The COP 28 offers no credible action. On meeting the ‘funding gap’, save a token amount for Loss and Damage Fund (LaDF), there was nothing to show
The just concluded 2023 United Nations Conference of the Parties (COP28), in Dubai, has pledged to "transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade, to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science”. The ‘net zero’ refers to a scenario wherein the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere equals their removal.
Historically ‘indiscriminate’ and ‘excessive’ use of fossil fuels – a generic term for major fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas – mostly by the developed countries led by the USA and EU bloc countries has overwhelmingly contributed to GHGs. According to Union Minister for Power and New and Renewable Energy RK Singh, "developed nations emit 22 tons per capita of GHGs against India’s emission level being a mere 2.1 tons per capita”.
Yet, any commitment to action in this area wasn’t even mentioned in the outcome documents of the previous COPs. Against this backdrop, the very mention of ‘shifting away from fossil fuels’ in the COP28 declaration and its endorsement by all the 198 participating countries is in itself a great accomplishment. But, the good news ends here.
The mere inclusion of a reference to fossil fuels in the text has no meaning if it comes without credible commitments particularly by the major polluters in the past (read: developed countries) backed up by ‘action plans’ in different areas and financial and technological support to the developing countries for making energy transition to new and renewable sources of energy. None of these figures are in the outcome document.
Even worse, we see an acceleration in investment activity by the USA and other major oil and gas-producing countries for expanding fossil fuel extraction. In fact, within two days of the end of COP 28, the summit president Sultan al Jaber, who won laurels for helping hammer out the agreement, has said “his own company (read: Abu Dhabi National Oil Company or ADNOC) will continue to invest in fossil fuels”. According to the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the exploration and production plans of producer governments will add 69 per cent more output than what is consistent with even a less-ambitious 2 degrees C warming goal.
India which has played a pivotal role in shepherding the deliberations at COP 28 couldn’t have goaded the developed countries into undertaking reduction commitments on oil and gas. This is because it depends overwhelmingly on imports 85 per cent in the case of crude oil and 50 per cent in gas for meeting its consumption requirements and most of it is sourced from the OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) besides the USA. If the latter cut their production drastically to meet climate goals, this would adversely affect the former by reducing global supply and increasing prices.
According to a briefing by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), during CY 2022, countries provided a record US$1.3 trillion in subsidies to support their proliferating fossil fuel production and consumption systems. Sans the withdrawal of these subsidies, it won’t be possible to phase out these fuels. COP 28 declaration calls for “phasing out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that do not address energy poverty or just transitions”.
This formulation is vague and susceptible to multiple interpretations. For instance, the industry could justify the continuation of fossil fuel subsidies in the name of addressing energy poverty or even supporting the transition to ‘renewable energy’ citing inadequate storage capacity which is essential for sustainable supply from the latter.
The COP28 text calls for “accelerating efforts towards the phase-down of unabated coal power” while not referring to oil and gas. The developed countries are being ‘too clever by half’. They are already on their way to abandoning coal. During CY 2023, consumption of coal in the USA and EU bloc countries is expected to fall by 20 percent each whereas in India and China, it will increase by 8 percent and 5 percent respectively. India and China together with Indonesia account for 70 percent of global coal demand.
Given the above, it suits the developed countries to go for accelerated phase-down of coal. In contrast, India depends on the use of coal for around 75 per cent of the total power generation. According to Singh, even after massive expansion in renewable source-based capacity (solar, wind etc), the share of coal-fired capacity will remain substantial at about 33 percent by 2030. This includes 78-80 GW (gigawatts) of additional charcoal–the capacity to be added during this period.
This new capacity addition would have been in jeopardy if Indian negotiators hadn’t forced the deletion of an earlier draft text that talked about ‘limiting new coal plants’.
All along, India has exhorted developed countries to follow the principle of ‘common but differentiated’ responsibilities. Put simply, it wants them to take the lead in achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 saying historically they have been the biggest polluters even as the contribution of developing countries is minimal. This is nowhere reflected in the outcome document of COP 28.
The document talks of tripling global renewable energy and doubling energy efficiency improvements in sync with the ambition to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Centigrade above pre-industrial levels threshold. But, it doesn’t spell out measures to achieve this. The poor and developing countries neither have access to technologies needed for making the transition nor there is any sign of financing commitments by developed countries. According to a UN report, about US$ 4.3 trillion per year needs to be invested in clean energy till 2030, increasing thereafter to US$ 5 trillion a year till 2050, to be able to reach net zero emissions by 2050. Of this, developing countries, excluding China, would need at least US$2.4 trillion a year. The offering from rich states to poor nations is minuscule when compared to these mammoth requirements.
The COP 28 also gave a call to enhance adaptation action and support under the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA). Under adaptation programs, countries are required to respond to anticipated climate change impacts in a multitude of areas such as erecting buildings and infrastructure that is ‘safer’ and more ‘sustainable’; replanting forests and restoring damaged eco-systems; diversifying crops to enable farmers to better able to adapt to changing climates and so on. Here also, the outcome was satisfactory.
The adaptation funding gap has been estimated at US$ 215 – 387 billion annually up to 2030. But, there was no commitment to it. The outcome document did not say how the adaptation finance can be scaled up and how the rich countries can be held to their obligations.
The summit adopted an agreement for a new Loss and Damage Fund (LaDF). This fund will provide financial assistance to vulnerable countries, including India, that are already experiencing the devastating impacts of climate change, such as rising sea levels, extreme weather events etc. The fund will be operational by 2024 with an initial corpus of over US$400 million.
To conclude, COP 28 was big on rhetoric but little in terms of ‘credible’ action. On meeting the ‘funding gap’, sans a token amount for LaDF, there was nothing to show. As for India, while pursuing its clean energy transition goal, it was able to retain the flexibility to decide the ‘energy mix’ suited to its needs – including the use of coal for meeting power generation requirements.
(The writer is a policy analyst, views are personal)
