This story was originally published in the Guardian, and is now part of the Climate Desk Collaboration. The Cop28 decision text has been hailed as “historic” because it is the first time nations have called for a “transition” away from fossil fuels. It has also been criticized as “weak, ineffective” and having a “litany” of loopholes for the fossil-fuel industry. An examination
This article, which was first released by the Guardian, is presented below as a part of the Climate Desk partnership.
The Cop28 decision text has been hailed as “historic” for being the first time that countries have called for a” transition away” from fossil fuels, “weak and ineffective,” and” containment of loopholes.” An analysis of the text aids in illuminating this contradiction.
Using less fossil fuel
The text clearly states the enormous challenge:
Deep, quick, and sustained reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions of 43 % by 2030 and 60 % by 2035 compared to the 2019 level are necessary to reach net zero carbon dioxide emissions in 2050 in order to keep global warming below 1.5C [above pre-industrial levels ] with no or limited overshoot. Countries more acknowledge the necessity of implementing 1.5C pathways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly, quickly, and consistently.
The issue is that carbon emissions are also increasing rather than decreasing as needed. Therefore, the text on action is essential. The earlier draft suggested actions that nations” could” take. The last agreement” calls on” the following nations and is a little stronger:
By 2030, the world’s capacity for solar energy will triple and the average monthly rate of energy efficiency improvements will double.
This is great, but it falls short of quantifying the goals because of criticism from China and India. As a result, nations are free to select any baseline that suits them, undermining the goal.
accelerating efforts to reduce the unchecked coal power phase.
The text from Cop26 in 2021, which is unsatisfactory because the dirtiest fossil fuel must undoubtedly be phased out quickly, is stronger than this. The crucial paragraph follows the decision text:
In order to achieve net zero by 2050 in accordance with science, it is necessary to move away from fossil fuels in energy systems in a only, ordered, and equitable manner.
As amazing as it may seem, this is the first time in almost 30 years of UN climate talks that the primary cause of the climate crisis—fossil fuels —has been mentioned in a decision text. However,” transitioning ahead” is less effective than “phasing out.” 130 nations supported the latter, but petrostates vehemently opposed it. Fossil fuels are actually being phased up in the real world, and some new fields are being exploited. Is” transitioning away” a powerful enough cue to stop these investments? Probably not, but at least it’s suddenly clear where to go.
A” Length of Gaffes.”
Accelerating zero- and low-emission technologies, such as renewable energy, nuclear power, abatement and removal technologies like carbon capture and utilisation and storage (CCUS), especially in hard-to-abate sectors and production of lower carbon hydrogen.
With the emissions being trapped and buried, fossil fuel states like Saudi Arabia pushed very hard to include CCUS because they see it as a way to carry on their profitable business. However, the vast majority of decision-makers and scientists believe that CCUS has a very small potential, is cheap, now falls short of the necessary scale, and does not even completely capture emissions. The head of the International Energy Agency calls it “fantasy” that it will enable fossil fuel companies to carry on with their operations as normal.
Coal, oil, and gas receive$ 7 trillion in support annually, or$ 13 million per minute, which is comparable to pouring gasoline on a fire to subsidize the fossil fuels that fuel global warming.
phasing out ineffective subsidies for fossil fuels as soon as possible that do n’t address energy poverty or just transitions.
Although “inefficient” is seen as a weasel word allowing nations to essentially do as they please, this is the first time such stipulation has appeared in an international UN decision. The G20 made a similar promise in 2009, but nothing has changed as of yet. ” Transitional fuels” is a different weasel term that refers to the fossil fuel code.
acknowledges that transitory fuels can help make the energy transition easier while preserving energy security.
This is the biggest victory for the fossil fuel sector; the agreement essentially amounts to a poison pill. Although liquefied natural gas may actually be yet worse than coal according to methane leaks, it legitimizes gas burning on the grounds that it is less polluting. It is important to note that the US, the largest oil and gas producer in the world, is preparing to expand its LNG fleet significantly. The time for intermediate fuels has long since passed because renewable energy sources are more affordable, quick, and safe.
What Is Missing
What is missing from the text is just as significant as what is included, particularly in terms of finance. Money is required for the development of clean energy ( mitigation ), the adaptation of vulnerable communities to escalating climate impacts, and the recovery from disasters ( loss and damage ). The text acknowledges that trillions of dollars in investment will be required, but it omits to give specifics about what and when that will happen. All climate action talk is low without funding.
For some of the most resilient nations, a global adaptation plan was of utmost importance, according to UN experts. However, the text lacks specifics and is poor.
The preservation of forests is the subject of one final worry.
Results-based payments for policy strategies, encouraging actions to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, as well as the importance of conservation, environmentally friendly forest management, and improving forest carbon stocks in developing nations.
This text raises the possibility of wealthy countries paying to protect or restore forests in developing countries more than lowering their personal emissions. This article, which is a part of the Climate Desk collaboration, was first published by the Guardian. The Cop28 decision text has been hailed as “historic” for being the first time that countries have called for a” transition away” from fossil fuels, “weak and ineffective,” and” containment of loopholes.” a test
This story was originally published in the Guardian, and is now part of the Climate Desk Collaboration. The Cop28 decision text has been hailed as “historic” because it is the first time nations have called for a “transition” away from fossil fuels. It has also been criticized as “weak, ineffective” and having a “litany” of loopholes for the fossil-fuel industry. An examination
John Kerry, United States’ Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, and Xie Zhenhua, China’s special envoy for climate change, participated in a media gathering at the 213 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP220) in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, on December 22009th, 2023. Martin Divisek/ZUMA. The statement made at the COP 28 meeting has been regarded as a groundbreaking move, with some celebrated as a momentous shift away from fossil fuels. Others consider it too weak and containing too many allowances for the industry to be effective, however. Inspecting the writing is beneficial in helping to explain the apparent dilemma of how to reduce fossil fuel usage. It is clearly evident that there is an immense challenge at hand. To stop the world from heating up past 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, substantial and consistent cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions have to occur by 2030 (43% from the 2019 level) and 2030 (60% from that same level) ahead of reaching a point of emissions neutrality in 2050. It is acknowledged that nations must make profound, persistent, and quick cuts in greenhouse gas emissions as per 1.5C plans. Unfortunately, the problem is that carbon discharges are going up instead of dropping down as is called for. The importance of taking action is essential.
