COP29 Azerbaijan fossil fuel scandal sums up the crisis of modern climate diplomacy

A damning investigation has revealed that Azerbaijan's COP29 leadership attempted to use the UN climate summit to broker fossil fuel deals, drawing fierce criticism from former UN climate chief Christiana Figueres, who condemned the actions as "a treason" to the climate process. Secret recordings and documents obtained through an undercover operation by Global Witness, and reviewed by the BBC, show Azerbaijan's COP29 chief executive Elnur Soltanov discussing oil and gas investment opportunities with individuals he believed represented a Hong Kong investment firm.

"We have a lot of gas fields that are to be developed," Soltanov told the undercover investigators during a video meeting in September 2024. As both CEO of COP29 and Azerbaijan's deputy energy minister, Soltanov's dual role has raised serious concerns about conflicts of interest at the heart of this year's climate negotiations. The investigation began when Global Witness approached the COP29 team posing as EC Capital, a fictitious energy investment firm. Their representatives expressed interest in sponsoring the climate conference while seeking investment opportunities in Azerbaijan's state energy company, SOCAR.

What followed appears to be a serious breach of UN standards. The COP29 team offered a GBP462,000 (around $600,000) sponsorship package that included five passes with full access to the summit, introductions to SOCAR executives, and participation in an event about "sustainable oil and gas investing" during the conference. During meetings, Soltanov attempted to balance climate rhetoric with fossil fuel promotion. While speaking about "solving the climate crisis" and "transitioning away from hydrocarbons in a just, orderly and equitable manner”, he simultaneously promoted natural gas as a "transitional fuel" and suggested that "we will have a certain amount of oil and natural gas being produced, perhaps forever".

This stance directly contradicts the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change guidance, which explicitly states that developing new oil and gas fields is incompatible with limiting global warming to 1.5°C. It also appears to undermine last year's historic agreement at COP28, where nations agreed for the first time to transition away from fossil fuels.

Amnesty International issued a stern rebuke after the revelations. Marta Schaaf, the organisation's programme director for climate justice, said the findings were unsurprising given Azerbaijan's economic reliance on fossil fuels. "Fossil fuels make up about half of Azerbaijan's economy and the vast majority of its export revenues, with its state-owned oil and gas company a major source of income for President Ilham Aliyev's government," she noted. Schaaf drew parallels with last year's COP28 in Dubai, arguing that "Just as we saw with the UAE last year, the event's hosts have an agenda that is at serious odds with climate justice." She called for "a robust conflict of interest policy to prevent fossil fuel lobbyists undermining the aims of global climate treaties”.

Extinction Rebellion was more forceful in its condemnation, stating: "These revelations should shatter any remaining illusions people have about the COP process." Its spokesperson accused the wealthy and the fossil fuel industry of "pushing us all over the climate cliff, just to get a last dollar”.

The controversy has also reignited criticism of Azerbaijan's climate commitments. In September, Tongan activist Joseph Zane Sikulu challenged COP29 president Mukhtar Babayev, himself a former oil executive, over what he described as misleading climate goals. Sikulu pointed out that Azerbaijan's pledge to reduce emissions by 40% compared to 1990 levels by 2050 obscures the fact that their emissions were significantly higher in 1990 than in the 21st century.

The scandal marks the second consecutive year that COP hosts have been accused of using their position to advance fossil fuel interests. Last year, leaked documents suggested the UAE presidency planned to use COP28 to discuss oil deals. While COP28 president Sultan Al Jaber denied these allegations, a subsequent investigation by Global Witness revealed that his firm ADNOC had pursued deals worth over $100bn in 2023, a 400% increase y/y.

The timing is critical. Last month, the 2024 State of the Climate report warned that "the future of humanity hangs in the balance" and urged "top priority" be given to phasing out fossil fuels. With 2024 set to be the first year above 1.5 degrees of warming, the stakes for COP29 couldn't be higher. Anita Bhadani from Global Justice Now emphasised that corporate influences must not be allowed to derail the summit's crucial mission. "We need to be coordinating for a rapid and globally just transition," she said, calling for transformative action to end the fossil fuel era.

When approached for comment, neither the COP29 team nor SOCAR responded to requests. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which oversees the climate talks, declined to comment directly on the findings but stated they maintain "rigorous standards every year" and emphasised the "importance of impartiality on the part of all presiding officers".

