COP29: Another Chapter (But Still Not the Final Word)

I realize I keep coming back to the Kyoto Protocol—sorry, it’s like that old ’90s movie I can’t stop quoting. I promise this won’t be a four-hour documentary on the glory of 1997. But let’s face it: back then, simply getting nations to commit to binding emission cuts was huge. Fast forward to COP29, and it feels like we’re still grappling with the big question: how do we reduce greenhouse gases quickly enough without drowning in bureaucracy, political maneuvering, and economic worries? Sure, progress has been made, but there’s also this persistent feeling that real change depends on regular folks rolling up their sleeves and making it happen.

So, let’s talk COP29. In many ways, it felt like a continuation of earlier gatherings: top leaders promised ambitious moves, activists pushed for bigger transformations, and industry giants tried to look progressive (though some are still being accused of “greenwashing”). This year’s focus included ramped-up climate finance, especially for developing nations that often bear the brunt of extreme weather. Several countries even pledged more money to the Loss and Damage fund introduced a while ago—welcome news if you think about recent storms and droughts hammering vulnerable regions. Yet critics are quick to point out that the well-known USD 100 billion a year target, which first got tossed around over a decade ago, is still not fully met. [1]

But maybe the central puzzle, one that’s lingered since Kyoto, is whether any of these pledges actually reduce emissions in practice. Governments have a habit of promising to close coal plants or slash fossil fuel subsidies, only to drag their feet when the cost or politics become too painful. Look at the numbers, and you’ll see that global CO₂ emissions hit 36.6 gigatons in 2022—definitely not the sign of a planet pivoting toward lower pollution. [2] It doesn’t help that there’s no ironclad enforcement mechanism to hold countries accountable if they backslide, which is a far cry from Kyoto’s attempt at legally binding targets. And let’s be honest: even legally binding can mean squat if big emitters refuse to join or find ways to dodge the rules.

What made COP29 stand out is the attention it gave to what everyday people can accomplish. Plenty of delegates seemed to agree that governments can talk a big game, but it’s often communities that lead the way. You might’ve heard about local efforts to power neighborhoods with solar microgrids, or individual shoppers who demand to know how companies source materials. That kind of citizen-driven push creates a knock-on effect for mayors and legislators who see these changes happening right at home. It’s a bit like what happened after Kyoto: the protocol laid a framework, but it was regional and municipal action—especially in parts of Europe—that turned lofty goals into actual emissions cuts. [3]

Meanwhile, a controversy that flared up again at COP29 centered on the involvement of big fossil fuel interests. Some of the summit’s key sponsors were major oil and gas companies, prompting critics to say the event was morphing into a PR showcase rather than a true agent of transformation. It gave off the same vibe as COP28 in Dubai, when eyebrows shot up over the host country’s deep ties to the oil industry. On the bright side, at least these companies feel compelled to show up and make climate claims. The real question is whether they’re serious or simply putting a green spin on old business models while greenhouse gas levels keep rising.

And that leads us to the core issue here. COP29 might not have delivered a jaw-dropping new deal, but it did underscore that hanging our hopes on grand international agreements to fix everything is risky. The UN process, along with the IPCC, can shine a giant spotlight on the crisis and offer scientific guidance, but the pace at which pledges turn into action is still too slow. Researchers at the IEA warn that we need to slice global emissions nearly in half by 2030 to keep the 1.5°C target within reach—a target that grows more daunting by the day. [4]

The upside? We’re not doomed to watch this play out from the sidelines. Whenever political will lines up with public demand, rapid change can and does happen. That’s how certain regions managed to lower their emissions under Kyoto, and it’s how we can do it now: by choosing greener energy sources, nudging markets to stock climate-friendly products, and electing officials who put the environment front and center. It might sound overly optimistic, but plenty of big societal shifts started small before they became mainstream. The incremental wins in cities and states often pave the way for national or even international policies down the line.

At CRBN OFF, we’ve always believed that climate action has to be more than an afterthought at the end of each conference. Just as we borrowed ideas from Kyoto’s offset mechanisms, we can take a cue from COP29’s mix of hope and frustration. The new finance commitments and talk of phasing out coal are encouraging, but powerful industry groups and a sluggish policy response remain significant barriers. None of this is easy, but we never thought saving the planet would be as simple as flipping a switch. If anything, the last few decades have taught us that while global summits set the stage, it’s the daily grind of local innovations, public pressure, and corporate accountability that make the script worth watching.

So if COP29 left you feeling a bit underwhelmed, maybe that’s a sign we need to keep pushing on all fronts. Lobbying leaders, supporting community projects, investing in sustainable businesses—these are the concrete steps that might accomplish more than a thousand official statements. Climate change won’t wait for our political system to find the perfect deal, so neither should we. Let’s carry the baton from Kyoto (yes, I said it again) and run with it faster than ever, because the stakes couldn’t be higher.

References:
[1] UNFCCC. “Climate Finance after the Copenhagen Accord.”
[2] IEA, Global Energy & CO₂ Status Report 2022.
[3] European Environment Agency (EEA), “Greenhouse Gas Emission Trends.”
[4] IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report 2023.