All the takeaways from COP28

The international climate conference COP28 took place over the last two weeks in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The event, according to the United Nations, "is where the world comes together to agree on ways to address the climate crisis, such as limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius, helping vulnerable communities adapt to the effects of climate change and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050." The push to address these issues is becoming ever more prominent as 2023 will soon be the warmest year on record. Despite the urgency, there was plenty of controversy at the event: about where the event was held, who was running it and the overall influence of the fossil-fuel industry.

Questionable leadership

The conference took place in Dubai, UAE, one of the top ten oil-producing countries in the world. Oil production and fossil-fuel usage are the world's largest contributors to climate change. To add insult to injury, Sultan al-Jaber, the chief executive of the state-owned oil company Adnoc, was appointed as the COP28 president. His position worried environmental activists because he held a "commitment to maintaining a role for fossil fuels in the energy transition," according to Reuters.

The central talking point of the conference was agreement on how to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, per the Paris Climate Agreement. The goal: countries committing to a fossil-fuel phaseout over time. However, The Guardian revealed comments from Al-Jaber claiming, "There is no science out there, or no scenario out there, that says that the phaseout of fossil fuel is what's going to achieve 1.5C," a statement which alarmed environmentalists.

He defended his comments, telling reporters that "there is some confusion out there, and misrepresentation and misinterpretation," and that he has, "said over and over that the phasedown and the phaseout of fossil fuel is inevitable." While environmentalists were wary of his leadership at the conference, his supporters believed he could bridge the divide between varying interests.

Fossil-fuel takeover

This year's conference had an unprecedented number of parties, including the COP28 president, who represented fossil-fuel interests. At least 1,300 fossil-fuel lobbyists attended the conference, which is more than three times the number at last year's event, according to an analysis by The Associated Press. While this number only comprised a small portion of the conference's 90,000 attendees, environmentalists "repeatedly questioned their presence at an event where meaningful negotiations have to take aim at the heart of their businesses," the AP added. Others like Bob Deans, director of strategic engagement for the Natural Resources Defense Council, hope that the oil and gas industry "might begin to shift from being the biggest part of the climate problem to finally being part of the fix."

Even with their small numbers, these lobbyists' influence was mighty. While an original draft resolution had specific language indicating that nations would phase out fossil fuels, it was ultimately changed to nations "transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade," a far less specific commitment, CBS News noted. The resolution was altered despite more than 100 nations calling for a phaseout. "For 30 years, industry has denied, deceived and delayed climate action at the [United Nations] and every level of government," the Kick Big Polluters Out coalition told The Washington Post. "And yet this body has treated these deceptive, self-serving, disingenuous bad actors to a seat at a table they have no business being at."

Carbon-capture spotlight

With phaseout language removed from the resolution, nations instead discussed banning "unabated fossil fuels." In using this language, nations could potentially continue to use fossil fuels as long as the emissions are offset by another method, namely carbon-capture technology. The problem is that the success of the technology has been shaky at best. "Carbon capture and storage definitely could be a critical technology," Fatih Birol, executive director of the International Energy Agency, told The New York Times. "But the history of carbon capture to date has largely been a disappointment."

Carbon-capture technology can play a major role in reducing the effects of climate change, however, as the Times explained, it is "no silver bullet." There are currently not enough capture projects to hit net-zero emissions, and there's no guarantee that enough will be built. In reality, major strides to reduce the usage of fossil fuels are still required to truly reach net zero and prevent the planet from crossing the 1.5-degree threshold.

A revolutionary resolution?

The conference came to a close with the nearly 200 nations coming together and agreeing to transition away from fossil fuels "in a just, orderly and equitable manner." Despite the controversy around avoiding a phaseout, the agreement marks the "beginning of the end," UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell said in his closing speech. "Now all governments and businesses need to turn these pledges into real-economy outcomes, without delay."

The resolution specifically details a global commitment to increasing renewable energy and energy efficiency, "rapidly phasing down unabated coal" and limiting new coal power generation, accelerating efforts to net zero and "low-emissions technologies, including … renewables, nuclear, abatement and removal technologies, such as carbon capture" and transitioning away from fossil fuels and reducing carbon emissions. Al-Jaber praised the agreement calling it "a paradigm shift that has the potential to redefine our economies."

While this is the first global agreement acknowledging the need to reduce fossil-fuel use, "cavernous loopholes," Jean Su, the energy justice director at the Center for Biological Diversity told CNN, "threaten to undermine this breakthrough moment." Specifically, the language of the resolution could allow nations to take minimal action. The resolution is also not legally binding. "Whole economies and societies are dependent on fossil fuels," Susana Muhamad, Colombia's environmental minister, told The New York Times. "Fossil capital will not disappear just because we made a decision here," but, nonetheless, an agreement sends "a strong political message that this is the pathway."