Greater political innovation outside of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change will be required to address challenges posed by climate change.
Few people expected much progress at the 2023 U.N. Climate Change Conference of Parties (COP28) following contentious discussions around the development of a new Loss and Damage Fund, a grim Global Stocktake report detailing exactly how far away the goals laid out in the Paris Agreement still are and questions about the intentions of the conference chair who came from the oil and gas industry. However, the agreement signed on December 13 makes surprising progress in a few key areas, while still leaving much to be desired.
Innovation on a much grander scale will, nevertheless, be needed to address the wicked problems created by climate change fast enough to avert the risks of violent conflict and political strife that the global community faces in a rapidly changing world.
The Future of Fossil Fuels
While there is widespread recognition that the use of fossil fuels — including coal, oil and natural gas — has contributed to the bulk of greenhouse gas emissions globally, close to three decades of U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) processes have yet to achieve an agreement to phase down or eliminate the use of these fuels.
In a surprising and historic deal, language in the final agreement reached at COP28 in Dubai calls for “Transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade, so as to achieve net zero by 2050” and “Phasing out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that do not address energy poverty or just transitions, as soon as possible.” It also called for additional attention to other greenhouse gases, such as methane, many of which are much more potent than carbon dioxide. These statements will likely influence the shape of many countries’ updated Nationally Determined Contributions, a statement of their voluntary commitment to climate action, which are due in 2025. This COP also showcased far more engagement and investment by the private sector on the deployment of modern energy technologies critical to achieving the level of finance that the goals of Paris require. While these commitments are notable, there are no clear mechanisms for accountability; the global community will be looking for follow-through.
While many countries, especially those facing the greatest risks from climate change, such as the Pacific Island states, were unhappy with the final language of the agreement, it is also the most forceful language contained so far in such agreements and a surprise outcome for a chair who was expected to cater intently to the interests of the United Arab Emirates’ oil and gas companies. There is also wide recognition that the agreement’s language acknowledges countries’ autonomy to develop their own commitments and pathways to reducing greenhouse gases with respect to their social and economic condition, allowing developing countries to continue working to increase energy access by deploying fossil fuels, but also leaving significant loopholes for interpretation and implementation, including references to technologies that are not yet ready for deployment at scale, such as carbon capture and hydrogen production, which provide “outs” for countries not willing to increase their level of ambition.
The Loss and Damage Fund Lumbers Forward
After contentious negotiations around the governance of the proposed Loss and Damage Fund prior to the start of the formal negotiations, the proposed direction was accepted on Day 1 of COP28. While perceived as an important victory for vulnerable countries, funding pledges fell fall short of expectations, undermining any hope that developed countries would right historical wrongs in climate impacts.
Similar to the concerns raised by states vulnerable to climate change about the lack of stronger language on the phase out of fossil fuel use, there is likely to be a continued disconnect in expectations between developed and developing countries about pledges for the Loss and Damage Fund. Developing countries continue to feel sidelined in negotiations that have prioritized the interests of countries that want to continue benefitting from oil and gas reserves while only seeing token commitments from developed countries to the Loss and Damage Fund in comparison to the needs.
The Declaration on Climate, Relief, Recovery, and Peace
COP28 held the first day at a Conference of Parties focused on support for fragile and conflict-affected countries. The “Declaration on Climate, Relief, Recovery, and Peace,” released at COP28 and signed by 80 countries and more than 40 additional international partners, focused primarily on countries with significant vulnerabilities to climate change, many of which are also affected by conflict or are considered at risk of conflict. Encouraging integration of a wide set of stakeholders that include marginalized communities of all kinds, the declaration commits the signatories to continue working toward wider access to climate finance, strengthen coordination and capacity-building, and focus on building early warning and other resilient approaches to adaptation to climate change. However, it did not seem to attract much, if any, attention from international media and may struggle to gain traction in an important and under-resourced area.
The Gap between Energy and Peace
The lack of alignment between the COP28 agreement — which highlighted a “just, orderly, and equitable transition” around energy — and the “Declaration on Climate, Relief, Recovery, and Peace” is notable. While the latter focused on a critical gap around addressing the impacts of climate change, it omitted to recognize that many countries dependent on oil and gas production are also countries that face conflict and fragility. Oil-dependent fragile states often buy political stability through their oil and often have not invested in the human capital to diversify their economies. Yet this form of stability does not benefit global climate outcomes, nor does it benefit the millions of people who live under such regimes. Given the amount of oil produced in such countries and the incentives to maintain the status quo, the question of what a just, orderly and equitable transition means in such countries is a critical issue that needs to be addressed.
What Next?
As the UNFCCC fails to deliver on the goals outlined in the Paris Agreement, the risks of conflict emanating from the direct impacts of climate change, the transition to more modern energy sources and geopolitical tensions continue to rise. It is obvious that innovative approaches to building a global community that will do more and deliver progress faster are desperately needed.
What are the alternatives to a diplomatic process founded on the principle of voluntary commitments and rooted in the assumption that a regular global accounting will encourage each country to step up further and faster? Are there other pathways to achieving the goals that the Paris Agreement was expected to deliver? Exploring additional economic incentives or trade negotiations, building different diplomatic and development relationships, and creating new kinds of partnerships — perhaps regional, perhaps subnational — may all be critical to the success of the global community to address climate change.
Attention is now shifting toward Azerbaijan, a heavily oil-dependent country which will host COP29 in 2024, to deliver a different kind of result — and toward Brazil, host for COP30 in 2025, which has already pledged to make it the “tropical forests COP.” In a year that will likely finish as the hottest year ever recorded, deep political innovation to address the challenges of climate change is desperately needed.