THE COP29 ended with not even a whimper. After the declaration of COP28 to end the fossil fuel era, and the rich countries promise to provide funds for those facing the dual threat of climate change and poverty, in COP29 they reneged on all those promises. They not only made no commitments to phasing out their own fossil fuel use – particularly natural gas and oil but committed a measly $300 billion yearly as a core target through commercial and other flows against the $1.3 trillion that the developing countries were asking; that too by 2035. There is a "pious wish" expressed intent to increase this amount to 1.3 trillion, as asked by the developing countries, with no commitments and only some hand waving; no financial aid even for the poorest countries facing the double whammy of poverty and climate change.

The climate financing of $300 billion for the developing countries will include loans and commercial financing, which means rich countries will own the energy infrastructure of the poorer countries in the name of "greening" their economy. This is just another neocolonial enterprise in the name of helping vulnerable countries. This is coupled with funds for bogus carbon market/trade and "offsets", which, as we know, are simply a fraud on the people. They neither remove greenhouse gases nor help the poor countries. They are simply greenwashing what the rich countries and their corporations are doing in the name of climate change mitigation.

In this article, I will focus on the larger challenge of the energy sector, of which electricity generation is the major part. The next biggest is the transportation sector, in which market forces have shifted dramatically in favour of electric vehicles. We will leave out the agriculture and industry – meaning process industries like steel, fertilisers, chemicals, buildings (construction and materials) etc – which are, as of now, more difficult to address. It is industry and domestic consumption of electricity starting in the middle of the 18th century that correlates with the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. It was followed by transport, as we moved to petrol and diesel for cars, trucks and buses and coal/steam power for trains. The carbon emissions and the rise of global temperature correlated enough for leading scientific figures to talk about climate change by the 1980s. The big oil and gas companies knew about the impact of carbon/greenhouse emissions for decades, but instead of accepting it and seeing how it could be mitigated, they suppressed their own findings. They also funded a whole range of climate change deniers so that they could continue to make profits even if it endangered our civilisation.

The big picture is that for the first time, the capital costs of renewable energy have dropped below that of fossil fuel-based plants. Operating costs are virtually zero for renewables as they are based on the sun and the winds. For a very large part of the existing fossil fuel-based power plants, the capital costs have already been recovered, and the fuel costs we pay for electricity from such plants are essentially the fuel costs. The only reason we still need such plants on the grid is that we need these plants when the sun does not shine or the wind does not blow. We have not yet invested enough in the grid-level storage of electricity to meet demands when solar and wind energy are not available. But even that problem is technically over. As pumped storage is equivalent to a battery, as discussed earlier in these columns, grid-connected pumped storage, e.g., the Purulia Pumped Storage system, is an easy and relatively cheap solution for the grid. This means we do not require large grid-level electrochemical batteries – the ones we use in our cell phones and computers – that were earlier thought essential for a renewable transition.

The key problem for energy transition is do we have the necessary industrial infrastructure to produce solar panels and the wind turbines required for ramping up renewables and phase out fossil fuel plants?

If we address electricity generation with a focus on the grid, roughly 40 per cent of the total energy-related carbon emissions are supplied to the grid. The major change in the last 10 years has been the rapid increase in installing grid-connected solar and wind energy, as the economics of energy generation has changed dramatically in this decade. Today, the cost per kWh is lower for grid-connected solar and wind generation than using any fossil fuel route for electricity: coal, oil, or natural gas. In 2023, new capacity added to solar and wind energy generation will overtake all other sources of energy, including coal, gas, and oil. The industrial capacity of the world to produce solar and wind-generating equipment, particularly in China, has risen rapidly. The economics of electricity generation means that we are in a position to transition to a low-carbon path sooner than later: for countries that have three-fourths of the world's population, it is cheaper to install renewable energy than any form of fossil fuel-based energy generation.

China has been the big driver of this trend. I am going to quote the New York Times (NYT) on this, as it appears that NYT has also joined the China fan club! It says, "In 2023, the world, including China, installed 425 gigawatts of new solar power; the world without China installed only 162 gigawatts. China accounted for 263 gigawatts; the United States accounted for just 33. As recently as 2019, China has been installing about one-quarter of global solar capacity additions; last year, it managed 62 per cent more than the rest of the world combined. Over those same five years, China grew its amount of new added capacity more than eight times over; the world without China didn't even double its rate" (italics mine).

Though China is the world leader and the US is the world's laggard in green energy, the EU and India are not doing too badly; they added about 13.5 GW of renewable energy capacity during the calendar year 2023. While it has greatly boosted its panel and module manufacturing capacity, it lags behind in solar cell production capacity. It could also be affected by the recent move by the US authorities against major solar energy player Adani Solar and the charges that the major deal between SECI, who were supplying 7 GW of Adani Solar's power to Andhra Pradesh, was a corrupt one and signed against the protests of officials in Andhra Pradesh state government.

The EU which had a head start on green policies, still continues with its consumption of oil and natural gas. While they tom-tom their green policies in actual practice they are instituting policies on how to build tariff barriers in the name of climate change. With increasing subservience to the US, it is willing to sacrifice the future of the world as well as its industries, which are increasingly not able to compete with others due to their high imported fuel costs.

It is no longer a question of the cost of renewable energy, but the sunk costs in oil, natural gas and coal-fired energy infrastructure that the US, for example, is not willing to let go of. Even if it means increasing the risks for human civilisation as we know it. The so-called "carbon tariffs" – based on current emissions and not historical emissions  – on developing countries are measures to protect European industries. This is termed the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), simply protective tariffs to shelter their older industries that are no longer competitive with India, China, Turkey, Russia, East Asian and South East Asian countries.

With Trump, the future president of the US, come January 2025, and Argentina's President Javier Milei's climate denialists want to take a wrecking ball to the whole climate change policies. For them, the world can die a heat death in the future as long as it ensures the flow of profits for capital today. This is primarily a political challenge, not an economic or technological one. The one that the existing Rule Based International Order, run by the Gang of 7 (the G7) is unwilling to fight. Instead, they want the current international order in which a handful of ex-colonial and settler colonial countries rule the roost to continue to loot the world; even if it means catastrophic climate change –a 21st version of Louis XVI (or his favourite Madame Pompadour) "After me the deluge (Après moi, le déluge)" before the French Revolution.