UN Climate Change Conference in Baku - results at a glance

Expectations for COP 29 were muted from the outset: Azerbaijan is one of those countries that finance themselves almost exclusively by extracting and exporting fossil fuels. Nevertheless, the production of renewable energies for industrial and private use is to be expanded in the country. In view of the influence of the oil and gas exporting countries, it was obvious that a financing decision that would cover even some of the requirements seemed unlikely in advance. The absence of potential donor nations such as China (at around 30%, the main global source of GHG emissions and in any case opposed to financial aid) and the USA (14%) did the rest. Germany (1.8%) announced that it would contribute a total of 60 million euros to the Climate Adaptation Fund.

1.5 degree target barely achievable

Now, raising 300 billion dollars over a period up to 2035 - a compromise that could only be agreed upon in the extension of the conference—is no mean feat. Ultimately, however, it is not even a quarter of what is actually needed to take even the most important measures to combat climate change or adapt to its consequences. Apart from that, there was a lot of discussion, including once again the move away from coal, oil, and gas by 2030 that was envisaged at COP28, although this was not reflected in the final document.

One of the few tangible results of COP29 concerned emissions trading: it should now be possible to transfer emissions reductions from one country to another instead of just from company to company, as was previously the case. As a result, industrialized countries can support tree planting projects in the global South, for example, which can ultimately be counted towards their own emissions targets - a trade subject to significant success risks and could end up being little more than a drop in the ocean. This is all against the backdrop of the fact that leading scientists agree that the much-vaunted 1.5-degree target set at COP21 in Paris in 2015 can hardly be met. On the contrary, if something is not done immediately, forecasts predict that global warming will rapidly rise to 2 degrees or more.

Regardless of the outcome of the climate summit, there is no question that it is worth pushing efforts to halt climate change beyond government funding. Business, in particular, could make an even greater contribution to achieving the climate targets if it were to make a more determined and targeted effort to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions—there are certainly incentives to do so.

Emissions trading as a second choice

Responsible companies are already active: They draw up GHG balances and carbon footprints, implement energy and environmental management systems, and can demonstrate tangible successes regarding climate change. The fundamental aim is to significantly reduce GHG emissions and only enter into trading with CO₂ certificates from the legally unregulated (voluntary) markets when their own options for reducing emissions have been completely exhausted.

Emissions trading offers a number of advantages for all parties involved, including the endangered global climate, but with some not-insignificant limitations:

• Fluctuation in CO₂ prices: In times of crisis, for example, the price of certificates can fall sharply, resulting in the incentive to use low-emission technology falling just as sharply.
• Exclusion of sectors: Agriculture, as a non-negligible GHG emitter (especially methane and nitrous oxide), cannot participate in emissions trading, which reduces the instrument's effectiveness.
• Free issue: Large-scale industry has long benefited from the allocation of free emission allowances, which incentivized profitable resale instead of positively affecting the climate.

Quite a few projects, mostly those to create supposed CO₂ sinks, which are actually supposed to be supported by the purchase of certificates, do not deliver what they promise or are open to criticism for other reasons. This applies, for example, to the high-profile planting of trees to absorb CO₂ from the air, which is often ineffective in terms of climate protection because the projects are poorly implemented or simply not pursued. Such certificates are then not even worth the paper they are printed on.

Management systems as effective tools against climate change

The implementation (and certification) of management systems in accordance with ISO 14001 or EMAS (environment), for example, but above all in accordance with the ISO 50001 certification standard or the non-certifiable ISO 50005 guidelines for SMEs (both energy), is the first choice because it tackles the emissions problem directly at the root. In addition, the use of suitable tools, e.g. ISO 14064-1 or the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG) for preparing a GHG balance sheet or ISO 14044 for preparing life cycle assessments of products, etc., is also recommended.

The introduction and certification of an energy management system (EnMS) in accordance with ISO 50001 or ISO 50005 is the way to go to reduce GHG emissions in a timely and effective manner, particularly in the manufacturing industry. The main objectives associated with the application of these two standards are to increase energy efficiency and reduce energy consumption.

ISO amendments include climate change

With the publication of two ISO amendments in spring 2024, climate change has also entered the world of ISO management system standards. Companies, if they are certified standard users, must now consider the impact of their business activities on climate change within their context and the expectations and needs of their interested parties on this topic.

This means, for example, that - in addition to more efficient and lower-consumption production processes - the use of renewable energies could now finally come into play to a greater extent, which has so far not really been required in any of the standards, but merely recommended.

Conclusion

The donor countries from the pool of industrialized nations participating in COP29 were able to reach a compromise on a financing sum of 300 billion US dollars, less than a quarter of the actual requirement. This disappointing result, not only from the point of view of the countries of the global South, shows that private sector initiatives, especially from industry, are needed in addition to state aid. Certified management systems such as ISO 50001, ISO 14001, and EMAS, in conjunction with ISO 14064-1 or the GHG Protocol, can play an important role here. Non-certifiable guidelines such as ISO 50005 are also helpful.