Day 1 - We are what we do, not what we say.

November 11th, 2024

It was a long day today as the opening dragged out into the evening, I think they are still going on as I write this, but it was interesting. The previous chairman of the COP 28, Dr Al Jaber, expressed the situation quite well:

“History will judge us on our action, not our words!”

It raises the question of what the world have managed to deliver. With current policies we are on the road to +3 degrees C (UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell said +5 degrees). To put it in Dr. Al Jabers words: “We are on the road to ruin”.

There were positives as well, we still have a chance to keep it to 1.5C, if we act and mitigate now, we will need to see if COP 29 manages that part, privately I doubt it. Looking at the trillion dollars needed annually and what we as nation contribute (think it was around 8 billion SEK), doing quick math on our consumer-based CO2 equivalent use and our GDP, we probably should contribute around 5-6 billion USD to climate mitigation (but all I see is complaints that we pay to much). That would be 1% of our GDP, just as 1 trillion is around 1% of the worlds GDP (rough calculation).

To quote DR. Al Jaber once more: ”We are what we do, not what we say”

Just a few thoughts, and I am looking forwards to the coming weeks.

Day 2 - The terrible truth! Climate change is a real existential threat.

November 12th, 2024

Two main events for my part, the first being “2024 review of the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage associated with Climate Change Impacts”

This is where battle for funds will be in the next weeks, after the COP 2013 in Warsaw meeting commitments for 100 billion was made.

We face critical disturbances due to the climate degradation on all level. Its’ harsh realities affecting life and livelihood of millions.

It is a fight for technical and financial support, often hindered bureaucracy on high level, as well as lack of founding. There is a huge need in the global south for early warning system and disaster relief, and several delegates showed signs of desperation as to the support is handled. Many gave examples where the cost of climate induces draughts and torrential rain, already cause costs equal to large part of the country’s GDP.

The second main event was the start of the World Leaders Climate Action Summit.

Ilham Aliyev, the president of Azerbaijan, opened in grand style and continued to go down on slander and hostile campaigns* against the host country.

Antonio Guterres, soberly declared that it is time to deliver. 80% demand climate action, all must do their part, but the G20 must lead! Solving finance is a must, polluters must pay (both in production and consumption – my addition).

It’s not a cost – it’s Investment! It’s not optional – it’s Imperative!

After this the honoured Leaders spent their valuable time (when everybody else were trying to discuss or solve the crisis) watching a tourist commercial and cultural entertainment of and from Azerbaijan, and then of to lunch.

Simon Stiell, (executive secretary of UN Climate Change) that current policies will lead to a drop in GDP of 5% in near future, a real economy killer. But if we act now, it could lead to more jobs, growth and a cleaner environment for all.

Jim Shea from IPCC, continued: Climate change is unfolding before our eyes. Global warming is real, and it is human induced climate change. Global emissions need to fall with 7,5%/year now, if we wait until 2030 we need to need to reduce it with 15%. We are now in a phase where we also must address adaption to the change.

I will not report on the long list of statements, the video is available as main event site for those interested. There where a few that made a good impression, among those were Guinea Bisau, Embalé, Afif Didi from the Seychelles, Alexander De Croo from Belgium had a sober presentation, Starmer (UK) is also worth mentioning.

The most emotional and strongest appearance today goes to Spain, Sanches Perez-Castejon, who told “The terrible truth!”, climate change is a real existential threat. Still, we have governments who slow down, deny, or withhold capital, this is leading to disaster. We need transition from fossil fuels, we need mitigation, we need adaptation, we need responsible growth. Don’t Deny Science!

Let’s see if we get action and not just words… Unfortunately, there as also a lot of BS delivered from some candidates as ell as true fear for the future and plea that financiering must be solved.

The talks continue tomorrow.

*There has been criticism against both the host country and the Troika (as I mentioned yesterday), but I think it needs to be put in perspective. It is true that Azerbaijan is increasing oil and gas production, but it is in response to a request from EU (8 of 10 the main countries they export to are within EU). It was also these countries that requested a doubling of export to meet their needs. When it comes to the Troika consider that United Arab Emirates, Azerbaijan, and Brazil together produce only half of what US produces, USA, Saudi Arabia and Russia are by far the largest producers. A someone pointed out, would we have the same harsh critique if it was Great Brittain, Norway and Canada (who are as large when it comes to production). Of course there are a lot of other factors, but sometimes we forget the scale. On that note let’s not forget that the US is both the largest producer and consumer of fossil fuel, and it will probably get worse.

Day 3 - Can we afford this?

November 13th, 2024

Today’s agenda began on a low note, the GCB report 2024. Another record year for carbon emissions, still rising, and no peak that some hoped for. It’s sobering reading.

Next part was finance, covering Mitigation, Adaption and Damage in the Global South. Some of you have already heard of the Trillion Dollar need, but this is a bare minimum.

The conservative estimate of the cost per year today would be (roughly) (source: Bronwen Tucker):

• 300 B$ for Mitigation

• 300 B$ for Adaptation

• 400 B$ for Loss and Damage

The true need is probably between 4 and 5 trillion dollars a year!

Can we afford this, the panel said it would be possible through public means of Global North economies. Easy if we involve oil and gas producing sectors (including private entities). My comment here is if we can not afford not to contribute, if we wait and do nothing, loss and damage costs alone could reach this for the Global North in the near future, with even higher impact on economy.

