Our world is at a critical juncture. The devastating effects of global warming are increasingly evident, and the crisis is deepening. To mitigate it, we must urgently reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. Failing to act now would only increase the human and economic toll.
This year’s UN Climate Change Conference, or COP29, in Baku, Azerbaijan, presents a unique opportunity for effective collective action. Amid heightened geopolitical tensions and global uncertainty, COP29 would serve as a test of the multilateral system on which humanity’s ability to respond to this existential threat depends.
The groundwork for coordinated action was laid in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 with the creation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which established the annual Conference of the Parties (COP) to promote consensus-based solutions. The philosophy was simple: given that climate change is a global issue, addressing it requires a collaborative approach.
The UNFCCC fosters cooperation between smaller countries and superpowers, enables civil society organizations to engage directly with governments, and facilitates cross-border technology transfers. Perhaps most importantly, it provides a framework for collective action in which each country’s efforts encourage others to step up their own.
While the 1997 Kyoto Protocol set binding emission-reduction targets for developed economies, it quickly became clear that more was needed. In response, developed countries pledged in 2009 to mobilize US$100 billion annually by 2020 to support developing countries’ climate policies.
The 2015 Paris climate agreement marked a turning point, setting the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and ensuring that the increase stays well below 2°C.
To monitor progress, the agreement established a system of nationally determined contributions (NDCs) through which each country outlines its emission-reduction plans. Periodic global audits assess whether countries are on track to fulfill their climate commitments.
Regrettably, the first global audit, released ahead of last year’s COP28 in Dubai, showed that we are far from meeting these climate targets. It also offered a comprehensive roadmap, calling on all countries to commit to NDCs aligned with the 1.5°C goal and establishing clear steps and timelines — including transitioning away from fossil fuels — that could bring the Paris Agreement’s objectives within reach.
COP29 represents the next step for the multilateral approach, with leaders expected to agree on a significant boost to the US$100 billion climate finance target — the so-called New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG). Moreover, each country must submit its updated NDCs by February next year.
Transparency is essential to this process. If the Paris Agreement’s targets are the destination, and the NDCs are the roadmap, the NCQG provides the fuel needed to get there. Building trust in countries’ commitment to bold climate action and willingness to provide the necessary financing is key.
As COP29 president, Azerbaijan is urging all countries to submit NDCs aligned with the 1.5°C target as soon as possible. We are also doing everything we can to secure a fair and ambitious new climate finance goal that addresses developing countries’ needs and matches the scale and urgency of the crisis.
Falling short would force us to confront tough questions: Are we willing to accept the failure of the Paris Agreement? And what are the alternatives? One thing is clear: without a viable backup plan, we must do all we can to meet the 1.5°C goal. Sleepwalking into climate catastrophe is not an option.
To be sure, the multilateral system has its flaws, but it remains the best framework to tackle this daunting challenge. Over three decades, it has fostered lasting international cooperation, a shared understanding of the science, and a strong consensus concerning global climate goals.
The alternative to multilateralism is a fragmented response, with governments pursuing their own agendas without coordination or cooperation. This approach would mean slower progress, higher costs and less equitable outcomes. Without a unifying goal, any sense of shared purpose would all but vanish.
Consider, for example, COP29’s objective of finalizing negotiations on Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, which aims to standardize carbon markets. By channeling resources toward the most effective mitigation projects, this framework could save US$250 billion annually by 2030 — a substantial boost in an era of limited resources.
Given the alternatives, we have no choice but to make the current system work. The COP29 presidency would leave no stone unturned to achieve an international consensus. With an agenda focused on advancing transformative climate action, Azerbaijan could help bridge geopolitical divisions.
However, our success hinges on countries’ willingness to engage constructively and commit to the multilateral process.
The science is clear, the frameworks for coordinated action are in place, and the plan has been laid out. Now, we must find the political will to put these tools to use. COP29 is our chance to prove that multilateralism can work.
Mukhtar Babayev, president-designate of COP29, is the Azerbaijani minister of ecology and natural resources.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS