Key Demands from Activists
These demands arise from multiple groups: the Climate Justice Coalition, Extinction Rebellion, War on Want, Oxfam, youth climate groups, organisations from the Global South, etc. (Cop29)
Here are the major asks:
| Issue | What Activists Are Calling For |
|---|---|
| Fossil Fuel Phase-Out & No New Licenses | They want the UK (and other governments) to stop issuing new licenses/exploration for oil and gas projects. For example, activists demand that the Rosebank oil field not go ahead. (Anadolu Ajansı) |
| End Reliance on Fossil Fuel Companies / Hold Them Accountable | Governments should divest from fossil fuel corporations, stop enabling them through subsidies or favorable policies, and force them to pay for climate damages. (climatejustice.uk) |
| Climate Finance, Loss & Damage, Reparations | Wealthy (Global North) countries need to provide grant-based finance (not loans) to vulnerable countries for adapting to, and recovering from, climate change. Also, activists demand compensation (often described as reparations or “climate debt”). (africaclimateinsights.org) |
| Rejecting “Debt Swaps” | Some proposals (from richer countries) suggest “debt swaps” as a way to address debts of climate-affected countries. Activists argue these are insufficient and risky; they prefer outright debt cancellation. (PM News Nigeria) |
| Justice & Human Rights, Including Ties to Conflict | Activists see climate justice as inseparable from broader human rights issues. In particular, the London protests have intertwined demands with calling out the UK’s complicity in violence in Gaza, and more general demands that climate action be just and equitable. (climatejustice.uk) |
| Strong Emissions Cuts | Beyond just stopping fossil fuel licensing, activists want urgently scaled-up emission reduction targets (Nationally Determined Contributions, or NDCs), consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 °C. (africaclimateinsights.org) |
| Transparency & Accountability | This includes: tracking the role of polluters, ensuring military emissions are accounted for, making finance flows open, ensuring that promises (financial, emission cuts) made by countries are binding / verifiable. (WILPF) |
Specific London-Focused Protests / Highlights
Because the question is about London, here are how those demands are manifesting in protests in London:
- On 16 November 2024, a large march (“March for Global Climate Justice”) took place, with demands that the UK government end reliance on fossil fuels, pay climate reparations, and end complicity in the genocide in Gaza. Organisers included Extinction Rebellion, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, War on Want, etc. (Common Dreams)
- Another point: the protests routed past institutions seen as symbolic of fossil fuel complicity—e.g., the British Museum (because of its partnership with BP) and the SOCAR office (Azerbaijan’s national oil company). Activists argue such outfits help fossil fuel firms greenwash and maintain social legitimacy. (Canary)
Overarching Frames & Principles
These demands are not just a list of policy changes; they reflect a set of broader ethical and political principles:
- Climate justice: those least responsible for climate change (often poorer nations, people in the Global South, marginalised communities) are suffering first and worst, and therefore deserve priority in responses (finance, adaptation, loss & damage).
- No more offsets or weak measures: activists reject weak or symbolic actions that don’t shift power or money, or that perpetuate harm (e.g. “net zero by 2050” without immediate cuts, using finance schemes that increase debt).
- Accountability for historical emissions: rich, industrialised nations have caused disproportionate emissions; thus they owe financial debts, moral obligations, and must take lead in cutting emissions.
- Intersectionality: links between climate, militarism/conflict (e.g. Gaza), social justice, colonial history, and so on.
Tensions / Disagreements & Difficult Issues
Activists also highlight some conflict areas, or things they see often going wrong in climate negotiations:
- The gap between what is promised (in finance, in emission cuts) and what is delivered. Activists often call the finance pledges “woefully inadequate.” (The Standard)
- The form of climate finance: grants versus loans. Loans can burden already indebted countries. (africaclimateinsights.org)
- Mechanisms such as debt swaps are seen as insufficient or even harmful. (PM News Nigeria)
- Inclusion of potentially problematic actors: fossil fuel companies remaining at the negotiating table, having influence. Activists ask for limiting the influence of polluters in negotiations. (The Guardian)
What “COP29.com / “Make the Polluters Pay” Campaign Elsewhere Demand
Some global campaigns associated with COP29 have their own aligned demands. For example:
- Forcing big oil (polluters) to pay—not just through voluntary action, but through government enforcement: reparations, liability, etc. (Cop29)
- Setting ambitious new finance goals for 2025-2030 (amounts large enough to meet adaptation, mitigation, loss & damage) (Oxfam International)
Climate protests in London — case studies (what activists demanded ahead of COP29)
Below are four compact, evidence-backed case studies from London actions tied to COP29. Each case study summarizes who organised it, when/where it happened, the concrete demands activists pushed, tactics used, and any immediate outcomes or notable context. Sources are cited after each case study.
Case study 1 — March for Global Climate Justice (16 Nov 2024)
Organisers / partners: Climate Justice Coalition with support from groups such as Extinction Rebellion, War on Want, Fossil Free London and others.
