Was the COP28 climate summit a milestone or a mirage? | Explained

The 28th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP) – an annual convening of countries signatory to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – happened in Dubai this year, with high expectations that countries would take concrete steps to address the climate crisis.

The negotiations encompassed mitigation efforts, adaptation strategies, financing mechanisms, and the role of developed versus developing nations in climate action. The summit ended with progress on certain fronts but lingering challenges on others.

An early win for loss and damage?

Following the agreement reached at COP27 to create the ‘Loss and Damage’ (L&D) fund, the last year was dedicated to negotiations on fund-management and financing. In a historic decision, the fund was operationalised at COP28.

However, a meagre $790 million has been pledged so far, by a few nations, despite the corpus requiring $100 billion to more than $400 billion a year. Notably, the U.S., the largest historical emitter, committed only $17.5 million.

The World Bank was designated to oversee and administer the fund. But concerns originating from the experiences of developing countries, related to limited access to the fund, questions about the legal autonomy, flexibility, and decision-making authority, and general scepticism about the fund’s agility in responding promptly to emergencies, have emerged.

There is also a prevailing sentiment among countries that the communities affected by climate-related disasters should be able to directly access funding, preferably in the form of grants and not loans.

Ambitious emissions reduction targets

During the summit, the first global stocktake (GST) concluded. According to the UNFCCC, the GST “enables countries and other stakeholders to see where they are collectively making progress towards meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement – and where they are not”.

Countries’ decision at COP28 to transition away from fossil fuels was coupled with an ambition to triple renewable energy capacity by 2030. More than 20 countries also pledged to triple their nuclear energy capacity. But the transition from fossil fuels is restricted to energy systems alone; they can continue to be used in the plastics, transport, and agriculture sectors.

The declaration also refers to ‘transitional fuels’, such as natural gas, for ensuring energy security. But this falls short of true climate justice as it allows industry to continue operating in business-as-usual mode.

Further, while the declaration called for accelerated climate mitigation, it alluded to unproven and risky technologies such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) and carbon removal. The former enables users of fossil fuels to prevent their emissions from entering the atmosphere by capturing the emissions at the source and storing them permanently underground.

Global green-finance mechanisms

The financial segment of the GST implementation framework explicitly recognises the responsibility of developed nations to take the lead in climate finance. There is also a reference to the private sector’s role in addressing financial shortfalls and an imperative to supplement grant-oriented, concessional finance to enable equitable transition in developing countries. Nevertheless, specific information regarding the entities obligated to furnish this grant-based finance is lacking.

The COP28 witnessed the establishment of innovative global green-finance mechanisms to support developing nations in their transition to sustainable practices. The Green Climate Fund received fresh support of $3.5 billion, allowing it to finance adaptation and mitigation projects in vulnerable regions. An additional $188 million was pledged to the Adaptation Fund.

New partnerships between the public and private sectors were forged to mobilise investments in renewable energy, sustainable agriculture, and infrastructure. The COP28 Presidency also introduced ALTÉRRA, an investment initiative with an ambitious goal to globally mobilise an unprecedented sum of $250 billion by 2030.

Despite these efforts, the available funds fall well short of the $194-366 billion annual funding requirement for adaptation, as estimated by the United Nations.

India not party to climate and health declaration

The U.A.E. declaration on climate and health came into being at COP28 through a partnership of the COP28 Presidency with the World Health Organisation. It recognises the growing health impacts of climate change and acknowledges the benefits of climate action, including a reduction in air pollution and lowering the cost of healthcare.

The declaration, signed by 123 countries, has collectively committed $1 billion to address the growing climate-health crisis. But India didn’t sign this declaration because reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the health sector would mean reduction in emissions from gases used for cooling. As India’s healthcare infrastructure is still growing to meet demand, such a commitment could compromise the healthcare requirements of a growing population.

The Global Methane Pledge launched at COP26 received renewed attention at COP28, with the Climate and Clean Air Coalition becoming the new secretariat and partners of the pledge announcing more than $1 billion in new grants for funding projects to reduce methane emissions from the agriculture, waste, and gas sectors.

More than 150 countries signed the pledge to reduce methane pollution. India isn’t a signatory to this pledge because it shifts focus from carbon dioxide to methane, a GHG with a lower lifetime. Methane emissions in India are also primarily from rice cultivation and enteric fermentation (livestock rearing), which support the livelihoods of small and marginal farmers.

