The COP28 Global Stocktake (GST) text that dropped by 0700 hours in Dubai on Wednesday, December 13, 2023, has been accepted as is by countries.
The latest iteration of the Global Stocktake signals that countries agree that fossil fuels need to be replaced with clean energy and to reach global net zero by 2050. If this survives plenary, it will be the first time fossil fuels have been addressed in the climate talks.
The text contains references to “transition” fuels. This is a reference to gas and could have been written by a major gas producer, but it is not given the same standing as the need to transition from fossils and replace them with renewables.
The current text calls on the parties for tripling of renewable energy by 2030 and doubling energy efficiency. It also recognises that costs of renewables are falling fast.
Carrying over the same text on coal from Glasgow, the current text calls for accelerating efforts towards the phase-down of unabated coal power.
On Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), the text says new national climate pledges should be delivered from late 2024.
There is very little on finance, an acknowledgement of the need for it, but no concrete numbers which means this becomes the main agenda item for 2024. This COP could send further signals on the need for international financial reform and assisting poor nations with the energy transition and adapting to climate impacts. The lack of accompanying finance makes the energy transition a harder lift.
The adaptation text is weaker than previous versions with few concrete metrics or definitions but a plan to get there over two years.
There is a significant reference to rich countries paying poorer countries to use their forests as carbon offsets which has raised questions about sovereignty and equity.
Trade has been raised as an issue with countries looking to work together on fair aligned policies that support global climate friendly supply chains.
The text sets out a “Roadmap to Mission 1.5C” on international cooperation ahead of COP30 in Brazil.
Fossil fuels, CCS, abatement
The text sends clear signs on the end of the fossil fuel era calling on countries to “transition away” from fossils, “accelerating in this critical decade” and a “net zero” end point for 2050. This addresses the requests by all countries. The call to action is also seen as an improvement on the last text.
The text states that CCS is to be used particularly in hard-to-abate sectors, rather than across the board.
Among the non-CO2 emissions that require action, only methane emission is singled out. (Previous texts had references N20 and fluorinated gases).
There is no improvement on coal with the language remaining the same as what was agreed at COP26 in Glasgow. The text references the “Phase down unabated coal”.
The text references the phase down of inefficient subsidies except where dealing with energy poverty (first time this is in a global UN text as opposed to just the G20).
Paragraph 29 is new and references transition fuels. This is seen as a way to appease major gas producing countries.
There are concerns about who leads the energy transition and how developing countries are supported in their energy transition.
What does it mean in terms of absolute consumption of fossil fuels? We don’t exactly know.
The lines on carbon sinks in para 34 raises questions about whether the practice of rich countries buying tracts of forested land in the South to offset their emissions will highlighting issues around sovereignty and fairness.
Energy transition
As expected, the text agrees on the tripling of renewable energy and doubling energy efficiency by 2030. This is without quantification or equity, so is seen as a compromise (China and India didn’t want quantifications).
Paragraph 30 on renewable energy becoming cheaper in many countries reads as a reinforcement of the need to prioritise clean energy over the other low-carbon tech.
NDC and other timelines
New, stronger Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) for 2035 shall be submitted between November 2024 and February 2025, with reference to a special event hosted by the UNSG.
The text references a “Road map to mission 1.5C” a Brazil initiative for international collaboration ahead of COP30 to keep to 1.c5.
Science
The text is somewhat stronger on recognising the path to 1.5 (paras 25-27), with references to emissions peaking at the latest before 2025, required GHG and CO2 emissions reductions in 2030 and 2035, net zero CO2 by 2050.
However, it still lacks significant input from the IPCC on required emissions reductions in coal, oil and gas; on feasible, effective and low-cost mitigation solutions (16c); and on timeline and required scale of methane emissions reductions (28f) – all this information is available in the latest reports.
Para 29 on transitional fuels does not refer to or note any IPCC science available.
With 84 mentions of the word “adaptation”, there is still no sense that there are hard limits to humankind’s ability to adapt to climate change, also outlined by the IPCC.
Finance
There is little reference to finance in the text. There are big questions over how the energy transition or adaptation is funded in emerging and vulnerable countries.
Going in there were expectations of reference to financial architecture reform/MDB reform being bolder.
There is little reference to the scale of financing required for loss and damage.
This COP achieved some progress on finance pledges – replenishment pledges for the Green Climate Fund surpassed the previous ones and it now stands at $12.8 billion pledged for the entire second replenishment.
2024 now becomes the year for finance when major political and technical processes must land to address these gaps.
Adaptation
The text was cut and now lacks language on targets and timelines, as well as the findings of the IPCC that there are limits to adaptation. References to sustainable development and adaptation finance were removed.
There is no indication of how adaptation finance will be scaled up and the presence of loopholes to delay/deny financial obligations.
The text retains language on “transformative adaptation” and “maladaptation avoidance” which is seen as progress.
There are references to the fact that adaptation finance needs to be scaled up beyond current commitment on doubling finance.
On the Global Goal on Adaptation the language foes from a ‘commitment’ to close the adaptation finance gap it now says, “seek to”.
Sticks to previously agreed language on balance between adaptation and mitigation finance.
Launches a two-year work programme on indicators for measuring progress achieved towards the targets.
Weak language suggesting that the GGA be considered in New Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance discussions.
Nature
Overall, the text was slightly weaker than the last iteration, but some of the crucial elements on nature still remained.
Emphasis was placed on the importance of conserving, protecting, and restoring nature and ecosystems, and the text focused on halting a reversing deforestation and forest degradation by 2030. The shift from the last text to this text is a move from “calls up” to “emphasis”, which makes it leaker but it’s still a positive it’s included.
The historic Biodiversity Convention remained in the text, forming the start of a bridge between climate and biodiversity targets.
