Gaza and Ukraine conflicts cast ‘heavy shadow’ on climate change and global talks in Azerbaijan

BANGKOK: Unprecedented levels of conflict in 2024 could “derail” efforts to halt global warming, experts warned, days out from international climate talks in Azerbaijan.

The analysts told CNA that intensifying wars across the world are putting severe strain on nations’ ability to make progress on climate change.

“This level of tension is unprecedented in modern times,” said Dr Jennifer Allan, an international relations lecturer at Cardiff University.

Climate talks have been broadly insulated from crises unfolding around the world in the past. 

But with war intensifying across the Middle East, the Russian invasion of Ukraine showing no signs of abating and an unfolding crisis in Sudan, finding much-needed consensus and financing for climate action will be a tall order when the United Nations-led 29th Conference of the Parties (COP29) opens on Nov 11.

“Countries are in new territory, trying to navigate these tensions while addressing other global crises. Resources are going to defence budgets and attention is anywhere but climate,” said Dr Allan.

Upcoming negotiations in Baku face more headwinds created by war than ever before since the multilateral process began in 1992, analysts said. 

That year, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) - the process the world uses to come up with climate agreements - was formed in the turbulent aftermath of the Cold War. 

Earlier, while that conflict was ongoing in 1987, countries signed the Montreal Protocol, an international treaty to protect the Ozone layer and the first universally ratified treaty in UN history, showing what was possible with global cooperation.

COP29 will be centred on mobilising vast amounts of finances, both public and private, to especially address the growing needs of developing nations being ravaged by climate impacts.

Lead negotiators say the funding needs are in the trillions of dollars every year. Since 2020 though, developed countries have already struggled to come up with yearly US$100 billion in climate-financing for poorer nations, first pledged at the 2009 COP15.

A new financial framework called the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) is mooted to replace that US$100 billion pledge, and will be the central agenda item in Baku.

However, Ms Nazanine Moshiri, a senior analyst at Crisis Group -  an independent, non-profit committed to preventing and resolving deadly conflict - says the “heavy shadow” of conflict means countries are having difficulty focusing on climate issues altogether, instead choosing to prioritise their own security and energy needs.

“This makes it difficult to take meaningful action on climate change in such a complicated and fractured geopolitical environment,” she said.

The result is likely to be growing deficits between the money needed for countries being hit by both conflict and climate change and what richer nations are willing to put on the table.

“Resources and attention are directed towards immediate survival instead of long-term adaptation strategies,” Ms Moshiri said.

MISTRUST AND DIVISION

The COP process relies on all parties agreeing to a final text, which sets the agenda for climate action on a global scale for the next year and can influence the movements of money for climate issues around the world.

At past conferences, negotiators have been forced into overtime, delaying the end of proceedings in order to come to a consensus. COP25 in Madrid in 2019 took nearly an extra two days to complete.

At COP28 in Dubai last year, nations butted heads on topics including fossil fuels in the communique. In the end, they agreed to “phase down” but not “phase out” polluting industries like coal, oil and natural gas.

National interests, regional dynamics and alliances forged or strained through war are all at play, and the conflicts of the day will act as a “powerful destabliser” to progress, according to Ms Moshiri.

The interplay between conflict and climate has “become more severe”, she said.

“Today's polarised global landscape means that geopolitical tensions frequently derail climate efforts just when they're needed most,” she said.

America’s relations with both Russia and China remain terse, exacerbated by conflict. All three are influential leaders in the negotiating halls of COP. 

“There's a global division that is becoming quite visible with those conflicts and it’s certainly a factor that doesn't help cooperation,” said Mr Florian Krampe, a director at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

“To have faithful conversations and negotiations, you need that trust. And we're not really in a global situation where trust is a dominant factor,” he said.

An energy trilemma is playing out globally - where decision-makers are having to choose to prioritise only two out of three critical elements: Energy security, affordability and sustainability. 

Conflict increasingly pushes the needle away from the latter option - the clean energy systems that help to decarbonise economies - because of underlying fears especially surrounding energy security, Ms Moshiri said.

The Ukraine invasion has disrupted global energy supplies and the Middle Eastern tensions continue to create turbulence in oil and gas markets. A breakout of an expansive regional war there would be expected to cause a major uplift in energy commodity prices.

Energy security is “the foundational and central mission” of the International Energy Agency, which noted in its 2024 World Energy Outlook that geopolitical tensions and fragmentation were “major risks” for both energy security and cooperative efforts to reduce emissions.

“The experience of the last few years shows how quickly dependencies can turn into vulnerabilities,” it said.

Europe’s reliance on Russian gas has been a leading example of this issue. Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine resulted in Europe having to broaden its purchase markets for natural gas, due to disruptions in supply and in desperate need of energy security.

