Fossil fuel footprints haunt COP28 draft document

Draft declaration of COP28 Dubai draws flak
Weak language, industry influence, and lack of urgency cripple the COP28 draft, leaving the world on a warming trajectory.

The COP28 draft agreement is widely viewed as insufficient to meet the urgent need for substantial climate action. The draft’s language, echoed in other crucial areas like carbon capture and storage, leaves the door wide open for continued fossil fuel dependence and falls dangerously short of the transformative action.

The language, suggesting that countries “could include” measures to reduce fossil fuel production, is non-committal and lacks the assertiveness needed for impactful climate action. This optional wording, as criticised by some leaders and activists, fails to enforce any meaningful reduction in fossil fuel use. The absence of a mandatory phase-out of fossil fuels is a glaring omission. There is a need for strong commitments, especially for the survival of small island states. The draft’s avoidance of decisive language in favour of more palatable but ineffective terms is a significant shortfall.

While acknowledging the gravity of the situation, the draft tiptoes around the critical urgency of the present moment. The world cannot afford a game of incremental progress as it is sprinting towards a cliff edge. Every delay, every watered-down commitment, puts vulnerable nations and ecosystems on the precipice of irreversible harm. The IPCC’s stark warnings leave no room for ambiguity – there is a need for immediate and drastic action, not tepid promises.

READQuality control orders: Trade tensions rise as India stands its ground

Scientific findings vs COP28 draft

There is a clear disconnect between the scientific imperatives as outlined by bodies like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the draft’s provisions. The IPCC emphasises the need for drastic reductions in fossil fuel usage to limit global warming, but the draft’s approach is too lenient and fails to align with these recommendations. The draft’s avoidance of terms like ‘unabated’ and its failure to reference the necessary rapid actions for this decade further highlight its insufficiency in addressing the urgency of the crisis.

It is no secret that the fossil fuel industry wields immense power in shaping global energy policy. Their fingerprints are all over this draft, evident in the weakened language and focus on emissions rather than production. This underhanded influence exposes the fundamental flaw of relying on voluntary agreements from polluters themselves. Real progress demands holding them accountable through enforceable regulations and economic incentives that prioritise clean energy solutions.

The influence of major oil-producing countries like Saudi Arabia in the drafting process is a concern. Their insistence on terms that dilute the agreement’s impact, such as referring to fossil fuel emissions instead of production, creates loopholes for continued fossil fuel exploitation. The political compromises made to achieve consensus among nearly 200 countries have led to a weakened text. This is particularly evident in the reluctance to include stronger language on fossil fuel reduction due to opposition from some countries.

Inadequate focus on climate justice, funding

The draft fails to adequately address issues of climate justice. Developing countries and vulnerable nations require significant support in adapting to and mitigating the effects of climate change, but the draft lacks concrete commitments for financial and technological support. The issue of climate finance, crucial for enabling developing countries to transition to sustainable practices and adapt to climate impacts, is not sufficiently addressed in the draft.

A number of experts and political leaders have condemned the draft as insufficient. The umbrella group of countries, including Australia, the US, and the UK, demanded a stronger agreement, indicating a significant division among nations on the path forward. Civil society groups and representatives of small island states expressed strong dissatisfaction with the draft, emphasising that it does not reflect the urgency or scale of action required.

The COP28 draft agreement, in its current form, is a missed opportunity to set a decisive and ambitious path for global climate action. The agreement’s lack of binding commitments, its failure to align with scientific recommendations, the influence of oil-producing nations, inadequate addressing of climate justice and financing, and the mixed reactions from various stakeholders all contribute to its insufficiency. For a meaningful impact, the agreement needs to mandate the phase-out of fossil fuels, align with scientific imperatives, and include enforceable commitments to ensure compliance and accountability.

The draft is not just insufficient; it is a let-down for millions of people already suffering the consequences of climate inaction. The world needs a bold new vision, one that prioritises the well-being of people and planet over short-term economic interests. A future powered by renewable energy, where climate justice is not an afterthought but the cornerstone of actions. The participating nations must reject this draft and demand an agreement that reflects the true urgency and scale of the climate crisis.