The climate summit in Dubai ended with better results than expected. As well as approving a fund to finance ‘loss and damage’ caused by climate change, the countries managed to sign a global agreement to abandon fossil fuels. However, not only did the document veer in being blocked, it also has “a litany of loopholes” that minimize its impact.
After two weeks of workshops, presentations and, above all, a lot of discussion, the 28th United Nations Climate Change Conference, better known as COP28, has come to an end. This UN climate summit — organized this year in Dubai, United Arab Emirates— achieved what no other has done: establish an agreement in principle for an energy transition that puts an end to the use of fossil fuels.
“It may seem incredible, but it has taken 30 years of nearly annual climate summits to come up with an agreement that includes clear directions on the future of fossil fuels,” writes The Guardian.
Among the points in the final text, agreed upon by 190 countries, is the explicit intention of “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 commitment is part of the admission of the gigantic challenge facing the world: “to limit global warming to 1.5 °C [acima dos níveis pré-industriais] with no or limited overshoot requires deep, rapid and sustained reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions of 43 per cent by 2030 and 60 per cent by 2035 relative to the 2019 level and reaching net zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050”.
Thus, in addition to the transition away from fossil fuels, the measures include “the goal of tripling renewable energy production worldwide and doubling the global average annual rate of improvement in energy efficiency by 2030, as well as accelerating efforts to phase out coal-fired power generation,” as summarized by Agência Lusa. The countries also committed themselves, according to the final text, to reducing CO2 emissions, especially methane emissions, by 2030.
Taking stock of the goals set out in the Paris Agreement — signed in 2015 at COP21 — was one of the topics on the summit’s agenda. Moreover, COP28 began overshadowed by the news that the concentration of GHGs will once again break records in 2022 and by the forecast that 2023 will be the hottest year ever, at 1.4 degrees above pre-industrial values. This warning did not go unheeded, with the countries collectively expressing “serious concerns” about this development.
“A litany of loopholes”
The fact that the principle for an energy transition has been agreed seems almost miraculous, given the doubts that have been expressed about the suitability of the president-designate for this summit, Sultan Al Jaber, who in addition to being the UAE’s Minister of Industry, is the head of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company.
He characterized the agreement as an “historic decision to accelerate climate action”, especially given the fact that negotiations had to be kept going until after the scheduled hour to reach a compromise.
A first version of the agreement was rejected this Tuesday, December 12th, for different reasons. Several developed countries — together with the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), whose risk of extinction increases every year with climate change — wanted the text to include an explicit intention to end the use of fuels based on oil, gas and coal. However, on the other side, a group of African countries wanted the commitment to end the use of fossil energy to be more urgent for rich countries, arguing that they have been using and producing them for much longer.
Opposition to the first draft also came from members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), headed by Saudi Arabia, who wanted the text to exclude any mention of fossil fuels.
In the end, a compromise was reached which, although historic, leaves many doubts. If, on the one hand, the new version has replaced the expression “could” with “calls on” in terms of the options countries have to reduce emissions, on the other hand it no longer talks about “phasing out” fossil fuels, instead calling for a “transition”.
In addition, some paragraphs have been included which, due to their language or content, allow the continued use of fossil fuels without restrictions, depending on the interpretation of the countries.
The text, for example, calls for “phasing out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that do not address energy poverty or just transitions, as soon as possible”. However, as The Guardian points out, “inefficient” is the key word, a qualitative whose subjectivity allows for multiple interpretations.
Another example, even more serious, is the request of “accelerating zero- and low-emission technologies, including, inter alia, renewables, nuclear, abatement and removal technologies such as carbon capture and utilisation and storage (CCUS), particularly in hard-to-abate sectors, and low-carbon hydrogen production”. The issue is the fact that CCUS is seen by experts as an excuse for oil-producing countries to continue their activity without restrictions — this technology is not only expensive, it is also far from the scale needed to have an impact and doesn’t even retain all emissions.
The problems stemming from this are exacerbated by another paragraph which recognizes “that transition fuels can play a role in facilitating the energy transition while ensuring energy security”. The British newspaper points out that “transition fuels” is code language for “natural gas”, which is considered to be less polluting than other alternatives. However, liquefied natural gas use can cause methane leaks, which, in turn, can make it even worse than coal when it comes to pollution.
All these particularities were seen by the Alliance of Small Island States as “a litany of loopholes” that seriously undermine the final text. “The text does not specifically talk about phasing out fossil fuels and mitigation in a way that is actually ‘the radical change that is needed’,” the alliance said in a statement.
Worse still, the final text was approved without the AOSIS countries being in the room. Anne Rasmussen, the representative of the Samoan Islands, who chairs AOSIS, lamented the lack of “course correction” and expressed her disappointment at the “incremental advances over business as usual, when what we really needed was an “exponential change in our actions and support”.
What else came out of COP28?
The first day of the summit was marked by the conclusion of an agreement for a fund to finance “loss and damage” caused by climate change. The idea is to fund 100 billion dollars a year to help combat climate change and its harmful effects. These sums will go mainly to the most economically and environmentally vulnerable countries.
As soon as it was concluded, several countries came forward with contributions: the European Union announced the allocation of 245 million dollars, 100 million of which came from Germany — the largest single contribution by a country, along with an identical amount announced by the United Arab Emirates. The UK put up 75 million dollars, while the US put up 24.5 million and Japan 10 million.
Since then, however, attention on the matter has stopped. The total contributions at the end of COP28 amount to 700 million dollars, far short of the 100 billion expected and even further from the estimated value of the damage caused by climate change: 400 billion dollars a year.
According to UN News, the official organ of the United Nations, these were the other major results of COP28:
. Commitments of 3.5 billion dollars to replenish the resources of the Green Climate Fund;
. New announcements totaling more than 150 million dollars for the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) and the Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF);
. An increase of 9 billion dollars a year by the World Bank to finance climate-related projects (2024 and 2025);
. Around 120 countries supported the United Arab Emirates Declaration on Climate and Health at COP28 to accelerate action to protect people’s health from increasing climate impacts;
. More than 130 countries have signed the UAE COP28 Declaration on Agriculture, Food and Climate to support food security while combating climate change;
. The Global Cooling Pledge has been endorsed by 66 countries to reduce cooling-related emissions by 68% from today.
Cambridge University’s decision follows a campaign by students and academics at the British university. Cambridge University has temporarily stopped accepting donations from fossil fuel companies
According to a study published on the British Medical Journal, many of these deaths could potentially be avoided by phasing out fossil fuels and replacing
This article addresses an action that promotes the adoption of urgent measures to fight climate change and its impacts. SDG 13 also aims to improve education on climate change mitigation and impact reduction.
To discover businesses that are actively working to contribute to this Sustainable Development Goal, click here. To read news, interviews or tips related to this Goal, click here.Esta publicação também está disponível em:
Português (Portuguese (Portugal))
Para estar a par de tudo o que acontece na área da sustentabilidade, consumo responsável e impacto social.
