The 28th Conference of the Parties (COP28) on climate, held in Dubai from November 30 to December 13, 2023 under the Emirati presidency, will undoubtedly go down as one of the most controversial COPs in history. While the climate emergency calls for radical and immediate action, in particular an accelerated phase-out of fossil fuels, as the IPCC has been hammering home, the annual climate summit produced only a minimal, weakly binding agreement, leaving the door wide open to the status quo.
On the one hand, the Emirati presidency of the COP is pleased with a “historic agreement” that mentions fossil fuels for the first time in a final text. According to the President of COP28, this text “paves the way for global climate action” in this area. Above all, the long-awaited creation of a loss and damage fund gives developing countries the feeling of a first symbolic victory, even if the amounts committed are still far from what is needed.
On the other hand, NGOs and climate experts are denouncing a “new language” that does nothing to tackle the root causes of the problem. Terms such as “phase down” are too vague to commit to an energy transition worthy of the name. Worse still, the deadlines for putting an end to the age of fossil fuels have been postponed indefinitely, leaving the main exporting countries such as Russia, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates – the hosts of COP28 – to pollute with impunity.
A historic agreement or yet another missed opportunity? In view of the urgency of climate change and the latest scientific reports, notably those of the IPCC, there is no doubt that COP28 is still lacking in a hopeless lack of global ambition. Let’s take a look at a COP28 whose impact is highly uncertain…
Analysis of the text: phase out versus phase down, absence of a trajectory, mention of gas and oil, place of technological solutions
The final text of COP28 is the fruit of laborious negotiations between countries with divergent interests. While some see it as a historic step forward, others criticize its blatant lack of ambition and its wording, which is far too vague to launch a genuine energy transition. Here’s an analysis of the key points.
Phase out versus phase down: a semantic subtlety fraught with meaning
It’s the question that’s causing the most tension: are the signatory countries committing themselves to a definitive “phase out” of fossil fuels, or only to a “gradual reduction” in their use (phase down)? Behind this semantic debate lies a major issue.
According to the IPCC, to limit global warming to 1.5°C, we need to radically reduce our use of fossil fuels by 2030, and drastically cut back on oil and gas. An accelerated “phase out” is therefore essential.
However, the final text of COP28 remains vague. The terms “phase out” and “phase down” have disappeared, replaced by “transitioning away” from fossil fuels. A vague formulation that “invites” countries to act, without a precise timetable or binding targets.
For NGOs, this is far too lax in view of the urgency of the situation. But for oil-exporting countries, it’s already asking too much to sign up to the announced end of their main financial windfall… Hence this lame compromise text.
No credible trajectory
Another black mark on the final text is the absence of a global trajectory for reducing fossil fuel production. How much, and by when? A mystery. Only coal is mentioned, with an unquantified and undated “phase down” objective.
And yet, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), in order to comply with the Paris Agreement, we need to reduce the use of fossil fuels as much as possible by 2050.
In the absence of a clear course, there is a great risk that the main producer countries will maintain an untenable status quo for the climate. All the more so as the text highlights “transition fuels” and the role of CO2 sequestration, two well-known pretexts for postponing the phase-out of oil and gas indefinitely.
Half-hearted references to oil and gas
For the first time in a UN climate agreement, “fossil fuels” are explicitly mentioned, including oil and gas.
But this recognition rings hollow. These terms are used only to call for a “reorientation of use”, and to extol the merits of carbon sequestration. Nothing that calls into question the business model of OPEC and the oil majors. Worse still, the text endorses “transition fuels” in the name of “energy security”, a highly elastic notion.
Under the guise of “energy transition”, oil and gas are given a virtual carte blanche to continue. This is a deceptive inclusion, since no concrete reduction targets have been set.
The mirage of technological solutions
To compensate for this lack of ambition, the text gives pride of place to technological solutions, which are supposed to make fossil fuels “compatible” with the Paris Agreement: CO2 capture and storage, “low-carbon” hydrogen, and so on.
However, their effectiveness has not been proven on a large scale. As for their staggering cost, it would be much wiser to devote it to clean energies. Above all, betting on these hypothetical technologies means taking the immense risk that they will never become operational.
We don’t have the luxury of waiting 30 years to check their viability. We urgently need to reduce emissions now, by moving away from conventional fossil fuels as quickly as possible. This is what COP28 is stubbornly putting off.
In the end, this compromise text fully satisfies no one except the oil-producing countries. While it timidly acknowledges the inevitable decline of fossil fuels, it fails to set any credible deadlines for a timely exit. Worse still, technological solutions are presented as a joker in the face of political inaction. All of which dampens hopes of a rapid transition to contain climate change, for which all the warning lights remain bright red.
