Wrapping up COP28

The point of a Stocktake

The Global Stocktake was the main output of COP28. It quickly came into focus during the two weeks of negotiations due to its imperative status as a basis for agreeing on the state of global emissions and collective action taken since the start of the Paris Agreement. And, more importantly, on what and how to move ahead when it comes to updating all the national climate plans, set to happen next year. These NDCs (Nationally Determined Contributions) are a backbone of the Paris Agreement and should also reflect a common but differentiated climate responsibility with respective capabilities. With a shared goal and ambition on climate action, the measures taken are dependent on the state of development, economy, history and possibilities in the countries, respectively.

An exercise in linguistics

The result is a 21-page document that is a mix of paragraphs (196 brief text sections) that either decide, take note of, request, invite, welcome, affirm, encourage and call upon parties on different issues. The document is structured in sections of progress on mitigation, adaptation, implementation, loss and damage and finally sections on international cooperation and guidance on way forward.

The most controversial output

Let’s have a look at the most controversial, debated and perhaps most important part of the COP28 output. It ended up in paragraph 28 of the final document. The controversial issue of whether to “phase out” or ”phase down” the use of fossil fuels was resolved by changing the language in an effort of striking a balance that all parties could accept. It was decided to ”call on parties to contribute to”, with wiggle room for national differences:

• (a) Tripling renewable energy capacity globally and doubling the global averageannual rate of energy efficiency improvements by 2030;
• (b) Accelerating efforts towards the phase-down of unabated coal power;
• (c) Accelerating efforts globally towards net zero emission energy systems, utilizing zero- and low-carbon fuels well before or by around mid-century;
• (d) 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 in keeping with the science;
• (e) Accelerating zero- and low-emission technologies, including, inter alia, renewables, nuclear, abatement and removal technologies such as carbon capture and utilization and storage, particularly in hard-to-abate sectors, and low-carbon hydrogen production;
• (f) Accelerating and substantially reducing non-carbon-dioxide emissions globally, including in particular methane emissions by 2030;
• (g) Accelerating the reduction of emissions from road transport on a range of pathways, including through development of infrastructure and rapid deployment of zero-and low-emission vehicles;
• (h) Phasing out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that do not address energy poverty or just transitions, as soon as possible.

There are powerful statements in here but also many wordings that are open for national interpretation and room for diversity in operationalisation. You could argue that this is bad, but it is also decided in the Paris Agreement, which makes it difficult to go deeper into uniform action and sectorial approaches than this. And, of course, it was heavily defended by many (not all!) oil producing countries.

The mindshift focus that solved it

The focus in the outcome from COP28 is not as much on reducing fossil fuel emissions as on accelerating the green transition. Transition is mentioned 19 times in the document as opposed to 8 times for reduction.

Isn’t this the same, you might ask? Basically, yes as they are so connected, but the shift of focus is important because it shines the light on the solutions instead of the problems. These are the main drivers of emissions reductions and the more we talk about increasing renewables instead of reducing fossils, the more we tend to want to build the best Cleantech portfolio, as opposed to finding tricky ways to stop the brown and old techniques.

As Sandra Hanni from the BINGO (Business and Industry NGO) group stated in our final intervention: ”A 1.5 trajectory is not just about stopping things, it is also about building things”.

Think about it. Water the flower you want to survive. The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

The unresolved matters and their future fate

We expected a lot at the table this year and this turned out to be true. The focus and political effort to solve the ”phase out” puzzle had implications on other important issues that would have needed more leadership and political attention. Out of the 20 output deliveries that was negotiated on, only 8 were delivered. The 12 unresolved will trigger ”Rule 16” and they will be subject to postponing, many of them for one year, until COP29 in Azerbaijan. So, we have a ”come back next year and try again” for very important climate issues like:

• Report from adaptation committee
• Rules on trading and carbon markets (Article 6.2 and 6.4)
• International aviation and shipping
• Action for climate empowerment

Things that didn’t progress as anticipated also included the definition and scope of Just Transition, which many argued for should be broadened from its initial focus on only employment perspectives to a more holistic societal perspective. This work will be taken care of in a work program going forward next year.

Triple renewables, double efficiency

It was not the whirlwind of pledges and cooperations as the one we saw from COP26 in Glasgow, but we did get some serious action even in Dubai, most notably during the first week. Many of them are small and do not contribute to any measurable ways of reducing global emissions. Many of them are overlapping, hard to analyse for potential effect and some the commitments are already to be existent on the national agenda. However, they can be important in initiating cooperation and gather momentum among frontrunners, to rally support and push an issue into the negotiation rooms. As was the case this year with the ”tripling renewables and doubling energy efficiency” that was the basis of the Global Renewables and Energy Efficiency Pledge. Led by the EU and the COP Presidency, and backed by 118 countries, the pledge grew to more than 130 countries. It also ended up in the final outcome document. Should this pledge be fulfilled, and methane slashed by 75% to 2030, that would account for 80% of the emission cuts needed for reaching 1.5C.

Good COP, Bad COP?

The aftermath of a COP always tries to box this into either a success or a failure. This is a question with many dimensions and definitely more of a grey scale that being black and white. It depends on who you are but, even more importantly, on your expectations on what a COP meeting can and cannot achieve.

There is of course a difference between the COP15 in Copenhagen that failed to achieve what was later solved at the heavily acclaimed COP21 in Paris. According to my view, success this year is mixed.

On the positive side is the unified view on science, sticking to the goal of 1.5 degrees (which is mentioned 13 times in the UAE Consensus document), the broad view on climate and its interrelationships with nature, food, water. On the bad side is the slow progress on carbon markets. And on climate finance where we still grasp for only a small fraction of the money needed to fund adaptation as well as loss and damage. This won’t be resolved until there is a change in the core purpose and setup of the World bank and multilateral investment banks. The big money needs to go green instead of COPs trying to scramble for small money.

I think the overall signal from this COP will be that it is indeed time to accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels, albeit with many options for the laggards to delay action. I also think that delayed action will become more and more of a risky strategy looking at jobs, innovation, trade limits, business opportunities and all the other upsides of engaging in future proofing our societies.

Success of a COP is dependent on preparations, organisation, strategy leadership and skills of the presidency, but equally important on the global situation, maturity of climate issues and complexity of tasks at hand. Having attended COPs since 2009, I mainly see progress over a multi-year perspective where COPs tend to add up and complement each other and over time building a global awareness, multilateral understanding. That is not descriptive policy work but more providing a temperature check on what’s a stake, what needs to be done and how can we work with that.

The COP also more and more provides a meeting place for all different kind of stakeholders engaged in solving the climate crisis by sharing best practices, building partnerships, learning science and doing business on solutions for the climate transition. The interest in that and the importance of that is what explains this year’s record number of delegates (more than 110,000!). Imagine what happens when all those delegates return home and start to turn these meetings into action. Maybe acceleration?

And that’s not a bad result of a COP!