After the controversial agreement at COP29 in Baku, NE Global sat down with Professor Gregg Walker, a COP veteran, for a close analysis of the results produced in the Azeri capital.
Walker is a professor of Communications and an adjunct professor in Environmental Sciences, Forestry, Oceanography, Public Policy, and Water Resources programs at Oregon State University. He is a member of the National Collaboration Cadre of the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution. Walker leads observer teams at UN climate change meetings for Mediators Beyond Borders International and the International Environmental Communication Association. He also serves as the Modalities Expert for the Paris Committee on Capacity Building, a United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Constituted Body, and is member of the Climate Reality Leadership Corps.
NE GLOBAL: How do you evaluate from the political point of view the result of the COP29?
GREGG WALKER: This is my 15th consecutive COP, and I have been following the negotiations going back to COP3 in Kyoto. Of course, the negotiations are affected by the political winds, both domestic and international factors and pressure. Add to that the consensus process and the result is that progress is inherently slow. The results of the U.S. presidential election affected the negotiations somewhat, but not in a way similar to the 2016 COP in Marrakech. People I talked with in Baku were disappointed but not surprised. The momentum and progress regarding a changing energy mix (e.g., more renewables, less dependence on fossil fuels) will continue. I think that China and the EU will fill the void somewhat during the second Trump term, with China emerging as the global leader in climate change negotiations and international policy development.
NEG: Is the financial agreement enough?
GW: This depends on who you ask. For the developing countries, especially the most vulnerable, no. But finance has always been the elephant in the room. International agreements are voluntary and subject to the decisions of sovereign governments. (U.S. President-elect Donald) Trump will most likely scale back any American financial commitments. Other developed countries may try to fill financial commitment gaps, but these are influenced by internal public support. There are issues of transparency, accountability, and concerns about corruption.
NEG: What are the next steps from now to the next COP30 in Brazil?
GW: I think that parties will realize that the 1.5 C degree goal in the Paris Agreement cannot be met – that a 2.0 degree or 2.25 C degree goal is more realistic. COP30 revisits the Paris Agreement a decade later, with countries increasing their ambition and updating their (Nationally Determined Contributions) NDCs. I also think that there will be an expectation to devote more attention to adaptation and adaptation-related issues; policies, programs, and funding to increase resilience to the impacts of climate change. Adaptation matters most to developing countries – no surprise there. There will be continued discussion of non-technical issues – I call them the human dimensions issues – such as gender, governance, youth, and just transition. There may also be pressure on countries to submit their National Adaptation Plans as well as their (National Adaptation Plans) NAPs.
NEG: What could be the consequences of a withdrawal of the U.S. under President elect Donald Trump?
GW: I wrote to Mr. Trump in 2017 and will do so again, urging the U.S. to stay at the table – stay in the Paris Agreement. Trump can change Biden policies without withdrawing. By withdrawing, Trump puts the U.S. on the sidelines – the U.S. becomes a marginal voice and player. The same thing happened to Russia when it invaded Ukraine. The U.S. will continue to send a delegation to UNFCCC meetings, but a very small one. China will take advantage and become the most influential player.
NEG: How do you see the attitude of India and China on the future of Paris Agreement?
GW: Not just China and India, but the BRICS coalition – add Brazil and South Africa. These countries were non-annex 1 (list of countries that includes members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development – OECD – as well as economies in transition) when the Kyoto Protocol was agreed to in 1997. In the years since, even since Paris, these four emerging economies have become major voices in the negotiations. Like the U.S., Brazil became less influential under (ex-President Jair) Bolsonaro, but it is now back in a leadership position.
I think the Belem COP (in the Amazonian city in Brazil) will renew and strengthen the Paris Agreement, even with the U.S. and Russia on the sidelines. BRICS countries, and EU, and many developed countries such as Canada, Australia, and Japan will participate significantly. From the Global South, I would add Peru, Costa Rica, Ghana, Kenya, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, Uzbekistan, and Azerbaijan.
