COP28 delivers a mixed bag
AFTER two weeks of negotiations, the annual climate change conference went into the extra day, as has become the norm. Eventually, diplomats hammered out yet another ‘deal’ to save the planet from the catastrophic impact of climate change. This round of talks in Dubai was held literally in the shadow of Big Oil. It was ironic that climate officials and world leaders discussed ways and means to cut carbon emissions in a city that prides itself on the wealth acquired through fossil fuels. The man who presided over the deliberations, Sultan Al-Jaber, is not just the Industry Minister of the UAE but also the chief executive of one of the world’s leading oil companies, Abu Dhabi National Oil Company. As the president of the Conference of Parties (COP28) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Al-Jaber had the enviable task of building a consensus to save the world from the impending climate disaster, but in the end, Dubai has delivered a mixed bag.
Climate change is about people, their livelihoods, energy and food security. Diplomatic decisions taken during climate talks rarely make any difference on the ground.
The conference was supposed to take stock of the progress made in implementing the Paris Agreement goals to “hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels” and “pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels”. To achieve these goals, greenhouse gas emissions must peak before 2025 and decline 43 per cent by 2030, according to calculations made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Only then will we be able to avoid the worst impact of climate change, such as more frequent and severe droughts, heatwaves and rain. But the world is far away from the path towards the Paris goals. COP28 was expected to develop a consensus on accelerating action and revising commitments under respective national climate plans (known as Nationally Determined Contributions) by 2025.
The text adopted on Wednesday recognises “the need for deep, rapid and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions” in line with the 1.5°C target, but when it comes to suggesting a pathway to do this, it falters. In accordance with their respective circumstances, all countries are expected to contribute to the global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Among the pathways suggested for global action are tripling renewable energy capacity globally and doubling the global average annual rate of energy efficiency improvements by 2030; accelerating efforts towards a ‘phase-down’ of coal power; accelerating efforts globally towards net-zero emission energy systems; utilising zero- and low-carbon fuels well before or by around mid-century; and phasing out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that do not address energy poverty or just transitions as soon as possible.
The most significant of the suggested pathways is “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade to achieve net-zero by 2050 in keeping with the science”. While the wording used for coal is ‘phase-down’ and there are no qualifiers, the term used for oil and gas is ‘transitioning away’, which is very vague and comes with several conditions. Many countries wanted the term ‘phase-out’ to be used, but the host and OPEC countries came up with a milder phrase, ‘transitioning away’.
Another concession that the fossil fuel industry got in Dubai is the role of transitional fuels. The COP28 text recognises that “transitional fuels can play a role in facilitating the energy transition while ensuring energy security”. This is a lifesaver for natural gas since the International Energy Agency considers natural gas a ‘transition fuel’. Overall, the text is very benign when it comes to oil and gas, but not so when it comes to coal. In that sense, it is pro-oil and pro-gas, though some people may call it ‘historic’ since a direct reference has been made to fossil fuels in a COP text for the first time.
As expected, a reference to methane has been sneaked into the text, which calls upon parties to take action for ‘accelerating and substantially reducing non-carbon dioxide emissions globally, including in particular methane emissions by 2030”. This is problematic for India and several other countries. Like carbon dioxide, methane contributes to climate change. Methane has a much shorter life in the atmosphere — 12 years, compared to the hundreds of years that carbon dioxide hangs around for. Methane, however, is much more efficient at trapping radiation, so its warming effect is several times more than that of carbon dioxide. Therefore, the argument is that huge reductions in methane emissions could help limit atmospheric warming. Methane is emitted from paddy fields, livestock and leaks during production and distribution of natural gas and oil, besides coal mines and landfills. Action will have to be taken in all these sectors if methane emissions have to be cut as agreed upon in Dubai.
Other contentious issues — adaptation, climate finance, ‘loss and damage’ and technology transfer — were also discussed, but no headway was made. All the commitments and promises made in the text — tripling renewable capacity, phasing out coal, use of transitional fuels, energy efficiency etc. — need additional funding and technology in developing countries. The quantum of climate finance needed by developing countries for implementing their national climate programmes is estimated to be $5.9 trillion for the pre-2030 period. Huge funds are required for energy transition and adaptation too. Developed countries made new commitments at Dubai. The Green Climate Fund has received nominal pledges totalling $12 billion till date, and much of it is development aid renamed as climate finance.
Climate change is about people, their livelihoods, energy and food security. The diplomatic decisions taken on the high table during climate talks rarely make any difference on the ground. Meanwhile, the devastating impact of climate change continues. If diplomatese can save the planet, the Dubai talks can be celebrated.
