COMMENTARY: A 'lukewarm' COP28 pact will cost nations around the globe


By Berl Falbaum

“It is a tale ... full of sound and fury signifying nothing.”

Shakespeare’s “Macbeth” might well have made that observation at the end of the 28th international environmental summit known as the Conference of Partners (COP28) which closed in Dubai on December 12.

Some 200 countries participated in the two-week meeting, held under the auspices of the United Nations, and it attracted some 70,000 visitors, including public officials, investors, protestors, coal and oil workers, environmentalists, academics, and lobbyists—lots of them.

This was heaven for professional speechwriters as delegates delivered eloquent remarks on the need to save the planet. If words were enough to solve the climate crisis, we would be home free today.

Of course, we need more than words. So, after two weeks of haggling, arguing, bartering, squabbling, debating, and threatening, the delegates managed to agree to “transitioning away from fossil fuels” and do so in a “just, orderly and equitable manner.”

That just blew me away. Who could ask for more?

The delegates could not even agree to use the words “phase out” or “phase down” in relation to fossil fuels in the final resolution.

Now, if they can’t agree on simply writing “phase out” or “phase down” who believes they will implement measures to eliminate the use of fossil fuels.  

Many hailed the agreement because the delegates mentioned “fossil fuels” for the first time in the final resolution. Indeed, they celebrated with a standing ovation at the conclusion of the summit.  

Here is the text of the final agreed upon resolution:

“For countries to quickly shift energy systems away from fossil fuels in a just and orderly fashion… Countries also are called to contribute to a global transition effort — rather than being outright compelled to make that shift on their own.”

The member countries have two years to write plans in concert with what they adopted. Even worse, the resolution is not binding, and no one will be punished or held accountable if they don’t proceed accordingly.

Language urging countries to stop issuing permits for new coal-fired plants included in early drafts did not survive given opposition from China, the world’s worst polluter, and India, third among polluters, which continues to build huge coal plants. (The U.S. is second behind China in spewing poisonous emissions.)

A couple of ironies: The summit was held in Dubai just 11 miles from the largest natural gas power plant in the world.  

And guess who chaired the meeting: None other than Sultan Ahmed al Jaber, who runs the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, which already has invested $150 billion over the next five year to increase drilling.

Selecting Al Jaber to head the summit is like appointing a member of the Gambino family to chair a committee that would adopt measures to control organized crime.

Those applauding the result say that the agreement is important symbolism. The trouble is symbolism will not cool the planet.

Representatives from island countries that are losing coastlines from rising seas complained—to no avail—that the final agreement was simply not enough to avert more catastrophes.

These critics were joined by African countries who stated unequivocally that they could not reduce their dependence on fossil fuels unless they received financial help from richer countries. They need to extract their own coal and gas reserves just to raise enough funds to finance energy transitions.

“Asking Nigeria, or indeed, asking Africa, to phase out fossil fuels is like asking us to stop breathing without life support,” one Nigerian delegate was quoted in The New York Times. “It is not acceptable, and it is not possible.”

As The Times pointed out, the agreement was a “diplomatic victory” for the United Arab Emirates, a very oil rich nation.

Climate scientist Dr. Friederike Otto, at the Imperial College London and co-founder of the World Weather Attribution, summarized the result as follows:

“The lukewarm agreement reached at COP28 will cost every country, no matter how rich, no matter how poor. Everyone loses. It’s hailed as a compromise, but we need to be very clear what has been compromised.

“The short-term financial interests of a few have again won over the health, lives and livelihoods of most people living on this planet.

“With every vague verb, every empty promise in the final text, millions more people will enter the frontline of climate change, and many will die.

“Climate change is driving instability. Nearly every country wants stability, but until fossil fuels are phased out, the world will continue to become a more dangerous, more expensive, and more uncertain place to live.”

Excuse my cynicism but after each of the previous 27 summits things only got worse.

This year—2023—was the hottest in the history of the planet and global emissions reached record highs. Meanwhile, the U.S., despite all the talk about moving to renewable energy, set records for coal and gas extraction. What’s more, President Biden, breaking a campaign pledge, approved drilling in pristine land in Alaska.

A decision on where COP29 will be held has not yet been reached. But one constituency is looking forward to the next summit: speechwriters.
————————
Berl Falbaum is a veteran journalist and author of 12 books.