The last three days of COP29 start today – or so they say. Officially, the conference in Baku is supposed to end Friday evening, but at UN negotiations, nothing’s really official. With all the different positions tangled up, it’s likely we’ll go into overtime in Baku. One day? Two? Who knows…
As of today, the G20 meeting in Rio didn’t deliver a solution for Baku either, despite some hopeful expectations. But at least the heads of government gave the talks in Azerbaijan a bit of momentum. Now, COP29 has to carry on solo. There’s also an ongoing debate about where we’ll meet in two years – Turkey is interested in hosting COP31, but it has a controversial climate track record, as we cover today.
And there’s some interesting news for Germany: Where does Germany rank in this year’s climate policy report, released today? And how much funding could Germany raise for climate action if it really gave it all it’s got? We have a number.
We’ll be staying up to keep you informed over the next few days. Happy reading!
The final declaration of the G20 summit in Rio de Janeiro has given COP29 a general boost, but has not delivered a breakthrough for the faltering negotiations in Baku. The “Leaders’ Declaration”, which delegates and observers at the climate conference had expected to provide new impetus, particularly on the sensitive issues of finance and emissions reduction, verbally supports the conference in Azerbaijan, but leaves it up to the 198 states to decide on the outcome. Therefore, the countries in Baku cannot hope that the G20 will solve their problems.
The statement by the heads of state and government on Monday evening has positive aspects for a possible agreement at COP29:
The focus on the NDCs is particularly important for the COP because this is where the implementation of the GST is being fought for – and because the funds for ambitious climate targets are to be decided as part of the NDCs. These in turn should be as progressive as possible in order to preserve the last chance of achieving the 1.5-degree pathway – and to help this year’s G20 host Brazil succeed as the host of COP30 next year.
On the two key issues in Baku – finance and emissions reduction – the declaration shows significantly less ambition.
Observers and delegates in Baku say that Saudi Arabia in particular has put pressure on the G20 to drop this wording. The country perceived the COP28 decision in Dubai as a defeat and has been blocking progress in many international negotiations for a year. A recent report in the New York Times describes this tactic as a “wrecking ball” for climate policy – an assessment shared by many at the conference.
The controversial nature of the COP28 “transition away” resolution at the G20 is also reflected in its fate this year. It was absent from the declaration of the G20 energy and climate ministers at the beginning of October, as it is now in the Leaders’ Declaration. In contrast, “transition away” did appear in the final report of the Brazilian Presidency’s ministerial “Climate Task Force” at the end of October.
This tactical back and forth between the majority of the G20 and Saudi Arabia could soon be over. Because if the USA under Donald Trump pulls out of the Paris Agreement, Argentina under Javier Milei possibly follows them and Russia, as a major oil and gas producer, also prevents progress, “then it will no longer be 19 against one in the G20, but 16 against four, and that will prevent any consensus on this issue”, says one observer.
Saudi Arabia is actually dependent on the cooperation of the other states in the UN: In just two weeks, the country will be hosting COP16 of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification in Riyadh. The Saudi presidency will then be looking for compromises.
Because the “transition away” formula is so controversial, it is also likely to be a point of contention in the negotiations on the final documents of COP29. The industrialized countries in particular are demanding progress in the transition away from fossil fuels at the climate conference before they are prepared to make concessions on the NCQG financial target. The area of “mitigation”, which includes “transition away”, is being negotiated from a “white paper”, so there are no textual specifications for the time being. Possible outcomes could include
According to negotiators, the first sums for a new NCQG are now being mentioned for the equally controversial financial issue. A Politico report on a possible EU target of $200 to $300 billion seems to confirm rumors circulating at COP29. Well above the previous $100 billion, but well below $400 or $500 billion, this could apparently be a “landing zone”.
There was therefore no concrete decision-making support from the G20 on the disputed points but this does not mean that COP29 will decide independently: All national governments will be very attentive to these issues because they will have to approve a possible financial compromise.
While addressing world leaders on the second day of COP29, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan announced his country’s bid to host the summit after Brazil, in 2026. Despite an open letter on November 15 by former leaders and climate experts demanding a reform of COP, including ‘strict eligibility criteria ‘for host countries, it seems clear by now that COP31 will be hosted by a coal economy.
Turkey’s only competition is Australia, whose climate change minister Chris Bowen reportedly visited Ankara on November 15 to “convince” its leaders to drop out of the race. Fossil fuels account for a majority of Australia’s electricity generation, and the country is the world’s second largest fossil fuel exporter. This situation alleviates the burden on Ankara to strengthen its bid by announcing an ambitious climate agenda.
