You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
Yes, it’s another petrostate. But that’s just the beginning.
When the announcement came that COP29 will be held in Baku in 2024, the immediate reaction in the climate community was “again?!”
It wasn’t that Azerbaijan — a nation of about 10 million people, situated on the Caspian Sea at the southern tail of the Caucasus mountains — had hosted the global climate summit before. Actually, it almost didn’t get the 2024 hosting gig at all: COP29 was briefly homeless after Russia vowed to block Bulgaria’s bid (because Bulgaria is part of the European Union) and longtime enemies Azerbaijan and Armenia vowed to block each other’s bids (because of what many have characterized as an ethnic cleansing). Other nations in the region balked at the sheer size of what the COP event has become. At one point, even Australia and Bonn, Germany, were on the table as potential COP29 replacements if the Eastern European bloc couldn’t pull things together.
But, rather amazingly, it did. That means — as countless headlines have blared, and as you’re undoubtedly already aware — that the United Nations summit intended to assess and progress the goal of limiting climate change will be held in an oil and gas-producing state for the third consecutive year. Cue the groans.
That is reason enough for hand-wringing, especially after a record turn-out of fossil fuel lobbyists at the convention this year, not to mention the scandal over the head of ADNOC leading the whole shebang. But if you thought all that was absurd and disturbing, wait until you hear about Azerbaijan.
“It’s stunning to me that they would make Baku the next place for COP,” Ronald Suny, a distinguished professor emeritus of History at the University of Michigan and an expert on the South Caucasian nations who’s written extensively about Azerbaijan, told me.
Yes, Azerbaijan is a petrostate. But more alarmingly, it is also even more repressive and authoritarian than the United Arab Emirates based on the scale developed by Freedom House, a human rights watchdog group. “Azerbaijan is not even a one-party state,” Suny explained. “It’s a one-person or one-family state.”
To make a long and complicated history very short, former First Secretary of the Communist Party of Azerbaijan Heydar Aliyev came to power after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1993 and eventually passed his title of head of state onto his only son, Ilham Aliyev, in “irregular” elections in 2003. Ilham Aliyev is still president today, and will remain so indefinitely. “There’s no dissent allowed,” Suny said. “There’s absolute control of the media — much stricter than Russia. Anyone who criticizes [the government] is either in jail or in exile. And lots of people are in jail.”
On the one hand, having COP29 in Baku could be viewed as a small positive. “For years, climate change has been a factor…in wars and conflicts,” reads one effusive lead paragraph in The Associated Press. “Now for the first time, it’s part of a peace deal.” True, the attention from the UN helped to spur a prisoner exchange and peace talks between Azerbaijan and Armenia following renewed bloodshed over the contested Nagorno-Karabakh region earlier this fall. It’s also likely that Azerbaijan will be on its best behavior ahead of the UN convention, given that it’s now under a higher-than-usual level of international scrutiny. Giving Baku the convention “is not necessarily a bad thing,” argues Rashmee Roshan Lall, an international affairs columnist, on her blog, “because it shows that COPs reflect the diversity of the world in which we live and seek to preserve.”
But allowing COP29 to happen inAzerbaijan also helps to legitimize and sanitize Ilham Aliyev’s rule. This is why other authoritarian regimes from Russia to Saudi Arabia to Qatar and Dubai have vied to host global events such as the soccer World Cup and the Olympics. Since 2012, Baku has played host to the Eurovision Song Contest, the First European Games, and the Formula 1 Grand Prix, according to Gubad Ibadoghlu, a senior policy analyst at Azerbaijan’s Economic Research Center, writing for the website Crude Accountability. The government in Baku explicitly “tries to whitewash its damaged image in the international arena by ‘paying attention to modernization’ and by creating connections with global leaders in the sphere of sports and culture,” Ibadoghlu said.
Suny sees the same thing happening now with COP. “It could be that Azerbaijan, which has tried and worked very hard to refurbish and beautify its image, will benefit from such an event and will be happy to put on a good face,” he said. And as Ibadoghlu pointed out, Azerbaijan has spent a huge amount of money on this program over the years. “It’s a very rich state and it can divert its resources — because it certainly doesn’t go into the people — to building extraordinary buildings,” Suny added. By allowing COP to be held in a country that viciously cracks down on dissent and free speech, then, the UN is not only turning a blind eye to but actively assisting what is basically a twisted form of greenwashing.
Curiously, estimates indicate that Azerbaijan might not be an oil state for much longer. The nation is expected to deplete its supply and sole source of wealth within the next 25 years — an involuntary phase-out by 2050, if you will. According to a World Bank report published two weeks ago, “urgent action on climate” — including investing in renewable energy, prioritizing energy efficiency, and climate-proofing its agricultural sector — “can help Azerbaijan minimize the risks emerging from the global low-carbon transition and protect the living standards of its people.”
In that sense, at the least, Baku needs COP. Now we have to wait to see what it does with its chance.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
And more on the week’s most important conflicts around renewable energy projects.
1. Lawrence County, Alabama – We now have a rare case of a large solar farm getting federal approval.
2. Virginia Beach, Virginia – It’s time to follow up on the Coastal Virginia offshore wind project.
3. Fairfield County, Ohio – The red shirts are beating the greens out in Ohio, and it isn’t looking pretty.
4. Allen County, Indiana – Sometimes a setback can really set someone back.
5. Adams County, Illinois – Hope you like boomerangs because this county has approved a solar project it previously denied.
