- COP29 in Baku has been marked by both organizational efficiency and political controversies.
- Disputes over carbon credit rules and the Azerbaijani President’s remarks have created diplomatic tensions.
- Climate activists are using COP29 to highlight the need for increased climate finance and to criticize carbon markets.
Some participants at the COP29 climate conference in Baku are giving it high marks for organization and appearance. The proceedings themselves, however, have been tumultuous.
Several attendees have noted the presence of a legion of omnipresent young volunteers who are “polite, smiling, and always ready to help.” The “pristine cleanliness” of the venue, another adds, “feels a bit excessive.” The biggest hassle, some say, is connected to getting to and from the venue, which is sealed behind a vast security cordon. The options for non-VIPs aren’t plentiful. Taking public transport is time-consuming and tight security around the venue means that participants have to walk a half-hour or more before they stand a chance of finding a taxi.
“;document.write(write_html);}
Inside the Blue Zone, the conference area where the hard bargaining occurs, COP29’s Azerbaijani hosts have lauded a provisional agreement forged November 11, the conference’s first day, that fleshed out guidelines on how “countries can pursue voluntary cooperation to reach their climate targets.” But others say the rules governing carbon credits were pushed through without due process, thus raising questions about their acceptance and durability.
Closed-door negotiations over the carbon-credit system stretched well into the night on the conference’s first day, forcing repeated delays of plenary sessions. The supervisory body charged with implementing and overseeing the carbon credit mechanism has taken some heat for developing rules while bypassing the chain of command within the COP system. The COP presidency ended up accepting the supervisory body’s plan but told its members to keep on refining the carbon-credit system, leaving open the possibility that it could undergo substantial revisions down the road.