In an undesirable win – much like the dreaded “fossil of the day” awards at COP – Turkey has become Europe’s largest coal-fired electricity producer in 2024. As things stand, some 58% of Turkey’s electricity is generated by fossil fuels.
Turkey’s nationally determined contribution (NDC), updated in 2023, commits to a 41% emissions reduction from 2012 levels – but a reduction only when compared to the business as usual scenario. In other words, it’s not really a decrease in emissions, but a rise of around 30%, WWF Turkey says.
Under this scenario, Turkey’s emissions will only peak in 2038, and then the country will have merely 15 years to reach its declared ambition of net zero by 2053. Climate Action Tracker rates this plan as ‘critically insufficient’, warning that if other countries were to follow Turkey’s path, this would indicate a warming of up to 4°C.
This is why the country’s long term climate strategy for 2053, submitted to the UN on the first day of the summit and announced a day later by the minister in charge of climate change, was anticipated with guarded hopefulness.
‘The good thing about this plan is the new solar and wind capacity goal of 120 GW for 2035, ‘says Ufuk Alparslan, Ember’s regional lead for Turkey, Central Asia and the Caucasus, welcoming the aim to quadruple renewables capacity over the next decade.
‘Turkish civil society organizations and think tanks had modeled how Turkey could reach net zero by 2053, and even in those publications, solar and wind capacity was not as high, ‘he noted, adding that Turkey’s NDC should be updated to reflect this newfound ambition.
While the unexpectedly high renewables target was well-received, the focus on nuclear was more controversial. Ankara belatedly signed the COP28 declaration to triple nuclear capacity by 2050, and foresees 20GW of nuclear power in its energy mix by 2050.
‘They are stuck on nuclear’s role as a base load source of electricity, as though storage technologies will not improve in the near future,’ said Özlem Katısöz, the climate and energy policy coordinator for Turkey at Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe.
‘We say energy should be local and renewable, and nuclear is neither, ‘she added, conveying her puzzlement at the government’s embrace of nuclear when the issue of energy independence is high up on the country’s agenda.
Turkey has long been trying to reduce its energy dependence on Russia, which supplies a majority of its gas, oil, and coal imports. Nonetheless, the Akkuyu nuclear power plant that is currently under construction is owned by Russia’s state-owned nuclear energy company Rosatom.
Alparslan thinks even a greater problem with nuclear is its lack of flexibility. ‘Turkey’s real need isn’t base load, but flexible plants that can swiftly increase or decrease production, ‘he explained, especially as its renewables capacity is set to rise dramatically. Turkey is lucky in this regard, he explained, as this need can be met by its large hydroelectric capacity.
‘Nuclear power plants take too long to construct and they are very expensive. We need faster, cheaper solutions, like wind and solar. And because Turkey has a high potential for both, we do not think it is meaningful or rational for Ankara to invest in nuclear, ‘he added.
Aside from nuclear, the main downside of the plan, climate and energy experts argue, is the lack of a commitment to phase out fossil fuels.
‘Unless you stop the coal sector, which is responsible for a fifth of Turkey’s emissions, net zero will be very hard to reach, ‘said Bahadır Sercan Gümüş, a Turkey energy analyst for Ember.
Speaking to reporters after the announcement of the plan, the minister in charge of climate change, Murat Kurum, mentioned ‘coal phase out ‘for the very first time. By increasing renewables and nuclear capacity, Kurum said, ‘we will be phasing out fossil fuels in the process’. But the ambiguity of the process puts the net zero plan at risk.
Ümit Şahin, coordinator of climate change studies at Istanbul Policy Center, also suggested that the methodology of the plan was flawed. ‘They should have a mitigation target and calculate how to get there. But they instead put together a number of side goals – such as energy efficiency and increased use of EVs,’ he said. ‘The main target, which all these smaller goals should contribute to, is missing.’
Despite concerns over the ambitiousness of its climate policies, Ankara appears intent on hosting COP31 in Turkey. While announcing the country’s long term strategy at COP29, Kurum highlighted their vision of ‘building a bridge ‘between developed and developing nations at COP31.
‘Bridge ‘is a tired metaphor to describe Turkey, frequently used to draw attention to the country’s position between Asia and Europe, East and West. But it is particularly fitting to describe Turkey’s decades’ long struggles in climate diplomacy.
As a member of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Turkey was categorized as an Annex 1 country – developed country in UNFCCC parlance – which implies stricter obligations to reduce emissions and ineligibility for climate finance. This ‘unfair ‘misclassification, as Ankara sees it, was the primary reason why it ratified Paris with a delay of five years, and reportedly only after striking deals for financial support.
During his remarks at the ‘finance’ COP, Erdogan called for a climate finance target that would ‘meet the needs of developing nations,’ clearly siding with non-annex countries.
