COP28 Round-up: ‘Who does this text actually serve?’

A summary of key announcements from the 2023 UN climate conference, why they matter and what is still missing

The penultimate day of COP28 started with much ambition, proceeded with the release of the latest draft of the “global stocktake”, and is ending on mixed feelings of hopefulness about some progress on specific areas, and vocal disappointment around others. Among the latter, Alok Sharma, who served as COP26 president, wrote on social media platform X: “It is difficult to see how this text will help to achieve the deep and rapid cut in emissions we need by 2030 to keep 1.5C alive. With so many countries backing clear language on fossil fuel phase-out, who does this text actually serve?”

Below are some of the key points in the new text.

Though not including any more options to the points up for negotiation, which suggests negotiators found some concensus over the existing alternatives in the 21-page long document, they altered language that had been at the centre of controversy in the last two weeks.

Point 39 of the text provides a crucial view into the COP negotiations (emphasis ours). It “calls upon parties to take actions that could include”:

• “Tripling renewable energy capacity globally and doubling the global average annual rate of energy efficiency improvements by 2030.”

This is a goal formulated in previous versions of the stocktake, although the reference to the 2022 comparable targets of increasing capacity to 11,000 gigawatts and improving efficiency by 4.1 per cent was dropped.

• “Rapidly

  phasing down

  unabated coal and

  limitations on permitting new and unabated

  coal power generation.”

This is a less-stringent version than the previous draft, which asked for an “immediate cessation of the permitting of new unabated coal power generation”. This is the only clause in the whole document featuring the use of “phasing down”.

Center for Energy, Ecology and Development executive director Gerry Arances says that aiming only to phase down “rapidly” unabated coal is more than disappointing, given there had been “unparalleled momentum to deliver an equitable and rapid end to fossil fuels in line with 1.5C”.

• “Accelerating efforts globally towards net zero emissions energy systems, utilising zero and low-carbon fuels

  well before or by around mid-century

  .”

This is a new addition that was previously formulated vaguely under a different clause as “further recognises the important role of transitional fuels in facilitating the energy transition while ensuring energy security”.

• “Accelerating zero and low-emissions technologies, including, inter alia,

  renewables, nuclear

  , abatement and removal technologies, including such as carbon capture and utilisation and storage, and low-carbon hydrogen production,

  so as to enhance efforts towards substitution of unabated fossil fuels in energy systems

  .”

The addition of “substitution” and “renewables” and “nuclear” widens the scope of this clause compared with previous versions.

• “Reducing both consumption and production of fossil fuels, in a

  just, orderly and equitable

  manner so as to achieve net zero by, before, or around 2050 in keeping with the science.”

Here negotiators got rid of the earlier version, which included a “phase-out of unabated fossil fuels” and “the importance for the energy sector to be predominantly free of fossil fuels well ahead of 2050”. However, they added in references to a just transition, which were previously not included.

“The text has a menu of things countries might choose to do or not to accelerate the energy transition,” said Kaisa Kosonen, head of the Greenpeace COP28 delegation. “While reducing both consumption and production of fossil fuels to achieve net zero around 2050 is there too, it’s only one of the many options that countries could act on or not,” she added.

We Mean Business Coalition chief executive María Mendiluce said: “From a draft with four options on fossil fuel phase-out to a draft with zero, I also question the process and who [the negotiators] are listening to. The world deserves transparency on how decisions are taken.”

Rachel Cleetus, policy director and a lead economist for the climate and energy programme at the Union of Concerned Scientists, also expressed disappointment. “Invoking science, as so many leaders are doing, comes with a serious responsibility to put forward language that actually reflects it. This draft comes with a huge qualifier of ‘could’ at the top that makes all the listed actions optional for nations.”

Another point in the draft text reads:

• “Accelerating and substantially reducing non-CO

  ₂

  emissions, including, in particular, methane emissions globally by 2030.”

This is a much vaguer phrasing targeting methane emissions compared with the previous version whereby methane emissions were specified to be reduced “globally by at least 30 per cent by 2030 and 40 per cent by 2035”. The latest draft also does no longer mention nitrous oxide emissions or F-gases emissions.

