By Lily Bourne
On December 12, representatives from nearly 200 nations emerged from the UN climate summit in Dubai after a two-week conference dedicated to initiating climate action across the globe. The conference represented the first “global stocktake” of the Paris Agreement, an international treaty focused on climate change that was adopted in 2015. The Paris Agreement included 196 countries, and focused on a five-year plan to stop increasing global temperatures. At COP28, negotiators came together to “take stock” of the world’s progress towards those five-year goals. Specifically, they assessed how closely countries have been implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, as 2023 represents halfway from when the Paris Agreement was adopted to the end target date. While many believe that this conference represents an important step in saving the planet, many activists claim that the progress being made is not nearly enough to solve the climate crisis.
While COP28 dealt with a variety of topics related to the overarching issue of climate change, the most impactful ramifications of the conference can be found within a small portion of the overall stocktake. The stocktake is a final draft of the UNCCC’s conclusions after negotiating with each other throughout the two weeks. Paragraph 28 states that the United Nations Climate Change Conference “Further recognizes the need for deep, rapid and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in line with 1.5 °C pathways and calls on Parties to contribute to the following global efforts.” While diplomatic language sometimes makes intentions unclear, the use of “calls on” represents a weak effort to encourage countries to comply with the suggested changes that the UNCCC goes on to outline.
However, the most controversial section of the entire draft can be found within subsection (d) of paragraph 28. It states that countries should work on “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.” This represents the first time a climate change has specifically mentioned moving away from fossil fuels. While the simple inclusion of such a suggestion may seem enough to institute important change, many activists argue that the UNCCC fell short of supporting the planet. They had pushed for a stronger phrasing, like “phasing out” or “phasing down” fossil fuels. While these propositions had been debated in earlier drafts, Saudi Arabia and other states with petroleum-reliant economies blocked the stronger language, pushing for the responsibility to be placed on the consumer rather than the supplier. This subsection may seem like an important step away from fossil fuels, but it actually pleased many oil-producing countries and companies. The wording provides a loophole for producers to continue pumping oil until demand decreases, and doing so in an “orderly fashion”–as stated in another subsection–allows stocks to stay steady and companies to continue to profit off of the exact things they were doing before. As a final blow to anti-Big Oil activists, the UNCCC emphasized the utilization of carbon sequestration. While the process of carbon sequestration does provide hope for other sources to remove some amount of CO2 from our atmosphere, it also allows fossil fuel producers to ignore responsibility and limitations, instead leaning on more recapture. Essentially, the UNCCC provided a possible, but certainly not all-encompassing solution, which allows the fossil fuel industry to continue profiting as much as they were before.
Paragraph 29 also includes controversial phrasing, as it simply “recognizes that transitional fuels can play a role in facilitating the energy transition while ensuring energy security.” What are transitional fuels? Nobody really knows. While one could argue that they refer to things like hydrogen power, there is no writing to say that natural gasses could not also be considered “transitional fuels.” Backed by countries like China and India, this paragraph allows yet another loophole for countries to continue utilizing fossil fuels in a slightly modified way.
Another concern many critics have following the conference relates to finances. After the Paris Agreement, researchers found that the United States would need to invest 2.4 trillion dollars in emerging countries in order to help them effectively facilitate the changes needed to comply with climate change action. However, we have only provided around one-quarter of this amount. Without financing, developing countries simply can not make progress in fighting the climate crisis. The COP28 Consensus did not ignore this entirely. It mentioned possible taxation, and the need to transition from debt-funding to public service grants, which would allow countries to make changes with less risk. The negotiators also discussed many innovative ideas on how to sponsor climate action. One idea, known as One Acre Fund Re, protects millions of farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa from the effects of climate change. Programs like One Acre could help developing countries invest in their future, and fight climate change without fear of economic crisis.
Although the conference left many things to be desired by activists, it still represents an international step in the right direction. Countries have pledged to take direct action in the fight against climate change, and to work with each other to save the planet. No matter what, powerful fossil fuel lobbyists will prevent extreme progress from occurring, but the mere inclusion of fossil fuel reform itself shows the possibility for more changes in the future. As we approach 2030, countries now have to focus on what they can do to effectively follow their commitments and continue to work towards a better future.