COP28: A two-faced agreement, between disappointed hopes and self-serving relief
In the aftermath of COP28, stakeholders’ reactions are mixed, ranging from disappointment at the lack of ambition to relief at not having to change their economic model.
Developing countries: a welcome fund, but disappointed expectations
Among the advances made at COP28, the creation of a climate loss and damage fund was eagerly awaited by the countries of the South. These countries are on the front line, even though they have contributed little to climate change.
The replenishment of this fund, which will be provisionally hosted by the World Bank, is therefore a first symbolic victory for vulnerable countries. The first pledges have begun to pour in, with a grant of $100 million for the Emirates, the same amount for Germany, $10 million for Japan, $17.5 million for the United States, and up to £40 million (around $50 million) for the United Kingdom.
The European Commission and other EU member states have promised a “substantial contribution”, to be announced in the coming days. However, there’s still a long way to go: according to a recent UN report, the economic costs alone could reach $387 billion a year by 2030!
More generally, many developing countries came away from COP28 with a bitter taste. They were hoping for a strong signal, namely the inclusion in black and white of an accelerated phase-out of fossil fuels in the final text. Instead, they are faced with yet another missed opportunity. Even though their very survival is at stake.
Environmental NGOs: disillusionment and anger
Unsurprisingly, environmental NGOs have slammed the final COP28 agreement. For Greenpeace, this summit of states “failed to produce the historic agreement we needed”. World Wild Fund calls it a “resounding failure“, but remains hopeful of a definitive improvement in this perilous situation, while Reseau Action Climate is proposing an alternative to this dangerous gamble on technological solutions.
The pill is all the more bitter because expectations were high this time. The global envelope of $100 billion in annual funding promised to the countries of the South must be reached, a target that has been postponed since 2009! As for the move away from coal and oil, this has been put off long enough, according to the NGOs.
Unfortunately, their hopes have once again been dashed. Worse for some: this agreement endorses the greenwashing of the oil majors and the continuation of business as usual. However, despite their disillusionment, the NGOs have no intention of giving up. On the contrary, they promise to raise their voices and demand strong action from the world’s leaders. And they are counting on civil society to keep up the pressure until COP29 in Azerbaijan.
Fossil fuel lobbies: relieved and satisfied
Of course, the mood among the fossil fuel lobbies is quite different. With COP28 coming to an end without calling their model into question, oil and gas companies can breathe a sigh of relief.
On the gas side, the final text even guarantees a bright future for the sector. Indeed, “transitional fuels” are expressly mentioned to ensure “energy security“. In other words, producing gas will remain essential for a long time to come.
The same goes for oil, with the blessing given to technological solutions such as carbon sequestration. This guarantees that the oil majors will be able to continue their polluting activities, with the backing of the United Nations.
All the more reason for the 2,500 industry lobbyists present in Dubai to rejoice. COP28 is drawing to a close without calling their interests into question. At most, they will have to deal with a decline… on a horizon so distant that its contours remain quite vague.
In the end, the COP28 agreement seems to have been tailor-made to suit all parties. While it marks some long-awaited symbolic advances, the text lacks ambition and credible financial resources. And all this in defiance of the latest scientific reports, which are sounding the alarm. So, is it too little too late, or the first step towards an energy transition worthy of the name? Only time will tell… Let’s hope we’re still allowed to.
COP28: Climate peanuts
100 billion dollars a year: that’s the target for financing climate action in developing countries promised… in 2009 at COP15! A target that has been repeatedly postponed, and which was finally due to be reached in 2023. Unfortunately, despite the promises, COP27 was postponed yet again.
Hence the high expectations placed on COP28 to meet this symbolic deadline… which once again will not be met. Worse still, the real need is estimated by the UN at 387 billion dollars a year between now and 2030. In other words, the promised $100 billion is now just an empty promise. And the current sums are derisory compared to the challenges.
100 billion: climate peanuts
Let’s start with a brief historical reminder. Developed countries pledged $100 billion a year to vulnerable countries at COP15 in Copenhagen in 2009. The aim was to enable these countries to finance both their adaptation to climate change and their low-carbon transition.
But ten years on, the 100 billion mark is still far from being reached. Worse still, since 2018, we’ve seen a stagnation in funds granted, at around 83 billion a year. That’s around 15 billion less than the sum promised… 14 years ago!
All the more reason to frustrate developing countries, at a time when their needs are exploding as a result of the growing number of climate-related disasters. All the more so when, at the same time, 7,000 billion dollars have been spent on fossil fuel subsidies…
An estimated need of over $300 billion a year
Let’s be clear: the $100 billion was a floor, not a ceiling. Firstly, because the amount was set arbitrarily in Copenhagen. Secondly, and above all, because the real cost of climate action in vulnerable countries is constantly rising.
