Historical or merely a stuttering attempt? An analysis of the UN climate agreement

• Historical or merely a stuttering attempt? An analysis of the UN climate agreement

The contents and exclusions of the final COP28 agreement

Benjamin H. Shingler

At the conclusion of the COP28 UN climate meeting on Wednesday, lead negotiator for the United Arab Emirates, Hana Al-Hashimi, and COP28 President Sultan al-Jaber, from left, pose for pictures. (The Associated Press/Peter Dejong)

In what is being hailed as a historic agreement, nearly 200 nations have acknowledged the necessity of shifting away from fossil fuels at the United Nations climate negotiations, which concluded on Wednesday in Dubai.

Sultan al-Jaber, the president of COP28, called the accord a “historic package to accelerate climate action.”

However, several also cautioned that it had a “litany of loopholes” that would make it challenging, if not impossible, to keep warming to the 1.5 C increase above pre-industrial levels that has been agreed upon internationally.

 

After a year of record heat and extreme weather, this year’s meeting was seen as critical to limiting the most catastrophic impacts of climate change, which is why the 1.5 C target is viewed as so important.

This is a summary of the agreement’s contents, exclusions, and implications for the next years.

Not a “phaseout,” but a shift
The final deal acknowledges the need to move away from fossil fuels, which are by far the main source of greenhouse gas emissions, for the first time in the 28 years of UN climate discussions.

The accord also notes that reducing emissions to reduce global warming to 1.5 C would necessitate “deep, rapid, and sustained reductions” of 43% of 2019 levels of emissions by 2030. Already, 1.2 C of global warming has occurred.

However, the agreement is silent on how it would be accomplished. The phrase “phaseout” of fossil fuels, which many nations and activists had demanded, is absent.

Rather, it emphasizes the significance of “accelerating action in this critical decade, transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems in a just, orderly and equitable manner.”

Furthermore, it acknowledges that “transitional fuels can play a role in facilitating the energy transition while ensuring energy security,” a recognition that environmentalists mocked as an attempt to advance natural gas over renewable energy.

In an attempt to combat climate change, delegates at COP28 in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, have struck an agreement that asks for a “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems.”

Allow for some leeway in emissions
Even though the agreement acknowledges the conclusions of an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that indicated carbon pollution must peak by 2025 to prevent warming to 1.5 C, it gives sufficient flexibility for individual nation’s emissions to peak beyond that year.

Right now, global warming is not being contained. According to a recent UN report, global greenhouse gas emissions climbed by 1.2% between 2021 and 2022, setting a new high last year.

According to that assessment, global warming might reach 2.9 C by the end of the century, which is over twice the international goal set in Paris. The amount of carbon emissions from existing and proposed coal, oil, and gas projects would be 3.5 times more than what is needed to keep global warming to 1.5 C.

Among the nations planning to boost production in 2019 is Canada, the fourth-largest oil producer in the world.

Over half of the expected development of oil and gas production is borne by Canada and just four other nations. “Encouraging that expansion to proceed is a death sentence for millions of people worldwide,” stated Julia Levin, associate director of Environmental Defence, a Canadian environmental group.

The need to “triple the global average annual rate of energy efficiency improvements by 2030” and “double renewable energy capacity globally” is also acknowledged in the text.

According to the Calgary-based Pembina Institute, Alberta in particular should make more of an effort to pursue renewable energy as a result of the focus on renewables.

Executive director Chris Severson-Baker stated, “While much work remains, it is undeniable that Canada cannot ignore the challenges and opportunities represented by the energy transition currently underway.”

However, it’s unclear how the globe will triple its renewable energy output, and there are no details on how much money developing nations would receive to help finance this shift.

Greenpeace International’s Kaisa Kosonen stated that the “result leaves poorer countries well short of the resources they will need for renewable energy transition and other needs” as El Niño is predicted to last into the winter. 2024 is the year with the greatest attention.

She stated that in order to achieve the numerous objectives of the accord, wealthy nations would have to dramatically increase their financial assistance and hold fossil fuel polluters accountable.

Assistance to developing nations, but more

Nonetheless, a “loss and damage” fund that was decided upon earlier in the summit is implemented by the accord. The fund’s purpose is to assist developing nations in addressing climate change’s effects, such as droughts, floods, and rising sea levels.

The loss and damage fund will get an initial contribution of $16 million, according to Canada’s Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault. The wealthiest nations in the world have contributed a total of $700 million to the fund, a far cry from the $400 billion that is thought to be needed.

The deal struck in Dubai, according to COP28 president Sultan Al Jaber, is a “balanced” strategy that keeps 1.5 C within reach. As he described the deal, hear some of what he had to say.
Anne Rasmussen, the lead delegate from Samoa and the leader for a group of tiny island states, stated shortly after the final accord was adopted that “the course correction that is needed has not been secured.”The deal struck in Dubai, according to COP28 president Sultan Al Jaber, is a “balanced” strategy that keeps 1.5 C within reach. As he described the deal, hear some of what he had to say.

Anne Rasmussen, the lead delegate from Samoa and the leader for a group of tiny island states, stated shortly after the final accord was adopted that “the course correction that is needed has not been secured.is ”

In contrast to exponential emission-cutting efforts, Rasmussen said the agreement constituted business as usual and issued a warning that it would “potentially take us backward rather than forward.”

What changes will this bring about?
Although the agreement is not legally binding, experts claim that this kind of paper can nevertheless be a valuable source of information, both domestically and globally.

A specialist in global climate governance and a professor of political science at the University of Toronto, Jessica Green argued that the Dubai deal might be viewed as a “diplomatic success but a policy failure.”

According to Green, the UN climate conference in Dubai, like many others, failed to produce concrete pledges to alter direction.

It is difficult to get to an agreement with so many nations having such disparate interests, but she said the accord will at the very least set expectations on issues like the requirement for funding for renewable energy and climate adaptation.

“The multilateral process will continue to lurch forward,” Green stated.

By the end of the century, fossil fuel use will have increased by almost 3 degrees Celsius. UN
The UN executive secretary for climate change, Simon Stiell, described the agreement as a “amber light” even though a “green light” was the intended outcome and stated that there are now “paths forward.”

The agreement was a significant step toward realizing that the “climate crisis is at its heart a fossil fuel crisis,” according to former US vice president and Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore. However, he also noted that “the influence of petrostates is still evident in the half measures and loopholes” in the agreement.

Whether this is a turning point or not, in his opinion, “depends on the actions that come next.”

Senior writer Benjamin Shingler is located in Montreal and writes about social, health, and environmental policies. He was previously employed by the New Brunswick Telegraph-Journal and The Canadian Press.