This is a break from Turkey’s usual position of ambiguity, Şahin said, noting the president’s statement was ‘going directly against the European Union’.
We are yet to see how Turkey’s positions in the ongoing negotiations would impact its bid to host COP31. But Alparslan thinks hosting the climate summit would help boost Ankara’s climate ambitions.
‘Hosting COP31 in Turkey would raise awareness, especially as there’ll be international attention on the country. Ankara would also be much more able to communicate its position and aims. It would be very beneficial overall, ‘he remarked. Selin Uğurtaş
This story was produced as part of the 2024 Climate Change Media Partnership, a journalism fellowship organized by Internews’ Earth Journalism Network and the Stanley Center for Peace and Security.
A coalition of twelve countries chaired by the Netherlands promised a year ago to push ahead with the phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies. At COP28, the states signed a joint declaration committing them to publish an inventory within a year in order to develop a strategy for the abolition of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. Funds from this could flow into the new climate finance target (NCQG), for example, as a study by German environmental associations shows.
The Coalition on Fossil Fuel Incentives and Subsidies (COFFIS) presented its initial findings on Tuesday: Four member states published an inventory of their fossil fuel subsidies on time, explained Sophie Hermans, the responsible climate and economic minister of the Netherlands. “The other states are still working on it.” Austria’s was submitted later on Tuesday. The minister also announced the accession of the UK, New Zealand and Colombia. Talks are underway with other countries. Such first-mover coalitions are typical of the UN climate process in order to motivate other countries.
Other members are Austria, Switzerland, France, Spain, Canada, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Costa Rica, Luxembourg and Antigua and Barbuda. The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) has been appointed as the secretariat to help with the inventory, for example. Although Germany has shown interest in joining, it has so far failed to do so, as have the USA and China.
In addition to Austria, France, Ireland, Belgium and the Netherlands also published their inventories on time. “The members will use this to draw up a strategy for abolishing fossil subsidies,” said Hermans, explaining the process. All coalition members must present this strategy by the COP30 in a year at the latest. Individual subsidies are particularly sensitive here, Hermans warned – for example for households that the Netherlands subsidized during the 2022 energy crisis. This support is now being phased out. “Every subsidy affects a person’s livelihood. We cannot abolish them without a just transition.”
However, “only 15 percent of global fossil fuel subsidies go to poorer people anyway“, said Mary Warlick, Deputy Executive Director of the IEA. For a just transition, the abolition would have to happen “gradually and with long-term structural changes” and be communicated transparently.
Meanwhile, a positive signal came from Canada. The country signed a G20 agreement back in 2009 to abolish inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. “We are the first G20 country to abolish them”, explained climate ambassador Catharine Stewart. In 2023, the country published a national strategy. It lists 129 subsidies. Canada is also in the process of “ending public funding for fossil fuels“, said Stewart. According to Environmental Defence, around 19 billion Canadian dollars (€12.8 billion) were still being spent on this in 2022.
France, on the other hand, overturned its plans to abolish tax breaks for agricultural diesel in February after farmers protested against it for weeks – which in turn fueled criticism of France’s credibility as a member of the COFFIS coalition.
The abolition of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies has been under discussion for years. Following the G20 states in 2009, all UN states also committed to this in the final declaration of COP26 three years ago. The G7 countries decided back in 2016 to abolish inefficient fossil fuel subsidies by 2025. A WTO initiative and SDG12.c also aim to achieve this.
Despite these agreements, fossil fuel subsidies quadrupled in 2022 compared to 2020, mainly due to higher energy prices following the war of aggression against Ukraine, as the OECD and IISD’s Fossil Fuel Subsidy Tracker shows. In the previous year, subsidies fell again from $1,500 to $1,300 billion, but this decline is “not substantial”, criticizes Jonas Kuehl, policy advisor and analyst in the energy sector at IISD, in an interview with Table.Briefings.
The new national climate protection plans (NDC 3.0) are also “not yet very promising”, says Kuehl. These must be updated by all UN member states by February 2025 and are valid until 2035. Before and during COP29, some countries submitted new NDCs, including G20 members Brazil and the UK as well as Switzerland. However, there have been no new commitments to reform or abolish fossil fuel subsidies so far, says Kuehl. On the contrary: “Panama, the UAE and Oman have removed their commitments in their latest updates.”
In addition, these commitments are “not always entirely action-oriented”, says Kuehl. “We not only want the countries to commit to reforming their fossil fuel subsidies, but also to develop a strategy and a timetable for phasing them out.”
