COP(28) a load of this!

Two weeks in December 2023 saw some of the most controversy in the history of the Conference of Parties (COP), from comments from the president of COP (The head of the Abu Dhabi state oil firm) widely understood to be in denial of climate science, to what many saw as a clear conflict of interest of a country like the United Arab Emirates hosting such a critical climate conference, to the insanity of using the COP conference to broker fossil fuel deals.

But let us break down the mess with the benefit of a little hindsight!

The Good

There is no longer international disagreement on the nature and cause of global warming, the agreement states that human activities unequivocally caused global warming of 1.1°C

Climate Apocalypse has almost certainly been avoided. During the Paris Agreement in 2015, global temperature increase was expected to meet or exceed 4°C of warming. At this level of warming, the earth’s climate would have been innately hostile to life on Earth. As it stands now, if all commitments internationally are fulfilled, warming has been limited to the range of 2.1-2.8°C. This is good news, even if current commitments are not enough to avoid Climate Disaster. Even at 1.5°C of warming, it is widely understood that coral reef systems will be devastated.

87% of the global economy in terms of GDP is now “covered by targets for climate neutrality, carbon neutrality, greenhouse gas neutrality or net zero emissions according to the Sixth Assessment Report Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change even if that is a starkly wide range of definitions. It is good to see progress.

If all national contributions are implemented as given, including conditional elements dependent on capacity building and financial support, we are standing at a 5.3% reduction of GHG emissions by 2030 at 2019 levels. That represents 12.3% of the requirements of maintaining a 1.5°C warming scenario.

Fossil fuels are now no longer a dirty word in the context of global discussions on climate change; even if it is the case that there are only two explicit mentions of them in the final text, both are significant in the context of the power of the fossil fuel lobby. It must be understood that these mentions are written as a recognition of facts and not a commitment to act. Stating that a transition from fossil fuels is necessary to achieve a 1.5°C warming scenario alongside removing fossil fuel subsidies; albeit conveniently worded.

COP28 oversaw the conclusion of the first Global Stocktake that was initiated at COP27 last year. It was a momentous effort to take a global inventory of global climate action, encompassing mitigation, adaptation and finance of these efforts, allowing for the information needed to make informed decisions on tackling climate change, countries are to update these plans in 2025 and in 2026 a report on the global progress in these plans is to be expected.

The Bad

“global greenhouse gas emissions are projected to peak between 2020 and

at the latest before 2025 in global modelled pathways that limit warming to 1.5 °C with no

or limited overshoot” (UNFCCC, 2023). There is increasing belief that this goal may be achieved or near missed, but it depends on the assumption that there is continued acceleration of the adoption of green energy technologies and significant progress on emissions cuts.

It is noted that a key milestone was missed by developed nations to reduce carbon emissions by at least 25% by 2020 on 1990 levels. With each successive missed target, lack of awareness and pressure on governments to act emboldens governments to renege on the future to achieve short-term nationally focused objectives to keep themselves in power.

Developing countries' adaptation finance needs are between 200-400 billion USD per year up until 2030. As it currently stands, developed nations have committed to 100 billion USD of financing; that goal was slated for 2020 and, as of 2024, has still not been achieved; this is highly problematic considering that there is little time left to mobilise projects needed to achieve 1.5°C of warming. With six years left in the carbon budget and the understanding that a project ideated for a clean power plant can take a decade to implement even in developed nations with capacity, it is a stark outlook.

Public trust in the process has fallen, and choosing a nation whose primary industry is the production of fossil fuels to host a conference whose sole remit is the reduction of carbon emissions had bad optics from the outset. Considering that on top of this, the president of the conference was the head of the state oil firm; people understandably believe the integrity of the institution behind the UN Climate Change Conference, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change comes into question.

Their fears were confirmed when it was discovered that the United Arab Emirates planned to make oil deals during the conference, (BBC 2023)On top of this, the COP president Sultan al-Jaber stated in an online event upon questioning from a former UN climate envoy, “There is no science out there, or no scenario out there, that says that the phase-out of fossil fuel is what’s going to achieve 1.5C.”. Azerbaijan has been selected for COP 29, due to take place in November 2024, which again is a country whose economy is dominated by oil & gas, making up two-thirds of its GDP, considering that like the UAE, Azerbaijan is a heavily authoritarian, single family dominated power structure lessons must be learned from what happened at COP 28 this year.

The Ugly

43% cuts of GHG emissions on 2019 levels are required by 2030 to achieve the 1.5°C warming scenario, considering that as it currently stands, according to the first Global Stocktake we are at 2% with six years left to go. It becomes particularly stark given that the model adopted and discussed gives a 50% chance of success given that target.

Our carbon budget for the 1.5°C warming scenario is rapidly depleting; we have under a quarter trillion tonnes of carbon remaining and given that in 2022 35 billion tonnes of carbon were emitted (Our World in Facts, 2023), we have around six years remaining to rapidly, deeply and permanently reduce emissions significantly if we are to remain in line.

It is currently estimated that 5 trillion USD will need to be spent yearly and globally in order to achieve climate goals. According to the World Bank, global GDP reached 100 trillion USD in 2022. This, alongside the understanding that the global oil industry accounts for roughly the same (4.5-6 Trillion USD), causes the scale of finance needing to be mobilised to become apparent. Without significant commitments from the Global North to financing decarbonization efforts, it is highly unlikely that meaningful progress can be made.

6 years and 6 months left in the carbon budget, what to do now?