What will Cop28 decide? Hypotheses, scenarios and doubts

2 December 20235 months ago babelfish

What could be the possible outcomes of Cop28. Analysis by Lucian Peppelenbos, Climate & Biodiversity Strategist at Robeco

The hosting of the 28th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in the United Arab Emirates has already raised eyebrows, as the country is the seventh largest oil producer in the world.

At the heart of the agenda is the first “Global Stocktake”, which aims to provide the first comprehensive assessment of progress made in global decarbonisation since the signing of the Paris Agreement in 2015. The other three key points to keep an eye on they are the creation of a climate fund for losses and damages, the phasing out of fossil fuels and the provision of global climate finance.

The Paris Agreement aims to limit global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius, and preferably 1.5 degrees, compared to pre-industrial levels. However, the latest UN report calculates that the world is heading towards 2.4 degrees. All governments need to rush policies, but given the current political landscape, we are unlikely to see a major breakthrough in this regard. The Paris Agreement establishes formal moments, called Global Stocktake, and the first is scheduled for 2023, followed by an appointment every five years. Existing policies and commitments, progress made in their implementation and necessary next steps are assessed. Based on this, governments are required to increase their policies in this direction. Given current levels of effort, we are doing too little to get well below 2 degrees. It is above all high-emitting countries such as India, China and Canada that need to take further steps. Russia must also do more. Then there is the question of effective compliance with existing commitments. Industrialized countries, including the EU and the United States, have set good goals, but we are not on track to reach them. Therefore, greater commitment is needed from everyone.

Good COP: If we could improve the 2.4 degrees by 10% and get down to 2.2 degrees, it would be a good step to keep the reduction process alive.
Bad COP: geopolitical rancor continues and states do not commit to further reduce emissions.

The Global Loss and Damage Fund aims to create a global fund that helps countries suffering from weather-related damage, such as floods, forest fires or droughts. Developing countries want the developed countries that have historically generated most of the emissions to pay for the damages as well. This was the great result of COP27. Climate change is becoming more and more concrete; last year, a third of Pakistan was flooded just weeks before the COP was held. Until a month ago, the 24-country committee dealing with the issue had not reached any level of agreement – but then there was an extraordinary meeting in early November where an agreement was reached, albeit without the United States. The United States insists that any contribution must be voluntary, and that is still the sticking point. There are intense tensions over who will pay the bill. Industrialized countries want countries like China and Saudi Arabia to contribute. Saudi Arabia has been told that if you can pay hundreds of millions to let Cristiano Ronaldo into your football league, then you can also contribute to this fund.

Good COP: the agreement between the 24 nations on the creation of the fund is ratified by the 199 countries present at the summit.
Bad COP: the absence of an agreement will prevent significant progress on all agenda items.

Ironically, the Paris Agreement does not mention fossil fuels, even though the burning of coal, oil and gas is the primary cause of global warming, making it the proverbial “elephant in the room.” However, the irony may be a good thing, given that the summit takes place in the heart of global oil production. This could prove to be the surprise of COP28, as if there can be a mediator for a deal it will be an insider. The summit is chaired by Al Jaber, CEO of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, who has all it takes to bring the main decision-makers to the table. The hosts have convened talks with countries and companies to reach a declaration on phasing out emissions from the use of fossil fuels. While not as positive as the goal of phasing out fossil fuel production, such a declaration would be historic in itself, bringing fossil fuels into the language of the Paris Agreement. Two years ago, in Glasgow, they tried to include fossil fuels in the text of the COP26 agreements, but it was not possible. There is opposition coming from many different corners, given the vested interests, but this could still become the big surprise of COP28.

Good COP: Even if any agreement signed this year proves unambitious, it would still be a historic step to have one.
Bad COP: Letting the “elephant in the room” roam free for another year.

In addition to loss and damage, the Paris Agreement also provides financial support from rich countries to support mitigation and adaptation in developing countries. The problem is that the promises were not fulfilled with cash. Developed countries have pledged $100 billion a year to help developing countries mitigate climate change and $40 billion a year to adapt to climate change. Although fundraising has improved significantly in recent years, there is still not enough money coming in. Delivery capacity is a challenge, and this is where the role of the World Bank and other multilateral financial institutions has been heavily criticized. This year the World Bank has a new president, and it can be observed that he is starting the reform process. This is a rather positive aspect. The big challenge is that even with this $140 billion there is still a huge gap just for adaptation. Developing countries need around 380 billion dollars a year for adaptation, while for mitigation we are talking about trillions. A big part of the problem is that the countries where help is most needed are those that pose the greatest macroeconomic risks. Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, is a great area to install solar panels, but countries in the region are unstable, which hinders investment.

Good COP: Establishing truly concrete operational agreements to unlock climate finance and reform the relevant institutions.
Bad COP: More talk and no action.

This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Start Magazine at the URL https://www.startmag.it/energia/cosa-decidera-la-cop28-ipotesi-scenari-e-dubbi/ on Sat, 02 Dec 2023 06:11:44 +0000.