Coming back to Finance, the ISEE press conference, “Climate finance or Failure”, put the lights on problems the Global South have financing their work with climate mitigation and adaption. They report that more than half of the projects they do (and they have done a lot to survive) they get no help with. Projects under 5M$ are almost impossible to get financed from funds or investors and are usually founded locally by community and local volunteers (often indigenous people). There is a need to move beyond Greenwashing and create robust, transparent solutions that attract serious investors. The Global North must go beyond loans and begin real investments for the future in climate action/work. A solution is to coordinate several smaller projects into larger ones. A good start is usually to implement solutions for short lived atmospheric pollution, as this gives fast response to action (lets remember that many of these nations are no large CO2 contributors). “No time for uphill battles”.

Today’s speaker list was also worth listening to. The speeches of Niue (Tagelagi), Bahamas (Edward Davis), Tuvalu (Penitala Teo), Antigua and Barbuda (Alphonso Browne), and Bangladesh (Muhammad Yunus), Grenada (Dickon Michell) and Cook Islands (Stephen Brown), was well worth listening to. It’s nations that’s already experienced the effects of climate change. Most recommended is Albania’s Edi Rama, who made a great emotional speech addressing the situation at COP, well worth listening to! Most cringeworthy speech (in my opinion) would be Italy (Meloni), who pointed to development of fusion reactors as best solution to the Climate Crisis (might be, but not within the reasonable future), and Russia (Mishustin), who’s speech I would say was most propaganda for internal admiration (at least I have a hard time to believe what he said).

Day 4 - Lot of words! And not much action so far?

November 14th, 2024

Thursday was a day filled mostly with text negotiations for next week’s high-level meeting. Some interesting press conferences in between did not help to lighten the mood. This will be a though one.

Began the morning with the High-Level Ministerial Dialogue on Climate action

Simon Stiell stated that we must Deliver Finance to enable Climate Action Globally! It needs to be done with transparency, access and affordability in focus. It is time to take action to bridge the gaps. Finance can be improved to solve problems with affordable grant and loans.

Everyone from the Global North happily reiterated that we reached the goal of 100 billion dollars per year to fund climate action in the Global South. The South is in doubts...

I won’t go into all specifics but do my own interpretation: EU and the G20 countries all grandly talk about themselves as the great givers, at least five of them saying that they are the greatest in one way or other (includes Sweden, who I will criticize later). It’s interesting to compare the numbers with the ones presented at the beginning of the session, where OECD and Oxfam key findings point towards less than half being grants, the rest being loans.

Global South again and again pointed out that targets are not met, they get expensive loans instead of funds, often with other obligations, squiring the use of available money to purposes decided by the payers. Global Norths way of “helping” Global South will drive Countries into a debt crisis. Especially with the spiralling cost of the climate crisis at hand.

One point where most agreed was the importance that countries adhere to the Paris Agreement. On the side it is interesting that China seems to be opening up for a South-South funding, that might imply that they will begin to voluntarily fund some Climate Action. Urgency is evident, as we go toward +3 degrees C, but many hope that we might still be able to stop at +1.5.

Among the press conferences I watched one of interest was the HOMEF - Health of Mother Earth Foundation and WWF International – Something Gotta Give. They criticized that the goal to give 100B$/year between 2020 and 2025 was not reached until 2023. They also said that the Global North use the grants of funds to close business deals to further extract resources from the Global South, and for Greenwashing. The need is for founding Climate Mitigations, Adaptation and Damage. Founding(!), not Financing! Money today comes with conditions – to support the needs of Global North. The Carbon trade and Carbon credits are seen by some in the Global South as a new way of enslavement.

A point made is that this it is the Global Norths debt, they caused and cause the damage, while Global South struggle to survive. One delegate even called the COP “Conference of Polluters”.

A lot of figures rotate here from 5 trillion Dollar per year to minimum of 500 Billion dollars per year. Most agree that we look at a near future where cost of mitigation is $300 billion/year, adaptation $300billin/year and Loss and Damage in excess of $400 billion/year.

The suggestion was that we should use 1.3 trillion dollars as baseline in negotiations, and in this case, we are talking public finance! Not loans!

There is a need to:

• Simplify the process in all steps

• Make financing fit for purpose

• Favor Grants over Loans

• And not least: phase out fossil fuels (today there is no money for fossil fuel phase out in the text!)

We need transit plans for both Global North and South to reach Net Zero. Globally the cost is estimated to be 7.3 trillion Dollars (per year), of which the Global South will need at least 1.3 trillion Dollars. If we don’t act now, cost will rise and current progress may be adversely affected.

Next to the Presidency Event – Unpacking the Loss and Damage Landscape. This was the presentation of what the WIM has done since the agreement in Warsaw 10 years ago. (My personal comment: Don’t have to high hopes… This explains a lot why the Global South have problems responding to Loss and Damage).

• Some historical progress (?)

• They now have a sound institutional tooling, not up and running yet, but there will be better response to Loss and Damage (2025, they promise)

• Pledges done, now they need to be realized

• Long term strategy in place by end of 2025

WIM ExCom products:

• 5 expert groups and

• a five year workplan (in planning as I understood it)

• Knowledge products and technical guide available by 2025

Take-aways:

• Disaster tracking system is in use

• Technical assistance is needed

• Methodology for non-economic losses in place

But:

• Loss and Damage funds not connected (use different pathways today, no synergies).

• Need to clarify mandate between parts

(Historic progress after 10 years? Or am I just overexpectant?)

After this I spent hours listening in discussions and negotiations. Slow and painful, but great insight into the enormous work that goes into this kind of meeting.

Sweden and its appearance: In my view Sweden’s talk at the Ministerial Dialogue was a low water mark. First of all, it was a badly timed attempt to boast. Presenting that we have given 8 billion (SEK) to GCF (that we will co-host next year) and another 200Mkr to the Loss and Damage fund. Presenting the big numbers in local currency is clearly misleading, on a platform where all money matter is discussed in dollars. Why say that we are the largest doners per capita, when talking about public funds (and private loans? The most correct would be to put it in relation to our GDP. It was also not any new sum as I understand it but the same that was given last year to the GCF.