A maze of hits and misses

The COP28 outcomes had a lot of firsts, such as the declaration on climate and health, acknowledgement of the role of nature-based solutions for biodiversity conservation and climate, and the need to transition away from fossil fuels. Some 134 countries also agreed to a landmark declaration to transition to sustainable and resilient food systems.

However, some challenges and differences between developed and developing countries remain to be addressed.

One key issue of contention was fossil-fuel subsidies. While developed countries advocated for phasing them out, developing countries, including India, refused over a phase-out’s implications on economic growth and development. Such a phase-out also has social implications: several communities rely on fossil fuels (coal, in India’s case) for gainful employment.

Moreover, emphasising the principle of common and differentiated responsibilities and the historical responsibility of developed countries for GHG emissions, developing countries argued to increase the flow of climate finance and technologies to facilitate just job transitions and inclusive development.

Some other contentious issues spanned the market mechanisms, financial resource allocation, the role of the World Bank as the agency for managing the L&D fund, and private sector engagement in climate action.

In sum, COP28 provided a mixed bag of outcomes. The commitment to ramp up renewable energy targets is a significant step forward – whereas issues on L&D metrics, fund management and disbursal, market mechanisms, risky technologies, the room left for continued use of fossil fuels in many sectors, and natural gas as a transitional fuel leave much to be desired.

  • The 28th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP) – an annual convening of countries signatory to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – happened in Dubai this year, with high expectations that countries would take concrete steps to address the climate crisis.
  • Following the agreement reached at COP27 to create the ‘Loss and Damage’ (L&D) fund, the last year was dedicated to negotiations on fund-management and financing. In a historic decision, the fund was operationalised at COP28.
  • The COP28 outcomes had a lot of firsts, such as the declaration on climate and health, acknowledgement of the role of nature-based solutions for biodiversity conservation and climate, and the need to transition away from fossil fuels. Some 134 countries also agreed to a landmark declaration to transition to sustainable and resilient food systems.

Indu K. Murthy heads the Climate, Environment, and Sustainability team at the Center for Study of Science, Technology and Policy (CSTEP), a research-based think tank.

Source link

#COP28 #climate #summit #milestone #mirage #Explained

No United States President can walk back on climate change commitments now: John Kerry

United States Special presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry gestures during an interview to The Hindu in New Delhi on July 26, 2023.
| Photo Credit: Sushil Kumar Verma

 According to United States Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, John Kerry, no future American President can walk back from climate change commitments now. Mr. Kerry has blamed former U.S. President Donald Trump for walking out on the Paris agreement and rescinding climate financing offers. In an interview to The Hindu, Mr. Kerry, who is in India for a G20 meeting on climate change issues, said he was still hopeful about a consensus statement, but wouldn’t commit to the U.S. compromising over language on the Ukraine war in order to reach such a consensus.

How far along are talks on climate change ahead of the G20 summit, and particularly since we’re a couple of months away from the CoP28 meeting in Dubai?


On the CoP28, I think that the parties are working hard, meeting pretty regularly and a considerable amount of progress has been made. There are three outcomes that are already predetermined: we have to have a stocktaking; we have to have an adaptation report. And in addition, we have a loss and damage fund that’s been created that has to now take shape. So, those are three already in the pipeline. Because of what’s happening in the planet — and the science and evidence, we have an imperative to try to raise ambition, speed and quantity. And we have an imperative to try to establish a better finance track in order for emerging economies and less developed countries to be able to make the transition. So it’s a big agenda.

We had an excellent meeting between Prime Minister [Modi] and President [Biden] in June that really set the stage for a level of cooperation that will make a difference. I think that India and the United States really have a synergy right now. Recognising that we need to push technologies, we need to reduce greenhouse gas pollution as rapidly as we can. We need to improve our supply chains, particularly, so that we’re not being held hostage by any place in the world. And I think that there was a real understanding between Prime Minister Modi and President Biden, about the commonality of the agenda and the way they see the world. 

What does that mean in climate terms? India, for example, has not accepted a mid-Century Net Zero target. Prime Minister Modi himself has only spoken about 2070 so far…


Well, I think India is showing a great deal of ambition. India has of its own volition set a very ambitious goal of deploying 500 gigawatts of renewable energy by 2030. That’s a big goal. And we’re very supportive of that. We’ve invested very heavily in a new solar plant that’s here in India. I think our leaders agreed that it would be really good for us to be able to come to agreement on a national fund that we’re both contributing to in order to accelerate the transition. I think that there are great skill sets in India with respect to technology, science, research and development. And we see some really, very positive ways in which we’re able to cooperate to bring new technologies to scale, whether it’s hydrogen or battery storage, turbines, solar panels. This transition does not have to be frightening to people. It is an exciting moment where there’s more economic opportunity globally than there has been since the industrial revolution in the 1800s. 

