The COP flop? Diluted promises threaten to blunt climate action

Climate talks at the COP28 summit in Dubai were likely to run into overtime on Tuesday after a draft global stocktake text late on Monday night angered groups of developed countries, EU and island nations that insisted on a commitment for rapid phase-out of all fossil fuels.

The text, a fourth draft released after 10 days of discussions, called on countries to take steps that “could” reduce “consumption and production of fossil fuels, in a just, orderly and equitable manner” — a significant watering down of obligations that would bind all countries for their climate action.

While the COP28 presidency promised to revise the draft and bring changes more palatable to both sides, the shape it takes was likely to become evident only early on Wednesday.

While there was some movement on several areas, this year’s negotiations also signalled a hardening of stance by countries with various “climate ambitions” and compulsions. A look at five takeaways from the negotiations:

The only silver lining… somewhat

What may perhaps emerge as the only success story of this year’s talks is the operationalisation of the Loss and Damage Fund.

At the first plenary on the opening day itself, the countries agreed on the World Bank hosting it for an interim period of four years. It began with an initial pot of $475 million — host UAE pledged $100 million, the European Union promised $275 million, $17.5 million came from the US, and $10 million from Japan — and later swelled to around $700 million.

“The work is far from over. After the gavel drops at COP28, we cannot rest until this fund is adequately financed and starts to actually alleviate the burden of vulnerable communities. Success starts when the international community can properly support the victims of this climate crisis, with efficient, direct access to the finance they urgently need,” said Ambassador Pa’olelei Luteru, AOSIS (Association of Small Island States) Chair.

But there are shortcomings in this as well. The (for now) $700 million fund remains almost incomparably short of the $300 billion needed annually by 2030 according to UN estimates.

Another compromise is the voluntary nature of the contributions.

The approved text states: “…urge developed country Parties to continue to provide support and encourage other Parties to provide, or continue to provide support, on a voluntary basis, for activities to address loss and damage.”

“Developed countries need to pledge new and additional funds to the Loss & Damage Fund so that support can be provided to countries and communities where it is most urgently needed. This support should be in the form of grants rather than loans that risk further indebting these economies,” said Ulka Kelkar, Executive Director, Climate, WRI India.

A world divided on renewables

On December 2, 118 governments pledged to triple the world’s renewable energy capacity by 2030 in a bid to cut the share of fossil fuels in energy production.

It was revealed as part of the Global Decarbonisation Accelerator (GDA), a series of “initiatives designed to speed up the global energy transition”, and decarbonising the sector that include expanding nuclear power, cutting methane emissions and choking off private finance for coal power.

Sultan al-Jaber, COP28 summit President, said: “This can and will help transition the world away from unabated coal.”

But this is again far from ground reality. While China and India — among the top three emitters currently — have signalled support for tripling renewable energy by 2030, both refrained from signing the pledge last weekend.

“It’s disheartening that India has not signed on to the global pledge to triple renewable and double energy efficiency by 2030. These were landmark decisions that were championed by the Indian G20 presidency and agreed to by G20 leaders in September 2023. Reaching net-zero commitments made by countries means that fossil fuels, including coal, need to be phased down and out,” said Madhura Joshi, Senior Associate, India Energy Transition Lead, E3G.

Nearly 75% of India’s energy needs are met with fossil fuels, primarily coal. Data from the Global Energy Monitor shows the country has 35.9 GW of new coal proposals in various pre-construction phases and about 31.6 GW in the construction phase.

Equity stands to derail talks

Most developing countries have refused to support any language that calls for phasing out fossil fuels without addressing the issue of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC).

Largely a principle, CBDR has become a major flashpoint, with developed nations pushing for references to be removed.

Even in the adaptation goal discussions, the US has said it will not support any references to CBDR in the text, preferring the “no text” option in this regard.

“They (the US) are the largest oil and gas producer and they have huge projects in the pipeline. They also do not wish to deliver on any finance for adaptation or mitigation and have again and again tried to remove references to CBDR. Basically, they want to push the mitigation burden to developing nations,” a negotiator from the like-minded developing countries (LMDC) group, which India is a member of, said.

Switzerland, on behalf of the High Ambition Coalition, said they will not accept principles of equity or differentiation. “We cannot leave this COP without having guidance towards our new set of nationally determined contribution (NDC). We need all NDCs to be aligned with Paris Agreement’s 1.5 degrees C goal and call on all countries to align with absolute economy wide NDCs. We need key players. We need unity. We cannot accept references to differentiation that seek to redefine the careful balance reached in Paris. Let us all agree to global objectives and it is up to countries how they can reach them,” said the country’s representative.

Adaptation remains a sticking point

Two drafts of the Global Goal on Adaptation so far have been met with resistance, with developing countries, including India, seeking a clear differentiation of adaptation and mitigation strategies.

The text used vague terms such as “transformative adaptation” and “maladaptation avoidance”, without any clarity on what they mean.

It also called on countries to close the finance gap and spoke of “the importance of making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development,”, even as it omitted the needs of the countries spelled out in the Adaptation Gap Report. The text also failed to detail a pathway for scaling up the finance.

An Indian official, privy to the negotiations, told HT on Monday that most targets are mitigation centric.

“This can muddle financial flows to adaptation and mitigation. All the targets including the one on attaining climate-resilient food and agricultural production and supply; strengthening resilience against climate-related health impacts are mitigation oriented. Terms such as maladaptation and transformational adaptation are also not acceptable to us,” the official said.

While mitigation requires measures to address the underlying problem by slowing or stopping the rise in emissions from fossil fuels, adaptation is needed to withstand and minimise the impacts of the climate crisis.

A future with fossil fuels?

The latest draft of the Global Stocktake — the first ever review of the progress on Paris Agreement — succeeded in bringing fossil fuels to the table. This is the first time an international climate treaty mentions fossil fuels, all of three times. The last five outcome documents only mention fossil fuel subsidies.

But it failed in one critical aspect: a commitment to phase out fossil fuels.

Section 39 of the text highlighted “the need for deep, rapid and sustained reductions in GHG emissions”, instead of the need to cut use of fossil fuels, listing the steps countries “could” take for the same.

Differences have emerged between developed countries insisting that a science-based approach to fossil fuel reductions must be followed, and developing nations who say that they need the fuels to develop their economies and richer nations must shoulder responsibility for the cuts.

“We have no alternative than to follow the science. We have to peak emissions by 2025 at the latest and must reduce emissions by 43% this decade,” said EU Climate Action commissioner Wopke Hoekstra.

Separately, petro-states such as Saudi Arabia have resisted attempts by wealthy nations to target oil. “We have raised concerns on attempts to attack energy sources instead of emissions. There are attempts to present sectoral targets with lack of differentiation. This platform should not be used to target specific sources of energy. It is at odds with the Paris Agreement and has a policy prescriptive nature,” said the representative from Saudi Arabia.

Consensus on the document is needed before negotiations close for another year without any clear pathway on how to curb emissions and keep 1.5°C alive.