The universality of climate change prompts a spate of global efforts.

Ideally, countries unite to combat the climate crisis, leave their interests at the door coming into international climate talks, and hopefully, save the planet.

But the commitment of nations is continuously tested in gatherings where the world needs to decide on the next steps.

How much should rich countries pay for exacerbating climate impacts in poor nations? Should we phase down or phase out fossil fuels? How do we reduce plastics?

From November to December, leaders and negotiators went to Azerbaijan to decide on a new climate finance deal. In South Korea, countries attempted to cement a deal on how to address plastic pollution. In the Netherlands, nations once again came together to argue on the legal obligation to fight climate change.

Following their conclusions, what should the public take away from these international proceedings that might appear, at times, as if to take one step forward and three steps back in climate action?

The ebbs and flows of climate negotiations

This year, the world set a new climate finance goal of $300 billion at the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP29) in Baku, Azerbaijan — short of a trillion dollars that vulnerable countries were demanding.

Even before COP29 started, delegates and civil society from developing countries were demanding at least $1.3 trillion. The first draft negotiating text that the COP29 presidency came out with set the number at $250 billion. As expected, many protested. The crowd was disgruntled until the gavel came down at $300 billion. That’s more than what countries set in 2009, incredibly less than what countries said they needed to deal with the climate crisis.

While many delegates walked away disappointed, COP29 was not the worst since the states started gathering annually for the climate summit, said Tony La Viña, a human rights and environmental lawyer.

La Viña, who was a former lead negotiator at the COP for the Philippines, said the process is cyclical. One year there’s no deal or it’s not enough. Another year the world strikes gold. He said that what happened in Baku meant “staying put” or maintaining the status quo.

He recalled the COP in Copenhagen in 2009, when states failed to come up with a binding commitment to reduce emissions. Then the following year in Cancun, states created the Green Climate Fund.

“Sometimes we move forward, sometimes we move backward,” La Viña said in an interview for The Green Report. “What we want to make sure is that when we move backward, the next opportunity, we move two steps forward.”

The relevance of COP has always been put into question, especially because progress largely rests on the voluntary commitments of countries. Is it useful in making sure we are on track in cutting emissions? Some climate leaders say it’s time for reform.

La Viña maintained that COP remains crucial to galvanize global action.

“The reason why you have a convention is because you need it for global action because it’s not enough for countries to do whatever they think is right to do,” La Viña said. “You have to coordinate all your actions so that it adds up to the impact that you want.”

After Azerbaijan, all eyes are now on Brazil. President Luiz Inacio Lula de Silva recently urged leaders of major economies to speed up climate targets.

No compromises, no deal

This same year, delegates left Busan without a global treaty on plastic pollution.

The negotiations in Busan, South Korea, held at the heels of COP29, was supposed to be the last of the talks in a series of sessions that started in 2022.

What delegates expected was that by the end of 2024 there should have been an ambitious deal that is as historic as the 2015 Paris Agreement. It was to be a legally binding agreement that covers the full life-cycle of plastic.

Among other important provisions, it would mandate plastic-producing corporations and countries to dramatically scale down production.

But the impasse at Busan may be read as a commitment of certain countries to not settle for a half-baked deal.

The extension of the negotiations, non-profit organization Environmental Justice Foundation (EJN), said is not ideal but it “avoids a premature compromise that would have failed to address the scope and scale of the plastic crisis.”

“This extension of INC-5 is important for achieving a strong treaty, but this delay is a reminder that a few ‘like-minded’ countries have prioritized the fossil fuel and petrochemical industries over a safe, sustainable future,” said Steve Trent, EJN’s founder, in a statement on December 2.

The negotiations on the plastics treaty will continue in 2025. By the next session, EJF campaigner Salisa Traipipitsiriwat said they hope it will not be a repeat of the shortcomings in Busan.

“We need transparent and inclusive negotiations, we must resolve the problematic text that could obstruct meaningful solutions, and most importantly, we need a voting mechanism to move forward when consensus cannot be reached,” Traipipitsiriwat said.

Youth and the fountain of hope

In the first two weeks of December, the World Court heard the pleas and legal arguments of more than 100 countries and economic organizations concerning this question: What are states actually legally obligated to do with climate change?

It should be well remembered that this was a question first raised by young students from Pacific island nations. (READ: What’s the climate change case at the ICJ all about?)

One of the first people who spoke during the public hearings was Cynthia Houniuhi, youth climate activist from the Solomon Islands, who urged the top court to help humanity “course correct.”

Houniuhu is the president of youth organization Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change (PISFCC).

The hearings ended on December 13. The World Court is expected to release an advisory opinion in 2025.

While not legally binding, countries see the Court’s opinion to carry significant legal weight and influence courts around the world trying cases related to climate change.

Rich nations argued that the basis of climate obligations is the Paris Agreement, which mandates countries to set emission reduction targets, but does not legally bind them to meet these.

“This is about the state obligations, not just under the Paris Agreement, not just under the UNHCR [United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees], but under all of the international law,” said Vishal Prasad, a Fijian climate activist and PISFCC director, in a press conference in The Hague on December 13.

The Philippines took a similar stance when Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra argued that the World Court should look at all international environmental treaties and documents on human rights law to decide on the issue.

Although some countries made “outrageous” arguments that “questioned climate science and human rights,” Prasad said the experience had given them a “remarkable chance” and highlighted the efforts of the youth.

Prasad emphasized that climate change is an inherently intergenerational issue: “We had a very remarkable chance to address directly to speak about the reality of climate change to young people of the Pacific and why young people five years ago took this campaign on. Why did we bring this climate change to the world’s highest court? Essentially, if you condense it, it’s all about the injustice generations have faced and will face if we do not address climate change.”

While the judges in the World Court let countries air their legal arguments, their job differs from delegates in international conventions like COP in that there is no negotiating in their decision.

The court and the convention are both opportunities for states, said Lea Guerrero, executive director of Greenpeace Philippines.

“Both are also valuable for campaigners and activists in the climate justice movement, as these are international proceedings that significantly impact international and domestic climate policies,” Guerrero told Rappler.

Whether or not the arc of the climate movement bends towards justice, the proceedings had been a testament to what the Global South-led climate movement can do.

“We all felt it was an extremely important moment for nations to stand before the world’s highest court, and assert their rights and the rights of future generations,” said Guerrero. – Rappler.com