That’s on a bilateral scale. But when it comes to the multilateral, India is part of the developing world, the U.S. is part of the developed world. What is the U.S. willing to pay to the Loss and Damage Fund? I ask this because, earlier, there was a U.S. commitment to help raise $100 billion every year, between 2020 and 2025. We haven’t seen that come through yet.


The reason we haven’t seen it yet is that we had a President [Trump] who pulled out of the Paris agreement a number of years ago, and who didn’t put any money into the Climate Fund. So, when President Biden [took charge], he began the first year of his presidency with Donald Trump’s budget, not his own. He didn’t get to do his own budget until last year, and now this is his second budget. And we do have money in there to be able to try to reach the $100 billion. That’s a real obligation that the United States obviously will make good on. And the President has been very clear about that.

What about the future? If Mr. Trump or the Republicans return to power in next year’s U.S. election and decide to walk out of whatever deal your government signs? Have any guardrails been put in place to ensure that the U.S. doesn’t walk out as it did once from the Paris Agreement?


Well, there’s no way to pre-handicap the ability of any President to prohibit some particular action. But look. I predicted that Joe Biden would be elected President last time, and I’m quite confident that he’s going to be re-elected again, because of the outstanding legislative record that he has. I’m not allowed to get into the politics of all of this. But I will say this. No President, whatever party, whenever, could come in now and stop what is happening. It’s too big. 

CEOs of major companies of the world, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Salesforce, Boeing, financial institutions, have all made the decision that people need to take climate seriously. So, I don’t see Ford Motor Company or General Motors, which have now retooled their factories to make electric cars, going backwards. The days of the internal combustion engine are numbered, and people are going to transition because it’s clean. India will produce many of those vehicles and so will the United States and other countries. I think it’s a great moment. And the world is just waking up to all of these possibilities.

At the G20, we have seen other differences between the developed world and the developing world — for example, on why developed countries only speak of cutting coal, when all fossil fuels are non-renewable? India also wants the term “phase down” for coal rather than “phase out”. Will there be a common text on climate change at the G20?


I can’t tell you what the common language will be…. [But] I don’t believe that we can’t find some common language that respects the reality that we must reduce emissions: either capture them and do something constructive with them, or not to make them in the first place. It’s one or the other. And, and what we need to do is find the way as fast as possible to empower people to transition out of unabated fossil-fuel-burning, because that’s what’s killing people and creating fires, and massive storms, and unbelievable floods. And, the quality of air that kills about 8 million people a year on the planet. This is not rocket science. I think it should be fairly easy for responsible nations to come to the table and say, “This is what we have got to do”. Now, some people feel that fossil fuel has had its day, but I think the marketplace is going to decide what happens in that regard.

The G20 joint communiqué, or leaders’ declaration, is stuck over the language on Ukraine. Some G20 countries suggest that G7 countries should realise that the real priority right now are climate change, energy transitions, and development, and take a step back from its position on including Ukraine, so that a joint communiqué can be issued


The climate crisis is a global crisis, even as Ukraine has its global components, because it’s a reflection of international law. And that international law says that you don’t invade nations simply to expand territory and kill people in ways that remind you of the worst of World War Two. So, I think that there’s a reason people are concerned about expressing something about the inappropriateness of an unprovoked invasion of another country…

China, for example, says geopolitical issues should not be put on this forum, which is geared towards development. Russia says, well, if you’re going to discuss this war, why not all the other wars that have taken place in the last 20 years? Would you recommend pulling back on some of the Ukraine language, in order to bring a joint statement?


I need to see the latest iteration of the language and where we are and make recommendations based on it. It’s important for global meetings, and countries that they adhere to international standards, the UN charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And I think that in great democracies, particularly, we should not shy away from speaking out. But I don’t want to prejudge the outcome.

On the subject of democracies, over the last few years, we’ve seen the Indian government shut down funding for NGOs — Greenpeace, Sequoia, European Climate Fund, etc. Have you discussed this with Indian authorities?


Sure. Well, we in the United States believe in free speech and the ability of people to be able to voice their concerns. I know in India, you have a very, very active democracy, and you have a very hearty, ongoing, regular debate. I’ve seen it. I’ve seen its vitality. I’m not going to comment on some individual situation that I’m really not directly familiar with. But I’m quite confident that India is going to continue to make its contribution to the democratic process and I’m sure that activists here in India will continue to work through thatas we do in the United States on a regular basis.