If we look at the need, 1 Trillion Dollar, roughly 1% of the worlds GDP (105.4 trillion USD (2023)), then if we give 1% of our GDP (593 Billion Dollar 2023) around 6B$, then we can boast about our generosity.

In-between talks are people addressing possibility to tax aviation and maritime traffic in the future. One delegate suggested a 0.1% global tax on global exchange of value-papers and bonds, which would give more than 400 Billion Dollars.

Todays take-away: Lot of words! And not much action so far?

Day 5 - We need momentum!

November 15th, 2024

I made it through several interesting press conferences and today started on a high note.

A climate alliance of 24 states in the USA.

These sub-national leaders promise that support for Climate Action and Climate Work will continue, despite election results. They will do whatever they can and have the support from the people in these states, not least since Climate work creates a lot of green jobs and a better economy for all. California said: Whoever is in the Whitehouse, the states can still decide on their fate and will do whatever they can to continue their current green path. They pointed out that they have strong support from the states around and along the Mississippi river, where climate change has had a large impact. Their aim is to save existing wetlands and recreate former wetlands, to better be able to handle draught and flooding by absorbing large volumes of water as well as keeping wetland reservoir in time of draught.

When disaster strikes.

This session was a harsh critique from the Indigenous people in some of the countries hit hard by oil and resource extraction.

Beginning in Africa, we got a reminder that oil companies made a profit exceeding 450B$ from oil extraction. But it comes with high cost on the local population, who gain nothing, but lose their inherited land.

In the Pacific the oil and gad extraction cause biodiversity loss and land erosion. The change is not slow, it is experienced within a generation.

Brazil is plagued by floods, fire and draughts, but still is set to be the 4th largest oil and gas producer, the new fields the government want to open are along the Amazonian forest coast where indigenous people already suffer from the existing extraction. This is the country that claim Climate leadership and will hold COP 30 nest year. The message from the people is “Real Climate Leadership require a change of policies”.

Peru has the same problem on the Amazon side, the state gives concession to the large oil companies for extraction, but all the benefits go to the companies and private share-holders, none reaches the indigenous people hit by the destruction of their land.

On Methane…

GHG emissions are on their highest ever, countries pledged to reduce methane by 30%, but the going is slow, despite excellent technical solutions available to detect where the emission is. G20 are responsible for 77% of the methane emissions. We need to reduce quickly as methane today stands for 30% of the global warming. Largest emitters are coal, oil and gas extraction, and this can be clearly seen on the MARS data. Routine flaring and gas venting must be reduced, that alone can help a lot. In China the closing of coal mines contributes a lot.

The Methane Alert and Response System (MARS) can quickly detect methane plumes and alert those responsible. In many cases the fix is very easy, it’s basically a task of plugging leaks. Unfortunately, there is only a 1% response to the alerts. To really stop the excess emission of methane, dealing with natural gas (which is methane, remember) and oil must be reduced.

The presidency conference of COP 29 with Lead Negotiator Yalchin Rafiyev:

Parties have at least started, aiming for low hanging fruit. The pace is slow though.

Tangible Climate Action the last days have been on melting glaciers. Azerbaijan banks and government have set off 1.2B$ for this. Canada have pledged 1.5B$ extra. Several banks have come to support hydrogen projects.

For central Asia, Azerbaijan have set grounds for three major project, 6 Chinese companies have already signed up (see also above).

1. Green energy (corridors) pledge

2. Energy storage pledge

3. Hydrogen declaration for emerging and developing countries

They are calling for action intelligent grids and battery storage systems in the Global South. It’s urgent due to the fast growth of renewable energy sources. China have pledged to build/renew 25 million km of power grid. Clean hydrogen is the next large thing.

They also pointed out that there is an oil glut building up and responsible for this is the “American quartet” (USA, Canada, Brazil and Guyana) who is doubling the production!

And a last sad reminder: global conflict is a factor, the wars in the middle east and Ukraine stands for 5-6% of global emission.

COP 29 will be a litmus test for future work, if we don’t succeed there is no Global alternative! We need momentum!

False Nuclear solutions (NIRS: Nuclear Information and Resource Service)

31 countries pledged last year (at COP 28) to triple nuclear power by 2050 to archive a global net-zero.

The cost (as defined by the nuclear industry involved) would be >5 trillion dollars initially (to 2030). We need to keep in mind that they have never held their budget, so the price-tag is probably much higher!

To reach the climate goals for 2030 we need 1.3 trillion dollars per year. Let that sink in.

This is one good reason NIRS are opposed to a nuclear climate solution, to expensive and takes to long to implement (but that is just the tip of the iceberg).

• New nuclear is the most expensive way to manage climate change

• It is resource intensive to create

• We still have no safe way of handling additional waste

• Uranium mining and enrichment costs life

And who are the most involved constructers? Rosatom have more than half the market, Ill get back to this in a moment. African nations have experienced a great pressure to invest in nuclear power. But it is far more expensive than other renewable technologies today, and the uranium mining is taking lives and destroy environment.

In Australia the 1st Nation People are protesting as the current government want to build new large reactors, extract uranium ore and store radioactive waste, on their land. They are now forerunners to promote other renewable energy sources that are cheaper, cleaner and quicker to build

Sourcing of uranium (as fuel) follows old paths of oil… And it is not a viable solution.

And it has been shown clearly that nuclear energy can be weaponized!

Back to Rosatom: This is the Russian muscovite state energy corporation. Many will say that this is Putin’s greatest asset to take control over the world.