6. Solano County, California – Yet another battery storage fight is breaking out in California. This time, it’s north of San Francisco.
A conversation with Elizabeth McCarthy of the Breakthrough Institute.
This week’s conversation is with Elizabeth McCarthy of the Breakthrough Institute. Elizabeth was one of several researchers involved in a comprehensive review of a decade of energy project litigation – between 2013 and 2022 – under the National Environment Policy Act. Notably, the review – which Breakthrough released a few weeks ago – found that a lot of energy projects get tied up in NEPA litigation. While she and her colleagues ultimately found fossil fuels are more vulnerable to this problem than renewables, the entire sector has a common enemy: difficulty of developing on federal lands because of NEPA. So I called her up this week to chat about what this research found.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
So why are you so fixated on NEPA?
Personally and institutionally, [Breakthrough is] curious about all regulatory policy – land use, environmental regulatory policy – and we see NEPA as the thing that connects them all. If we understand how that’s functioning at a high level, we can start to pull at the strings of other players. So, we wanted to understand the barrier that touches the most projects.
What aspects of zero-carbon energy generation are most affected by NEPA?
Anything with a federal nexus that doesn’t include tax credits. Solar and wind that is on federal land is subject to a NEPA review, and anything that is linear infrastructure – transmission often has to go through multiple NEPA reviews. We don’t see a ton of transmission being litigated over on our end, but we think that is a sign NEPA is such a known obstacle that no one even wants to touch a transmission line that’ll go through 14 years of review, so there’s this unknown graveyard of transmission that wasn’t even planned.
In your report, you noted there was a relatively small number of zero-carbon energy projects in your database of NEPA cases. Is solar and wind just being developed more frequently on private land, so there’s less of these sorts of conflicts?
Precisely. The states that are the most powered by wind or create the most wind energy are Texas and Iowa, and those are bypassing the national federal environmental review process [with private land], in addition to not having their own state requirements, so it’s easier to build projects.
What would you tell a solar or wind developer about your research?
This is confirming a lot of things they may have already instinctually known or believed to be true, which is that NEPA and filling out an environmental impact statement takes a really long time and is likely to be litigated over. If you’re a developer who can’t avoid putting your energy project on federal land, you may just want to avoid moving forward with it – the cost may outweigh whatever revenue you could get from that project because you can’t know how much money you’ll have to pour into it.
Huh. Sounds like everything is working well. I do think your work identifies a clear risk in developing on federal lands, which is baked into the marketplace now given the pause on permits for renewables on federal lands.
Yeah. And if you think about where the best places would be to put these technologies? It is on federal lands. The West is way more federal land than anywhere else in the county. Nevada is a great place to put solar — there’s a lot of sun. But we’re not going to put anything there if we can’t put anything there.
What’s the remedy?
We propose a set of policy suggestions. We think the judicial review process could be sped along or not be as burdensome. Our research most obviously points to shortening the statute of limitations under the Administrative Procedures Act from six years to six months, because a great deal of the projects we reviewed made it in that time, so you’d see more cases in good faith as opposed to someone waiting six years waiting to challenge it.
We also think engaging stakeholders much earlier in the process would help.
The Bureau of Land Management says it will be heavily scrutinizing transmission lines if they are expressly necessary to bring solar or wind energy to the power grid.
Since the beginning of July, I’ve been reporting out how the Trump administration has all but halted progress for solar and wind projects on federal lands through a series of orders issued by the Interior Department. But last week, I explained it was unclear whether transmission lines that connect to renewable energy projects would be subject to the permitting freeze. I also identified a major transmission line in Nevada – the north branch of NV Energy’s Greenlink project – as a crucial test case for the future of transmission siting in federal rights-of-way under Trump. Greenlink would cross a litany of federal solar leases and has been promoted as “essential to helping Nevada achieve its de-carbonization goals and increased renewable portfolio standard.”
Well, BLM has now told me Greenlink North will still proceed despite a delay made public shortly after permitting was frozen for renewables, and that the agency still expects to publish the record of decision for the line in September.
This is possible because, as BLM told me, transmission projects that bring solar and wind power to the grid will be subject to heightened scrutiny. In an exclusive statement, BLM press secretary Brian Hires told me via e-mail that a secretarial order choking out solar and wind permitting on federal lands will require “enhanced environmental review for transmission lines only when they are a part of, and necessary for, a wind or solar energy project.”
However, if a transmission project is not expressly tied to wind or solar or is not required for those projects to be constructed… apparently, then it can still get a federal green light. For instance in the case of Greenlink, the project itself is not explicitly tied to any single project, but is kind of like a transmission highway alongside many potential future solar projects. So a power line can get approved if it could one day connect to wind or solar, but the line’s purpose cannot solely be for a wind or solar project.
This is different than, say, lines tied explicitly to connecting a wind or solar project to an existing transmission network. Known as gen-tie lines, these will definitely face hardships with this federal government. This explains why, for example, BLM has yet to approve a gen-tie line for a wind project in Wyoming that would connect the Lucky Star wind project to the grid.
At the same time, it appears projects may be given a wider berth if a line has other reasons for existing, like improving resilience on the existing grid, or can be flexibly used by not just renewables but also fossil energy.
So, the lesson to me is that if you’re trying to build transmission infrastructure across federal property under this administration, you might want to be a little more … vague.