According to an IISD analysis, only 16 countries had already committed to reforming fossil fuel subsidies in the current NDCs, which are valid until 2030. These include some of the biggest subsidizers: Egypt ($28 billion in 2022), Kazakhstan ($18 billion) and Nigeria ($5 billion). Countries from the G7 or G20 are missing from this list despite corresponding resolutions. A year ago, the EU also agreed on the “immediate elimination of fossil fuel subsidies” in its Environmental Action Program. The current NDC says nothing about this; the new NDC 3.0 is not expected until mid-2025.
EU Climate Action Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra declared at COP29 that fossil fuel subsidies would be “tackled in the next budget cycle”. At member state level, the next Commission and he personally will ensure that alliances are formed – for example with the finance ministers. “Wouldn’t it be nice if we could abolish fossil fuel subsidies and have more money available for other things?”
The abolition of fossil subsidies will be discussed at COP29 in two areas in particular: On the one hand in connection with the possible final declaration of the UN climate summit, where “some countries want to see the wording strengthened”, according to Kuehl – and on the other hand in relation to the new climate finance goal (NCQG). “A reform of fossil fuel subsidies is also being discussed in the NCQG. This could be more in terms of qualitative elements to mobilize national resources to raise additional funds.” Fossil subsidies are “still included in various places” in the latest draft text of the NCQG. But it is too early to say whether this will go through.
On Tuesday, a study (see our News today) by Climate Alliance Germany, Germanwatch, Global Citizen and WWF set out the funds that Germany, for example, could raise for climate financing. “Waiving tax concessions on diesel and the company car privilege alone could generate between two and five billion euros for international climate financing,” it says. That would be around half of the six billion euros that Germany has promised annually from 2025 – due to the budget deficit and the end of the government, this promise is currently on shaky ground.
David Ryfisch, Head of Sustainable Finance Flows at Germanwatch, is therefore calling for “urgent progress in reducing fossil fuel subsidies”. Ryfisch criticizes the fact that former Finance Minister Christian Lindner has so far blocked joining the COFFIS coalition. “The incoming government should now make up for this.” Marianne Lotz, Policy Advisor for Energy Policy at WWF, also sees the COFFIS coalition as a role model for Germany: “A clear strategy including a timetable for the German government to phase out and restructure climate-damaging subsidies is long overdue.”
Since the beginning of this month, Ibrahima Cheikh Diong has been the Managing Director of the Loss and Damage Fund, which was set up during the World Climate Conference (COP) in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, two years ago. The so-called “Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage” is intended to provide funds to developing countries that are already severely affected by the effects of climate change. These are to be used to compensate for climate-related damage. Diong, an experienced banker and expert in development work, now heads the fund.
The Fund’s Executive Board had already announced the appointment at the end of September at a preparatory meeting of the organization in Baku in the run-up to the World Climate Conference in Azerbaijan. On his appointment, Diong emphasized the importance of the Fund: “I am honored to take on this role at such a crucial time, when the climate crisis is proving to be an existential threat to the lives and livelihoods of the most vulnerable populations in developing countries in particular.” The fund will make a significant difference to those disproportionately affected, said Diong. His term of office is initially set to last four years.
Diong gained in-depth expertise on how countries could be provided with rapid assistance in the event of climate disasters, particularly as Director General of the African Risk Capacity Group. The group is a specialized agency of the African Union (AU) that provides AU member states with rapid financial resources in the wake of natural disasters or extreme weather events. Most recently, Diong was also Special Representative of the President of the Arab Bank for Economic Development in Africa, Badea for short. The development bank belongs to the Arab League and provides funds for development cooperation between Arab states and countries in Africa.
Before his career at various international organizations, Diong, who holds both Senegalese and US citizenship, worked as a banker at the major French bank BNP Paribas. Diong has also held several positions for the Senegalese government, including a brief stint as Secretary of State for Energy in 2011. In this role, Diong was mainly concerned with improving the electricity supply in his home country. After his time at BNP, Diong founded the investment consultancy ACT Afrique Group.
Diong completed his master’s degree at the renowned Columbia University in New York in the early 1990s. What is perhaps more interesting, however, is that Diong completed his bachelor’s degree in water management at the state-run Hohai University in Nanjing. This is likely to pay off, particularly with regard to the COP, as Diong speaks fluent Mandarin Chinese. He also speaks English and French.