Angela Churie Kallhauge, executive vice-president of impact at the Environmental Defense Fund, said the lack of specific methane targets means the stocktake as it now stands “lacks teeth … speed, and scale, and gives little guidance to parties on ambitious actions”.

Further points of note are:

• “Accelerating emissions reductions from road transport through a range of pathways, including development of infrastructure and rapid deployment of zero and low-emission vehicles.”

This seems a coming together of two options in the previous draft version, with little change in linguistic terms.

• “

  Phasing out

  of

  inefficient

  fossil fuel subsidies that encourage

  wasteful consumption

  and do not address energy poverty or just transitions,

  as soon as possible

  .”

The addition of “inefficient” has overall decreased the strength of this clause, compared with the previous version, although this is the only clause in the whole stocktake using the words “phasing out”.

The negotiating parties themselves have also come out with some initial statements.

The minister of natural resources and commerce of the Marshall Islands, John Silk, denounced the latest draft as “unacceptable”.

“The Republic of the Marshall Islands did not come here to sign our death warrant. We came here to fight for 1.5 and for the only way to achieve that: a fossil fuel phase-out. What we have seen today is unacceptable. We will not go silently to our watery graves. We will not accept an outcome that will lead to devastation for our country, and for millions if not billions of the most vulnerable people and communities,” he said.

This position is shared by other small island nations.

The EU also expressed its disappointment and indicates it will negotiate further.

“We have to continue the conversation and this text has some elements we can simply not accept,” said Wopke Hoekstra, EU commissioner for climate action during a briefing.

Meanwhile, COP28 president Sultan al-Jaber has asked parties to show “flexibility” in a similar way as was the case with the establishment of the loss and damage fund.

Power Shift Africa director Mohamed Adow struck a relatively positive tone: “It’s good to recognise this is the first COP where the word fossil fuels are actually included in the draft decision. This is the beginning of the end of the fossil fuel era,” he stated, adding that the latest draft appears to be a compromise between the views of Saudi Arabia and progressive countries who want a total fossil fuel phase-out. He says the text “uses creative language to describe the direction of travel”.

350.org associate director of policy and campaigns Andreas Sieber added that “by framing actions as ‘could’ instead of ‘shall’, and with weak language on short-term declines and renewable targets, this draft falls short.” He insisted that climate-progressive nations must reject this weakened proposal.

ActionAid global climate lead Teresa Anderson denounced the lack of financial commitments and timelines in the latest draft. “It ‘notes the need for’ finance, but doesn’t actually provide any,” she said.

The inclusion of references to food was cautiously welcomed by World Resources Institute UK head Edward Davey: “That food has been included is a welcome signal, and progress, but the disconnect between the leaders’ declaration endorsed by 152 nations and the sum of the text on food in the GST as it stands is concerning.”

Meanwhile, carbon experts are still negotiating to come up with a mechanism to establish voluntary carbon markets.

The draft stocktake appeared to endorse progress made during negotiations over Article 6.4, which governs a mechanism outlined in the Paris Agreement that will allow credits registered with a UN supervisory authority to be purchased by countries, companies and individuals.

The UN’s Article 6.4 Supervisory Body agreed how it intended to operate the mechanism in November, submitting its recommendations to COP28. It reached agreements on areas such as setting a validation and verification standard for projects, as well as methodology requirements and removals.

An updated draft text was also issued earlier today on the rules and procedures for the 6.4 mechanism. Negotiators are working on finalising wording governing methodologies and safeguards, and are leaving elements of the mechanism open to further development. The latest version of the text invites observers to submit their views on areas including leakage and reversal risk assessment by February 5 2024.

“Negotiators spent the last year meeting to finalise the text,” Sudhu Arumugam, chief executive at climate finance platform CYNK, told Sustainable Views.

“[Article] 6.4, as far as most of the participants were concerned, was already in place and COP was about the formality of signing off on it and getting to operationalise it,” he continued. “I think what’s surprised everyone is that 6.4 was opened up like a can of worms at COP, which has frustrated a lot of the folks involved.”