This year’s conference of parties (COP) under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) lost much of the headline- grabbing attention of media to the blood-curdling and mind numbing war unleashed by Israel on Gaza. Even then COP28 had its moments of drama and surprise in good measure for those who cared to tune in on what was transpiring in its formal deliberations and sideline activities. Regarding the latter, a new milestone in conflict of interests was laid when the President for the global meeting, Sultan Ahmed Al Jabar, also the head of the petroleum and gas corporation of United Arab Emirates (UAE), was seen publicly soliciting buyers for oil and gas of his country from the participating global energy companies. Those who had raised their eyebrows after his presidency for the climate conference was announced felt amply vindicated for their scepticism. Sensing that an awkward situation had been thrown up at the very outset of the climate conference where fossil fuels are deemed to be the villain of the piece, the secretariat sprung a pleasant surprise on attending delegates by bringing forward a decision that was slated for concluding sessions.
Developing countries, most vulnerable to the climate disasters, had been demanding compensation for loss and damage from developed countries who are responsible for releasing maximum greenhouse gases for a long time. These demands and proposals fell on the deaf ears of the major polluters so long. But when the president of the climate conference announced at the very outset the setting up of a Loss and Damage Fund and committed US$200 million by his country, others had to chip in, willy-nilly. This presence of mind from the host country and the president of COP28 assuaged the feelings of doubts and misgivings, saving the occasion. But the paltry amount for the new fund committed by the developed countries indicated the half-hearted manner of their participation in the new initiative. Out of the total US$700, beside the contribution of UAE ( $200 million), United States of America (USA)’s commitment was for $17 million, United Kingdom (UK)’s $45,EU’s $100,Japan’s $ 40 with the rest of developed countries contributing only token amounts.UAE managed to extricate its reputation from being mired in a salacious scandal, contributing the highest amount but in the process exposed the reluctance of developed countries to pay compensation for loss and damage.Like other global climate funds thar are in operation, the Loss and Damage fund is not only small in absolute sense but is patently inadequate to meet the minimum requirements of countries affected by climate change.
Having denied that no business deal for oil and gas contract was discussed by him with participating parties, the Emirati head of the UN climate conference waded into another controversy, this time over the reliability of climate science, a bug bear for climate negotiators .The Guardian newspaper of UK had published a video showing Sultan Al Jaber having a testy exchange with the former President of Ireland during an online forum. In the course of the discussion he was heard saying, ‘I am factual and I respect the science and there is no science out there, or no scenario out there, that shows that phase-out of fossil fuels is what is going to achieve 1.5 degrees Celsius.’ The video sparked an outcry among non- state participants who were already outraged by the appointment of an oil company boss to head the crucial climate negotiations.
Sultan Jaber, the COP28 president, had previously talked publicly of the inevitability of ‘a phase down,’ a weaker term as it implies that fossil fuels will not completely go away. Adding to the confusion, the website of the COP28 presidency published a summary of the first few days of the talks which said that heads of states and ministers discussed the ‘phase down of fossil fuels’. A first draft of a COP28 agreement released included both options, a ‘phase down/out’ of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels being key to the success of climate talks, negotiators grappled with the issue going overtime to find a common ground. In the event, the final agreement settled on ‘phasing out’ of fossil fuels but as a sop to the recalcitrant’s added the proviso that this is to be accomplished in accordance with the particular circumstances of countries. It requires no genius to see that the provision allows enough leeway to wriggle out of the obligation to phase out within a given time frame to reach net- zero emission.
The most vocal and powerful fossil fuels lobby is OPEC, the organisation of oil producing countries of which UAE, the host of COP28, is a member. According to newspaper reports, OPEC secretary general sent a letter to the group’s 13 members and 10 Russian-led allies after negotiators in Dubai released a draft deal that included calls for a phase-out of fossil fuels. In his letter to the OPEC members the secretary general wrote: “....it seems that the undue and disproportionate pressure against fossil fuels may reach a tipping point with irreversible consequences, as the draft decision still contains options on fossil fuels ‘phase out’”. He urged the 23 members and allies to proactively reject any text of formula that targets energy i.e fossil fuels rather than emissions.