The central task for Diong at this COP is to capitalize the Loss and Damage Fund. Germany and the United Arab Emirates each provided €100 million for the fund at last year’s COP in Dubai, and other countries such as the UK, the USA and Japan also made financial pledges. However, Diong assumes that billions would have to be raised in order to actually equip the fund effectively. He also wants to ensure that access to funding for the recipient countries is flexible and unbureaucratic. David Renke
The last three days of COP29 start today – or so they say. Officially, the conference in Baku is supposed to end Friday evening, but at UN negotiations, nothing’s really official. With all the different positions tangled up, it’s likely we’ll go into overtime in Baku. One day? Two? Who knows…
As of today, the G20 meeting in Rio didn’t deliver a solution for Baku either, despite some hopeful expectations. But at least the heads of government gave the talks in Azerbaijan a bit of momentum. Now, COP29 has to carry on solo. There’s also an ongoing debate about where we’ll meet in two years – Turkey is interested in hosting COP31, but it has a controversial climate track record, as we cover today.
And there’s some interesting news for Germany: Where does Germany rank in this year’s climate policy report, released today? And how much funding could Germany raise for climate action if it really gave it all it’s got? We have a number.
We’ll be staying up to keep you informed over the next few days. Happy reading!
The final declaration of the G20 summit in Rio de Janeiro has given COP29 a general boost, but has not delivered a breakthrough for the faltering negotiations in Baku. The “Leaders’ Declaration”, which delegates and observers at the climate conference had expected to provide new impetus, particularly on the sensitive issues of finance and emissions reduction, verbally supports the conference in Azerbaijan, but leaves it up to the 198 states to decide on the outcome. Therefore, the countries in Baku cannot hope that the G20 will solve their problems.
The statement by the heads of state and government on Monday evening has positive aspects for a possible agreement at COP29:
The focus on the NDCs is particularly important for the COP because this is where the implementation of the GST is being fought for – and because the funds for ambitious climate targets are to be decided as part of the NDCs. These in turn should be as progressive as possible in order to preserve the last chance of achieving the 1.5-degree pathway – and to help this year’s G20 host Brazil succeed as the host of COP30 next year.
On the two key issues in Baku – finance and emissions reduction – the declaration shows significantly less ambition.
Observers and delegates in Baku say that Saudi Arabia in particular has put pressure on the G20 to drop this wording. The country perceived the COP28 decision in Dubai as a defeat and has been blocking progress in many international negotiations for a year. A recent report in the New York Times describes this tactic as a “wrecking ball” for climate policy – an assessment shared by many at the conference.
The controversial nature of the COP28 “transition away” resolution at the G20 is also reflected in its fate this year. It was absent from the declaration of the G20 energy and climate ministers at the beginning of October, as it is now in the Leaders’ Declaration. In contrast, “transition away” did appear in the final report of the Brazilian Presidency’s ministerial “Climate Task Force” at the end of October.
This tactical back and forth between the majority of the G20 and Saudi Arabia could soon be over. Because if the USA under Donald Trump pulls out of the Paris Agreement, Argentina under Javier Milei possibly follows them and Russia, as a major oil and gas producer, also prevents progress, “then it will no longer be 19 against one in the G20, but 16 against four, and that will prevent any consensus on this issue”, says one observer.
Saudi Arabia is actually dependent on the cooperation of the other states in the UN: In just two weeks, the country will be hosting COP16 of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification in Riyadh. The Saudi presidency will then be looking for compromises.
Because the “transition away” formula is so controversial, it is also likely to be a point of contention in the negotiations on the final documents of COP29. The industrialized countries in particular are demanding progress in the transition away from fossil fuels at the climate conference before they are prepared to make concessions on the NCQG financial target. The area of “mitigation”, which includes “transition away”, is being negotiated from a “white paper”, so there are no textual specifications for the time being. Possible outcomes could include
According to negotiators, the first sums for a new NCQG are now being mentioned for the equally controversial financial issue. A Politico report on a possible EU target of $200 to $300 billion seems to confirm rumors circulating at COP29. Well above the previous $100 billion, but well below $400 or $500 billion, this could apparently be a “landing zone”.
There was therefore no concrete decision-making support from the G20 on the disputed points but this does not mean that COP29 will decide independently: All national governments will be very attentive to these issues because they will have to approve a possible financial compromise.
While addressing world leaders on the second day of COP29, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan announced his country’s bid to host the summit after Brazil, in 2026. Despite an open letter on November 15 by former leaders and climate experts demanding a reform of COP, including ‘strict eligibility criteria ‘for host countries, it seems clear by now that COP31 will be hosted by a coal economy.
Turkey’s only competition is Australia, whose climate change minister Chris Bowen reportedly visited Ankara on November 15 to “convince” its leaders to drop out of the race. Fossil fuels account for a majority of Australia’s electricity generation, and the country is the world’s second largest fossil fuel exporter. This situation alleviates the burden on Ankara to strengthen its bid by announcing an ambitious climate agenda.
