By Sankalp Wadhwani

Abstract

COP28, the United Nations’ 28th annual climate conference, held in Dubai, faced scepticism due to the UAE’s status as a major oil-producing country. The summit involved diverse participation, including diplomats, industrialists, civil societies, and activists, attracting 84,000 attendees. Amid geopolitical challenges and escalating climate crises, COP28 produced both accomplishments and compromises. Positive outcomes included historic discussions on transitioning from fossil fuels, establishing the Loss & Damage Fund, and strides in renewable energy commitments. However, challenges arose in addressing coal, equity, climate justice, and concerns about nuclear energy and funding issues. The article emphasises the need for future summits to build on successes, rectify deficiencies, and prioritise inclusive and decisive actions to combat global climate change effectively. Hosting COPs in regions most affected by climate issues is recommended to underscore the urgency of the matter.

INTRODUCTION

The United Nations (UN) held its 28th annual climate conference, or COP 28, from 30th November to 13th December, wherein world leaders debated ways to curb global warming and to get ready for it in the future. The summit was perceived as doubtful of its possible outcomes as the UAE hosted the summit in Dubai, which ranks in the top ten oil-producing countries in the world. More importantly, the actions of the COP 28 president led to the possibility of the COP 28 summit being used by the UAE to increase future fossil deals instead of signing deals to limit the rising temperature. Since COP 28 got underway, Sultan Ahmed Al-Jaber, the United Arab Emirates designated head of the COP 28 climate talks who is an oil mogul himself, supposedly convened secret negotiations with other oil and gas executives. Despite the uncertainty looming over COP 28, the summit featured many participants. In addition to the customary attendees, which included ambassadors, industrialists, civil societies, and activists, 84,000 people attended this year’s COP, which is 20 times more than the 4,000 people who participated at the inaugural one. 

The COP 28 summit was held at a challenging time as geopolitical challenges stemming from ongoing conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine interfered with the summit to some extent. At the same time, there was a grave need for collective action on climate change. The earth’s average temperature momentarily surpassed 2°C (3.6°F) above the pre-industrial norm on November 17, making 2023 the hottest year ever recorded. Extreme heat, climate-related floods, storms, wildfires, and other weather-related disasters claimed thousands of lives this year, while drought is currently affecting about 2 billion people. The summit also held the first global stocktake as planned under the Paris Agreement. This was an important test to evaluate how successfully the aim of keeping global temperature increases well below 2 degrees Celsius, with the ultimate goal of limiting the rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Moreover, the summit led to a few big decisions that can be perceived as accomplishments; however, when assessed closely, the achievements can be considered compromises. Furthermore, as there were nations with diverse interests, the conference seemed to delegate the responsibility to the side events and the future COP summits. Due to this, the conference was described as a “circus in which the main event is being eclipsed by the sideshows,” according to Harvard Professor Robert Stavins. Nevertheless, this summit can be interpreted as a platform for building a solid foundation to discuss innovative prospects. Not every COP can be seen as a perfect summit, and every summit has flaws. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, since its establishment in 1995, aimed to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations to prevent human interference with the climate system. However, emissions continue to rise, putting the planet near its tipping point and highlighting the urgent need for action.

POSITIVE OUTCOMES

The first breakthrough was the mention of fossil fuels at the COP 28 consensus; UAE, a fossil fuel producer, leveraged its position and conducted talks with all parties to recognize the need to transit away from fossil fuels. The tone in which the fossil fuels are mentioned highlights the red lines among the parties involved; the summit overran by a day due to scrutinised lengthy discussions held to reach a consensus on fossil fuels. Nonetheless, this historic development is solely the product of popular will. Over two days in September, over 600,000 people from at least 60 countries participated in over 700 activities demanding an end to fossil fuels that is swift, equitable, long-lasting, and financially supported. The U.N. Executive Secretary for Climate Change, Simon Stiell, declared COP28 a success and announced the shift away from fossil fuels as the “beginning of the end” for the fossil fuel era. 

The second breakthrough was initiating the loss and damage fund in the COP 28. On the first day, the operationalization of the Loss & Damage Fund was passed in plenary and was swiftly followed by a rush of commitments. Initially, the host UAE contributed $100 million, followed by Germany and the UK, who donated $40 million for the fund and an additional £20 million for associated expenses. Even though this represents less than 1% of what is required to assist those most impacted by climate change, there is optimism that by opening the bank account, sufficient funding will eventually be provided. Apart from the loss and damage fund, during COP 28, about $85 billion was committed, of which most of the funding will be allocated to adaptation. The budget has positively converged the interests of the developing nations, as reaching a consensus on the adaptation targets for the Global Goal on Adaptation was a top priority on Africa’s climate agenda.

