In the wee hours of November 11, I peered into my 14-inch screen to observe the CoP29 opening plenary. The CoP29 President, Mukhtar Babayev, emphatically stated, “Let us act in solidarity for a green world”. CoP29 was boldly announced as the “Climate Finance CoP” to “enhance ambition and enable action”. It was a jarring term leading to the question of whether climate solidarity had replaced climate justice, or whether the petrostates had co-opted a largely left-leaning term, “solidarity”, to repackage the neoliberal workings of climate finance as mutual aid? At the onset, it was unclear what the CoP29 Presidency meant by this term other than the fact that they were ready to make decisions without consensus while giving fossil-fuel industries, private capital, and multilateral banks a free reign to insert themselves into critical dialogues on carbon emission regulations.
According to classical political theories, “solidarity” is the defence of the “public” largely achieved through the power of social movements. In recent years, political geographer David Featherstone has nuanced our understanding of the interrelationship between solidarity and internationalism, and grounded this discussion in the myriad ways oppressed groups internationally have found means to oppose inequalities through “politics from below”. Traditionally, solidarity has been a political struggle and engagement through networks of relationships forged across the margins globally, as Shailaja Paik states, to “construct new knowledge and enable political solidarity to build conscious and sustained commitment to challenge social injustices”. In short, solidarity as a socio-political construct came from below to challenge the powers above.
In recent years, this largely left-leaning political term has been co-opted by liberals and right-wing governments to redefine solidarity as a political struggle to justify the invisible hand of the market. The CoP29 presidency branded solidarity as a commitment to climate action in the spirit of “collaboration, compromise, and determination” to “deliver a balanced package outcome”. But a balanced package outcome meant that fossil-fuel industries and the global rich continue to control the show while global temperatures continue to rise and vulnerable communities face the wrath of climate change.
As the days progressed, I observed the politics of climate solidarity in multiple negotiating rooms. Argentina walked out of CoP29 on day three. The Like-Minded Group of Developing Countries, led by Saudi Arabia and supported by India and China on many key issues, kept debating on the role of the IPCC and climate science. The Alliance of Small Island States pleaded for the insertion of “Loss and Damage” in all negotiating texts. The G77+ China got deeply embroiled in the developed vs developing country debate, and this continued to define the outcome of a robust deal.
During the Qurultay, India reiterated “this is a finance CoP, the balancing CoP, the enabling CoP. If we fail here, we fail in the fight against climate change for which the onus should be on those who are obligated to provide finance for climate action.” Meanwhile, India, which has had no shortage of climate disasters in recent decades, abdicated its potential leadership role by pushing back against substantive action on domestic fossil fuel phase out.
Certain countries were not in favour of extending the list of “non-party stakeholders” to include indigenous communities, children, youth, and others. As Egypt remarked, “this looks like a Christmas tree listing anything and everything in there.” To be clear, groups on the margins of the climate catastrophe got compared to a “Christmas tree listing” with no serious political engagement on an equitable and just outcome. Solidarity from above hung on a loose string. It became clear that CoP29 was on the verge of collapse.
Any serious engagement with the idea of solidarity must take into account the spatial relationalities built and nurtured beyond the nation-state. At CoP29, it was visible that many non-party groups found solidarity on a few cross-cutting issues like climate justice, public debt, and the unregulated fossil-fuel industry. As it became clear that the negotiating texts prepared by the CoP29 presidency lacked any sort of teeth to regulate carbon emissions or deliver on climate finance, these groups were ready to engage in a political struggle. Groups petitioned leaders, “we urge you to stand up for the people of the Global South and we insist — no deal in Baku is better than a bad deal.”
The just transition was central to this petition. During the Qurultay, India stated “just transition is interpreted in narrow domestic terms implying that it is national governments that have to take actions to ensure domestic just transitions. However, we have repeatedly made the point that just transition begins globally with developed countries taking the lead in mitigation and in ensuring that they provide the means to implementation to all developing countries.” The grim reality remains that India continues to expand domestic coal mining while displacing thousands of Adivasi and lower caste communities under the veil of the “right to development”.
most read
As CoP29 went well over 24 hours of overtime, I continued to peer into my screen to observe the final outcome on climate solidarity. The CoP29 President’s gavel, geopolitical games, and the developed vs developing country debate, controlled climate solidarity from above. India opposed the final text on the basis of “lack of trust” in the multilateral system and the “lack of responsibility” from developed countries. Even though the Baku Climate Unity Pact was adopted amidst much objection and confusion, it only emboldened the privatisation of finance and an unregulated carbon market. As temperatures and carbon emissions continue to increase, the question arises, who benefits from this rebranding of solidarity into modes of market mechanisms to combat climate change?
We didn’t have to wait for CoP29 to realise that the multilateral deliberation system is failing to regulate the fossil-fuel industry and address the severity of climate change. We didn’t need to wait for CoP29 to realise that solidarity from above is hollow. It is time to face the difficult reality: What is climate solidarity in the face of increasing carbon emissions, global temperatures and military spending, a mounting public debt crisis, and gross human rights violations, the further marginalisation of the vulnerable in India and globally, the steady concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, and a fast deterioration of biodiversity?
The writer is assistant professor of Global Environment Politics at Whitman College, and a research observer to the United Nations Framework Convention of Climate Change (UNFCCC)