In an undesirable win – much like the dreaded “fossil of the day” awards at COP – Turkey has become Europe’s largest coal-fired electricity producer in 2024. As things stand, some 58% of Turkey’s electricity is generated by fossil fuels.
Turkey’s nationally determined contribution (NDC), updated in 2023, commits to a 41% emissions reduction from 2012 levels – but a reduction only when compared to the business as usual scenario. In other words, it’s not really a decrease in emissions, but a rise of around 30%, WWF Turkey says.
Under this scenario, Turkey’s emissions will only peak in 2038, and then the country will have merely 15 years to reach its declared ambition of net zero by 2053. Climate Action Tracker rates this plan as ‘critically insufficient’, warning that if other countries were to follow Turkey’s path, this would indicate a warming of up to 4°C.
This is why the country’s long term climate strategy for 2053, submitted to the UN on the first day of the summit and announced a day later by the minister in charge of climate change, was anticipated with guarded hopefulness.
‘The good thing about this plan is the new solar and wind capacity goal of 120 GW for 2035, ‘says Ufuk Alparslan, Ember’s regional lead for Turkey, Central Asia and the Caucasus, welcoming the aim to quadruple renewables capacity over the next decade.
‘Turkish civil society organizations and think tanks had modeled how Turkey could reach net zero by 2053, and even in those publications, solar and wind capacity was not as high, ‘he noted, adding that Turkey’s NDC should be updated to reflect this newfound ambition.
While the unexpectedly high renewables target was well-received, the focus on nuclear was more controversial. Ankara belatedly signed the COP28 declaration to triple nuclear capacity by 2050, and foresees 20GW of nuclear power in its energy mix by 2050.
‘They are stuck on nuclear’s role as a base load source of electricity, as though storage technologies will not improve in the near future,’ said Özlem Katısöz, the climate and energy policy coordinator for Turkey at Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe.
‘We say energy should be local and renewable, and nuclear is neither, ‘she added, conveying her puzzlement at the government’s embrace of nuclear when the issue of energy independence is high up on the country’s agenda.
Turkey has long been trying to reduce its energy dependence on Russia, which supplies a majority of its gas, oil, and coal imports. Nonetheless, the Akkuyu nuclear power plant that is currently under construction is owned by Russia’s state-owned nuclear energy company Rosatom.
Alparslan thinks even a greater problem with nuclear is its lack of flexibility. ‘Turkey’s real need isn’t base load, but flexible plants that can swiftly increase or decrease production, ‘he explained, especially as its renewables capacity is set to rise dramatically. Turkey is lucky in this regard, he explained, as this need can be met by its large hydroelectric capacity.
‘Nuclear power plants take too long to construct and they are very expensive. We need faster, cheaper solutions, like wind and solar. And because Turkey has a high potential for both, we do not think it is meaningful or rational for Ankara to invest in nuclear, ‘he added.
Aside from nuclear, the main downside of the plan, climate and energy experts argue, is the lack of a commitment to phase out fossil fuels.
‘Unless you stop the coal sector, which is responsible for a fifth of Turkey’s emissions, net zero will be very hard to reach, ‘said Bahadır Sercan Gümüş, a Turkey energy analyst for Ember.
Speaking to reporters after the announcement of the plan, the minister in charge of climate change, Murat Kurum, mentioned ‘coal phase out ‘for the very first time. By increasing renewables and nuclear capacity, Kurum said, ‘we will be phasing out fossil fuels in the process’. But the ambiguity of the process puts the net zero plan at risk.
Ümit Şahin, coordinator of climate change studies at Istanbul Policy Center, also suggested that the methodology of the plan was flawed. ‘They should have a mitigation target and calculate how to get there. But they instead put together a number of side goals – such as energy efficiency and increased use of EVs,’ he said. ‘The main target, which all these smaller goals should contribute to, is missing.’
Despite concerns over the ambitiousness of its climate policies, Ankara appears intent on hosting COP31 in Turkey. While announcing the country’s long term strategy at COP29, Kurum highlighted their vision of ‘building a bridge ‘between developed and developing nations at COP31.
‘Bridge ‘is a tired metaphor to describe Turkey, frequently used to draw attention to the country’s position between Asia and Europe, East and West. But it is particularly fitting to describe Turkey’s decades’ long struggles in climate diplomacy.
As a member of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Turkey was categorized as an Annex 1 country – developed country in UNFCCC parlance – which implies stricter obligations to reduce emissions and ineligibility for climate finance. This ‘unfair ‘misclassification, as Ankara sees it, was the primary reason why it ratified Paris with a delay of five years, and reportedly only after striking deals for financial support.
During his remarks at the ‘finance’ COP, Erdogan called for a climate finance target that would ‘meet the needs of developing nations,’ clearly siding with non-annex countries.