As a fallback position, the oil and gas exporting countries pushed for a UN agreement that involves the capture of emissions when fossil fuels are burnt for energy, rather than cutting back fossil fuel production. In response to this proposal, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has said that a lot is heard about carbon capture and storage (CCS) playing a role that seems to have taken on an undue emphasis, and some of it relies on the IPCC report. But it involves a grinding incremental engineering process needed to bring the technological system together, costing considerable amount of money. The difficulties of carbon capture and storage lie more in the economic and business models than in any fundamentally technical obstacle. As an idea, carbon capture makes sense, but it is costly and not every country can afford it. More importantly, it cannot address the emergency that has been posed by carbon emissions of fossil fuel use. Perhaps in the long run, costs of carbon capture will come down with improvement of the technology, making it affordable for less developed countries. But for the world with a deteriorating climate change time is of the essence and therefore the major users of fossil fuels have no other alternative but to phase it out by 2050 as agreed upon in Paris Agreement in 2015.
One of the important items in the agenda for COP28 was the release of the first report on Global Stocktaking (GST). GST is a five-yearly checkpoint agreed upon in 2015 Paris Agreement and aims to help governments to track and evaluate their progress on climate action and boost climate ambition over time. The GST focuses on three output: (a) mitigation, (b) adaptation, and (c) finance. GST does not assess progress in individual countries, but the aggregate effect of actions so far in respect of a, b, and c above with a view to ratcheting up their own national targets in these respects in so far they are concerned with these (as implementers, donors) nationally determined contributions (NDCs). Once the GST is complete (after five years), countries will have two years to submit their updated NDCs to the UNFCCC, outlining how they intend to take stronger action to meet the shortfalls.
The meeting on climate change (COP28) at Dubai expressed concern when the first report of GST was presented because it showed that the earlier estimate consistent with achieving the 2015 Paris Agreement temperature goal is now smaller and is rapidly dwindling. The first-ever GST presented before COP28 revealed that the world is not on track to achieve the goals set out in Paris in 2015. The synthesis report of GST presents 17 key findings, pointing to a disappointing picture of the world’s progress towards the Paris Agreement targets. Among these are scientific findings on temperature rise caused by climate change. The overarching goal of Paris Agreement was to hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 degree centigrade above pre-industrial level and pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees above the benchmark levels. The UNFCCC has indicated that crossing the 1.5 degrees threshold risks unleashing far more severe climate change impacts including more frequent and severe droughts, heatwaves and rainfalls. To limit global warming to 1.5 degree centigrade, greenhouse gas emissions caused by fossil fuel use must peak before 2025 at the latest and decline 43 per cent by 2030. Even optimistic target scenario analysing the present levels of greenhouse gas emissions of 140 countries show that the median warming estimate is only limited to level of 1.8 degree centigrade by the end of century which is not compatible to the target fixed at Paris Agreement.
Decision made in COP28 after a great deal of exercise in semantics and mathematical jugglery does not improve the dire scenario mentioned above. The targets of net zero emissions set in Paris Agreement must be met through rapid and consistent decline in the use of fossil fuels, phasing them out by the deadline of 2050. Nothing can gloss over this stark reality.
Global Stocktaking at COP28 also revealed the tardy progress in financing programmes for alleviation and prevention of mitigation of climate change effects. According to the New Collective Quantified Goal for climate finance recommended in the Bonn meeting of UNFCCC in June this year that replaced the annual climate finance commitment set in 2009 at $100 billion, about $6 trillion dollar would be required by 2030 to help developing countries meet half of their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC). According to OECD and Oxfam actual flow of finance from developed to developing countries during 2021-22 was $21 billion to $83 billion, below the target of $100 billion set in 2009. Lack of adequate finance has been exacerbated by debt distress of developing countries making it almost impossible for them to implement mitigation and adaptation programmes.
Except establishing and operationalising the fund for Loss and Damage, even though at an attenuated form, the COP28 has not much to show as success. This means the world has done very little by way of progress from last year to address the existential threat to the planetary ecosystem where all living organism live, including human beings.
hasnat.hye5@gmail.com