There is a kind of unwritten understanding in the international world that a realistic appraisal of the UN efforts to achieve global understanding and action should always be positive. They should not be frankly discussed and everyone must assume a position of optimism. In other worlds, the issue is considered so sensitive and fragile that one can't afford to be realistic let alone "pessimistic".

Yet the scenario around the world and the possible achievements which the UN often claims are all being challenged as various reactions to the COP 29 shows. The idea that the future is bright and all one needs is global understanding for sufficient goodwill to follow and save the earth is now under a cloud.

This applies to all the COPs but at COP 29 it has become obvious. More sobering outlooks are creeping through and questions are being asked if such a strategy has been productive. In some ways, the COP 29 is different from the ones before where the global leaders had promised deliverance which at the 29th meet shows were not met or can't be met. It's this scepticism that makes the COP 29 different and maybe this very lack of enthusiasm may push the world leaders towards some realistic action of sorts.

COP 29: The Azerbaijani irony

The biggest denial of facts is that the world is a dinner party where the hosts and the guest all hold the same interest. The concept of battling for climate justice perhaps underlies the irony most since the world is split between the rich and poor and the in-betweens who can't adjust themselves to climate changes equitably.

And no matter how much the poor countries including Bangladesh talks, the LDCs and the other lower middle class countries will suffer the most. The voices of the poorest are too weak to be heard and the richer baritones will always dominate. Let's not forget that energy is at the core of profit making in this world.

BBC has an interesting story to tell about the President of Azerbaijan where the COP 29 was held. It says that while the world was wailing - at least appeared to - at the crisis generated by fossil fuel, the host country's officials were basically taking the opportunity to seal a deal or two on the same.

It has of course resulted in a lot of concern and criticism but the fact remains that this has been the reality of the "climate change prevention " economy that has grown out of COPs which are present in one form or another in most countries including Bangladesh.

Many experts have now openly begun to talk about the usefulness of having a process like the COPs to halt climate change when the purpose of the countries involved are largely self-interest based. BBC says, various global leaders have written a letter in which the COP processes usefulness has been questioned. "The United Nations' COP climate talks are "no longer fit for purpose" and need an urgent overhaul, key experts including a former UN secretary general and former UN climate chief have said. In a letter to the UN, senior figures say countries should not host the talks if they don't support the phase out of fossil energy."

It's not that the Azerbaijani President is feeling awkward or embarrassed over this. In fact, he told the leaders gathered for COP29 that natural gas was a "gift from God" and he shouldn't be blamed for bringing it to market. In other words, why is it wrong for him to sell energy when everyone else is. It's a reality check many climate experts have not mentioned much before expecting altruism to do the talking. However, the era of naïve optimism may be starting to crumble.

It's ironic that the BBC reported the goings and comings of senior Azerbaijani officials at the COP itself organising meetings, discussions and deals when the UK remains one of the largest energy players in the world.

And then of course there is a second edition of the Trump era whose climate change skepticism is too well known to be discussed.

Why is scepticism rising?

Going by official and semi-official data supplied by Western sources, some progress has been made. In the recent era, as the global economy-read western economy- has faced challenges including from China, interest in the CC issue has increased too. It's one of the strategies that needs to be utilized both in terms of efficient use of energy as well as political thrust.

So even sceptics within the global CC policy making world say that UN's climate talks have made good progress in recent years though that has not translated into much action. Unanimous agreement is needed among almost 200 countries to take action.

The Paris climate agreement, signed in 2015, outlines a long-term plan to rein in rising temperatures, as countries try to keep that rise under 1.5C this century.

Agreement to move entirely from fossil fuels to treble renewable power by 2030 is agreed though how remains less stated.

But many Western experts feel that agreements are great but the COP process is a slow lane track and "no longer fit for purpose" in handling the climate crisis which is forging ahead in the fast lane.

The experts say in a letter to the UN that COP in "Its current structure simply cannot deliver the change at exponential speed and scale, which is essential to ensure a safe climate landing for humanity,".The signatories to this symbolically significant letter includes former UN Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon, former UN climate chief Christiana Figueres and former president of Ireland Mary Robinson.

The reason why the very people who had upheld COP are now questioning it lies in the evidence.

At last year's COP28 meeting in Dubai all countries agreed to "transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems." 12 months later emissions of warming gases have increased once again, up by almost 1%.

Scientists say "these emissions need to fall by 42% by the end of this decade to avoid a global temperature rise in excess of 1.5C, considered the threshold to far more dangerous impacts than we are seeing at present." However, the Climate Change tackling establishment is hardly giving up on COP. What is however needed is a positive sign that talks lead to action. That has not happened yet. But nobody is ditching the COPs immediately.

What the COPs offer and the 29th edition

In theory, it's the place where everyone is equal. Small island states for example, at least get heard and their concern is that if the big emitters start pushing their shoulders more, such as the G20 group of wealthy states, they will not be marginalised but vanished. But global political realities are very much on the table. Many emerging- read about to be better off- resent the attitude of the western powers and the UN too which is considered by many to be under the big power thumbs, or least easily manipulated by them.

Even The Azerbaijani President, Aliyev, strongly hit out at the western powers particularly France for what it called colonialist "crimes" and "human rights violations". Such name callings show how deeply even the so-called 'one" world is split.

