The 2023 UN Climate Change Conference was held in Dubai from November 30 to December 12, as nearly 200 world leaders convened in the UAE capital to discuss the ongoing climate crisis. The event attracted controversy and faced opposition from multiple parties.
The global oil production organization OPEC pushed back strongly against any agreement to curb fossil fuel extraction. Meanwhile, environmental advocates were highly critical, claiming that the agreed-upon initiatives fall far short of what is necessary to curb climate change.
COP28 Agreement to Move Away from Fossil Fuels
By COP28’s conclusion, the participants agreed to an accelerated global transition away from fossil fuels over the next decade and to eliminate new carbon emissions by 2050. Previous U.N. climate agreements have stressed the importance of reducing carbon emissions, but the COP28 agreement marks the first deal that specifically mentions fossil fuels.
Each nation has agreed to submit comprehensive plans for reducing greenhouse gas emissions through the year 2035. The agreement is intended to provide a roadmap for doing so.
While the deal is historic, it is not legally binding. There is no guarantee that every country will take sufficient measures to reduce greenhouse gases. Previous climate deals have failed to yield significant efforts to reduce emissions. At COP26 in Glasgow, participating nations reached an agreement to “phase down” coal-fired plants, but global coal use is currently at record highs.
Behind the Negotiations at COP28
The United States and Europe pushed hard for fossil fuel reduction during negotiations, but critics noted the surge in American oil production and Europe’s investment in liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals amid the Ukraine conflict. American officials highlighted congressionally approved funding for clean energy tech, such as solar panels, electric vehicles, and heat pumps.
Saudi Arabia and oil companies advocated for a focus on emissions over fossil fuels, and for carbon removal technologies like carbon capture. Other participants argued for prioritizing cleaner energy sources like solar, wind, or nuclear and reserving carbon capture for specific situations. The final agreement urged nations to accelerate carbon capture, but concerns lingered over fossil fuel firms using this to emit excessively while promising future capture.
A draft of the agreement initially proposed restrictions on new coal-fired power plants, but this was omitted from the final agreement due to opposition from countries like China and India, both of which are still building coal plants to meet rising energy demands. Some African nations criticized the uniform pace of reducing fossil fuels, citing the need for financial aid to transition to clean energy without stifling their economic growth.
Criticism of the COP28 Climate Deal
While leaders from many European and Middle Eastern nations praised the deal, it was not universally acclaimed among all participants.
Several representatives of small island nations, such as Samoa, were highly critical of the deal. These nations are already suffering from the impact of climate change, as their coasts are swallowed by rising sea levels and their wells are contaminated with saltwater. Samoa’s lead negotiator, Anne Rasmussen, told the press that the deal was approved while a group of 39 small island nations was not present. She also noted that the deal lacks sufficient measures for curbing climate change.
The event was led by the UAE’s Sultan al-Jaber, who was highly scrutinized throughout the event due to his ties to the oil industry. This criticism has continued after the deal, as al-Jaber’s Abu Dhabi National Oil Co. still has plans to increase its crude oil production to 5 million barrels per day. Critics argue that pledging to reduce emissions means nothing without action, and that al-Jaber’s company will continue to contribute to climate change with this increased production.
Does the COP28 Deal Sufficiently Address Climate Change?
The current consensus among climate change scientists is that each nation would need to reduce its current emissions by approximately 43 percent by 2030 to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as any more of an increase could lead to rising seas and higher rates of wildfires, droughts, and extreme weather.
Many experts doubt the agreement’s capability to limit global warming by this threshold. According to some critics, the agreement acknowledges the need for transition, but lacks concrete measures to meet the 1.5C target. Scientists emphasize that fulfilling this goal demands drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, which the current agreement falls short of achieving.
Additionally, the deal does not address significant emission sources like agriculture and waste, both of which pose a challenge in reaching the desired climate goals. Some experts believe that these efforts may only close a portion of the emissions gap required to limit global warming to 1.5C.
Ultimately, only time will tell whether the agreement is successful. Mentioning a transition away from fossil fuels is a historic step, as it is the first time they have explicitly been recognized as a problem. However, all participating nations will need to make sincere efforts to eliminate emissions by the target years if the world is to meet the 1.5C threshold.