Third, the global promise on energy efficiency and renewables, spearheaded by the European Union, called for tripling the capacity of renewable energy to over 11,000 gigawatts and raising the yearly rate of improvements in energy efficiency to 4 percent by 2030.  The 130 nations that supported giving renewable energy a more significant role in global decarbonization welcomed this with open arms. However, this has allowed the possibility of the revival of nuclear power, which is concerning for the environment. 

Fourth, positive progress was made on ecological issues at COP28, and significant references to the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Global Biodiversity Framework were achieved. These references emphasised safeguarding and restoring ecosystem integrity, biodiversity, and ecosystem-based adaptation methods. On food security, a UNFCCC decision that recognized “resilient food systems” as a critical adaptation solution for the first time, along with the release of a Declaration on Sustainable Agriculture, Resilient Food Systems, and Climate Action that 158 countries have endorsed, gave the need for food systems transformation a boost at COP28. For the first time in the UNFCCC, labour rights were recognized by the Just Transition Work Program. 

The COP28 summit was the first to address AI’s role in sustainability, as Al is essential for mitigating and adapting to global climate change. It shows promise in predicting severe weather, improving electric grid efficiency, and finding sustainable materials. Lastly, this COP discussed the methane issue as methane’s significance is growing, contributing to over one-third of global warming. Therefore, before or during COP discussions, trans-Atlantic oil and gas-producing and consuming governments unveiled daring new policies and technologies to track and mitigate discharges, which continue to advance. The US, Canada, and Europe have introduced new regulations to combat methane emissions. 

CHALLENGES AND LIMITATIONS

The major setback for the COP28 summit was in the domain of coal. COP28, which called for an “acceleration of efforts towards a phasedown,” ultimately failed to make any headway on coal, only restating inane language from COP26 in Glasgow. More importantly, two of the top three emitters in the world, China and India, did not sign a pledge to stop funding coal-fired power stations. Roughly two-thirds of the 353 planned gigawatts coal-fired power stations and 67% of the 204-gigawatt facilities now under construction are located in China, with the remainder mainly in India.

Secondly, the issue of equity and climate justice was also visible in many forms at the summit. Due to the weak wording and the need for concrete funding sources, there was no justice for those nations most affected by the global issue but least accountable. Low- and middle-income countries’ financing was not focused upon to some extent by COP28, as there were no promises made that the nations with the most historical responsibility for climate change would go farther, faster, and provide the funding required for a just transition on a global scale. Moreover, not a statement but sincere action from high-income nations to the transition from fossil fuels is needed. Many countries, including the UK, are still expanding fossil fuel production, leading to concerns about low- and middle-income countries being forced to forgo their domestic fossil fuel opportunities without adequate finance. Despite the UK’s commitment to “ending the era of fossil fuels,” as Minister Stuart put it at COP28. This situation is particularly concerning as fossil fuel profits are set to grow, and the UK’s status as one of five Global North countries responsible for 51% of planned expansion of new oil and gas fields. 

In addition, developed nations like the U.S. made a small contribution of $17.5 million, showing the lack of urgency of developed countries on climate change. Despite being historically one of the big emitters, the developed nations are spending billions on nations engaged in wars and only a few million on nations fighting climate change, undermining collective action efforts. More importantly, the global stocktake agreement included a ‘‘transition away’’ from fossil fuels, wherein the agreement’s wording is ambiguous and not time-bound, so fossil fuel production and usage can carry on as usual, much to the relief of oil and gas producers and users, who comprise the majority of the world’s population. 

The decisions in COP28 declare that “transitional fuels can play a role in facilitating the energy transition while ensuring energy security” and urge the phase-out of “inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.” It’s commonly known that “transitional fuels” is another word for natural gas. Therefore, the outcome was slammed by the Alliance of Small Island States, a coalition of 39 small island and low-lying developing states, who said it included a “litany of loopholes.” According to estimates, millions more Americans are exposed to hazardous climate extremes, and 14 million people reside in cancer hotspots linked to gas and oil pollution. There must be a commitment to phase out fossil fuels to address these and other global injustices. Hence, for all these reasons, injustice and the issue of equity are at play. 

