COP28 got off to an inauspicious start. When it was announced that the conference would be hosted in the UAE, a petrostate, and chaired by Sultan al-Jaber, CEO of Abu Dhabi National Oil Company; optimism that we would see an agreement that effectively tackles climate change faded into pessimism.
However, COP28 was not quite as bad as some initially feared. In this article, I summarise all that was good, bad and ugly about this year’s Conference.
The Good
For the very first time, the international community agreed and acknowledged explicitly that the world needs to transition away from fossil fuels:
• On 11th December, the COP28 draft agreement was released. Despite initial endorsement by over 130 countries, all references to the ‘phaseout’ of fossil fuels were omitted. Instead, under pressure from petrostates, the draft agreement was amended to implore countries to ‘reduce’ their consumption and production of fossil fuels. This move was subsequently criticised as “grossly insufficient” and “incoherent” by rich and poor countries alike (The Guardian, 13th December 2023).
• 36 hours of fraught negotiations followed.
• Finally, on 12th December, the language of the agreement was amended again. Now, nearly 200 countries have promised to ‘transition away’ from fossil fuels.
The Western world pledges to invest in the energy transition:
• Including the UK, 116 countries signed the Global Renewables and Energy Efficiency Pledge. This pledge promises to triple the installed capacity of renewable energy to 11TW by 2030.
• The European Union announced that it would invest €2.3 billion (£1.8 billion) to support the energy transition in neighbouring countries and across the globe.
• Rishi Sunak announced an additional £1.6 billion of support for clean energy and innovation.
Fossil fuel companies have begun to take ownership of their negative emissions:
• 50 prominent fossil fuel companies promised to cut emissions from their own operations to net zero by 2050, signing the Oil and Gas Decarbonisation Charter.
The Bad
Though the COP28 agreement acknowledges that fossil fuels are the primary cause of climate change, the agreement was punctured with a “litany of loopholes”, according to the Alliance of Small Island States:
• There was no reference to methane (a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2).
• The agreement is prefaced by the clause that any and all actions to transition away from fossil fuels are optional.
The pledges made at COP28 are insufficient to adequately limit global warming:
• The International Energy Agency (IEA) says that the promises made in the Global Renewables and Energy Efficiency Pledge and Oil and Gas Decarbonisation Charter will not limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
• The Oil and Gas Decarbonisation Charter requires signatories to merely set or tighten voluntary deadlines on emissions reductions.
The Ugly
It appeared to many climate activists and journalists that oil and gas companies highjacked COP28:
• Leaked documents obtained by the Centre for Climate Reporting (CCR) exposed Sultan al-Jaber’s plans to use climate meetings to promote deals for the UAE’s national oil and gas companies.
• Ironically, oil and gas representatives outnumbered most national delegations.
The negotiations around the wording of the COP28 agreement from ‘phaseout’ to ‘reduce’ to ‘transition away’ demonstrated the significant, negative influence petrostates have on international policy.
Conclusion
Despite the negative press, COP28 needed to engage petrostates and oil and gas companies. For without an agreement that engages the most substantial polluters, we are never going to make any progress towards The Paris Agreement. Therefore, counterintuitively, hosting COP28 in the UAE was justified.
Nevertheless, COP28 was ultimately underwhelming. Unlike The Paris Agreement, neither the COP28 agreement or any of the pledges were legally binding, and most included optionality clauses. Hence, there is still lots to do before we see an actionable, international approach to climate change.