COP28: Genuine Progress or a Lesson in Semantics?

With the COP28 climate summit drawing to a close this week, Innovations and Sustainability Associate Hannah Kissick reflects on the outcomes and commitments.

It is incredibly easy to be cynical about any summit that requires 198 different countries to agree on a single document. When it comes to climate change agreements in particular, the pessimists often seem to dominate the conversation.

Before it started, this year's COP didn't exactly allay the fears of sceptics; it was being hosted in a major petrostate, around 2,500 fossil fuel delegates were in attendance and, just hours before the talks began, documents were leaked suggesting that Saudi Arabia and the UAE planned to use the summit to sell oil and gas.

Although it wasn't just the petrostates that were dampening the mood. Released in September, the draft text of the Global Stocktake, the review of every nation's climate commitments, stated that "implementation of the Paris Agreement is lacking across all areas and not where it should be". Indeed, the latest review of countries' Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) by the Climate Action Tracker shows that even if all targets were met, global temperatures would still rise by 2.5-2.9°C by 2100, far exceeding the 2°C limit agreed in Paris.

It's easy to understand why agreeing the final text of the Global Stocktake, and the actions countries would take going forward, was seen by many as an uphill struggle, and why some viewed COP28 as little more than lip service rather than a catalyst for meaningful action.

Nations and industries leading with cooperation

It came as a welcome surprise, then, when delegates announced on the very first day of COP28 that financing for the Loss and Damage Fund had been agreed. First proposed at the previous year's COP in Sharm el-Sheikh, the fund was expected to be one of the conference's most contentious issues, with developed and developing nations holding differing views on how it should be managed and who should contribute to and benefit from it. Yet on the opening day of the conference, it was announced that negotiations had been successful, with developed nations, including the UAE, pledging a total of £556 million to the fund.

While this sum doesn't come close to covering the amounts ultimately needed, and the USA was heavily criticised for its relatively modest $17.5 million donation, securing any agreement at all was seen as a major breakthrough. Coming so early in the conference, it set the tone that cooperation and solutions were not completely off the table in the UAE.

Other successes include a pledge from 118 nations to triple renewable energy capacity by 2030 and double the global average rate of energy efficiency by the end of the decade. 63 countries, including the USA, have committed to reducing emissions related to cooling by 68% by 2050 compared to 2022 levels. 134 countries signed the first ever declaration on reducing emissions from food production. And Australia joined the ‘Glasgow Statement’ – a collation of 39 other nations, including the USA and UK who are committed to ending financing for overseas fossil-fuel projects.

Away from the countries’y’s own delegations, business and industry were also coming together to make their own commitments at side events. Six of the biggest dairy companies launched an alliance to curb methane emissions. Methane is 27 times more potent than CO2, and the dairy industry accounts for almost 3.5% of global CO2e emissions. This agreement from companies including Kraft Heinz, Nestlé, and Danone, comes as a major step forward,,  and is an indication that companies don’t  may not necessarily need require governmental regulations to force change.

Focusing on fossil fuels

However, the biggest news was around the text of the Global Stocktake. For the first time in 20 years of COP meetings, the phrase ‘Fossil Fuels’ was actually used in a decision. Specifically, the text states the intention of: “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”.

There is much debate about the semantics of this and other statements within the text, and how these could provide loopholes for less supportive countries to continue with business as usual. It only talks of reducing fossil fuels “in energy systems” for example, not phasing them out completely. Elsewhere, the text allows for “transition fuels” which could mean natural gas use is allowed to expand as a replacement for the higher CO2 emitting coal. And there is ample allowance for fossil fuel use to continue, provided it is abated with Carbon Capture and Storage Technology (CCS). CCS is all well and good in theory, provided that carbon stays captured and stored – something which a simple accident could easily change.

There was also no commitment regarding the implementation and funding of the agreement. One of the headline discussions around carbon markets (known as “Article 6”), failed to come to a conclusion, and has been kicked down the road to COP29.

There are many, many voices – The Alliance of Small Island States, Al Gore, the IPCC, and Friends of the Earth to name a few – who are shouting about how this text is does not go far enough. And they’re right. But that shouldn’t detract from the positives: a commitment to a move away from fossil fuels, with a hard deadline of 2050; and a recommendation to align ambitions with the 1.5oC maximum increase outlined by the IPCC, rather than the 2oC limit written in the current Paris Agreement. Just two weeks ago there wasn’t even agreement on where, and if therefore, the next COP would even take place. So this agreed text is a big deal.

COP29 and beyond

Much to the chagrin of many, COP29 will once again be held in a country whose economy relies heavily on fossil fuel production. Oil and gas accounted for more than 92.5% of Azerbaijan's export revenues in 2022. This decision, alongside the watering down of the final text, has activists concerned that the commitments being made amount to little more than green virtue-signalling, particularly given that meeting even the less stringent agreements reached this year will require a step change in economies across the world; something many remain pessimistic about.

For example, we have just six years to achieve the target of tripling renewable energy capacity and doubling energy efficiency. Yet in the UK, it can take four years or more to secure planning permission for an onshore wind turbine. I've argued before that current UK funding for decarbonisation projects does not come close to meeting the scale of the challenge. While it's all well and good making these pledges, a radical shift in government policy will be needed if the UK is to contribute its fair share towards meeting these commitments.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter where in the world the negotiating room is, or even, to an extent, what is said within it.

It's what happens when the delegates leave that room that matters.