According to a report commissioned by the COP28 presidency, economic losses and damage alone could reach between $290 and $580 billion a year by 2030! The same goes for adaptation to climate change, estimated by the UN at 300 billion dollars a year by 2030.
In other words, a total of 600 to 900 billion dollars a year should be invested in developing countries by 2030. A far, far cry from the meagre $100 billion promised… and even further from the $83 billion actually disbursed in recent years.
Costly technological solutions will add to the bill
The final black mark on financing at COP28 was the premium given to technological solutions in the final agreement. Carbon capture, low-carbon hydrogen, CO2 sequestration… all risky and ruinous bets on immature technologies.
And the more we gamble on these false solutions, the higher the final bill will be. After all, we’ll have to pay to deploy these devices… and then finance the inevitable transition when they prove ineffective.
Massive deployment of carbon capture alone could cost between $2,000 and $3,700 billion worldwide by 2050! In other words, an astronomical sum which, if invested in renewables, would greatly accelerate the move away from fossil fuels.
In short, whether we’re talking about the 100 billion dollars promised in 2009 or the fund for loss and damage, it has to be said that the sums involved fall far short of the challenges posed by the climate emergency. And COP28 does nothing to change this, quite the contrary: by betting on unaffordable technologies, it is adding to the bill for future generations. They are being asked to make ever greater sacrifices, without the slightest guarantee that the rich countries will ever put their hands in their pockets.
COP28: beautiful scenery, but few special effects
“The road to hell is paved with good intentions“. This adage sums up the appalling spectacle that was COP28. Beneath the gold of Dubai, the climate summit certainly produced some fine declarations and announcements. Unfortunately, once past the media window dressing, concrete action was conspicuous by its absence.
For its first COP in the Middle East, the United Arab Emirates pulled out all the stops. A brand-new, ultra-modern site, air-conditioned shuttles, gala evenings… the gas emirate pulled out all the stops to seduce the 30,000 expected participants.
The ideal launching pad for the “most ambitious possible agreement” promised by Sultan Al Jaber, President of COP28. All the more so as the media spotlight was focused on Dubai, the first Persian Gulf country to host the climate summit.
On paper, all the ingredients were in place to make COP28 a landmark in the fight against climate change. Especially after the disappointment of COP27 in Egypt. But this was without taking into account the abyssal gap between the announcements and their concrete implementation…
… but few special effects
After the euphoria of the speeches, the final agreement of COP28 is a formidable concentrate of wooden language, riddled with black holes. Beneath the veneer, tangible progress has yet to be made. And the devil is in the detail.
First of all, in terms of form, the text is full of vague formulations and abstruse language, at the risk of losing the general public. The essential notions of “coal”, “oil” and “gas” are replaced by technocratic euphemisms.
Under these conditions, it is difficult to grasp – and therefore to denounce – the subtleties of an agreement made up of lame compromise and half-words. An opacity that stands in stark contrast to the vital urgency of moving away from fossil fuels, as hammered home by scientists…
Worse still, beyond the jargon, it’s the climate policies themselves that are lacking in substance. Admittedly, the climate loss and damage fund is a first symbolic victory for vulnerable countries. However, the sums promised remain derisory given the scale of the damage.
The same goes for the rest. The COP congratulates itself on “progressing towards net zero emissions“, a hollow formula if ever there was one. As for the phase-out of fossil fuels, this has been postponed indefinitely by gambling on futuristic technologies.
In short, the result is a lot of hot air and little concrete action. Badmouths will say: there’s no need for special effects when the director is himself a gas giant…
Media stunts rather than steering movements
This dichotomy between rhetoric and action is nothing new at the COPs. But at COP28, the “art of communication” reached new heights. The host country’s objective? Capitalize on the global media spotlight to restore its image. No matter if negotiations stall.
The first clever spotlight was on the “Climate and Health” day on December 3. The initiative seemed commendable… until we took a closer look at the signatory countries of the eponymous Declaration. Notable absentees: China, India and Saudi Arabia. It’s hard not to see this as a case of “greenwashing” made in Emirates, rather than the founding act of a new global awareness.
Another resounding announcement: the promise of carbon neutrality by 2050. Here again, the facts are far from convincing. How can we believe in such a commitment from a country whose 3⁄4 % of GDP is based on oil and gas?
This discrepancy between the façade and the backstage did not go unnoticed, eliciting sarcasm from observers. But that doesn’t matter to the Emirati hosts : the main thing is to take advantage of the spotlight on Dubai to restore the country’s reputation as a carbon showcase.
