After a real possibility of an inconclusive end, the 2023 United Nations Climate Change Conference or Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), more commonly referred to as COP28 (Conference of the Parties), held between 30 November to 12 December 2023 at Expo City Dubai, thankfully concluded with a face-saving compromise.

With the entire globe experiencing the ill-effects of climate change ~ extreme weather events, floods and wildfires ~ the need for an agreement to limit human activities that precipitate climate change was never more, yet negotiators had to work overtime to achieve a fragile consensus. The sticking point was the insistence of many countries ~ including the US, UK, EU, Australia, Canada, Japan and some nations that are most vulnerable to climate change ~ to push for an agreement to “phase out” fossil fuels, saying that they will “not be a co-signatory” to “death certificates” for small island states. These countries demanded a stronger agreement at the COP 28 summit to deal with fossil fuels and address the climate crisis.

Advertisement

The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), an inter-governmental organization representing countries at risk of flooding by climate change, strongly disapproved the original draft agreement that avoided any mention of a ‘phase-down’ or ‘phaseout’ of fossil fuels. “We will not sign our death certificate,” said Cedric Schuster, a Samoan politician and chair of AOSIS. United States climate envoy John Kerry said the language on fossil fuels in the original draft did “not meet the test” of keeping 1.5 alive. “I, like most of you here, refuse to be part of a charade” of not phasing out fossil fuels, Kerry said. Climate advocate and former US vice president Al Gore said in a post on X that COP28 “is now on the verge of complete failure.

The world desperately needs to phase out fossil fuels as quickly as possible, but this obsequious draft reads as if OPEC dictated it word for word. It is even worse than many had feared.” On the other side were ranged oil producers and like-minded developing countries, which include China, India and Saudi Arabia. This group accused US, Norway, Australia and Canada of hypocrisy for saying they wanted to phase out unabated fossil fuels while planning to either expand or not significantly cut their own production. Referring to a draft agreement suggesting a cut in fossil fuels, OPEC Secretary-General Haitham al-Ghais urged OPEC members to reject any deal targeting fossil fuels, rather than emissions.

According to a letter leaked to Reuters, the SecretaryGeneral wrote: “It seems that the undue and disproportionate pressure against fossil fuels may reach a tipping point with irreversible consequences…I avail of this opportunity to respectfully urge all esteemed OPEC Member Countries and Non-OPEC Countries … to proactively reject any text or formula that targets energy i.e., fossil fuels rather than emissions.”

This conflict was not unexpected; even before the conference started, questions were raised about the venue and the person chosen to lead COP 28. United Arab Emirates, the host country, is a major producer of fossil fuels with a dubious and opaque environmental record. During the Conference, credible allegations were made that the host, United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, were using COP28 as a platform to increase sale of fossil fuels. An advisory board member of COP28, Hilda Heine resigned from her role, after reports that Sultan Al Jaber, the COP28 President, tried to use the meeting to strike oil and gas deals. The President of the summit, Sultan Al Jaber is no stranger to controversies. He is the CEO of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC), which has a direct conflict of interest with countries espousing phase-out of fossil fuels.

Sultan Al Jaber has been accused of greenwashing his profile on Wikipedia through paid editing, and of granting covert access to conference emails to ADNOC. Organised bot farms created to defend Jaber and the UAE were uncovered in June 2023. Also, on 21 November 2023, Jaber stated that there was “no science” behind fossil fuel phase-out. No wonder, over 100 members of the US Congress and European Parliament had called on the United Arab Emirates to remove Sultan Al Jaber from his position as leader of COP 28. Activists decried the legal inability to criticise Emirati corporations in the UAE, which was demonstrated on 11 December 2023, when Licypriya Kangujam, a child environmental activist from India, walked on to the main stage of the conference, held up a sign, “End fossil fuels. Save our planet and our future.” and gave a brief speech.

She was given a round of applause and removed from the session by security personnel. According to Kangujam, she was banned from further participation in COP28. Activists also criticised the UAE’s heavy restrictions on protests, which Human Rights Watch called “shocking.” Such instances raised concerns about the integrity of COP 28. Another conflict brewed between countries favouring “moderation” i.e., cutting down emissions and countries favouring “adaptation” i.e., developing the wherewithal to adapt to climate change. Richer countries rooted for moderation, but countries like India and China contended that they should be partially exempted from emission targets because they were still developing.

Rather, the entire global south wanted richer countries to finance their transition to clean energy and development of their capability to adapt to climate change. A decisive factor that swung negotiations to a calibrated ‘phase-out’ of fossil fuels was the first Global Stocktake ~ undertaken to assess collective progress towards achieving the purpose and long-term goals of the Paris Agreement ~ which blew the lid of the exaggerated claims of action taken to mitigate global warming. The Synthesis Report, summarising technical findings of the Global Stocktake, underscored a persistent “emissions gap,” noting that current climate commitments were not in line with pathways needed to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees C. Rather, if things go on as usual, global temperatures will rise by 2.4-2.6 degrees Celsius by the end of the century, leading to cataclysmic events.

According to the Synthesis Report, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions must peak before 2025 at the latest, and decline 43 per cent by 2030 to limit global warming to 1.5°C. The way forward, suggested in the Synthesis Report, emphasised the urgent need for system-wide transformations that can slash emissions and ensure a climate-resilient future for which unabated fossil fuels needed to be phased out, renewable energy needed to be scaled up, non-CO2 emissions, such as methane needed to be reduced and significantly shift was required in transport and industry. Preserving nature, ending deforestation and embracing sustainable agriculture, were the key to enhance resilience and deliver emissions cuts. The Synthesis Report stressed the urgency of increasing adaptation support and addressing loss and damage, particularly for vulnerable communities, that would need trillions of dollars in global finance. The Synthesis Report noted that significant resources were required to support a zerocarbon, climate-resilient and equitable world economy.

The draft text that emerged after the COP28 summit was widely criticised for its “weak” language on the future of fossil fuels. As it stood, no country would be forced to reduce fossil fuel production. In an attempt to find consensus, the draft avoided calls for a “phase-out” or “phase-down” of fossil fuels. Instead, the text suggested actions that “could” be taken, such as boosting wind and solar power. The reluctance to address fossil fuel phase-out can be easily understood; an analysis found that at least 2,456 COP28 attendees were fossil fuel lobbyists. At the end better sense prevailed and a deal labelled as the “UAE consensus” which has been hailed both as historic and dismissed as weak emerged. * Countries agreed to move away from fossil fuels and quickly increase renewable energy.

* Alliance of Small Island States threatened by rising sea levels, said the text was an improvement but contains a “litany of loopholes”.

* Environmentalists felt that the document did not go far enough on the 1.5 degree Celsius pledge.

* The global South felt frustrated by the lack of a concrete plan to adapt to climate change and promise of resources to do so. A concrete outcome of COP 28 was a commitment of at least US$650 million for areas suffering the effects of global warming. Another was a pledge to triple the world’s installed renewable energy generation capacity to at least 11,000 GW by 2030. Thus ended an extravaganza that saw the participation of about 80,000 delegates representing 196 nations.

DEVENDRA SAKSENA The writer is a retired Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax