The COP28 climate talks in Dubai ended on Wednesday with a deal that is being heralded as both “historic” and a “lost opportunity,” as both “strong” and full of “loopholes and shortcomings.”
Who is right? Although digesting all the documents, running into several hundred pages, would take time, let me offer some initial observations.
First, kudos to COP28 President Sultan Al Jaber, the Emirati oil executive, for getting everyone over the line. After three decades of climate diplomacy, it was a petroleum insider who delivered the strongest-ever call for the fossil-fuel industry to change.
Illustration: Mountain People
However, as he said on Wednesday: “We are what we do, not what we say.”
Actions, rather than statements, are needed to fight the climate crisis. Based on previous experience, little of what was agreed at the annual UN conference translates into real policies — particularly when it costs money.
Most of the attention is on paragraphs 28 and 29 of a document called the “global stocktake.” Depending on your view, those two paragraphs contain 245 words that signal the beginning of the end of the global fossil fuel industry. Maybe — but not today, not tomorrow, and perhaps not for several more years.
Here is the first key point: “… further recognizes the need for deep, rapid and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in line with 1.5°C pathways and calls on Parties to contribute to the following global efforts, in a nationally determined manner...”
That makes an obvious point: The world needs a rapid reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. All good until here, but after that, the document “calls on” the world to act. In UN parlance, calling on is the weakest of all exhortations used in diplomatic language. It is an invitation to do something, rather than an actual demand. While stronger than initial drafts, which used the formula “to take actions that could include,” it is still at the bottom of the policy action ladder.
Then, the document enumerates a series of actions in several subparagraphs. Here are the most important points: “... tripling renewable energy capacity globally and doubling the global average annual rate of energy efficiency improvements by 2030...”
This is the least controversial of all the calls for behavioral change — and one that was agreed upon even before the summit started. The inclusion of a fixed date — 2030 — is very important. The lack of caveats and qualifiers indicates the broad support for it. Obviously, countries need to deliver, but surely it would boost the solar and wind industries. It is not attracting headlines, but to me, this is the most important agreement. If implemented, it would change the electricity industry.
“... accelerating efforts towards the phase-down of unabated coal power ...”
The final wording repeats language already agreed at COP26 in Glasgow in 2021, rather than going beyond, as previous drafts did. An earlier version for COP28 called for “rapidly phasing down” coal — language that diplomats see as stronger than the final “accelerating.” The initial draft also contained an important clause to put “limitations on permitting new” coal-fired power stations. That wording did not make into the final communique due to pressure from India and other emerging nations. A note on implementation: Since COP26 two years ago, global coal demand has increased. Agreeing to “phase down” and actually “phasing down” are very different.
“...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...”
This, subparagraph D, is the headline-grabbing statement of the summit. It marks the first time that a climate document explicitly calls the world to move away from fossil fuels. Those who say COP28 marks the beginning of the end for oil, gas and coal, base their assertion on that phrasing, but those who speak about loopholes also refer to the very same wording. The truth is somewhere in between.
First, the communique talks about “transitioning away” rather than “phasing down” or “phasing out” fossil fuels. The latter is the wording that climate campaigners pushed for. Two days ago, an earlier draft used a different formula, talking about “reducing both consumption and production” of fossil fuels. The final wording is a concession to Saudi Arabia and other OPEC+ nations because it puts the onus on the demand side, rather than on production.
Rather than shutting down oil wells, as “phasing out” would suggest, by using the wording “transitioning away” the UN is effectively calling on countries to first reduce demand. It might sound like splitting hairs, but it is an important distinction. That is why Saudi officials emerged from the COP28 summit smiling. In future gatherings, they can argue that they will keep pumping oil until there are signs that transition is under way. For now, oil demand keeps increasing.
There is another victory for oil-producing nations: The transition needs to be achieved in an “orderly” fashion — a nod to the need to keep oil prices stable. To achieve such progress, oil producers argue that there is a need for continued investments in new oil fields. And by oil producers, do not think just about the Saudis. The US is today the world’s largest oil producer, accounting for 20 percent of global output. In Dubai, US Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry fought against fossil fuels, but at home, the fossil fuel industry is booming, with the support of the White House.
“... 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...”
This is another victory for oil producers — and above all, for Big Oil companies like ExxonMobil Corp, which are betting heavily on carbon sequestration. The UN effectively has given its blessing to a technology still in its infancy, and one that many critics say will not be able to take away enough carbon dioxide to make a difference. The wording is also slightly weaker than earlier drafts at COP28, which emphasized that those technologies were a means to transition away from fossil fuels. The emphasis was omitted from the final declaration.
“… recognizes that transitional fuels can play a role in facilitating the energy transition while ensuring energy security...”
Perhaps the biggest loophole of the communique — and the source of much frustration among campaigners. First, what on Earth is a “transitional fuel?” Searching for an answer in the document is a fruitless task. That is deliberate, so every delegation can claim whatever they prefer. For some, transitional fuels are green hydrogen and uranium; for others, transitional fuels includes some fossil fuels — just do not say it out loud. To me, it opens an enormous backdoor to support the use of natural gas for years, if not decades, to come. So perhaps COP28 marked the sunset of the fossil-fuel era, only to herald the dawn of the “transitional fuel” era — in the form of transitional gas.
Who is behind that subparagraph? Many emerging countries, including China and India, believe they can only ditch coal if they have access to natural gas, but they are not alone. Japan has the same view, and the wording, particularly the emphasis on “energy security,” is similar to what I have heard from Tokyo for several months already. And do not forget who are two of the world’s top-three largest producers of liquefied natural gas — the US and Australia. Little happens in global climate diplomacy without the nod from Washington and Canberra.
Weighing every sentence, every diplomatic compromise, going word-by-word with a diplomatic-parlance dictionary at hand, what emerges is a nuanced document. That is not a bad thing. The COP28 communique does mark a historic moment — with the world agreeing that, one way or another, it needs to burn less fossil fuels, ditching an industrial model that has powered economies for 150 years, but also the day that the world acknowledged that path is far more complicated, expensive, and time-consuming than the headlines suggests. That is probably the best outcome we could have hoped for.
Javier Blas is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering energy and commodities. He is coauthor of The World for Sale: Money, Power and the Traders Who Barter the Earth’s Resources.This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
A series of strong earthquakes in Hualien County not only caused severe damage in Taiwan, but also revealed that China’s power has permeated everywhere. A Taiwanese woman posted on the Internet that she found clips of the earthquake — which were recorded by the security camera in her home — on the Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu. It is spine-chilling that the problem might be because the security camera was manufactured in China. China has widely collected information, infringed upon public privacy and raised information security threats through various social media platforms, as well as telecommunication and security equipment. Several former TikTok employees revealed
The bird flu outbreak at US dairy farms keeps finding alarming new ways to surprise scientists. Last week, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) confirmed that H5N1 is spreading not just from birds to herds, but among cows. Meanwhile, media reports say that an unknown number of cows are asymptomatic. Although the risk to humans is still low, it is clear that far more work needs to be done to get a handle on the reach of the virus and how it is being transmitted. That would require the USDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to get
For the incoming Administration of President-elect William Lai (賴清德), successfully deterring a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) attack or invasion of democratic Taiwan over his four-year term would be a clear victory. But it could also be a curse, because during those four years the CCP’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) will grow far stronger. As such, increased vigilance in Washington and Taipei will be needed to ensure that already multiplying CCP threat trends don’t overwhelm Taiwan, the United States, and their democratic allies. One CCP attempt to overwhelm was announced on April 19, 2024, namely that the PLA had erred in combining major missions
On April 11, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida delivered a speech at a joint meeting of the US Congress in Washington, in which he said that “China’s current external stance and military actions present an unprecedented and the greatest strategic challenge … to the peace and stability of the international community.” Kishida emphasized Japan’s role as “the US’ closest ally.” “The international order that the US worked for generations to build is facing new challenges,” Kishida said. “I understand it is a heavy burden to carry such hopes on your shoulders,” he said. “Japan is already standing shoulder to shoulder