Azerbaijan, now in the presidential seat for COP and majorly reliant on fossil fuels exports, proved a willing partner, said Ms Kamala Mustafayeva, an independent oil and energy analyst based in Baku.

“Europe is the main destination for Azerbaijani gas. They simply need more gas from Azerbaijan. It doesn't matter about climate change or anything. You have to survive today, not tomorrow,” she said.

Azerbaijan is currently meeting around 5 per cent of Europe’s energy needs through its Southern Gas Corridor, which transports natural gas from the Caspian basin to Europe. It has pledged to double its exports to the continent by 2027.    

Dr Michael Mann, director of the Penn Center for Science, Sustainability and the Media at the University of Pennsylvania told CNA that Russia is an example where domestic interests trump the broader push for a green transition.

“Russia is a petrostate whose primary economic asset is the fossil fuels buried beneath its ground,” he said, adding that he believed Moscow has sought to generate global instability to slow climate action that could undermine its own resources and economy.

“We can directly connect the dots here,” he said.

Russia’s energy mix has changed little in the near quarter century that Mr Vladimir Putin has been in a leadership role in Russia and its climate targets are considered “highly insufficient” by Climate Action Tracker, an independent scientific project tracking government pledges and action.

While in the short term, nations are focused on securing their energy supplies, the protracted and complex nature of conflict should be an ongoing spur for governments to wean away from unreliable global systems and instead be more self-sufficient by developing renewables, Dr Allan said.

The more extensive conflicts are though, the more difficult it is for them to push ahead with those plans.

“Much of Europe has rebalanced their energy mix in the past 18 months. The Ukraine war gave new motivations for the transition to renewables. There is a long way to go, but renewables are undeniably the best business case for new energy investments,” she said.

“But the global markets still look to oil as the bellwether of the health of the economic system. The reliance on fossil fuels is still systematic.”

A "PEACE" COP?

The Baku presidency has called for its summit to be a “truce COP” and coincide with a one-month global ceasefire. Whether that will occur remains unclear. 

COP29 will also emphasise peace as a significant theme for the first time, providing a platform to push ahead with the Relief, Recovery, and Peace (RRP) Declaration.

“One of the main action agenda items for us is the nexus between peace and climate. We attach a lot of importance to that because Azerbaijan's presidency became possible when Azerbaijan and Armenia supported each other and we have been in conflict for over 30 years,” said Mr Soltanov.

The two neighbours have warred frequently in recent years over the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh around their shared border.

Launched at COP28, the RRP aims to enhance the climate resilience of nations impacted by conflict or humanitarian crises. It has now been signed by more than 90 countries and could help ramp up financing for many fragile nations.

“Azerbaijan is trying to position itself as a peacemaker, and COP29 is an opportunity to bridge the divide by addressing climate impacts. There is an opportunity to steer the global conversation toward a more integrated approach to climate and security issues,” Ms Moshiri said.

Indeed, climate change and conflict are closely intertwined, increasingly fuelling one another.

Research by the International Monetary Fund in 2023 found that GDP losses from extreme weather events can be about four times higher in fragile and conflict-affected states compared to other countries.

Mr Krampe said a positive element of emphasising peace at COP29 is linking conflict more coherently with climate adaptation.

“You have specifically a double burden. Countries affected by conflict are also to a large degree, highly exposed to climate change, making life for the population incredibly difficult,” he said.

“They're already vulnerable, and we're adding additional layers on top of that.”

He noted the discrepancy between climate financing commitments and real disbursements, and the lack of finances flowing to the developing world. 

Ms Moshiri said that the combination of risks often go undetected until disaster and conflict become inevitable. 

“Vulnerable populations suffer most, but the effects ripple outward. Policymakers are caught off guard, aid workers face grave risks and years of peacebuilding and development can be lost,” she said.

At the same time, the clashes are significant contributors to emissions themselves - military operations in Gaza are estimated to have contributed substantial greenhouse gas emissions. 

Including future rebuilding efforts, the conflict could end up causing the equivalent of 61 million tonnes of CO2 - more than the annual emissions of 135 individual nations, according to researchers from the United Kingdom and United States.

“The global defence industry has an enormous greenhouse gas footprint, especially if you think about all the industrial activities needed to make the weapons, vehicles and associated capabilities,” Dr Allan said. 

Wider ecological disruptions, and impacts on soil, water and air, are also “something we forget, but so important”, according to Mr Krampe.

“In the world we live in, we're not going to be in a phase where investment in the military is going down very soon. But of course, those are resources that are not going into resolving the climate crisis,” he said.

“Cooperation is possible, but for that, you need leadership. You need a sense of urgency and this is an issue we have to tackle.”