19 December 2023 – This year’s UN Climate Conference has been engulfed by controversy. However, at the end there was agreement on the final text. In our analysis we look at what the COP28 Agreement really means.
From the start, many commentators thought that COP28 was doomed to fail due to it being hosted by the United Arab Emirates, one of the top oil-producing countries. With the CEO of the national oil company ADNOC appointed as COP president, there seemed little chance of success.
However, early on, an announcement was made that several countries had pledged money to a damage and loss fund. Then came a pledge from countries and oil companies to stop adding greenhouse gas emissions to our atmosphere.
While the initial drafts of the final text weren’t agreed by all participating nations, negotiations continued and eventually an agreement was reached. But what does the COP28 Agreement mean for the aim to keep global temperatures below 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels?
Positives In The COP28 Agreement
There are definitely some positives that we can find in the final text of the agreement. Most of all, the fact that for the first time all nations involved accepted that fossil fuels are the main contributor to climate change.
This might sound obvious to many of us, but so far, this admittance has never made into any of the COP agreements. So in a way, this is a historical moment, as it suggests that the world is finally prepared to accept the root cause of the problem.
While this is only the first step towards tackling the issue, it’s a vital step. It’s also the first time that an overwhelming majority of nations wanted a “phase out” of fossil fuels. Even though this didn’t make it into the final text, that so many nations pushed for it is another big step in the right direction.
The final text of the agreement also contains a call to triple renewable energy globally by 2030. This is a pledge that had already been announced during the summit and is seen as positive.
Another big headline was the commitment of $792 million to the new loss and damage fund. The fund was agreed on last year at COP27, however with no concrete details. This year’s climate summit managed to get a commitment of rich countries to support poor and vulnerable countries who are affected by climate disasters by pledging explicit amounts.
Of course, this doesn’t mean that the money will actually materialise. After all, money pledges have been made before and not been met. However, it’s a step in the right direction.
Weak Language And Loophole Galore
So while there were some positives that have come out of COP28, there is also a lot to criticise. Even the biggest achievement, the inclusion of a call to transition away from fossil fuels in the energy system, isn’t all that it seems.
It’s only a “call for” not a “must”. This means it’s left to countries to decide if they want to take action or not. And the language throughout the agreement is just as weak. There is a lot of “inviting”, “encouraging”, “requesting”, “calling on” and “urging”, which isn’t the tough language that we need.
None of these words convey the urgency that is needed to tackle the issue and avert a catastrophe. And this means that many of the actions that are needed are unlikely to be taken. We have seen it before, and we will see it again.
And while the transitioning away from fossil fuels is part of the COP28 Agreement, it also talks a lot about carbon capture and storage (CCS) as a way to decrease carbon emissions. It’s basically a way for many countries to continue using fossil fuels while at the same time reducing their emissions.
But here is the problem: scientists have made it very clear that CCS technologies are far from being scalable. This means that the amount of carbon emissions they can remove from the atmosphere is tiny. So it can only play a small part in the world becoming net-zero.
However, reading the final text makes it look like it’s the end-all solution. The focus on CCS technologies shows that some nations aren’t prepared to transition away from fossil fuels, no matter what the agreement says.
Another big loophole is the mentioning of “transitional fuels”, which basically means gas. So the agreement says that it’s okay to continue to use gas, which although cleaner than coal is still a fossil fuel and contributes to global warming.
Despite the few positive parts of the agreement, the overall feeling is that it’s not strong enough and doesn’t go far enough. If it will have an impact, we will only know in the coming years.
Our Opinion
Without taking anything away from the few positive achievements reached in the COP28 Agreement, here at EcoHomeLife we don’t believe that it’s good enough. We are most disappointed by the language used, as it lacks the strength and urgency our planet so desperately needs.
At the very least, the text should say that countries must transition away from fossil fuels. Calling on nations to do so just won’t cut it. The agreement also lacks targets and deadlines. We all know that without those nothing can be achieved.
We are also very concerned about this reliance on CCS technologies. Like carbon off-setting schemes, they are just a way to continue in the old ways. The science is clear: we have to stop burning fossil fuels and leave them in the ground where they belong.
What’s so disheartening and frustrating is that we have all the tools and knowledge we need to solve the problem. But greed and lust for money are still so strong in some nations that it sometimes feels like we will never succeed.
And this agreement illustrates this perfectly. We know what is needed, but we just can’t bring ourselves to change our ways. Partly because it’s inconvenient, partly because it costs money and partly because some people are scared to lose what they have.
