Was COP29 the dismal failure so many commentators are declaring it to be? Having spent ten whirlwind days in Baku, I would argue otherwise. From my vantage point, COP29 was a mixed bag. Undoubtedly it had shortcomings, but it was also a step forward. The flaws and contradictions that defined this year’s conference may ultimately prove to be its most valuable outcomes, precisely because they highlight the profound challenges we must confront.

How can this be so? First, it’s important to understand that COP is not just one event. The UNFCCC negotiations in the Blue Zone – the official centerpiece – represent just one aspect of a sprawling, multifaceted gathering. Beyond these formal discussions lies a whole ecosystem of activity: conversations in the pavilions, corporate showcases, NGO presentations, and an endless stream of side events, dinners, and impromptu meetings. This kaleidoscope of interactions transforms COP into something of a global marketplace for climate solutions, a place where ideas, technologies, and partnerships are born, pitched, strengthened and refined. Whatever happens – or doesn’t happen – at the negotiating table, this other side of COP continues to grow in energy and significance.

The need to fail

Since the curtain came down on COP29, much of the analysis has focused on a perceived failure of ambition. While there was initial relief that any agreement at all was reached, that relief quickly gave way to widespread frustration. Critics have rightly pointed out the glaring inadequacies of the final deal, including the meager financial commitment from the Global North for resilience and adaptation efforts in the South. The $300 billion pledged falls woefully short of both the $100 billion annual goal set years ago (after accounting for inflation) and the escalating needs brought on by the climate crisis. Even worse, COP29 avoided addressing the phaseout of fossil fuels altogether. That’s a stark retreat from the progress made at COP28. On many fronts, this deal feels like a step backward.

But here’s the paradox: this failure might be exactly what was needed. For years, the COP process has stumbled forward, supported by a fragile consensus, with agreements often heralded as progress despite their glaring inadequacies. COP29’s shortcomings have laid bare the growing chasm between our collective awareness of the climate emergency and the political will to act decisively. While this disconnect is not new, it is becoming impossible to ignore as the tangible effects of global warming hit closer to home for more and more people. There is a sense that the global community is approaching a breaking point. And while it may feel uncomfortable, this confrontation with reality is far better than the alternative: more hollow commitments and self-congratulatory platitudes.

Beyond the formal negotiations, the transactional and informational dimensions of COP29 merit attention. One of the most striking takeaways from Baku was the explosion of innovation in cleantech. The conference was a showcase for groundbreaking technologies, addressing everything from water scarcity to methane emissions. During my time there, I had the opportunity to witness this firsthand. The launch of the annual ICEF Roadmap in the Japan pavilion and the unveiling of the joint KAPSARC-Kayrros study in the Saudi pavilion spotlighted the increasing sophistication of satellite imaging and AI. The breadth of solutions on display – particularly in the vast Israeli pavilion, where startups were tackling challenges from paper waste to agricultural water scarcity and draughts – was nothing short of inspiring.

Innovation, ambition – and reality

Yet this technological optimism is tempered by a sobering reality: these innovations, impressive as they are, have yet to deliver the meaningful reductions in emissions or risks that we so urgently need. Methane monitoring and abatement is a case in point. This is an area where  advances in earth observation have produced enough actionable data to enable large cuts in emission for years.. But as I plodded through a litany of panel discussions on methane action in all corners of the conference venue, , from the Chinese and German pavilions  to the Methane Action Hub and other venues, the dissonance was impossible to ignore. The speeches were exercises in self-congratulation, yet the data is unequivocal: methane emissions are still rising. The contrast between the promises of innovation and the stubborn reality of rising emissions underscores a troubling truth. For all our advances we’ve made, we remain mired in a world where ambition outstrips action.

Part of the problem lies in the slow and uneven adoption of regulations. While new climate policies have emerged in the last few years in the EU, the US, and elsewhere, they are often cumbersome, riddled with loopholes, and poorly aligned with the pace of technological change. While each new regulation that sets out ambitious sustainability targets is on its face something to celebrate, implementation measures often seem unfit for purpose and not optimally designed to deliver the fastest results. It’s possible that these policies will turn out to be only a first draft, a ‘version 1.0’ that will eventually be superseded by more effective measures. If so, the frustration and perceived failure of COP29 could serve as a catalyst for evolution. There is a growing appetite for disruption, and as the financial sector begins to integrate robust climate monitoring into its operations, we may see a shift in momentum from policy-driven to market-driven change. In the US, a drive to lighten the regulatory burden would be a step back if it meant giving up on our climate goals altogether, but could be a good thing if it meant replacing burdensome but inefficient policies with more effective and impactful ones. 

A spur for radical action?

This brings us to the deeper contradictions that COP29 has surfaced. On one side, we have the extraordinary potential of new technologies and the expanding recognition of the climate crisis’s urgency. On the other, we face a glaring lack of political resolve and a frustratingly slow pace of implementation. Something has to give. The perceived debacle of COP29 might just be the wake-up call we need to bridge this gap. If it inspires more radical and more effective action, then what looks like failure today could well be remembered as a turning point.

Finally, it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the remarkable hospitality of Azerbaijan. The warmth and generosity of the people of Baku provided a welcome counterpoint to the often-frustrating realities of the conference itself. Their commitment to hosting such a complex and multifaceted event deserves praise.

So COP29 was no triumph. But it wasn’t either the unmitigated disaster some have painted it to be. It was a mirror, reflecting both the remarkable progress we’ve made and the staggering distance we still have to go. Let’s hope that by exposing these contradictions so clearly, it will turn out to be a more  consequential COP than many give it credit for  – not for what it achieved, but for the radical action it may spark through its very failure.

illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability & Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.