They are managing 64 reactors in 15 countries. They also stand for 76% of the global expansion of nuclear energy with 35 projects in 12 countries, among them are:

• Turkey (4 reactors under construction),

• Iran (1 operational and 1 under construction)

• Egypt (3 reactors under construction + 1 planned)

• India (2 operational, 4 under construction)

• Hungary (2 new approved)

• China (6 operational, + 4 new approved)

• Bangladesh (2 under construction)

• Slovakia (3 operational, one under construction)

Let’s not forget that these reactors are not something that is delivered and left, the countries will be dependent on technicians, technical assistance, parts and fuel supplied by Rosatom for the duration of the reactor’s lifetime (and probably beyond). Graded nuclear waste will be returned to Russia, the rest will be left for the country to deal with.

I can’t help to think if Sweden have thought about the security risk of our suggested new reactors, in a conflict they will be prime targets and easily weaponized if the fall into wrong hands…

NCM, NIB, NDF, NEFCO, PCR, Sweden: Nordic perspectives: Paving the way to mobilise climate finance

Interesting is where the Nordic countries are lagging behind (as admitted by themselves):

• Building: constructors don’t use available green cement due to cost

• Aviation: is still a large emitter, although defended by Swedish delegate

• Long haul shipping: mostly Denmark, they are betting on solution but have none

• Agriculture: Denmark will have a majority of their carbon emissions from agriculture by 2030.

Day 6  - First week done…

November 16th, 2024

Became a day of the long wait for the closing of the plenary meeting, negotiations have been extended and the final statement from the plenary meetings is delayed. Seeing the Deputy Lead Negotiator earlier at press conference it looked like he was going on willpower alone and in desperate need of sleep.

Negotiations have been fluctuating and there was a call earlier today for the need of flexibility from all factions. Progress have been slow and not all parties are satisfied, with some parties blocking items from previous agreement (from COP 28) at this stage (spec. on matters of implementing Global Stocktaking).

The same is true for matters related to financial mechanism. There is no consensus on a global goal. An no progress on the review of progress, effectiveness and performance of the Adaption Committee.

Sharm el-Sheikh mitigation ambition and implementation work programme has not come further and there is disagreement.

Work on Mitigation is obstructed from several parties under the review of the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage associated with Climate Change Impacts. No progress archived. Several delegates said it is an unacceptable outcome.

UK suggested (supported by a large part of the parties) to forward this to CMA (Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement). There is a tangible frustration from the Global South delegates (as well as EU, UK, Japan, Canada, Arab Legue and USA).

The problem is a few countries* opposing the suggested and needed mitigation of emissions. EU is hardcore on going on with this works as well as all the others expressing their frustration. Living in Sweden I am ashamed that we are in a country who are making no progress in this area, but rather work against the mitigation work all developed countries need to do (personal remark).

*Although not mentioned explicitly it is Saudi Arabia leading the opposition. 

Day 7 - Survival of Humanity is NOT Negotiable

November 18th, 2024

Another long day with two long (3 hours +) round table mandated events. I’ll try to keep it short as it is almost impossible to make a detailed report on all things said. One spectacular event is that Argentina left the talks, possibly indicating that they leave the Paris agreement, but the reason is not clear yet.

The first was presentation on the countries standpoint and work to meet the 2030 goals according to the Paris agreement. Important parts addressed is mitigation, adaption, and resilience.

I’ll start with words from Professor Jim Skea:

• There is need for near-time action, attributional goals beyond 2030 are too late!

• Near-time action far exceed any action, however grand, in the longer perspective.

We need urgent scale up of mitigation, ambition, and implementation, in this critical decade!

Many of the speakers expressed a disappointment that the talks on mitigation have been fruitless, and pressed on that it is vital that this topic is solved as fast as not to be a stop block in the later discussions with the country leaders.

All speakers (with few exceptions) agree that the goal of the Paris Agreement and the 1.5 degrees Celsius is nonnegotiable.

Best quote (Fiji as representing Oceanian islands); “Survival of Humanity is NOT Negotiable”.

Brazil, UK, UAE and Saudi Arabia made strong commitments in their talks. Both Brazil and the UK have submitted their NDC’s (National Determined Contributions) today, a fact that strengthen their commitment.

It is also remarkable to hear the commitment, and work done by Global South and developing countries, sometimes at very high cost compared to their available budget. Once again many pointed out that they need funding, not expensive loans.

UAE transition work (and the Paris Agreement)

It’s about transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable energy and how to make sure financing of this is in place. All agree that it must be a just and fair people centric transition. Transitioning away from fossil fuels is a must, but the cost should not be a burden for the most vulnerable. A just transition will be difficult on all levels, we face a lot of challenges, but it needs to be done now. The developed world (Global North) needs to lead and support the Global South! Time for action is now and time to do this is short. Hearing UAE saying that their great celebration of mitigation and transitioning away from fossil fuel will be when they sell their last barrel of oil, was somehow unexpected.

On a darker note: Russia’s idea is that everybody must decide for themselves, and to avoid higher electricity prices nuclear power, carbon capture and natural gas are their “green” solutions for the crisis. One wonders where renewables come into that… And they were not alone reasoning like that.

The best summary of last week is from the Presidency press conference. Chief negotiator Mukhtar Babayev said it well: “We will need to Go! We have made progress, but there is still more to do”.

We must make progress on mitigation, Norway and South Africa are now responsible to get this going starting today. Apart from these, Brazil, UK, Australia and Egypt have key roles in finding a solution for parts not yet solved.

Today the G20 meets in Brazil, they stand for 85% of global GDP and 80% of the global emission. They need to take the lead on Finance, Mitigation, and Adaptation.

“Climate Finance is not charity” (Simon Stiell)

“The highest level of ambition is indeed difficult and requires courage. Now is the time to be Brave”. (Mukhtar Babayev)

“Cut the theatrics and get down to business!” (Simon Stiell addressing the drama from certain countries)

EU press conference:

Was worth listening to if you want to hear EU’s position, I dare to say (this is my personal judgement) that they, as most, have a more realistic view (even Germany), than the Swedish government, the latter somehow landing somewhat closer to Russia’s reasoning…

My last words today - Remember:

• Mitigation is reducing carbon emissions.

• Adaptation is switching to renewable energy resources.

• Carbon capture is not mitigation!

• Nuclear is not renewable!

Day 8 - Wisdom without action is meaningless

November 19th, 2024

Slow pace, negotiation was ongoing all day to get the document ready. The goal is to release the final document by Wednesday evening.

Good news is that G20 gave their members mandate: Quoting Simon Stiell “G20 delegations now have their marching orders for here in Baku, where we urgently need all nations to bypass the posturing and move swiftly towards common ground, across all issues.”

Today was Food and Agriculture Day, something that also was addressed in the High-level Segments below. With this there was also a discussion on the need to reduce methane emissions from cattle, agriculture, and landfills (part is associated with food-waste). Although the absolute largest amount of methane emissions come from gas, oil and coal extraction, other emissions are tangible, and there is a will to lower these emissions by 30% as well. An initiative has been launched in Baku to help farmers globally to reach this goal.

It is important to work to transform agriculture globally, not only when it comes to methane emission, but how to best use land in a sustainable way. This is a vital part in realizing the longtime goal of the Paris agreement.

High-level Presentations of Goals was the focus and took up most time:

As I have mentioned before there is a tangible fear and irritation from the Global South, best represented by the African countries and Oceania nations. They feel that the Global North, who is responsible for the Climate Crisis, won’t take responsibility for their Climate debt. The goals of COP 29 to archive a fair and quantified goal for Climate Finance is a must, if we fail, we will probably face a climate burden (and cost) that will break global economy in near future. Somebody mentioned that the one trillion dollars per year lacking now will be 7 trillion dollar per year before 2030 – compare that with the oil and gas profits from the largest companies that are around 7 trillion dollars per year, and the still existing subventions that amount to around the same sum (a bit depending on how you calculate, but accurate figures).

The need to keep up with the Paris Agreement is vital, fairness, responsibility from the developed nations, and transparency is vital for the process. The Global North and developed countries, including large new economies, need to take responsibility.

EU and European countries expressed their willingness to keep supporting the process and work toward the Paris agreement goals (no Sweden have not talked, but all our neighbouring countries).

Lack of funding is a primary problem. Several accusations were done against supposed 100 billion dollars that was accomplished for the Warsaw Loss and Damage fond, where the majority is available as loans. The mortgage alone is risking the economy of small countries that have been severely affected by climate change. They are driven into an impossible situation of dept to the Global North who this way profits from Global Souths problems. And the ongoing Climate Crisis.

Unfortunately, I also hear a lot of countries who still count LNG as a green alternative and want count that in as possible adaptation measure. It becomes almost comical when Qatar calls on the developing world to take responsibility while promoting natural gas at the same time. But unfortunatly they are not alone.

It never ceases to amaze me that India and several other countries, tries to convince us that they have no problem, are making greater progress than anybody else, and that they will reach all climate goals. However, their metrics seems to be somewhat off. I don’t know if I am looking forward to any speech from Sweden or not (this last paragraph is my strict personal view).

A few cherrypicked quotes:

• “There is no plan B, we have no planet B!”

• “Those who had least impact on climate are the ones hardest impacted by climate change!”

• “Wisdom without action is meaningless. It’s time to Act now.”

Day 9 - There is no planet B!

November 20th, 2024

Halfway through the last week and negotiations and the talk continues. A lot of big talk and little corresponding action. Reminds me of a discussion from around year 1200 between a scholar and a representative of a women’s cooperative, who wondered what they do, “You talk, We act - You learn, We do - You suppose, We know” was the answer from the women’s representative. It could have been the discussion between Global North and Global South.

The COP presidency conference at 13:15 AZ time, did not add much. Today was the day of transport and tourism – an important part of the global emission and environmental impact. All efforts are put into completing the draft text with as little bracketing as possible, the hardest part as always. Draft text is to be released tomorrow morning. On the tourism side Baku are setting up a declaration on sustainable tourism.

European Union and Parliament had a press conference after this. Commissioner Hoekstra addressed this as “another intense day”. All efforts to complete the draft is needed and it is a steep climb to get it done and done right.EU is looking for common grounds on 1st draft of the NCQG negotiations. When it comes to mitigation, the G20 gave clear marching order for all members, when it comes to transitioning away from fossil fuel (would nice if the Swedish government could acknowledge this). On adaption of article 6, there is divergent thoughts on the priorities but EU drives all, transparency, cooperation over borders, and the global trading with emissions. Global South is reserved and sees a risk for a new type of colonialism through global emission trades.

Hoekstra pointed out that they think it is important with the right language in the text and said that EU wants a more modern language.

Lidia Periera (Portugal) added that we already have irreversible damage, that will need sustainable adaptation based on the new environment.

Priority is to invest in renewable energy and phasing out of fossil fuels. No backtracking should be allowed.

On the matter of carbon credits there is an issue that these credits are involved as part of the deal when Global South is receiving funds.

Then we had the High-level Talks…

As usual a lot of facts on hard hit Global South, especially the Pacific and Atlantic Island nations. They have done little to add to the climate crisis but takes the worst brut of the damage.