This is a break from Turkey’s usual position of ambiguity, Şahin said, noting the president’s statement was ‘going directly against the European Union’.
We are yet to see how Turkey’s positions in the ongoing negotiations would impact its bid to host COP31. But Alparslan thinks hosting the climate summit would help boost Ankara’s climate ambitions.
‘Hosting COP31 in Turkey would raise awareness, especially as there’ll be international attention on the country. Ankara would also be much more able to communicate its position and aims. It would be very beneficial overall, ‘he remarked. Selin Uğurtaş
This story was produced as part of the 2024 Climate Change Media Partnership, a journalism fellowship organized by Internews’ Earth Journalism Network and the Stanley Center for Peace and Security.
A coalition of twelve countries chaired by the Netherlands promised a year ago to push ahead with the phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies. At COP28, the states signed a joint declaration committing them to publish an inventory within a year in order to develop a strategy for the abolition of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. Funds from this could flow into the new climate finance target (NCQG), for example, as a study by German environmental associations shows.
The Coalition on Fossil Fuel Incentives and Subsidies (COFFIS) presented its initial findings on Tuesday: Four member states published an inventory of their fossil fuel subsidies on time, explained Sophie Hermans, the responsible climate and economic minister of the Netherlands. “The other states are still working on it.” Austria’s was submitted later on Tuesday. The minister also announced the accession of the UK, New Zealand and Colombia. Talks are underway with other countries. Such first-mover coalitions are typical of the UN climate process in order to motivate other countries.
Other members are Austria, Switzerland, France, Spain, Canada, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Costa Rica, Luxembourg and Antigua and Barbuda. The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) has been appointed as the secretariat to help with the inventory, for example. Although Germany has shown interest in joining, it has so far failed to do so, as have the USA and China.
In addition to Austria, France, Ireland, Belgium and the Netherlands also published their inventories on time. “The members will use this to draw up a strategy for abolishing fossil subsidies,” said Hermans, explaining the process. All coalition members must present this strategy by the COP30 in a year at the latest. Individual subsidies are particularly sensitive here, Hermans warned – for example for households that the Netherlands subsidized during the 2022 energy crisis. This support is now being phased out. “Every subsidy affects a person’s livelihood. We cannot abolish them without a just transition.”
However, “only 15 percent of global fossil fuel subsidies go to poorer people anyway“, said Mary Warlick, Deputy Executive Director of the IEA. For a just transition, the abolition would have to happen “gradually and with long-term structural changes” and be communicated transparently.
Meanwhile, a positive signal came from Canada. The country signed a G20 agreement back in 2009 to abolish inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. “We are the first G20 country to abolish them”, explained climate ambassador Catharine Stewart. In 2023, the country published a national strategy. It lists 129 subsidies. Canada is also in the process of “ending public funding for fossil fuels“, said Stewart. According to Environmental Defence, around 19 billion Canadian dollars (€12.8 billion) were still being spent on this in 2022.
France, on the other hand, overturned its plans to abolish tax breaks for agricultural diesel in February after farmers protested against it for weeks – which in turn fueled criticism of France’s credibility as a member of the COFFIS coalition.
The abolition of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies has been under discussion for years. Following the G20 states in 2009, all UN states also committed to this in the final declaration of COP26 three years ago. The G7 countries decided back in 2016 to abolish inefficient fossil fuel subsidies by 2025. A WTO initiative and SDG12.c also aim to achieve this.
Despite these agreements, fossil fuel subsidies quadrupled in 2022 compared to 2020, mainly due to higher energy prices following the war of aggression against Ukraine, as the OECD and IISD’s Fossil Fuel Subsidy Tracker shows. In the previous year, subsidies fell again from $1,500 to $1,300 billion, but this decline is “not substantial”, criticizes Jonas Kuehl, policy advisor and analyst in the energy sector at IISD, in an interview with Table.Briefings.
The new national climate protection plans (NDC 3.0) are also “not yet very promising”, says Kuehl. These must be updated by all UN member states by February 2025 and are valid until 2035. Before and during COP29, some countries submitted new NDCs, including G20 members Brazil and the UK as well as Switzerland. However, there have been no new commitments to reform or abolish fossil fuel subsidies so far, says Kuehl. On the contrary: “Panama, the UAE and Oman have removed their commitments in their latest updates.”
In addition, these commitments are “not always entirely action-oriented”, says Kuehl. “We not only want the countries to commit to reforming their fossil fuel subsidies, but also to develop a strategy and a timetable for phasing them out.”
