Stockholm (NordSIP) – The 28th Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) drew to a close on 12 December in Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE). The publication of the final COP28 joint statement was broadly welcomed, as it was the first such document to contain an explicit call to move away from fossil fuels. Nevertheless, this forward step has been accompanied by criticism from some governments and NGOs of the language used and persistence of numerous loopholes that may diminish the statement’s effectiveness.
Rock bottom expectations exceeded
The measured welcome given to the statement on fossil fuels should be considered in light of the furore that preceded it. The initial draft had contained a reference to actions that nations “could” take to reduce the production and consumption of fossil fuels. This non-committal wording appeared to clash with the expectations of North American, European, and vulnerable island nations that the agreement should contain a timebound obligation to phase out or, at the very least, phase down fossil fuels. As Sherry Madera, CEO of CDP put in: “Low expectations may have been exceeded, but is that really our measure of success?”
The wording relating to fossil fuels that was finally approved by conference delegates calls on parties to contribute to a global effort 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 was hailed as the first time in 28 years of COP gatherings that any such call to move away from fossil fuels had been included in the final joint statement. Moreover, evidence from leaked documents had revealed the extensive efforts of oil producing nations, led by Saudi Arabia, to have any reference to fossil fuels removed from the text. Why then are most environmental groups and campaigning organisations expressing disappointment with the outcome?
Loopholes and language
Commenting on the text, Laura Clarke CEO of environmental law charity ClientEarth said: “Whilst COP28’s final agreement text gives some cause to celebrate – a commitment to being led by science and the need to limit warming to 1.5C, tripling renewable energy capacity globally by 2030, and calling for a transition away from fossil fuels to achieve net zero by 2050 – there are also numerous loopholes that could potentially lead to a delay in climate action.”
The first cause for concern is the proposed transition being limited to energy systems. This leaves fossil fuel producers free to maintain their production of fuels for the transport sector as well as the wide range of petrochemicals used in the plastic production and agriculture. The text also calls for accelerating efforts towards the phase-down of unabated coal power. This is the same wording that was used two years ago in the joint statement at COP26, and concerns have been raised over the use of the qualifying term “unabated.” This is understood to be a reference to carbon capture, usage and storage (CCUS), one of the emission-lowering technologies promoted in the COP28 statement and particularly favoured by oil producing nations, while being largely discredited as a core net-zero solution by the scientific community.
Climate finance gap persists
The COP28 document also addresses the vast subsidies directed towards the fossil fuel industry worldwide, but the wording has again been called into question. The call for the phasing out of “inefficient” fossil fuel subsidies leaves room for interpretation. There are also grave misgivings over references to low-carbon and transitional fuels, which have been used by the fossil fuel industry as euphemisms for liquefied natural gas (LNG).
Amidst the talk of “signalling the end of the fossil fuel era” and “calls to action” many COP28 delegates are bemoaning the lack of quantifiable, timebound targets and the absence of a clear solution to the climate financing gap. The COP28 text calls for the tripling of global renewable energy capacity, but it remains to be seen how this can best be achieved. There are no rules specified for the baseline date to use or how to quantify progress, which leave room for deceptive reporting tactics. While useful financial commitments and pledges were also made during COP28, for instance towards the new loss and damage fund, they are still deemed insufficient. Optimistic observers believe that climate finance will be the principal focus and may be resolved at next year’s COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan. The choice of host country is somewhat controversial. Azerbaijan is another fossil fuel producer, with oil and gas accounting for 92.5% of its export revenue in 2022, and it has a very poor human rights record.