The developed North are trying to beat each other in wording on how well they perform, a lot of words, but little tangible action. There are some exceptions, like France, Iceland and Canada who seems to make serious efforts.

Sweden is not among these: The normal talk about urgency, switching to hope of economic gain through climate action. Then over to renewable energy (just mentioned as buzzword) and tripling nuclear capacity. Trust that industry will help with harnessing our emission through innovation. Not a word on mitigation, phasing out fossil fuels, and adaptation of sustainable energy sources.

But we are far from the worst, China influenced countries and gulf states have no problem in delaying the net zero and other goals too long after 2050 and championing natural gas as a solution while they are at it.

On a note: Many of the Global South countries mentioned that Taiwan have been a great help (both in funding climate action and practical assistance) and as such Taiwan should have the opportunity to speak at UN meetings.

This, together with mentions of the Russian aggression towards Ukraine from several delegates, led to China and Russia opting to reply:

China said that Taiwan participation and mention was not acceptable – Taiwan is a part of China, according to the one China principle. Meaning that they (China) should be credited.

The Russians accused Ukraine of systematically breaking international law and that they were not to blame, and that any mention of the aggression should be removed from published statements.

Somehow, one is not surprised...

The second part was the High-level Segment for enterprises, organizations and NGO’s.

It contains everything from gas and oil business who is trying to convince us that their products are needed and even more needed now than before. Gas exporting countries try to point out that LNG is essential for the world providing clean energy, fertilizers and security, while lowering GHG emissions (if you compared to coal and petrol). As a last point came, as expected, that large scale carbon capture would solve this…

The speaker for OPEC, first repeated that oil and gas is a gift from God. Then the usual drivel about it being indispensable.

International Institute of Refrigeration (IIR) aimed to use refrigeration technology to combat problems arising from “Heat Bumps”, they made it clear that this is great business opportunity since they foresee that need of global refrigeration will rise from 20% to 40% of the global energy consumption within the decade (as I understand it that includes air conditioning and temperature management of housing).

There was a lot of good talks as well, and to some other delegates great annoyance, the Climate Action Network and Demand Climate Justice Now got massive applause, the latter said that the current negotiation allowing loans before funds is turning the “Finance COP” into a “Debt COP”.

There were also a lot of other good speakers from scientific based NGO’s and other organizations that are worth listening to.

Two days left and I feel a clear frustration. As Bojan Kumer from Slovenia mentioned “2030 and 2050 are not distant milestones for young people - Its their future”.

If we don’t act now the consequences will indeed be dire, and unfortunately it may already be in the late hours, where even a small delay may tip the scale against the survival of our civilization.

There is no planet B! (sorry “first lady” Musk, you should change focus!).

Day 10 - We can’t afford to wait

November 21st, 2024

I’ll start with the oil and gas subsidiaries, especially since I hear different figures all the time, so I did investigate it a bit. The latest reliable figures are from 2022 - the global monetary subsidiaries that year was 1.26 trillion US dollars, but when you take into account environmental cost and forgone tax revenues (like the tax exemption for aviation fuel) the sum is at least 7 trillion US dollars. Equal to more than 7% of Global GDP. Oil industry will forward a lower sum for 2023 (600-700 billion US dollars) but are then, as I understand it, excluding any subsidiaries that became “invisible” as west imposed an embargo on Russian oil and Gas provisions, but still that oil and gas continues to flow, and we are paying for it.

The EU press conference today was expanded with an important group of allies including Panama, Norway, Switzerland, UK, Mexico and Canada. A worldwide group with one goal. They stressed the importance of upholding the Paris agreement and the UAE consensus.

The draft presented this morning by COP is severely lacking on several points:

• The text is unbalanced and unacceptable as whole

• It’s unacceptable on Mitigation (nothing on transitioning away from fossil fuels)

• It lacks strong text on ambitions and adaptation

• NCQG is too long, with too many exceptions, extras and elements out of scope

The group is adamant that mitigation is central to reach the Paris Agreement 1.5°C goal and the only way to do that is to cut carbon emissions from fossil fuels!

It was also Gender Day. Mexico lifted the fact that now that they have a female lead who base her politics on scientific evidence, climate politics have taken a large step forward.

The big event today was the High-level Open-ended Qurultay (learned a new word today): Discussion and reactions on the draft text. The most discussed parts are the NCQG (finance), article 6 (carbon market), and Mitigation. There are several larger groups of interest:

• The west alliance (large part of the G20 plus the above mentioned Worldwide group): all raised the important of keeping the Paris agreements 1.5°C. The importance of mitigation and cutting emission by phasing out fossil fuels, clean up article 6, the importance of NDC’s and stocktaking, and adaptation, where many mentioned that the text is not following the guidance science gives. Several also pointed out that the text on NCQG was not making sense with the multitude of additions now added.

• The OASIS group of island nations: their largest disappointment was the non-quantified NCQG and the lack of mitigation text. They also advocated the importance that the requested funds lacking in the NCQG (1.3 trillion US dollars) must be primarily in grants, with only a smaller part made in concessional loans. Leaving financing to the private sector would be problematic and lead to a high debt burden. Many expressed their deep frustration about two weeks wasted time to arrive at this text.

• The G77+China (including large part of ILAC/South America): their focus was on the NCQG and non-commitment of quantified funds from the developed world. They also called stronger focus on mitigation but said that this was dependent on finance.

• The Oil nations (led by the Saudi Arabia, but excluding UAE, Azerbaijan and a few other states): they primarily objected to any text involving or mentioning fossil fuel, and any mention of equality measures… The draft was unacceptable in their view.

