Is COP29 a Trojan Horse?

At the core of the criticism from the Global South is the argument that climate policies proposed by the West place an unfair burden on developing nations

As the world prepares for COP29, the rhetoric surrounding the climate agenda continues to grow louder. Developing nations, particularly those from the Global South, have begun raising concerns that the climate action framework is disproportionately aligned with the interests of developed nations, particularly the West. Is COP29 a genuine step towards solving the global climate crisis, or is it a carefully crafted agenda to maintain the West's economic hegemony at the expense of the developing world?

At the core of the criticism from the Global South is the argument that climate policies proposed by the West place an unfair burden on developing nations. Historically, the Global North, including the US and Europe, have been the primary contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. Between 1850 and 2021, developed nations were responsible for more than 76 percent of cumulative global CO2 emissions, while the Global South, despite rapid industrialisation in recent decades, still accounts for a significantly smaller share.

Yet, the demands of the COP agenda - decarbonisation, carbon pricing, and transition to green technologies – apply equally to all nations, irrespective of their historical emissions. This presents a unique problem for developing nations, which are still reliant on carbon-intensive industries for economic growth. For countries like India, which has lifted millions out of poverty through industrial growth, being asked to rapidly decarbonise can feel like being asked to pay for the sins of the West.

CBAM, another way to impose tariffs

One of the most glaring examples of how the COP29 agenda could work against the Global South is the European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). Set to be implemented by 2026, CBAM will impose tariffs on imports from countries that don’t adhere to strict carbon emission standards. For India, which is a major exporter of carbon-intensive goods such as steel and cement, this could have devastating economic consequences, adding to its unemployment burden.

India is the world’s second-largest steel producer, and its steel industry employs over 500,000 people while contributing around 2.5% to the GDP. The CBAM will make Indian steel less competitive in European markets, further pushing up costs for an industry that is already grappling with high energy prices and post-pandemic recovery challenges.

Isn’t it for protecting the Western industries under the guise of climate action? While the stated intention is to reduce global emissions, CBAM could be seen as a strategic mechanism to shield developed economies from competition by creating additional barriers for industries in developing countries.

Another key issue lies in energy transitions. While COP29 calls for a shift to renewable energy, many developing nations are still heavily reliant on fossil fuels, not out of choice, but necessity. India, for instance, derives nearly 70% of its electricity from coal- a resource that is abundant, affordable, and critical for its energy security. The global push for renewable energy adoption assumes that countries have the financial and technological capacity to transition to cleaner energy sources.

A report by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) estimates that developing countries will need an additional $1.3 trillion per year until 2030 to meet global climate targets. Given the economic disparities between the Global North and South, the burden of financing this transition falls disproportionately on developing countries, many of which are already dealing with significant debts and economic challenges.

Moreover, it’s not just about technology; the renewable energy supply chains themselves are concentrated in the hands of a few. The majority of critical minerals, like lithium and cobalt, are controlled by a handful of countries, which presents further economic risks for the Global South if they are unable to secure access to these resources at competitive prices.

Disappointing results in climate financing

Even the climate finance is a sore issue. At COP15 in Copenhagen (2009), developed nations promised to mobilise $100 billion annually by 2020 to help developing countries transition. Yet, as of 2023, this promise remains largely unfulfilled. According to a report by OECD, the funds provided is just $83.3 billion in 2020 – well short of the $100 billion target. The other issue is that most of this is in the form of loans and not grant.  Without the promised funds, countries are left to choose between meeting their developmental needs, or adhering to global climate targets, often at significant economic costs.

The shift to a low-carbon economy is also dependent on access to advanced technologies, many of which are patented and controlled by corporations in developed countries. For example, carbon capture, energy storage, and EV production are dominated by Western firms and China. Even if the Global South nations wish to accelerate their green transitions, they may be forced to pay exorbitant licensing fees for the necessary technologies. Such disparities create an uneven playing field where developed nations have both the economic and technological upper hand. Without adequate technology transfer and capacity building, the COP29 agenda risks deepening existing inequalities.

The COP29 agenda must include the creation of a framework of “climate justice.” Those who have historically contributed the most to global emissions should bear a greater responsibility for addressing the climate crisis. Developing nations should be allowed the time and space to grow their economies and reduce poverty

As the COP29 touts climate action, let it not make the developing nations wonder if they are cleaning up the mess or just paying for it!

Muneer is the managing director of Customer Lab Solutions, a consulting firm. Twitter @MuneerMuh

Views are personal and do not represent the stand of this publication.