Source: The Conversation
Founded in 2011 in Melbourne, Australia, The Conversation is a unique collaborative platform between academics and journalists, and has become the world's leading research-based news and analysis media for a decade. All content is co-created by academics and journalists with the support of a team of digital technology experts. Professional editors work with academics to translate knowledge and insights into articles that are easy to read and understandable to the general reader.
Media Ratings:
With negotiators staggering to bed in Dubai and another year of climate negotiations coming to an end, it's time for us to wrap up, did COP28 deliver the major breakthrough the world needs on climate change?
Maybe not. But the final agreement was cheered on, calling for the first time for countries to abandon fossil fuels. This is one step short of the commitment to phase out fossil fuels promoted by some delegates. But this progress shows that the days of fossil fuels are numbered.
The overarching question facing the world now is whether the broad commitments made by countries are sufficient as the pace of climate change accelerates. The shocking answer is no.
UAE: Controversial hosts
This year's talks were controversial from the start.
Oil tycoon Sultan Al Jaber holds COP28 presidency, fueling concerns about the role of the United Arab Emirates as host. This was followed by reports that Jaber questioned the scientific rationale for phasing out fossil fuels to combat climate change, while there were also reports of fossil fuel trade negotiations taking place during the negotiations.
On top of that, fossil fuel lobbyists and geoengineering advocates are attending the talks in unprecedented numbers, and they are not creating the ideal conditions for climate change action.
COP 28 President Al Jaber. Martin Divisek/EPA
A breakthrough in "loss and damage".
To their credit, the conference organizers reached an early agreement to establish a "loss and damage" fund to compensate poor countries for the effects of climate change by rich countries. The establishment of the fund was one of the important outcomes of the talks. In 1991, Vanuatu put forward a proposal for the establishment of the Fund, which was supported in principle at the talks held in Egypt last year.
Why is it needed? Because developing countries are particularly vulnerable to the devastation caused by climate change and have limited capacity to cover the costs of repair and reconstruction. The Fund also noted the special obligations of developed countries and major emitters, as they contributed to the problem to a large extent.
However, there are still big questions about this measure and, most importantly, how it is funded. Despite all the fanfare, the Fund has so far received only $700 million in financial commitments, and according to recent estimates, it is expected to provide hundreds of billions of dollars annually in compensation for losses caused by countries.
In addition, the management of the fund by the World Bank is also a cause for concern, as the Bank's credibility with regard to the environment is questionable and its record on transparency is inadequate.
Of course, the fund itself is an admission of failure. The Fund is needed only because the international community has failed to prevent climate change from happening and is unlikely to prevent it from reaching dangerous levels.
Chairs on the Titanic?
As the talks progressed, so did the difficulty. Tricky topic: fossil fuels, which may seem incredible, but this is the 28th annual climate talks and the first time countries have directly discussed the phase-out of fossil fuels. Last year, countries agreed to accelerate the phase-out of the dirtiest fuels... Coal, but not a word about natural gas or oil.
For several days, there has been a debate about whether fossil fuels should use terms such as "phase out", "phase down" or "continue unabated". Even the word "may" has become controversial when linked to countries that may consider limiting the production and consumption of fossil fuels. For the victims of climate change, these arguments are like rearranging the chairs on the deck on the Titanic.
Some countries are ready to recognize the need to eliminate fossil fuels. Others noted that the transition would need to take place in the future without compromising development or earning export earnings. Still others have suggested that the impact of fossil fuels could be minimized through technologies such as carbon capture and storage.
The need for all 198 participating countries to ratify any possible final declaration shows how difficult it is to reach consensus.
More than 100 countries have pushed for a global commitment to phase out fossil fuels. But countries that have profited greatly from fossil fuels, such as Russia, Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, oppose the mention of fossil fuels in the final document.
Fossil fuel phase-down or phase-out?
The first draft of the manifesto did not go well. The host negotiator attempted to mediate between competing interests, omitting any reference to "phase-out" or "reduction". Instead, they suggest that countries "can" consider reducing the production and consumption of fossil fuels. The compromise text developed by COP28 President Al Jaber and his team appears to be biased in favor of fossil fuel interests. Still, fossil fuel proponents are opposed.
Advocates of strong climate action were quick to raise the cry. Vulnerable small island states have referred to the draft as a "death certificate", while it has been slammed by concerned countries, non-governmental organizations and even countries with poor climate records, such as Australia, the United States, Canada and Japan.
An agreement, but is that enough?
Since the talks had taken place well beyond the original deadline, it was somewhat surprising that the final document had been adopted relatively quickly.
The final version takes a tougher stance on the impact of fossil fuels on climate change, which some advocates see as an important signal. It asserts that the transition away from fossil fuels needs to be made quickly, albeit "in a just, orderly and equitable manner, and accelerate action in this critical decade to achieve science-based net zero emissions by 2050".
This is the first time that the impact of fossil fuels on climate change has been acknowledged in a final document of a Conference of the Parties, and illustrates the slow pace of climate negotiations since they began in 1992. Here, critics lament the lack of detail about how to implement the goals or deliver on the promises.
The conference also made important commitments to triple renewable energy, expand nuclear power, and new commitments to reduce emissions from refrigeration technologies such as air conditioning, which will become increasingly important as the global climate warms. At the meeting, it was also recognized that the agricultural sector is playing an increasingly important role in contributing to climate change.
But more must be done. By 2023, temperatures will exceed the 1.5°C tipping point. The global emissions reduction inventory released ahead of the talks shows that our current efforts are not enough to stop further warming. Countries such as Australia have advocated a steady end to fossil fuels at home while ending fossil fuels in stronger terms, and it's no wonder that AOSIS's chief negotiator said "this process has let us down".
In short, despite the diplomatic reach of an agreement that seemed unlikely just hours ago, it is still difficult to say that the international community is taking this enormous challenge seriously.
Matt MacDonald is an associate professor of international relations at the University of Queensland, who works on climate politics, security theory, and Australian foreign policy.