The European Union continues to push hard for a global transition away from fossil fuels, even as the world experiences worsening economic crises year by year.
As Azerbaijan gets ready to present its long-awaited proposal for a global climate finance deal at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP29) in Baku, the EU is driving the discussion with its call for a global phase-out of fossil fuels and its demands for developed countries to take on an even bigger financial burden.
On Wednesday, November 20th, Climate Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra doubled down on the EU’s stance while carefully avoiding specifics about the financial commitments it is prepared to make, raising serious questions about both how practical and how fair the bloc’s position is.
Ahead of the COP29 draft discussions, Hoekstra refused to provide a clear target for the “new collective quantified goal” (NCQG), the mechanism that’s designed to fund developing nations’ efforts to move away from fossil fuels.
He also dismissed calls for transparency, claiming, “I don’t think there’s any value in publicly speculating before we have a solid foundation”—another example of the EU’s habit of pushing ambitious goals without offering concrete solutions.
Reports of a proposed $200–300 billion financing target—double or even triple the current $100 billion framework—have circulated, but Azerbaijan’s chief negotiator, Yalchin Rafiyev, was quick to dismiss these figures, saying no official numbers had been shared.
The NCQG, which will replace the $100 billion annual financing mechanism after 2025, highlights the EU’s push to increase financial demands on wealthy nations while deflecting the need for broader accountability. While it is reasonable to ask countries like China to contribute more, the lack of any enforceable framework means it relies on vague ideas of “voluntary commitments”—as Hoekstra said—which probably won’t be enough to close the gap.
The EU’s stubborn push for a fossil fuel phase-out doesn’t seem to take into account the real challenges many countries face. And the agreement made at COP28 in Dubai last year to transition away from fossil fuels is still just talk, with no clear timeline or practical strategy for how that’s supposed to happen.
Hoekstra’s insistence that nations must stick to that agreement ignores key issues like energy security, economic disparities, and technical challenges with making such a transition. For many countries that are still dependent on fossil fuels for development and stability, the EU’s approach is not only unrealistic but dismissive of their needs.
By presenting its hardline position as global leadership, the EU seems more focused on appearing as a moral authority than on promoting real collaboration. Its push for drastic fossil fuel transitions and its heavy demands on developed countries—while letting China and other highly industrialized ‘developing nations’ off the hook—could end up deepening divisions instead of building consensus.