A COP in political weightlessness
This media hype should not obscure the staggering emptiness behind the façade. For the sad fact remains that COP28 has given birth to a baby mouse, after two weeks of soporific negotiations in which there was a total absence of any climatic perspective.
Worse still, there is now a real risk that these UN meetings will lose their gravitas as they continue to run on empty. “A chamber for recording the decisions of States rather than a body to steer climate diplomacy“, one observer criticizes. A symptom of a multilateralism that has broken down, in which the voice of science is rendered inaudible by narrow national interests.
In fact, the IPCC had set the tempo back in 2022, unambiguously calling for an accelerated phase-out of fossil fuels. Unfortunately, there was not a hint of a decision in this direction at COP28.
Worse still, greenwashing reigns supreme, endorsed by the UN. At the same time, the oil majors and their trail of false technological solutions are given a thumbs-up. At this stage, let’s hope that those primarily concerned – young people, NGOs, developing countries, etc. – will be able to make their voices heard better than this politically weightless COP.
COP28: A mixed bag of symbols and greenwashing
After two weeks of negotiations, haggling and publicity stunts, the curtain came down on COP28 in Dubai. In the Emirati capital, every word and comma of the final text was fiercely negotiated. At the risk of losing sight of the ultimate objective: to contain the climate change that threatens humanity.
So, what can we take away from this 28th United Nations climate summit? Has the news spread to the point of masking the forest in distress ? Here’s a look back at a COP that was as confusing as it was strategic.
A symbolic victory…
Let’s start with the almost unanimous satisfaction on one point: the creation of the fund for climate loss and damage, long demanded by vulnerable countries. Even if the promised funding is not yet there, the principle has finally been established: polluters must compensate victims.
On paper, this is a major victory for these countries, which have obtained the first political and financial recognition of the “damage” they have suffered. Beyond the derisory amounts involved, the loss and damage fund gives concrete expression to the concept of “differentiated responsibility” so dear to the countries of the South. A symbolic breach in the wall of climate injustice.
… which must not mask the setbacks
But beware of euphoria. When it comes to combating climate change, every word counts. Yet behind the window dressing, the final agreement of COP28 multiplies the blind spots. At the risk of anaesthetizing public opinion and endorsing the status quo.
The first cause for concern is the formal and definitive burial of any ambition to “move away” from fossil fuels. Admittedly, the decline of fossil fuels has been laid down in black and white. But no precise course has been set. Worse still, loopholes are being left open through “transition fuels” and risky bets on technological solutions that are far from mature.
Another, more discreet setback is the weakening of adaptation ambitions for the most vulnerable countries. Gone is the recognition of the “limits of adaptation“, or the urgent need to increase funding for poor countries. These choices reveal the scant consideration given to the fate of those left behind by the climate crisis.
In short, behind the initial hype, the devil is in the detail. And the final text, full of black holes, is a hollow statement of renunciation of climate action worthy of the name. In defiance of the IPCC report, which sounds the alarm about the critical threshold of +1.5°C warming.
A COP infused with lobbies
At this point, it’s hard not to criticize the shameless stranglehold of industrial lobbies on these climate summits. For years, experts have been denouncing their harmful influence, backed up by the millions injected to green the image of the oil and gas giants at low cost.
Unfortunately, in Dubai, greenwashing is back with a vengeance under the Emirati golds. To the climax, the CEO of oil giant Shell promised his group’s “carbon neutrality” by 2050… while extolling the virtues of gas, CO2 capture and agrofuels!
Enough to nauseate the NGOs and experts who have come to plead the climate cause. For the message is crystal clear: this COP28 sounds the death knell for any hopes of seeing dirty energies relegated to the museum of climatic horrors. Duly noted.
So, are hopes dashed or giant strides in the wrong direction ?
In the final analysis, it’s a tall order to draw up a definitive assessment of COP28. Admittedly, the final agreement seems tailor-made to serve the interests of hydrocarbon-producing countries and energy majors. But the hard-won fund for climate loss and damage could (hypothetically) change the game in the future.
From now on, everything will depend on what public opinion, the media and NGOs take away from the Dubai summit. Either a first-class burial of any climate ambitions worthy of the name. Or a first step, albeit a clumsy one, towards compensating the most vulnerable.
After all, it doesn’t really matter what happens in these hushed cenacles. If the jolt must come from the bottom up, then it’s up to citizens, activists and climate whistleblowers to stay the course. It is only their determination to stay the course that will – one day perhaps – change the suicidal trajectory on which our carbon hubris has embarked us. In the meantime, let’s make our planet great again.