What happened: Thousands marched in central London on 16 November 2024 (route included the British Museum → SOCAR office → Downing Street) to coincide with COP29 and to make demands visible to negotiators and media. (climatejustice.uk)
Key demands: immediate phase-out of fossil fuels (no new licences), payment of climate reparations / loss & damage finance (grant-based, not loans), end complicity in human-rights abuses (march explicitly linked climate justice to Gaza and militarism). (climatejustice.uk)
Tactics & framing: permitted mass march, banners and banners/panels linking fossil fuels to militarism and human rights; routing chosen to highlight institutional ties between British cultural/financial institutions and fossil fuel companies (e.g., British Museum/BP links, SOCAR). (Share the Worlds Resources)
Immediate outcome / impact: large media coverage and amplification of the “make polluters pay / climate reparations” frame in UK activist networks; served to pressure public debate around COP29’s finance commitments. (Common Dreams)
Case study 2 — “Make Polluters Pay” Week of Action (late Oct–early Nov 2024)
Organisers / partners: Coalition of grassroots groups organised actions around the UK under the MakePollutersPay banner (national actions, local demos, lobbying). (Make Polluters Pay)
What happened: A week of coordinated actions (25 Oct–1 Nov) targeted politicians and fossil-fuel interests to demand the UK announce new, additional revenue for a Loss & Damage fund — specifically via levies/taxes on polluters rather than general taxpayer funding or loans. (Make Polluters Pay)
Key demands: a dedicated Climate Finance Fund funded by levies on polluters (a Bill / parliamentary push was referenced), public commitments at COP29 to fund Loss & Damage at scale, and an end to fossil fuel subsidies. (Make Polluters Pay)
Tactics & framing: national coordination of local actions + calls for legislative change (a Bill / EDM was cited on campaign pages), public petitioning, and civil disobedience in some places to maximize visibility. (Make Polluters Pay)
Immediate outcome / impact: raised parliamentary pressure and created a concrete policy ask (levy on polluters / Climate Finance Fund) that activists sought to tie to COP29 commitments. Campaign materials made the case for taxation of polluters rather than loans or debt instruments. (Make Polluters Pay)
Case study 3 — Extinction Rebellion / allied direct actions & symbolic route choices
Organisers / partners: Extinction Rebellion London worked inside the broader coalition and local groups (e.g., Fossil Free London). (X (formerly Twitter))
What happened: Alongside the big march, XR and allied activists emphasized direct-action tactics and symbolic targeting (e.g., protesting past institutions with corporate ties to fossil fuels). Their public messaging explicitly linked fossil fuel extraction, militarism, and human rights, insisting climate action must be intersectional and justice-based. (Canary)
Key demands: phase-out of fossil fuel extraction and new licences (Rosebank and similar projects called out), removal of corporate influence from climate talks, immediate and meaningful loss & damage funding, and an end to government policies seen as supporting militarism or human-rights abuses connected to energy geopolitics. (climatejustice.uk)
Tactics & framing: civil disobedience, spectacle and route-planning to expose alleged “complicity” (e.g., passing SOCAR/other offices); XR also used direct language that human rights are central to climate policy. These tactics kept the coverage focused on justice and responsibility, not just emissions tables. (leftfootforward.org)
Case study 4 — NGO & human-rights interventions pushing finance + accountability (Amnesty, Oxfam, etc.)
Organisers / partners: Established NGOs and rights bodies (Amnesty, Oxfam and other international NGOs) coordinated advocacy to ensure negotiations included human-rights protections and scaled finance. (Amnesty International)
What happened: In the run-up to COP29 these organisations published briefings and public statements demanding that negotiators deliver binding, transparent finance commitments (emphasising grants over loans), accountability for polluters, and incorporation of human-rights standards into climate finance and adaptation policies. (Amnesty International)
Key demands: scale-up of adaptation and loss & damage finance, binding transparency and reporting for financial flows, and prioritising vulnerable countries with grant-based support rather than debt-creating loans. (Amnesty International)
Tactics & framing: evidence-based briefings, targeted lobbying of negotiators, public messaging aligned with street protests so civil society outside COP and inside COP presented a united demands list. This combined pressure helps legitimize campaign demands in donor capitals. (Amnesty International)
What the case studies show (synthesis)
- Activists in London pushed a common, fairly concrete set of demands: immediate fossil-fuel phase-out (no new licences), polluter-funded finance for Loss & Damage (preferably via levies/ taxes, not loans), reparations/ climate debt recognition, and removing polluter influence from negotiations. (climatejustice.uk)
- Tactics combined mass marches, targeted symbolic routes, legislative lobbying (bills/EDMs), and direct action — designed to link street pressure to concrete policy asks at COP29. (climatejustice.uk)
- Activists also intentionally framed climate demands as inseparable from human rights and geopolitical conflict (notably tying demands to Gaza/militarism in London), broadening the moral argument for urgent finance and accountability. (Common Dreams)
If you want next I can:
- Convert these into a one-page brief for policymakers (short asks + evidence); or
- Produce a timeline of London actions with press links and social posts; or
- Compare activist demands to the official COP29 outcomes/pledges (to show gaps).
Which would you like?
