The Revere

By: Ian Kim

The COP summit once again highlights ambitious and aggressive plans to tackle the climate crisis but demonstrates how paradoxical it really is.

The modern climate crisis persists because short-term interests consistently overshadow the long-term common good. With future challenges viewed as less urgent, climate action struggles to obtain the political focus it desperately needs. Due to this, in 1995, the United Nations (UN) created the Conference of Parties (COP) intending to eliminate further global warming developments aggressively. In 2024, the annual conference celebrated its 29th year, dubbed COP 29. In a historic decision, it was held in Azerbaijan, an authoritarian country with major exports of oil and fossil fuels. Again, the summit was filled with big smiles, bold promises, and signatures of cooperation and support. Yet, deep down, every country knew that the smiles were political masks, those promises were hollow, and signatures were merely ink on paper. In this elaborate human paradox, a messy world makes a desperate last attempt to save themselves. 

COP 29 set challenging goals for all countries, and, as usual, these goals demand international cooperation. A major theme was climate finance, which means providing funding for lower-income countries to effectively control their emissions, building resilient communities, and lowering greenhouse gases. Now, all new agreements and treaties take into account the 2015 Paris Agreement signed in COP21, and will more effectively “bring together world leaders and negotiators … to further global progress.” It is too early to say whether or not the agreements signed at COP29 will make a difference, but COP28 and COP27 tell the story of a repeating pattern. At COP28, leaders announced a crackdown on energy efficiency, agreeing to increase global efficiency by 300% with a timeline set for 2030. A new Reuters poll shows that energy efficiency was improved 1.3% worldwide last year, far below the goal. Similar stories span across the board, with each new COP conference setting goals promising a better future, and new analysis of the global climate status quo saying that those goals are near impossible. Dr. Robin Rambolli, a researcher at the Imperial College London on Environmental Laws, offers a decrease in the budget for spending and an increase in the prices of green technology as primary reasons for the estimated success rate being less than 50%. The Council on Foreign Relations cites a lack of consensus on the best approach and continued objection to the existence of climate change itself as other reasons contributing to a narrow window of success. Experts write that limiting warming to 1.5 C by 2100 is nearly impossible, with current emissions giving only a 0.1% chance of success. What a paradox indeed. 

The results of COP29 provide a one-sided analysis of the state of global diplomacy. The panel struck a deal that demanded developing countries provide at least $300 billion annually for climate funding to developing countries, far below the $1.3 trillion they deemed necessary to fund their development towards clean energy. First, the misconception that developing nations produce the most climate waste is deeply intertwined with the personal greed of more developed nations. An error in the architecture of the summit is the fact that it often disregards the voices of the common man, only taking into account the opinions of the government. The ones asking for money in developing nations are also these governments. An Anti-Corruption Research Centre study found that in Kenya, “most climate finance loans were mostly misused or stolen, meaning the [government] neither reduced emissions nor generated power for energy-poor Kenyans.” Moreover, in Jakarta, there exists a bribe culture where companies bribe the government to establish low-cost and low-functioning structures designed for profit. These structures are primarily government projects creating a facade of fake improvement while the projects and buildings themselves are not functional. The reason developed nations fund developing countries is because of the misconception that these countries have immense amounts of environmental waste, but the causation of that misconception usually comes from developed nations flooding their climate waste to these countries.  In a recent report, it was discovered that Germany exported a total of 734,000 metric tons of plastic waste to developing nations, mostly in South America and Africa. The so-called “climate fund” is not so much a statement of genuine support but a tactic that catches two birds with one stone. Developed countries such as the US can campaign their investment into the climate crisis while also providing leverage for themselves to relocate toxic and harmful waste to developing countries. The US, for example, puts much of its climate waste in Puerto Rico in exchange for government social justice programs on the island. Investment is a way for governments to evade responsibility.  The promises might not have been empty, but they were truly selfish. 

COP29 started and ended on positive notes, just like every other COP convention, yet analysis of the reasons behind the decisions and the current status quo of the climate crisis speaks to a darker, troubling story. For decades, developing nations have been improving their reputations as global climate leaders and “clean” nations at the expense of less influential nations. Specifically, COP 29’s one-dimensional plan to expand the climate fund solves only the financial situations of the wealthy at the expense of the frontline victims of the climate crisis. For too long, the COP has acted in the interests of developed nations and pretended to be a problem-solver. For too long, humanity took a blind eye to the countless studies pointing out that the world is far out of parallel compared to the ambitious goals set. For too long, countries have been selfish, seeking to improve themselves rather than the bigger “us.” Deep down, everyone knew that it was all hollow and empty. But the paradox is: what’s the point of a clean reputation if you don’t have a world to show it to? What’s the point of selfish greed if there is no world to spend what you gain?