Thirdly, there needs to be better financing handling in the loss and damage fund. According to one estimate, $400 billion in loss and damage occur annually in developing nations. Thus, while the $700 million committed at COP28 is encouraging, more is needed; therefore, future funding will be vital. In addition, the World Bank will host the Secretariat, although the UNFCCC will oversee the Fund. This is a dubious decision considering the World Bank’s poor performance in addressing climate change (having invested over $15 billion in fossil fuels since the Paris Agreement), its adverse impacts on communities, and its costly fee structures, leading to the need for significant governance reform and decolonization. Apart from these concerns, how to fund future adaptation efforts was left unanswered, as there is an absence of proper taxes for the impact of climate change. For instance, at COP28, finance pledged by nations involving the UK, including from the ODA, is primarily from existing climate finance commitments. However, as climate impacts increase, there is a need for new sources of finance, including taxing fossil fuel company profits and repurposing subsidies, which can raise billions in the UK without unfairly costing households. 

On the other side, in developing Africa, the financial resources for adaptation could be more sustainable, as approximately 80% of the funding for adaptation in Africa originates from government budgets or loans. At the same time, an estimation of the region’s investment needs between 2020 and 2035, based on nationally determined contributions (NDCs) prepared by African countries, ranges around $53 billion annually. This indicates that by 2035, Africa will only raise $195 billion at the current rate of adaptation financing flows, even though its requirements are likely to be eight times higher at $1.6 trillion. Hence, it is more important than ever to mobilise more grants and create other funding sources for adaptation, given the continent’s difficult debt position. Lastly, the COP28 accord asks for much-increased investment for adaptation and detailed planning and execution of adaptation initiatives by 2030; however, it does not specify any targets for adaptation finance. The absence of finance would fail to implement future projects; therefore, the financing plans must be improved in future COPs.  

Fourthly, COP28 showed the possibility of increasing nuclear energy use, which has been protested against by environmentalists. The Dubai Agreement highlights the significance of atomic power in low-carbon energy solutions and seeks to treble the capacity of renewable energy sources by 2030. However, building nuclear power facilities on a large scale is difficult, as demonstrated by the US constructing its first nuclear reactor power plant in thirty years and Europe closing its nuclear plants due to the Fukushima accident. Therefore, the acceleration of this clean energy transition requires allowing reform and yet cannot be guaranteed.   

Lastly, it was unacceptable that no delegates from the Pacific Islands governments, disproportionately impacted by increasing sea levels, were present at the final negotiations. COP28 could have covered the aspect of the ‘‘climate refugees’’. An estimated 32.6 million people were forcibly relocated within their nations in 2022 due to natural disasters, primarily floods, storms, and droughts. The World Bank estimates that internal displacement due to climate change may impact 216 million people by 2050. However, under international law, those displaced due to climate-related consequences are not considered refugees. Therefore, the COP28 could have initiated talks between nations to address this issue, and the COP28 could have also referred to the already existing innovative blueprint.  For example, the African Union and Latin America have extended the current regional protection regime to identify environmental causes through disruptions to “public order.” Future summits should look into ways to build safe migration channels through economic, humanitarian, and other programs and ensure inclusive decision-making within the frames of the Global Compact on Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration and The Nansen Initiative. After COP28, the Global Refugee Forum can help advance this discussion.

CONCLUSION

After evaluating the commitments made at COP28 regarding methane, energy efficiency, and renewable energy, the International Energy Agency concluded that the current level of obligations will not hold global warming to 1.5°C. In addition, according to one estimate, to reach the Paris Agreement targets, which call for limiting global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees Celsius, greenhouse gas emissions must decrease by 42% by 2030. That goal is far from being accomplished. In actuality, global emissions are rising. 

Therefore, instead of scheduling past COPs in the oil-dependent region, even COP29 is expected to be held in Baku, Azerbaijan, where two-thirds of the nation’s GDP is derived from the oil and gas sector. For future COPs, a region where the climate problem is most acute, like the South Pacific, would be far more ideal and would make nations realise the seriousness of the issue. 

Thus, to effectively battle climate change globally, future summits must build on these successes, rectify deficiencies, and promote inclusive and decisive actions. 

Author’s Bio

Sankalp Wadhwani is a third-year B.A. (Hons.) Global Affairs student at Jindal School of International Affairs. His key interest areas are counter-terrorism, international relations, defense strategies, foreign policies, etc.

Image Source: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/international-summit/2023/12/01-02