• India and Russia: India objected to any text not addressing financing was included. They said on mitigation and adaptation that it was enough that this is handled nationally and that NDC’s are submitted. Following up on NDC’s is not necessary and it is the countries own business how they implement them, no transparency and no stocktaking… Russia was far out, but at least said that Paris agreement and UAE consensus must be kept at its original, but regarding implementation they reason very much like India.

Sweden is an example by itself, unfortunately: First saying that we align with EU (think she missed the press conference mentioned above) then basically did the same speech she made previously in the plenum. Rather out of context in this Qurultay. She reiterated that EU is the largest contributor, and Sweden is the largest contributor per capita (not true after the last days) mentioning sums that are less than a tenth of what we should contribute based on national GDP for the rest see previous report). No mention of mitigation, phasing out fossil fuels (central to the EU) or the problems associated with the NCQG. It might be that she only is allowed to use that text, but perhaps she should then consider being quiet as an option.

I have been watching streams from several negotiation rooms. They are working hard compressing the text and removing parts, unfortunately there are strong influence from certain parties and problem with parties leaking text while under negotiations, leading to late changes and extra complications. It is fascinating to watch but leaves one with a bad gut feeling.

We can’t afford to wait, we are passing twilight and heading into darkness with out guiding light, if this COP doesn’t deliver.

With this I don’t know if I am really looking forward to Friday…

Day 11 - This was a day of frustration

November 22nd, 2024

This was supposed to be the last day of COP29, with a new great agreement and a celebratory closure.

For many, if not all, this was a day of frustration.

We are not there yet…

I have been listening in to press meetings to get a feeling of what is going on, and there have been two releases of the draft texts, the latest announced 19:00 hour AZT/16:00 CET. The great news is that we now have a quantification on the NCQG, but to little for most of the Global South and with unclear finance models, the 1.3 Trillion USD is mentioned and set as a goal for 2035, but judging by the last commitment of 100 billion dollars (that was never reached according to Global South), I guess that is to vague.

The African delegation and CAN bluntly stated after the first draft that: “No deal is better than a Bad deal! And this deal was worst in living memory!” They worded their deep disappointment over the negotiations – “Its time for a system change with real Climate Justice”.

There is a chasm between the different parties and states, wide and deep enough that bridge building will be both difficult and fragile. At least Europe (EU + Norway, UK, Switzerland, Canada and Mexico) stands relatively strong by building a worldwide alliance on climate matters, that include parts of the Global South.

I’ll address some of the issues, and how I understand them:

Article 6 negotiations: This is about the carbon market, something that foremost the Global North (GN) wants to keep, globalize and open for private investors. Criticism from the Global South (GS) is that it does not gain climate in the long run. GN buys the right to keep emitting greenhouse gases by buying, or paying to use, forest or jungle in the GS. The money seldom comes to the public or environmental development, transparency is lacking, and the GN can greenwash their carbon emitting industries. The carbon market on national level can have some positive impact for GS, but on international level its often misused.

NCQG: This is the new finance plan, The estimates are that the work for Global South with Mitigation, Adaptation, and Loss and Damage, will cost around 1.3 trillion dollars per year to be effective, this estimate is low according to several sources. It’s around 1% of the Global GDP. If we fail with the above, we risk increased severity of climate induced catastrophes, with costs probably reaching around 7 trillion dollars per year by 2035 for global Loss and Damage alone.

What is in the current proposal (22nd Nov) is a suggested goal of 250 billion dollars per year submitted by the developed countries, to be reached before 2035. This is to be financed by public funds, private capital, bilateral and multilateral, and other alternative sources. They call on all actors globally to scale up this to 1.3 Trillion for climate action from all parties, on voluntary basis, by the year 2035.

Seeing that the developed countries failed to reach the last goal of 100 billion dollars per year: although the sum is pledged according to GN, a large part comes as loans with high interest rates and private sector financing that often have demands that are contrary to the climate goals - resource extraction and exported waste management are some examples.

The Global South need public funds with full transparency, alternatively concessional loans. Else they are at risk of drowning in debt (especially true for the Pacific and Atlantic Island nations who might drown in debt before the water engulfs them). Transparency is of utter importance to see that the money goes to Mitigation, Adaptation, and Loss and Damage.

For the Global South three expressions raise the alarm (and perhaps we should learn from them):

• Private sector finance: Face it, the private sector is no charity, weather it is banks, industry or capital investments, they will only give money if they can get a return on the invested capital, be it through interest rate, natural resource extraction, or using local labour for low-cost production.

• Carbon Market: as noted above, it is often used to offload the problem to another party, and more or less associated with greenwashing.

• Innovation: This usually points to a sector that sells technical solutions, everything from Carbon Capture to Fusion reactors. Even if some are plausible, they are often unproven, usually not available in the near future, have high entry costs, and the risk that it will never be usable. They usually also omit the cost of building, operation, and maintenance, if possible.

What the Global South (and North) needs are simple, effective (both cost and efficiency) solutions, like wind and solar power, the cheapest and alternative if coupled with energy storage facilities and efficient power transfer.

Last day - “Goodnight Everybody, We are about to Resume.”

Night between November 23rd and 24th, 2024

It was a long night, the Closing Plenary was both delayed, interrupted with several long pauses, and went into the morning hours.

I’ll take the main parts in order of appearance.