Source link

#United #States #President #walk #climate #change #commitments #John #Kerry

COP28 UAE Presidency | Why are Western lawmakers opposing Sultan Ahmed al-Jaber’s appointment?

The story so far: Almost a week after the United Nations’ crucial climate meetings in Bonne, Germany from June 5 to 15, which are considered the halfway mark to the COP climate summit in November, questions over the COP28 Presidency of United Arab Emirates (UAE) Industry Minister Sultan Ahmed al-Jaber still remain. While the UAE leader did say in Bonne that COP28 was going to be “inclusive” and deliver a “game-changing outcome” to tackle climate change, he did not talk about a concrete plan to phase out fossil fuels or address his links to the fossil fuel industry.

Each year, the host country for the COP summit nominates a president to helm the climate negotiations with almost 200 countries. The UAE announced Mr. al-Jaber, the State oil company CEO, as its pick in January, a move that has faced backlash from Western lawmakers, leaders of some countries, as well as civil society groups.

Notably, more than 130 lawmakers from the United States and the European Parliament last month wrote a letter to European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen and U.S. President Joe Biden asking them to urge the UAE to withdraw its appointment of Mr. al-Jaber as the COP28 President. They argued that the move could risk undermining the climate negotiations and asked the world leaders to help restore “public faith in the COP process severely jeopardised by having an oil company executive at the helm.”

Who is Sultan al-Jaber?

Mr. al-Jaber, who is the CEO of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) since 2016, was appointed as UAE’s Minister of Industry and Advanced Technology in 2020, a new department established that year.

The leader, who has a chemical engineering and economics background, was serving as a Minister of State in the UAE government since 2013. Also in 2020, he was for the second time appointed as the UAE’s special envoy for climate change, a role previously held by him from 2010 to 2016.

The Minister is also serving in a contrasting role, as the Chairman of Masdar, a renewable energy firm in Abu Dhabi, which he helped start in 2006. According to the BBC, Masdar is now active in more than 40 countries and has invested in mainly solar and wind power projects of a total capacity of 15 gigawatts, which it notes, is capable of displacing more than 19 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions annually.

In July 2020, Mr. al-Jaber was also appointed Chairman of the Emirates Development Bank, which according to his Ministry’s website, provides financial services for the sustainable economic and social development of the UAE.

The Guardian reported late last month that Mr. al-Jaber’s team was being accused of attempting to “greenwash” his image. It emerged that members of his team had edited Wikipedia pages that talked about his role as CEO of ADNOC; they were accused of inserting a quote from a Bloomberg editorial that said he was “precisely the kind of ally the climate movement needs.”

Why is Sultan al-Jaber’s appointment as the COP28 president facing criticism?

Climate campaigners and groups have been voiced their discontent with the appointment of an oil executive to head a summit responsible for brokering global partner negotiations to mitigate climate change and build a framework to meet the ​​countries’ pledge at the 2015 summit in Paris to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius as against pre-industrial levels.

Scientists are near-unanimous that carbon emissions need to be halved by 2030 and ‘net zero’ emissions reached mid-century if the goal has to be achieved. Another agreement within the scientific community and many world leaders is that reducing the production and use of fossil fuel resources— coal, oil and gas— is the way to meet the promises of the Paris Agreement.

However, as the CEO of the state oil firm ADNOC, Mr. al-Jaber’s 2030 strategy for the firm is to build a more “profitable upstream, more valuable downstream and more sustainable and economic gas supply,” which essentially means more fossil fuels.

Critics, like Michael Bloss, a German member of the European Parliament and one of the 133 lawmakers who signed the open letter, argue that appointment was “a scandal” and a “perfect example of a conflict of interest.” The member of the German Green Party says, “It’s like putting the tobacco industry in charge of ending smoking.”

“The decision to name as president of COP28 the chief executive of one of the world’s largest oil and gas companies—a company that has recently announced plans to add 7.6 billion barrels of oil to its production in the coming years, representing the fifth largest increase in the world— risks undermining the negotiations,” says the letter by lawmakers to Mr. Biden and Ms. Von der Leyen. The signatories also include the likes of U.S. senator Bernie Sanders, veteran Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, among others.

The letter pointed out how “at least 636 lobbyists from the oil and gas industries registered to attend last year’s COP—an increase of more than 25% over the previous year.” While the number of attendees representing the fossil fuel industry was largelast year, there are concerns about increased space for such interests at the upcoming summit, considering the new leadership.