It appears the COPs, which are supposed to be part of a consensus building process, lack the basic structure for creating the desired consensus. This time, the flaws were more obvious than before.

Energy justice and energy markets

The UN particularly the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP) are no longer saying that the world is one but admitting that problems are very much there. UNEP's Executive Director Inger Andresen has said that the frustration of the COP process in delivering what is agreed upon can't be ignored. Many have now called for reforms and UNEP officials are saying that this concern is reflected in their own work as well. Its position is that their push to slash emissions fits well with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres' "constant prodding."

The problem is that constant prodding is not constant action which is why the concern is rising that the COPs are great talk bashes and full of promises made to keep but in the end they are not. Or it isn't practical to do so. No country after all is going to risk jeopardizing the prosperity of its people -read high consumption levels- just because they have agreed to a set of idealistic objectives to "save the world" so to speak. But the process has its limits as UN officials also admit, "the rules of the game are set by member states.

Political intentions of the States are not the only problem. Energy dealers and marketing clusters are globally very active. Even at COP 29, they flexed their muscles very much. Kick Big Polluters Out, a coalition of groups battling fuel have said that as many as 1770 fossil fuel lobbyists were on the official attendance list. Clearly the host country was not the only one holding interesting and potentially profitable conversations.

As the climate crisis scene grows

Cities in Asia and the United States emit the most heat-trapping gas that feeds climate change, with Shanghai the most polluting, new data shows.

Seven Chinese provinces and 1 US state -Texas- emit more than 1 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases. This mapping was carried out by Climate Trace which uses the latest technology to track emissions in over 9000 urban zones worldwide.

"Earth's total carbon dioxide and methane pollution grew 0.7% to 61.2 billion metric tons with the short-lived but extra potent methane rising 0.2%. The figures are higher than other datasets "because we have such comprehensive coverage and we have observed more emissions in more sectors than are typically available," said Gavin McCormick, Climate Trace's co-founder.

The list shows that many cities produce more GG than many states. For example, China's Shanghai city's 256 million metric tons of greenhouse gases led all cities and exceeded those of Colombia or Norway. Tokyo's 250 million metric tons would rank in the top 40 of nations if it were a country, while New York City's 160 million metric tons and Houston's 150 million metric tons would be in the top 50 of countrywide emissions. Seoul, South Korea, ranks fifth among cities at 142 million metric tons.

China, India, Iran, Indonesia and Russia had the biggest increases in emissions from 2022 to 2023, while Venezuela, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States had the biggest decreases in pollution.

None of the research that is emerging causes confidence in the global climate future to rise. Human-induced climate change has driven a 1.49C temperature increase compared to a pre-1700 baseline. The capacity of land to store carbon has weakened during warm extremes over the past 40 years - mainly in tropical regions.

Clearly it's not about global action but national political priorities.

Meanwhile the US is...

Everyone was critical at COP 29 about Azerbaijan and ex US VP Al Gore criticised the hosting of such talks by oil producing countries. "It's unfortunate that the fossil fuel industry and the petrostates have seized control of the COP process to an unhealthy degree," Gore said.

Cedric Schuster of the small islands group has said that they feel the need to remind everyone else why the talks matter. "We're here to defend the Paris agreement," Schuster said, referring to the climate deal in 2015 to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit). "We're concerned that countries are forgetting that protecting the world's most vulnerable is at the core of this framework."

AL Gore, however, said what is obvious is that the power of the energy lobby is greater than the power of the CC activists. He admitted that political and industrial pressure dominates most. "We just have to decide how long the world is going to cower in front of the financial and political power of the fossil fuel industry. If we can find it within ourselves, in every country, to come together and make intelligent choices, we can solve this."

However, there is low evidence of that happening.

Meanwhile, Former US president Trump's reelection has encouraged many states to lower their expectations even before the COP was held. President Trump has promised to withdraw the US from international climate cooperation, as he did during his 2017-21 term, and has called global warming a hoax.

Ex VP Gore has been more reserved in his estimation of Trump's impact on driving climate policy. "When (Donald) Trump was president last time the solar and wind expansion and EVs continued anyway because the economics are driving it and because state and provincial and city governments and companies are driving it."

Nevertheless, it will be serious news if Trump quits the Paris Agreement again. The environment globally is not about cooperation but "national selfishness" which translates into prioritizing one's own interest over that of the globe.

Do COPs make sense in a CC denying world?

The causes behind the climate change crisis are the desire to consume, hardwired into the human individual and collective mind hence shifting from that mindset is well-nigh impossible. It's dominating global politics as well. The history of the UN or for that matter UNEP let alone COPs show little evidence that there is universal consensus about a collective future.

This is also not about the big powers only but many parts of the world and its politics has shifted more towards CC denial than before. Terming the CC as a hoax is now more common despite the mounting evidence that the climate crisis is growing. The shift from focus on facts is increasing.

The idea that the world will agree to COP resolutions is right but that it will translate into action is not. And that means evolving new workable strategies which the world has not considered before. It also means that the idea of a UN should be tested to see if the concept is still valid or not as it was when it was born.

That doesn't mean the COPs will be dumped but that the world has yet to develop realistic objectives rather than high hopes. These not so attainable hopes are now becoming a contributing factor in the world's increasing lack of confidence in the UN's climate justice and survival agenda. COP 29 has been an eye-opener.