According to an IISD analysis, only 16 countries had already committed to reforming fossil fuel subsidies in the current NDCs, which are valid until 2030. These include some of the biggest subsidizers: Egypt ($28 billion in 2022), Kazakhstan ($18 billion) and Nigeria ($5 billion). Countries from the G7 or G20 are missing from this list despite corresponding resolutions. A year ago, the EU also agreed on the “immediate elimination of fossil fuel subsidies” in its Environmental Action Program. The current NDC says nothing about this; the new NDC 3.0 is not expected until mid-2025.
EU Climate Action Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra declared at COP29 that fossil fuel subsidies would be “tackled in the next budget cycle”. At member state level, the next Commission and he personally will ensure that alliances are formed – for example with the finance ministers. “Wouldn’t it be nice if we could abolish fossil fuel subsidies and have more money available for other things?”
The abolition of fossil subsidies will be discussed at COP29 in two areas in particular: On the one hand in connection with the possible final declaration of the UN climate summit, where “some countries want to see the wording strengthened”, according to Kuehl – and on the other hand in relation to the new climate finance goal (NCQG). “A reform of fossil fuel subsidies is also being discussed in the NCQG. This could be more in terms of qualitative elements to mobilize national resources to raise additional funds.” Fossil subsidies are “still included in various places” in the latest draft text of the NCQG. But it is too early to say whether this will go through.
On Tuesday, a study (see our News today) by Climate Alliance Germany, Germanwatch, Global Citizen and WWF set out the funds that Germany, for example, could raise for climate financing. “Waiving tax concessions on diesel and the company car privilege alone could generate between two and five billion euros for international climate financing,” it says. That would be around half of the six billion euros that Germany has promised annually from 2025 – due to the budget deficit and the end of the government, this promise is currently on shaky ground.
David Ryfisch, Head of Sustainable Finance Flows at Germanwatch, is therefore calling for “urgent progress in reducing fossil fuel subsidies”. Ryfisch criticizes the fact that former Finance Minister Christian Lindner has so far blocked joining the COFFIS coalition. “The incoming government should now make up for this.” Marianne Lotz, Policy Advisor for Energy Policy at WWF, also sees the COFFIS coalition as a role model for Germany: “A clear strategy including a timetable for the German government to phase out and restructure climate-damaging subsidies is long overdue.”
Since the beginning of this month, Ibrahima Cheikh Diong has been the Managing Director of the Loss and Damage Fund, which was set up during the World Climate Conference (COP) in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, two years ago. The so-called “Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage” is intended to provide funds to developing countries that are already severely affected by the effects of climate change. These are to be used to compensate for climate-related damage. Diong, an experienced banker and expert in development work, now heads the fund.
The Fund’s Executive Board had already announced the appointment at the end of September at a preparatory meeting of the organization in Baku in the run-up to the World Climate Conference in Azerbaijan. On his appointment, Diong emphasized the importance of the Fund: “I am honored to take on this role at such a crucial time, when the climate crisis is proving to be an existential threat to the lives and livelihoods of the most vulnerable populations in developing countries in particular.” The fund will make a significant difference to those disproportionately affected, said Diong. His term of office is initially set to last four years.
Diong gained in-depth expertise on how countries could be provided with rapid assistance in the event of climate disasters, particularly as Director General of the African Risk Capacity Group. The group is a specialized agency of the African Union (AU) that provides AU member states with rapid financial resources in the wake of natural disasters or extreme weather events. Most recently, Diong was also Special Representative of the President of the Arab Bank for Economic Development in Africa, Badea for short. The development bank belongs to the Arab League and provides funds for development cooperation between Arab states and countries in Africa.
Before his career at various international organizations, Diong, who holds both Senegalese and US citizenship, worked as a banker at the major French bank BNP Paribas. Diong has also held several positions for the Senegalese government, including a brief stint as Secretary of State for Energy in 2011. In this role, Diong was mainly concerned with improving the electricity supply in his home country. After his time at BNP, Diong founded the investment consultancy ACT Afrique Group.
Diong completed his master’s degree at the renowned Columbia University in New York in the early 1990s. What is perhaps more interesting, however, is that Diong completed his bachelor’s degree in water management at the state-run Hohai University in Nanjing. This is likely to pay off, particularly with regard to the COP, as Diong speaks fluent Mandarin Chinese. He also speaks English and French.
The central task for Diong at this COP is to capitalize the Loss and Damage Fund. Germany and the United Arab Emirates each provided €100 million for the fund at last year’s COP in Dubai, and other countries such as the UK, the USA and Japan also made financial pledges. However, Diong assumes that billions would have to be raised in order to actually equip the fund effectively. He also wants to ensure that access to funding for the recipient countries is flexible and unbureaucratic. David Renke