According to the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), ADNOC pumped 2.7 million barrels of oil per day in 2021 and has ambitious plans. It is vying to nearly double its daily output to five million barrels by 2027 — a deadline which was moved forward from 2030 this year by Mr. al-Jaber.

“We are an emerging upstream company… with a mandate to stay focused on exploring the UAE’s undeveloped oil and gas potential,” the official website of ADNOC reads. Experts also highlight that it is in the UAE’s national interest to continue the production of fossil fuels as the 10th largest oil producers in the world and as a historic member of the influential OPEC+ oil cartel of countries.

Why has Mr. al-Jaber’s advocacy of carbon capture been criticised?

World leaders have faced a dilemma about the best approach to meet international climate goals, with some pushing for a phaseout of fossil fuels as the way to go while others insist on oil and gas continuing to play a role in the future, provided their emissions are somehow curbed. Mr. al-Jaber belongs to the latter school of thought.

Climate campaigners and scientists have expressed caution that technologies proposed so far to capture fossil fuel emissions have not been tested at scale. They also argue that responses do not hit at the root cause of the problem and look at post facto containment once emissions are released, pointing out that they could also divert attention and resources from effective alternatives such as renewable energy.

However, Mr. al-Jaber has talked about the need to tackle fossil fuel emissions, a stand that observers say mark his inclination to industry interest. He has said that the goal should be a global system “free of unabated fossil fuels.” The term ‘abated’ relates to approaches used in reducing or capturing greenhouse gas emissions that result from the burning of fossil fuels.

At the Bonne talks this week, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock emphasised that the proposal to tackle emissions shouldn’t take away from the need to drastically cut fossil fuel use, a position shared by other European nations and vulnerable island states where sea levels are rising making them extremely vulnerable to climate impacts.

Stakeholders like Denmark’s climate minister, Dan Jørgensen, say that carbon capture and storage technologies his country is testing in the North Sea should only be restricted to sectors where cutting emissions is extremely hard, such as the cement industry.

Meanwhile, the UAE, while having backed the idea of significantly boosting wind and solar power, has made clear that it wants to keep fossil fuels as an option for the foreseeable future. Mr. al-Jaber said his country wants “a comprehensive, holistic approach to an energy transition that included all sources of energy.”

“We know that fossil fuel will continue to play a role in the foreseeable future, helping meet global requirements so our aim should be a focus on ensuring that we phase out emissions from all sectors whether it’s oil and gas or high emitting industries,” he said. “In parallel, we should assert all effort and all investments in renewable energy and clean technology space.”

He did however say that the phasedown of fossil fuels was “inevitable” while stopping short of advocating a complete ban.

More than 80 countries backed efforts to put oil and gas, not just coal, on notice at the last U.N. climate summit in Egypt. Meanwhile, the U.S and U.K. backed Mr. al-Jaber’s Presidency. Many stakeholders argue that having all voices at the table, including a decisive figure from the oil industry, can make negotiations more concrete and realistic. Developing nations like Bangladesh and the Maldives have also said that fossil fuel-dependent economies are critical to climate negotiation and mitigation efforts, and that they have a more difficult task defining their energy transition strategy.

They are banking on Mr. al-Jaber to help secure climate investments supported by sovereign wealth funds and multilateral development banks. They argue that for the poorer and developing countries, curtailing economic growth is not an option while the rich and developed countries continue to pollute. India, which has been an advocate of climate justice, has also supported Mr. al-Jaber’s appointment.

What plans has Mr. al-Jaber highlighted to tackle climate change as the COP28 President?

While not offering a concrete framework so far, Mr. al-Jaber has emphasised that the summit in Dubai will be “inclusive,” while concerns about greenwashing and freedom for young activists and campaigners in the gulf country during the summit exist.

While taking the immediate phaseout of fossil fuels off the table, Mr. al-Jaber has reiterated the need to double down on renewables. He said in a speech this year that “reaching net zero will deliver the biggest market transformation, greatest economic and human promise since the first Industrial Revolution,” adding that this could be done by tapping into the renewables market.

Supporting the idea that developing nations, while vulnerable to climate change, have their economic and development priorities fulfil, Mr. al-Jaber said one of the important focuses of the negotiations would be to get funds from bigger nations and funding from multilateral development banks, institutions, and to activate already existing corpus funds to which nations have pledged.

Source link

#COP28 #UAE #Presidency #Western #lawmakers #opposing #Sultan #Ahmed #alJabers #appointment