The COP29 climate conference in Baku did not yield significant results on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions: the discussions on the Mitigation Work Program and the Global Stocktake were effectively stalled
Stubbornness, crossed vetoes, and delays marked the failure of COP29 on the issue of greenhouse gas emissions reduction. The 29th United Nations Climate Change Conference ended with an empty and insignificant agreement on mitigating the climate crisis (the Mitigation Work Program) and with no agreement on how to implement the outcomes of COP28 in Dubai (the Global Stocktake), especially regarding the transition away from fossil fuels.
COP29: Total Failure on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction
COP29 was primarily focused on finance: climate aid was the most important item on the agenda, as the framework for post-2025 climate finance needed to be established in Baku. However, the conference in Azerbaijan was also meant to reaffirm, consolidate, and advance the historic outcomes of COP28 in Dubai.
Last year, for the first time in the history of UN climate conferences, the final agreement of the summit in the United Arab Emirates explicitly recognized fossil fuels as the cause of global warming. It also set the necessity of beginning the “transition away from fossil fuels.”
In Baku, many delegations looked to the negotiation tracks on mitigation, the Mitigation Work Program, and the Global Stocktake dialogue as the best areas to push for an increase in climate ambition.
That did not happen. The final texts approved are empty in this regard. Others, equally weak, were not even approved and will be discussed further during the interim negotiations in Bonn in June 2025.
Saudi Arabia refuses to discuss fossil fuels, blocking everything
Why Such a Low Outcome? Why Did COP29 Fail to Maintain the Ambition Achieved in Dubai the Previous Year?
The answer is simple: some delegations went to great lengths to derail the negotiations at COP29 on greenhouse gas emissions reduction, with Saudi Arabia being the primary obstacle.
Riyadh did not accept the outcome of COP28. Just days after the end of the summit in 2023, Saudi representatives attempted to push for an interpretation of the agreement that would not bind them to abandon oil. Since then, they have worked tirelessly to dismantle it or, at the very least, stall it.
On behalf of the Arab Group of Negotiators, Saudi Arabia obstructed both the Mitigation Work Program (MWP) and the three tracks focused on the implementation of the Global Stocktake (GST). Riyadh rejected the idea that the MWP should be the platform for discussing greenhouse gas emissions reduction or any concrete mitigation commitments, arguing that it should focus solely on climate finance. Similarly, they blocked any progress on the GST, the document where COP28 recognized the importance of transitioning away from fossil fuels.
What the Mitigation Work Program (MWP) Agreement Says – and Does Not Say
During the final plenary, the MWP agreement was approved, but the final text paradoxically contains almost nothing concrete regarding greenhouse gas emissions reduction.
In addition to Saudi Arabia, China and several other developing countries opposed including new reduction obligations in the agreement and, more generally, objected to what they saw as a “top-down” approach from wealthier nations. The rejection also extended to even basic references to gradually phasing out coal, fossil fuel subsidies, and transitioning to renewables – points that should have been established in the negotiation process by now.
In summary, the final agreement on mitigation from COP29 is characterized by:
- Disappearance of the Paris Agreement Climate Goals – The final MWP agreement removed any reference to the goals set in the Paris Agreement, including the global warming limits of 1.5°C or 2°C. This represents a significant lowering of ambitions compared to the goals set to contain climate change.
- Elimination of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction – The final text makes no mention of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 43% by 2030 and 60% by 2035 compared to 2019 levels, a crucial target for halting global warming that was included in the preliminary drafts of the agreement.
- Absence of Carbon Neutrality Reference – The term “net zero emissions” disappeared from the text, which should have reflected the long-term path toward climate neutrality. Its absence means there are no clear goals for achieving long-term emissions reductions.
- Lack of Reference to IPCC Work – No reference was made to the guidelines and scientific findings of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), including greenhouse gas inventories and the conclusions of the latest 2022 Assessment Report on mitigation (AR6 WGIII). This removes an important scientific foundation for climate policies. Saudi Arabia has pushed for considering other, less scientifically solid sources as the basis for climate policies.
- Lack of Concrete Actions for Emissions Reduction – The final text does not specify concrete measures for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, such as transitioning from fossil fuels or adopting renewable energy. There is no mention of the necessary solutions to reduce emissions globally.
The final text of the MWP agreement – just 3 pages long – mostly refers to the content of the annual dialogue concluded at COP29, focusing on urban solutions to global warming.
COP29, No Agreement on the UAE Dialogue for the Global Stocktake
The situation was even worse for the Global Stocktake negotiations. The Azeri presidency decided to break the discussions into three separate tracks in an attempt to bypass the strong opposition from some delegations and secure an agreement on at least one of the tracks.
However, these hopes were in vain. The only track that brought a final text to a vote at the concluding plenary of the summit – the UAE Dialogue on Global Stocktake – was deferred to next year in Bonn, during the intermediate negotiations.
The aim of this negotiation table was to decide how to translate the results of the first Global Stocktake into concrete actions. The Global Stocktake (GST) is the five-year review of national climate commitments, as outlined in the Paris Agreement. It evaluates global progress towards the agreement’s goals and provides guidance on how to correct any deviations.
The findings of the Global Stocktake serve as a guide for the development of national climate plans (NDCs), which are supposed to be revisited every five years. While the GST outcomes are non-binding and do not require changes to the NDCs, they nonetheless serve as a reference point for assessing whether countries are contributing adequately to global targets.
The last draft agreement available (pdf), which was rejected by the final plenary, contains many references to climate science and the goals of the Paris Agreement, emphasizing the primary importance of the 1.5°C limit. It also explicitly mentions Article 28 of the Dubai Pact, which refers to the transition away from fossil fuels.
However, two important points were missing from the text. The draft lacks the obligation to produce an annual report to monitor the progress of implementing the fossil fuel transition. Additionally, it missed references that could have anchored the phase-out of fossil fuels more firmly in the climate negotiations process, avoiding any potential backtracking or reversals.
