Sunny climate, stormy climate | News Digest #24 | COP 28 Special
This is good COP bad COP (sorry, but couldn't resists this cliche :P). Today, we focus on the outcomes of COP 28 - some encouraging and some (many more) not quite encouraging.
In today’s edition we are going to apply the sunny/ stormy lens to the outcomes of the recently concluded COP 28. We will look at a few sunny stories - results from the negotiation that are a good step forward and the a few stormy stories - parts that left a lot to be desired.
If you’re wondering what is the COP 28 all about, you can read the COP 28 explainer I wrote about earlier.
If you would like to get future editions of the newsletter delivered to your mailbox, please hit subscribe.
Sunny news
Established the ‘Loss and damage fund’
What is the ‘loss and damage’ fund?
“Loss and damage” is a term used to describe how climate change is already causing serious and, in many cases, irreversible impacts around the world – particularly in vulnerable communities.
At the COP27 climate summit, all countries agreed to set up a fund to pay for loss and damage. This came after a 30-year fight for such a fund led by small island states and developing countries.
What happened in COP 28?
All countries unanimously agreed to establish the loss and damage fund on the first day of the summit. Hurrah!
It was agreed that the fund would be housed in the World Bank for at least four years.
So is this a win?
Ermm… it is a win in that at least the fund is established. But it leaves a lot to be desired. Mainly:
No obligation: There is no firm obligation for developed countries to pay into the fund. It will depend on the generosity of wealthy nations.
Actual money committed is paltry! : The total amount of money committed into the fund so far is USD 770 mn (of which USD 115 mn will just go towards setting up the fund). This is not even 0.2% of the USD 400 bn needed to address loss and damage annually! The US committed just USD 17.5 mn!
I wrote about what was the expectation from the Loss and Damage fund going into COP 28 in an earlier issue
Pledge to trip renewables and double energy efficiency efforts by 2030!
The ‘Global pledge on Renewables and Energy efficiency’ was launched by EU president Ursula von der Leyen and the COP 28 Presidency
The Pledge commits to:
Triple the world’s installed renewable energy generation capacity to at least 11,000 GW by 2030
Double the global average annual rate of energy efficiency improvements from around 2% to over 4% every year until 2030
130 countries have signed up to the pledge. Notable ones include: EU, US and UAE who led the initiative, backers included Brazil, Nigeria, Australia, Japan, Canada, Chile and Barbados
Notably, India has NOT signed the pledge. Why?
India is a big promoter of renewable energy and is currently the third-largest producer of renewable energy and has ambitious plans to increase its capacity.
However there is a line in the pledge “renewables deployment must be accompanied in this decade by the phase down of unabated coal power”.
This is against India’s stated stance on coal - that it will need to depend on coal for some time to meet its energy security needs.
Source to read further:
Stormy news
The final GST (Global Stock Take) document and pledge is very WEAK. Calls for an ambiguous ‘transition away from fossil fuels’
What the developed nations seem to be telling vulnerable island nations, climate scientists and activists Before, I tell you everything that is wrong with the pledge, let me tell you the silver lining:
It lists as a goal “transitioning away from fossil fuels…accelerating action in this critical decade”.
After nearly 30 years, this is the first time a COP decision has explicitly called out all fossil fuels. Before this, there has never been an explicit reference to fossil fuels, but only to ‘energy’
So what’s the problem?
The language is very ambiguous. It’s not clear what ‘transition away’ means.
There is no hard deadline to end or phase out fossil fuels. It falls short of the full “phase-out” many said was needed to stay below 1.5C
Even this is not a binding commitment. The text only “calls on” countries to commit to this goal.
Not enough on ‘climate finance’
What is climate finance?
All the pledges and goals of increasing renewables, phasing out coal etc. are great, but all of these initiatives come at a cost and the question it comes down to ‘who is going to pay for it?’
This is where climate finance comes into the picture. It refers to the funding processes for investments related to climate change mitigation and adaptation.
One key disappointment in the GST text was that any mention of climate finance was almost missing.
Responding to the GST pledge, IEA chief Dr Fatih Birol said “greater efforts are needed on finance”.
There was no stated increase in commitments from developed countries on financing mitigation efforts in developing countries.
‘Carbon capture’ - Mention in the text gives fossil fuel companies the license to keep burning oil
The GST text calls for “accelerating zero- and low-emissions technologies, including…carbon capture and utilisation and storage”
What is carbon capture?
Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage (CCUS) refers to a technology that can capture CO2 from the atmosphere and store it in something so it gets locked away for decades or hundred of years
These kind of technologies can allow us to remove from the atmosphere CO2 that has already been emitted
That’s great. So what’s the problem?
CCUS technologies are currently in a very nascent stage of development and nowhere near the scale that would be needed to make a dent in our current emissions scenario
However, petro-states and fossil fuel companies have hailed CCUS as the magic pill that will allow us to keep producing and using fossil fuels and emit CO2 (as it can all be captured back)
Having this as one of the things countries can do to meet the net zero target allows countries to not cut down on fossil fuel production and usage fast enough by saying they are investing in CCUS and that will allow them to meet their net zero goals
When the science is clear that meeting the net zero goal will mean first cutting our emissions by 90% and using technologies like CCUS to bridge the remaining 10% gap
Let me leave you with this:
This is not a complete or exhaustive summary of the outcomes from COP 28, but a select list of what I thought would be interesting to the audience of this newsletter. Some good sources if you want to understand COP 28 better:
My favourite summary: Key outcomes agreed at COP 28 (Carbon Brief)
COP 28 final text: Outcome of the first global stocktake
If you would rather see this through comics: Green Humour