 90% of its exports.
For many nations, fossil fuels have been the cornerstone of their rise to economic power. First coal, then oil and natural gas have allowed rapid growth in industrial processes, agriculture, and transportation. The grip of fossil fuels is not just economic but ideological, meaning shaking their affliction is an undeniably difficult task.
However, leadership is peaking through the cracks of faltering climate action. Indonesia, who’s cumulative and per capita emissions remain dwarfed by developed nations, looks to balance its role as the world’s fourth most populous nation with a commitment to provide economic opportunities for its citizens sustainably.
Whilst COP29 was unfolding, President Prabowo pledged to phase out coal and all fossil fuelled power plants within 15 years, alongside a plan to build 75 gigawatts of renewables. This is a bold move from a country that hasn’t fully benefited from fossil fuels like many wealthier nations that are dragging their feet.
The path ahead will be challenging, as coal accounts for over 44% and 30% of gross regional domestic product in East and South Kalimantan states. But Indonesia acknowledges the irrevocable climate science, readily available technologies, and economic opportunity of transitioning away from fossil fuels on the international stage.
Despite its promise, COP29 failed to build on this momentum. The Mitigation Work Programme (MWP), established at COP26 to urgently scale up emissions reduction measures, delivered little more than an agreement to continue discussions, just like the GST.
Meanwhile, wealthy fossil fuel importing nations like Japan, EU, US, and China perpetuate demand. The five largest western oil and gas companies made $200bn in profits last year alone. We continue to lock ourselves into a system that’s destined to crumble.
The failure to address fossil fuels is about more than avoiding climate breakdown. It’s about ensuring economic resilience, energy security amid extreme weather, insurability of assets, and equitable job creation. The solutions exist, but progress hinges on aligning leadership with action—which is exactly what COP29 failed to achieve.
Brazil’s hosting of COP30 presents an opportunity to align nation’s varying commitments to climate action. By then, all countries participating in the UNFCCC process need to have updated National Determined Contributions (NDCs, basically their climate plans). These plans will be crucial to understand entrenched positions of nations on key issues that hindered progress at COP29.
The future is local: Subnational governments are our best hope after COP29
Nehmat Kaur, Director – Under2 Coalition and Subnational Governments
COP29 unfolded against a backdrop of geopolitical tensions, rising conservatism and climate denial. Hopes were high for decisive progress on the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) for climate finance, the Global Stocktake implementation, and enhanced commitments on mitigation efforts. Yet, the outcomes fell short, leaving significant gaps in ambition and clarity—particularly on the role of local and subnational governments.
Despite their proven leadership, subnational governments—states, regions, and cities—received little attention in the global climate framework discussions in Baku.
This oversight starkly contrasts with their contributions: as of 2024, over 10,500 cities and nearly 250 regions, representing over 2 billion people, have pledged voluntary emission reductions. The Under2 Coalition has proven its impact, reducing emissions by an average of 16% from baseline years, even as global emissions surged by 42% in the same period. Numbers don’t lie – they document who the real leaders are in the fight against climate change.
In a meeting during COP29, Simon Stiell, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, emphasised their critical role, urging mayors and governors to continue to “show up and shout.” His statement underscored the paradox of climate negotiations: while subnational governments are indispensable to achieving climate goals and are often leading, they remain peripheral in the formal discourse.
The missed opportunities of COP29
COP29’s was supposed to deliver clear actionable commitments. Instead, the NCQG – intended to replace the unmet $100 billion annual finance goal – remained vague, leaving subnational governments and developing nations uncertain about funding for critical adaptation and mitigation projects. The Global Stocktake, expected to drive stronger national commitments, instead offered weak implementation guidance, failing to close the emissions gap or recognise subnationals as implementation partners. The MWP, a cornerstone for deepening emissions reductions, similarly fell short, offering no clear pathways or accountability mechanisms for governments at all levels.
For subnational governments, these shortcomings exacerbate a longstanding challenge: their ambiguous role in global climate frameworks. Federated systems, where subnational entities wield significant power, are home to 70% of the world’s population and account for 90% of global greenhouse gas emissions. With authority over energy, transportation, and urban planning, these governments are critical to systemic change.
The power of bottom-up financing
There is a big gap in ‘top-down’ finance, the one discussed -underdelivered- at COP29. What is often overlooked is the vital role of ‘bottom-up’ financing led by subnational governments. Many states and regions—such as Querétaro, California and Catalonia—have substantial fiscal, regulatory, and legal powers, enabling them to generate their own revenue through innovative financial mechanisms like green bonds and regional carbon pricing. In addition, regions like Quebec and Scotland are making direct contributions to global climate initiatives such as the Global Fund on Adaptation and loss and damage.
Minas Gerais in Brazil stands out with its subnational development bank, and so does Maryland with its state green bank, a vital funding source for climate action or derisking investment. The recent G20 communique acknowledged the indispensable role of subnational banks in unlocking the financial resources required for net zero transitions.
Yet despite their immense contribution, subnational governments continue to be overlooked in global discussions—an exclusion that undermines the effectiveness of bottom-up action. Their full inclusion is not just beneficial but essential for success.
What needs to happen now
In the face of the COP29 debacle and national governments dragging their feet, the future of climate action increasingly lies with subnational actors. For the states and regions of the Under2 Coalition, it’s game on. Their leadership has already proven effective, and they must now double down on ambitious commitments, scale up collaboration, and advocate for stronger recognition in global climate governance.
COP29 may have fallen short, but it reinforced an undeniable truth: while multilateral systems falter, subnational governments remain the vanguard of climate action. The future is local.