The text “emphasised’ the importance of resources to achieve these goals, and it more explicitly references Article 5 (results-based REDD+ forestry credits).
There is some concern that the text as it stands opens the door to a scaling up of bioenergy, which many campaigners do not see as a renewable energy source due to the implications on land needs and impacts on deforestation.
Food
Similar to the last iteration, the need to cut emissions from food, which accounts for a third of greenhouse gas emissions, is largely missing from the mitigation section of the text. This is out of step with the Emirates Food Declaration signed by over 150 parties earlier in the COP.
The adaptation section is looking significantly better, recognising resilient food systems and bridging the gap between this and the strong language around food systems in the Global Goal on Adaptation.
For both food and nature, the crucial missing piece is a solid finance commitment.
Li Shuo, Director, China Climate Hub, said: “This is a compromise text. It is a slight improvement from the one issued two days ago, but does not go as far as the leaked version last night. The overall language on coal is very modest. In light of the intensifying climate impact, uniting divergent national interests for decisive climate response remains a daunting task.”
Alex Scott, Climate Diplomacy and Geopolitics Programme Lead, E3G: “COP28 is revealing a shift in maturity in the global climate debate. Countries started by finally agreeing how to set up a loss and damage fund and these latest draft texts are opening the door to a concrete signal on transitioning away from fossil fuels to clean economies. But we’ve had a very strong majority of countries wanting to go further than these texts. We’ll see how that plays out in the plenary.
“The ultimate proof will be in the pudding of countries’ ‘NDC’ climate plans due to be submitted next year. The big question of how to finance and deliver that transition isn’t yet being answered in these draft texts – it’s not a question these talks alone can address but the maturity of the conversation here piles the pressure on the G20, MDBs, and other finance institutions to step up to solutions.”
Linda Kalcher, Executive Director, Strategic Perspectives: “The new Global Stocktake text that dropped this morning is a clear improvement on science. The language on 1.5 and urgency is reassuring. The text sends a signal on the declining future of fossil fuels – a step in the right direction. The menu is still long, but not all options on the table make economic sense. This is not over. Crucial issues such as adaptation and finance are still trigger points for several parties.”
Aarti Khosla, Director, Climate Trends: “The Dubai deal is positive, however with gaps. It is the first time that there is recognition of transitioning away from fossil fuels in a COP text- essentially meaning slashing not just coal, but also oil and gas. However, coming alongside an absolute recognition of a warming world, and the need to take rapid action within this decade, the outcome text makes real concessions for gas and oil. The language doesn’t give clarity on whether actual reductions in production and consumption will happen, or with increasing demand, countries will merely ‘transition’ their energy mix. These are issues with huge implications for the world.
“This COP was touted as the one where an evaluation of climate action will be made, and marching orders will come for action within this decade. In an effort to please the major emitters, the decision gives a free pass to gas by terming it ‘transitional’ fuel, regardless of emissions contributions which are modelled to come from gas, especially from countries like Russia, US, Middle East.
“With much hype on this COP being a finance COP, there isn’t any landmark outcome on finance. The calls for reforms to multilateral financing and for the World Bank to scale up finance through grants and concessional funding, is relevant for India.”
Marcio Astrini, Executive Secretary, Climate Observatory, Brazil: “This COP28 outcome, strong on signals but weak on substance, means the Brazilian government needs to take the lead through 2024 and lay the foundations for a COP30 deal in Belem that delivers for the world’s poorest and most vulnerable communities and for nature. It can start by cancelling its promise to join OPEC, the group that tried and failed to wreck this summit. Without real action, the Dubai outcome will not be celebrated among communities across the world who are suffering from climate extreme events.”
Nnimmo Bassey, Heath of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF): “Finally the COP grudgingly acknowledges that there must be a ‘transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems.’ This is a major step, but the COP has not set concrete pathways and deadlines for this to happen. The COP still refuses to understand that fossil fuels are also a big climate issue in areas other than energy. The stubborn continued dependence on fossil fuels is based on the mythological conviction on the permanence of the petroleum civilisation.
“The COP must recognise that the time has come to halt the expansion of sacrifice zones, recognise the real burden of climate debt and call for the fossilisation of fossil fuels to give the planet and all beings on it a much needed sabbath. False solutions such as carbon markets, carbon capture/storage and other geoengineering modes will merely compound the looming climate chaos.”
Mohamed Adow, Director of Power Shift Africa: “For the first time in three decades of climate negotiations the words fossil fuels has made it into a COP outcome. We are finally naming the elephant in the room. The genie is never going back into the bottle and future COPs will only turn the screws even more on dirty energy.
“Although we’re sending a strong signal on one hand, on the other hand there are still too many loopholes on unproven and expensive technologies like carbon capture and storage which fossil fuel interests will try and use to keep dirty energy on life support.
“The transition may be fast, the text calls for a transition away from fossil fuels in this critical decade. But the transition is not funded or fair. We’re still missing enough finance to help developing countries decarbonise. There needs to be greater expectation on rich fossil fuel producers to phase out first.
“Some people may have had their expectations for this meeting raised too high, but this result would have been unheard off two years ago, especially at a COP meeting in a petrostate. It shows that even oil and gas producers can see we’re heading for a fossil free world.
“We also need much more financial support to help vulnerable people adapt to the impacts of climate breakdown. Currently rich nations whose emissions have created the crisis are refusing to pay their climate debt and making some of the poorest people in the world fend for themselves. This is why there’s a lack of trust in this process from the developing world.
“Finance is where the whole energy transition plan will stand or fall. This process may have delivered an agreement to move away from fossil fuels, but it’s failed to deliver a plan to fund it. Unless the finance is provided, developing countries will not be able to do it. If rich countries truly want to see a fossil fuel phase out, they need to find creative ways to actually fund it.”