Most celebrated, primarily by Global North, was the adoption of Article 6.2 and 6.4 of the Paris agreement on global carbon trade. It’s great that there are some types of regulations regarding how trade is conducted. Some of the developing countries are happy that the regulations are in place, making the trade more transparent, but warn that it may be misused. The poorest developing nations see it as a way for the richest countries to push over the burden to the poorest without taking responsibility. The indigenous people see it as a disaster, as they have seen that no funds reach them, it will not help them and, as example, in several cases re-forestation and a-forestation projects in the name of carbon trade, drives them out of home and natural habitat, never acknowledging their deeper understanding of managing nature. I’ll have to agree with them, as I am no great fan of carbon trading, the idea is from my perspective unsound, furthering business as usual, while pushing over the burden on the developing countries.

It might be of interest to note that part of the Periodic review of the Loss and Damage fund came under Rule 16 (transferred to the next meeting a year from now). No consensus was reached on the Technology Transfer Programme, regarding the specific African needs. And the adaptation of text on Mountains and Glaciers reached no consensus.

Any coupling or mention of Mitigation (referring to the Sharm el-Sheikh mitigation ambition and implementation work programme) and phasing out of fossil fuels have been met by resistance from primary Saudi Arabia and the Arab Legue, leading to a watered-out text that is in many parts unacceptable for most parties. They now want to backtrack the agreement from COP28.

The resolution on Gender and Climate change (The Enhanced Lima Work Programme on Gender): many said that the new text is weak, others that COP29 backtracked and that we have come no further since its creation ten years ago. ILAC and several others put hope in COP30 to amend this. A few strong opponents to this strengthening of human rights for women and girls around the globe, who effectively hindered the finance, and thereby the implementation. Let’s keep our fingers crossed for COP30.

Then we come to the elephant in the room: NCQG…

The final text reaffirms the decision that developing countries should take the lead and contribute at least 300 billion dollars per year by 2035, from a wide variety of sources, for developing countries for climate action. And call on all parties to work together on voluntary basis to scale up this to at least 1.3 trillion dollars by 2035.

Sounds great, doesn’t it? I mean it’s triple the current contribution from developed countries (that in practice have not been reached yet, even if so stated). The EU was among those most realistic from the Global North: the result is archivable and realistic and opens up for an enlargement on voluntary basis, and that the access to finance will improve. But they would have liked a stronger language on mitigation and gender equality coupled to it. It would be important to include directions for reducing emission by phasing out fossil fuels and to double efficiency.

Global South were severely disappointed. Most even opposed the adoption of the text!

Too little, too late, is possibly the best answer. The money requested was based on current need for Mitigation and Adaptation work, and to stop a rise of cost of global Loss and Damage and came with a warning that if we do too little the cost of loss and damage alone would be multiple times higher than what was requested for the total package in the near future. The proposed amount is not even fixed to the value of the current dollar, and it is very far away - “by 2035”. The text opens up for private financing, something that can come at a high cost! The 300 billion should be from public funds and given as grants funds, not loans.

Matters relating to Adaption. The text lacked several important parts and falls short on expectations, several countries including Switzerland, Canada and the island nations marked that they will not support the document. Most importantly it lacks a clear wording on the need to transition away from fossil fuels. As it stands, the texts on mitigation, adaptation, and availability of funds, will make it hard for many smaller nations to complete their NDC’s in a timely and correct manner.

In the plenum afterwards many countries and delegates expressed their disappointment with the outcome of this COP.

From the Global North: Australia, Germany, France, Canada and Norway worded their disappointment and criticized some parties that solely worked to take out any mention of coal and fossil fuels from the agenda.

The Global South was clearly disappointed on several levels. Especially finance, but also with many other matters. There were complaints that they in many cases had been shut out from the later negotiations.

The NGO’s where even harder in their judgement of the proceedings. They collectively agreed that the process (or as some said: sham of a process) was something they could not support. They refused to be complicit to a failed and unacceptable process. Indigenous People’s delegation and YOUNGO both made very strong statements against the COP29 proceedings and the hosts ability to negotiate the outcome. Even the Business and Industry NGO’s (represented by the Chamber of Commerce) said that this is not enough and presented a missed opportunity.

My own feelings? Frustration! The feeling that almost everybody is sticking their head in the ground and hoping it will be solved by a miracle, or plainly denying what is happening. I do feel sorry for the coming generation and the legacy we will leave them.

“We still have a very long road ahead of us”, to quote Simon Stiell.

We depend on cooperation “I am, because We are” as quoted from the Kenyan delegate.

We need to work together to solve this crisis. The eleventh hour is almost gone, let’s hope that we manage in time…

Some reflections:

A lot of words but how should we interpret it, especially the finance needs:

If we take Sweden as example, the 1.3 trillion dollars asked for roughly equals about 1.3% of global GDP 2023. The 300 billion dollars equals 0.3%. That means that the expected contribution based on current text from Sweden should be a minimum of 1.8 billion dollars (based on roughly 600-billion-dollar GDP (2023)). Observe that this calculation is correct only if USA and China also contribute with their part.

In the worst-case scenario (and unfortunately a highly possible scenario when USA and several other countries drop out of the Paris Agreement) we can calculate that the sum should at least be doubled to cover the proposed goal. That is we need to contribute 3.2 billion dollars per year (equals about 0.6% of our GDP). And remember this is to cover the cost of mitigation, adaptation, loss and damage in the Global South. We have additional cost to save ourselves at home. And the longer we wait, the higher the bill, nature will not negotiate.

My suggestion to our government would be to add tax to fossil fuels, including aviation and maritime transport, and to invest in cheap sustainable energy sources like solar and wind instead of nuclear that is clearly more expensive. By investing in emission reduction now and by actively reducing fossil fuel use, we will save billions (in both money and life) tomorrow and help build a sustainable future.

But will it be enough? Or are we destined to be remembered as the cause of the worst catastrophe in history? I still have hope, but it is now more desperate than ever.

Joachim Persson, November 2024.