THE COLLECTIVE CALL to action from civil society groups at COP28 was for a “fair, fast, full, funded and feminist phase-out of fossil fuels”.
And the outcome, after 13 days of talks that then ran into overtime? Though not a total failure, COP28 is another instance of the world being too slow and too short-sighted in the face of an urgent climate crisis.
Talks in Dubai ran into the early hours of this morning as negotiators tried to resolve divisions between countries on the text of the “Global Stocktake” – an examination of how far off course the world is when it comes to limiting temperature rise.
This exercise was also aimed at identifying what actions should be taken to get global climate action on track.
There were always going to be lots of moving parts in that text but from the outset of the conference it was clear that one aspect in particular was going to be the litmus test for whether COP28 might be considered a success: fossil fuels.
Despite decades of scientific evidence showing the direct link between burning fossil fuels and producing greenhouse gas emissions that trap heat inside the atmosphere, past COPs have skirted away from addressing head-on the role of fossil fuels in the climate crisis.
While some oil-rich economies would have preferred to keep it that way, other countries, led especially by the climate-vulnerable Alliance of Small Island States, came to COP28 on a mission to get a commitment to phasing out fossil fuels.
UN agreements like those produced at COPs are all about the exact language used. Are countries “invited” to do something? “Called upon?” “Requested?”
Those seemingly small tweaks have important implications for how binding a call to action is.
Similarly, there’s been long-running debate over including a call to “phase out” fossil fuels versus “phase down”. The latter would be vaguer, less measurable, and less ambitious than the former.
An earlier draft of the Global Stocktake paper included three options for what a section on fossil fuels might look like. One was a call for an “orderly and just phase out of fossil fuels”.
An alternative wording called for “accelerating efforts towards phasing out unabated fossil fuels and to rapidly reducing their use so as to achieve net-zero CO2 in energy systems by or around mid-century”.
The third option was that no item would be included on the matter.
Many delegates and observers were shocked when an updated text released on Monday hadn’t been narrowed down to one of those options but instead referred only to “reducing” fossil fuels.
This draft version of a deal also listed reducing fossil fuels as an action countries “could include” in their plans to reduce emissions.
Essentially, this would have meant absolutely no binding obligation on countries to do anything about fossil fuels unless they decided they wanted to. Given how urgent and how threatening the climate crisis is, that simply wouldn’t have been good enough.
Negotiations continued, sending the COP into overtime, finally resulting in the early hours of this morning in this agreed objective: “Transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade, so as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science.”
It’s the first time that a COP outcome has officially recognised and agreed to deal with the role of fossil fuels in driving the climate crisis.
That’s a positive step – but really, it’s one that should have been taken years and years ago. Can it be classed as a win if it took embarrassingly long to get to this point?
Today’s agreement is weakened by the use of “transitioning away” rather than the language sought by many countries: “phase out”. Caveats such as “in energy systems” and “orderly” provide countries reluctant to take action with further wiggle room.
Climate Action Network Europe Director Chiara Martinelli said that the outcome “signals a consensus to move away from fossil fuels in the future” but “falls short in providing the fair scale, clarity and speed we truly need to tackle the climate emergency”.
Who will pay?
Part of the problem too with how COP28 played out is a lack of clarity on where the money will come from to pay for climate action. This is particularly the case when it comes to measures that developing countries will need to take to reduce their emissions, but also when it comes to adaptation to protect against climate change’s effects.
Christian Aid Ireland’s Policy and Advocacy Officer Ross Fitzpatrick argues that today’s deal “commits to tripling renewable energy capacity globally – but has very little concrete detail on where the resources to do this will come from”.
“That’s a big missed opportunity. The world’s wealthiest, highest-emitting countries have up to now failed to adequately deliver long-pledged financial support, and without clear targets and timelines that seems unlikely to change.
“This needs to be an urgent focus in the year ahead to COP29,” he said.
‘Unproven technology’
Another element of contention is a point in the COP28 deal that immediately follows the headline-grabbing call to transition away from fossil fuels.
Here, countries are called on to accelerate “zero- and low-emission technologies, including, inter alia, renewables, nuclear, abatement and removal technologies such as carbon capture and utilisation and storage, particularly in hard-to-abate sectors, and low-carbon hydrogen production”.
The problematic aspect there is carbon capture and storage (CCS).
CCS is a technology that, in principle, could potentially capture emissions that have been created in industrial processes and stop them from clogging up the atmosphere.
However, the technology is expensive, underdeveloped, and widely criticised by climate justice campaigners, who fear the prospect of having the technology in the future will be used as an excuse to avoid making essential emissions cuts now.
Fitzpatrick said that “loopholes in the text and references during negotiations to speculative, unproven and expensive technologies like CCS show that many states – still in the process of approving new licenses for fossil fuel extraction – remain wedded to the status quo”.
That sentiment was echoed by the Global Climate and Health Alliance. Reacting to the text, Policy Lead Jess Beagley said that “while the COP28 final text clearly signals the impending end of the fossil fuel era, naming the need to end dependence on fossil fuels for the first time in a 30 year process, it leaves gaping and dangerous loopholes”.
These include “CCS, ‘transitional fuels’ like fossil gas, and nuclear power”, Beagley said, adding that the agreement “does not clearly commit to a full, fair or funded fossil fuel phase-out”.
‘Moving money around’
One area that where this COP did deliver was in setting up the long-awaited and highly-debated Loss and Damage Fund.
After agreeing in principle last year to set up the fund – but putting off figuring out the details – countries officially signed off on it on the first day of the conference in Dubai.
That meant wealthy countries could, and did, make pledges to the fund in the opening days of COP28.
As the pledges rolled in, with countries such as the UAE and Germany leading the pack with $100 million contributions, it gave a sense that progress was happening and served as something for countries to rally around as a success story.
Taoiseach Leo Varadkar was applauded during his speech to the conference in which he announced Ireland’s contribution of €25 million (split across two years).
By the end of the conference, though, the pledges had dried up and the total raised fell well short of what climate justice campaigners say is needed to support vulnerable countries hit by climate impacts.
“Contributions to the fund are voluntary and the $792 million announced to date represents just 0.2% of the estimated $400 billion bill for loss and damage globally,” said Concern Advocacy Manager Sally Tyldesley.
She added: “We need to see high income countries deliver new funding for loss and damage, rather than move money around – this can’t just be an accounting exercise”.
However, that’s exactly what Ireland did.
The €25 million the Taoiseach pledged to the Loss and Damage Fund is being counted towards a previous commitment made to provide €225 million in international climate finance.
Siobhán Curran, Head of Policy and Advocacy at Trócaire, spoke to The Journal after Varadkar announced the contribution and said that was a particular disappointment, calling it a “robbing Peter to pay Paul” situation.
And so, as delegates depart from Dubai, COP28 has ended on a similar note to many of the COPs that have come before it: something has been done, but there is still so much left to do.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
have your say