'Litany of loopholes' in COP28 consensus

Chris Smith spoke to Richard Black from the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit at the very start of the COP28 summit in Dubai, and got in touch again to find out how it’s all been going...

Richard - I think the highlight was probably on day one to be honest, Chris, by agreeing to set up this fund for something that's called loss and damage. This is the idea that some countries are already suffering from the impacts of climate change, and usually it's the poorest countries in the world who did nothing really to cause climate change. The idea is that the countries that did the most to cause it should pay money into a fund, which will then go to help some of the most developed countries. This is an issue that's been on the agenda for well over a decade. It was really kicked into the long grass repeatedly until last year's COP actually when, to a load of people's surprise, there was agreement in principle that there should be funding mechanisms set up, including a central fund. And this year they won. They basically said, 'let's do it.' And even more remarkably, a number of countries said, 'and here's some money.' So there's about half a billion dollars in this fund already. That was probably the highlight. And certainly, if you're sitting in a small island developing state, or a South Asian country with a massive coastline or somewhere like this, then you're going to be pretty happy about this, I think.

Chris - So obviously there was that day one highlight for you. What were the low points, though?

Richard - I think the biggest part of this, and the bit that I think most people are interested in, is anything that talks about the future of the energy system and how we build out clean energy capacity and how we stop using fossil fuels. Unsurprisingly, this was the most contentious bit of the whole thing. I have thought for the last couple of years that we're in quite an interesting phase here because it feels like the cards are on the table much more starkly than they used to be. You have a certain group of countries, headed by the OPEC plus countries, who really don't want anything in there about reducing fossil fuel use. And then you have everyone else that does. And so it's really about how is there going to be a landing zone found so that you can actually have something in the text that is meaningful and yet every country is prepared to sign off on. So there was a low point, I would say, between 24 and 36 hours before the end when the presidency released a new draft text which really was extremely weak on a lot of this stuff, but they did actually get it back a little bit in the final text.

Chris - The language, though, many have criticised this because what they've effectively agreed to is a transition away from fossil fuels. It sounds a bit whimsical and also some of the island nations have described this as a litany of loopholes, ways for people to wheedle out of actually having to be committed to this. And that would even include the oil producing countries who are hosting. Has this got real teeth in it, the arguments that have been agreed on, or is it really just empty words?

Richard - It certainly doesn't have teeth, but that's very much in the tradition of these conference declarations, actually. No one will sign up to something that is going to oblige them. Basically what they've done this time is they have agreed that there's a need for deep, rapid and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. They're really calling on each other to do at least one of a number of things: tripling renewable energy capacity globally by 2030, doubling the rate at which we are improving our efficiency with energy use by the same date, accelerating efforts towards the phase down of unabated coal burning, accelerating the transition towards net zero emission systems, transitioning away from fossil fuels, accelerating renewables, nuclear, carbon capture and storage, and low carbon hydrogen production, cutting back on methane emissions. Basically, it says, 'look, this is the need. As countries we're calling on each other to do at least some of these things.'

Chris - Doesn't sound any different from the song that they've been singing for years?

Richard - You always have to have a consensus in the final agreement. And that means, you are right, that often the tune that's being sung is a bit vanilla, it's a bit lift and elevators, frankly, rather than the Flight of the Valkyries type thing that a lot of climate campaigners would want. But, although you can argue it's a bit of a limp form of words, it is the first time that's been acknowledged in any declaration from any climate convention.

Chris - And, in closing, where does this leave us for next time?

Richard - I think we might have quite an underwhelming COP next year. It's going to be in Azerbaijan, which is a country which is ranked very low in rankings of democracy and so on. There's a massive oil and gas industry. It wasn't anyone's first choice, put it that way. Basically, what happens is there are five different regions of the world and they take turns to decide which country is going to host it from their region. So next year we are talking about Eastern Europe, the former Soviet bloc. Now a number of Eastern European countries did express an interest such as Bulgaria, Czech Republic and so on. Russia and Belarus, which are in the same block, vetoed all of them. Belarus proposed itself. And of course the rest of Eastern Europe vetoed that because of the Russia Ukraine conflict. So we had this complete standoff. But anyway, we're off to Azerbaijan next year and Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, probably has the claim to be the oldest oil capital in the world. Oil's been the thing there for more than a thousand years. The Venetian explorer Marco Polo 700 years ago noted that oil was being produced there and exported. And in modern day Azerbaijan, tourists can still go and have a health giving bath in crude oil. So it's going to be quite an interesting place to host a COP, I think.