While negotiators inside the sprawling COP29 conference halls in Baku debated the future of the planet, the streets outside became a powerful stage for civil society.
The first week of the summit was marked by protests and demonstrations as activists from across the globe called for urgent and equitable climate action.
Two powerful forces converged: the grassroots demands of climate activists and the entrenched influence of fossil fuel lobbyists.
Outside the conference halls, hundreds of protesters voiced their frustration with slow-moving diplomacy, demanding bold and urgent climate action. Inside, negotiators faced pressure not only from activists but also from industry representatives seeking to maintain their stake in a carbon-intensive global economy.
The juxtaposition showcased the complexities of achieving meaningful progress in the fight against climate change.
On the conference’s third day, the streets surrounding the COP29 venue were packed with activists from around the world.
Hundreds of protesters formed a human chain outside the plenary halls, their chants echoing through Baku’s city center. The demonstration was part of a global “day of action” that included marches in London, New York, Nairobi, and Sydney, uniting civil society groups in a call for climate justice.
“World leaders need to feel the heat—literally and figuratively,” said one protester, holding a sign that read, “No more empty promises.” Greta Thunberg addressed the crowd via video message, delivering a sharp rebuke to negotiators inside. “We’ve heard enough talk. It’s time for action,” she said. Her words were met with cheers from the crowd.
For many activists, the stakes were deeply personal. Sela Vosikata from Fiji recounted her family’s displacement due to rising sea levels. “My home is underwater. My people are running out of time,” she said, her voice cracking with emotion.
African activists echoed similar sentiments, pointing to the disproportionate burden their continent bears despite contributing less than 4% of global greenhouse gas emissions. “Our lands are drying up, our rivers are disappearing, and our people are dying,” said Fred Njehu, Pan-African Political Strategist at Greenpeace Africa “How can we sit back while the polluters continue their destruction?”
While activists amplified their demands outside, another powerful force operated within the conference walls.
Representatives from the fossil fuel industry—often criticized as being antithetical to the goals of COP29—were present in significant numbers, lobbying to protect their interests.
A report by The Kick the Big Polluters Out (KBPO), a coalition of NGOs that analyzed accreditations at the summit, calculated that more than 1,700 people linked to fossil fuel interests attended, outnumbering the delegations of most individual nations.
“The energy transition is not about abandoning oil and gas; it’s about making them cleaner,” argued a representative from a major oil company during a side event.
He claimed that fossil fuels would remain a critical part of the global energy mix for decades and that efforts should focus on technologies like carbon capture and storage (CCS) to mitigate their impact.
This narrative clashed sharply with the demands of activists and many delegates from the Global South. Representatives from African nations accused fossil fuel companies of greenwashing—promoting technologies that prolong the use of oil and gas while failing to deliver meaningful emission reductions.
“They talk about solutions, but their solutions keep the profits flowing while our people suffer,” said Iskander Erzini Vernoit, executive director of the Imal Initiative for Climate and Development, from Rabat, Morocco.
The presence of fossil fuel lobbyists also sparked outrage among activists, who viewed their involvement as a conflict of interest. “You cannot have the arsonists sitting at the table when we’re trying to put out the fire,” Georgina Kerubo, a 21-year-old Kenyan activist.
A coalition of NGOs called for stricter rules to limit the influence of fossil fuel interests at climate conferences, arguing that their priorities often undermine meaningful progress.
Amid the protests and lobbying efforts, the demands of the Global South remained a central theme. Activists from Africa, Asia, and Latin America emphasized the need for substantial climate finance, stronger emission reduction targets, and accountability for historical polluters.
“We need real money, not more loans,” said Florence Ngala, the chief environmental officer at the Ministry of Health in Zambia. Her statement reflected a growing frustration with the way climate finance is often delivered.
Most funding pledged by developed nations comes in the form of loans, which many developing countries argue only deepen their debt burdens. “How can we build resilience when we are drowning in debt?” she asked.
Loss and damage—a contentious issue at previous COPs—was also a major focus. Small island states and vulnerable nations demanded the establishment of a dedicated fund to address irreversible climate impacts. “We’re not asking for favors. We’re asking for what’s rightfully ours,” said a 24-year-old delegate, Fathimah Muhammad Ahmed, from Maldives. His sentiment was echoed by activists outside, who carried signs reading, “Polluters must pay.”
The host nation of Azerbaijan found itself in an uncomfortable spotlight during the first week of COP29. As a major oil and gas producer, Azerbaijan’s reliance on fossil fuels drew criticism from both activists and some negotiators. Protesters observed the apparent contradiction of hosting a climate conference in a country whose economy is deeply tied to hydrocarbons.
“We are hosting COP29, yet our country still depends on oil and gas. This hypocrisy must end,” said Aysel Azizova, Azerbaijani environmentalist. Local activists joined the protests, calling for a transition to renewable energy and greater investment in green technologies.
In response, Cop29’s president, Mukhtar Babayev,defended its policies, arguing that it is committed to balancing economic development with climate action. “We are taking steps to diversify our energy sector,” said Babayave. However, critics pointed to the country’s continued investment in fossil fuel infrastructure as evidence of a lack of genuine commitment.
The contrast between the grassroots demands for immediate action and the fossil fuel lobby’s push for gradual transition indicated the competing narratives at play in Baku.
While activists argued that time is running out, industry representatives insisted that a rapid phase-out of fossil fuels is unrealistic and could harm developing economies that rely on oil and gas exports.
A spokesperson for the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) Haitham Al Ghais, defended the role of fossil fuels, stating, “Energy security must remain a priority. The world cannot simply switch off oil and gas overnight.”
This argument found some support among certain African nations, which view fossil fuel development as a pathway to economic growth. “We cannot be denied the right to develop while the West has already reaped the benefits of industrialization,” said Josefa Sacko, Commissioner Agriculture, Rural Development, Blue Economy and Sustainable Environment African Union Commission.
However, this perspective was met with resistance from climate activists and other African delegates who said there was a need to leapfrog to cleaner energy sources. “Africa’s future is not in fossil fuels. It’s in solar, wind, and other renewables,” said Nazeer Sonday, South African activist. “We need investment in the technologies of tomorrow, not the industries of the past.”
The presence of fossil fuel lobbyists raised questions about the integrity of the conference and the ability of negotiators to deliver meaningful outcomes.
“The public is watching,” said Ali Mohamed, Chair African Group of Negotiators. “We cannot afford to leave Baku without real progress.”