Civil society groups, including Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil, are planning to voice their protest at the March for Global Climate Justice in London on November 16, demanding an end to fossil fuel reliance and a genuine commitment to addressing the climate crisis. The mounting evidence of fossil fuel influence at the heart of climate negotiations raises fundamental questions about whether the current format of COP meetings can deliver the urgent action needed to address the climate emergency. As one summit after another becomes mired in controversy, the calls for reform grow increasingly urgent.

Indeed, the conference will probably do anything but that, as Professor Henrique Schneider suggested in his analysis published by Geopolitical Intelligence Services AG (GIS). According to him, COP29 will focus on four critical but longstanding issues that have characterised these negotiations for years:

First is the "New Collective Quantified Goal" (NCQG) for climate finance, dubbed the "finance COP”. The key challenge here is moving from billions to trillions in funding, with significant debate over who should pay. Developing nations, particularly the Vulnerable 20 group, argue that wealthy nations should bear the primary responsibility, while developed countries push for emerging economies to contribute as well.

Second is the implementation of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, dealing with carbon markets. Technical challenges include setting up proper authorisation processes, registry systems, and transparency requirements. The success or failure of these negotiations could significantly impact international carbon markets.

Third is greenhouse gas mitigation, which focuses less on new targets and more on implementing existing commitments. This includes incorporating findings from the Global Stocktake and supporting developing nations in adopting climate technologies.

Fourth is adaptation and loss and damage mechanisms, particularly crucial for vulnerable nations. This includes operationalising the Loss and Damage Fund and creating better access to adaptation finance.

Schneider outlines three possible scenarios for COP29 ranging from the best case (which he believes is unlikely) of concrete decisions on all key topics to a possible worst case of no consensus reached on main topics. He believes the most likely outcome is incremental progress, particularly on the NCQG framework, with all issues continuing to future COPs. 

The professor's key insight is that nothing truly new will emerge from COP29. These summits are technical, bureaucratic negotiations that intentionally progress slowly. The same topics will likely continue to be discussed at COP30 and beyond, reflecting the dynamic, ongoing nature of climate negotiations.

Dr. Jody LaPorte, Gonticas Fellow in Politics and International Relations at Lincoln College, Oxford University, also agrees that Azerbaijan's approach to energy transition appears more strategic than sincere. The country's much-touted renewable energy projects, such as the recent Masdar solar plant, are being used not to reduce fossil fuel dependence but to free up more natural gas for export, LaPorte wrote in a recent paper for Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Green energy investments remain remarkably low at 0.2% of GDP, and poorly coordinated. 

As LaPorte noted, the technical and capital-intensive nature of renewables may simply perpetuate existing elite control rather than herald genuine change. This context helps explain why Soltanov told undercover investigators that "we will have a certain amount of oil and natural gas being produced, perhaps forever”, he wasn't just making a business pitch – he was articulating a core strategy of Azerbaijan's regime survival.

Looking ahead, LaPorte identifies two potential catalysts for change: internal pressure as oil rents decline, or external pressure from European energy partnerships. The EU's role is particularly crucial. While Europe seeks energy security through Azerbaijan, especially following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, it must use its influence to demand transparency and governance reforms rather than turning a blind eye to autocratic tendencies. For COP29, the fundamental contradiction becomes clear: Azerbaijan's hosting of the climate summit appears less a commitment to climate action than an extension of its strategy to maintain elite control while presenting a modernising facade to the world. The question remains whether the global climate community will confront this reality or continue to allow petrostates to shape the future of climate negotiations.

The ultimate irony of COP29 is that it perfectly encapsulates the crisis of modern climate diplomacy. In Baku's gleaming towers, built with oil wealth and adorned with green energy promises, delegates will gather to discuss humanity's response to climate change while their very hosts work to perpetuate fossil fuel dependence. Azerbaijan's strategy – using climate credentials as diplomatic cover while brokering oil deals in the shadows – reveals a more uncomfortable truth: the UN climate process has become a stage where petrostates can greenwash their reputations while working to preserve the very systems threatening our planet's future. 

The absurdity was perfectly captured by a Baku car rental business owner's recent tweet: "I gave a 6.2 motor Cadillac to a delegation coming to the COP29 climate conference. They wanted exactly 6.2." 

Until the international community finds the courage to confront these fundamental contradictions, COP summits risk becoming elaborate performances where the actors most invested in fossil fuels get to write the script for our climate future – arriving at the theatre in gas-guzzling luxury cars of their choosing.