Heritage: Young activists at COP28 in the United Arab Emirates call for the end of fossil fuel use, financing for the loss and damage fund and a
secure future for them and the generations to come. Photo: Dominika Zarzycka/Getty Images
The COP28 climate conference taking place in Dubai started with promise. The loss and damage fund came to fruition. This fund will help countries vulnerable to climate change to cope with it. The fund received pledges exceeding $420 million from wealthy nations like we’ve all been calling for over several years.
But many have said the funds pledged were not nearly enough to deal with the loss and damages countries face already or are set to face. There have been calls for billions to be pledged instead of millions. Yet, it was a start. It opened the mind up to the possibility that, maybe, this time, developed nations responsible for the climate crisis will pay up.
There were also several agreements on financing and this year days were dedicated to health and food. These did not take place before and were hailed by many as success stories.
It seemed to be on track for a successful Conference of the Parties, one in which the right deals would be struck and although the funding would not be enough, it would at least be the start of something. But it didn’t take long for that to unravel, and quickly.
The fossil fuel lobby reared its head. The fact that they had a seat at the table is shocking but not surprising.
The negotiations entered into the final days and things started to get a bit thorny. Language issues, opposition to fossil fuel phasing out, the global stocktake and problems with the final text all left a sour taste in people’s mouths. These problems drain confidence in the ability of these events to make a real difference in the crisis we face.
On Monday, a draft deal by the summit presidency to cut out fossil fuel use was presented. It was received with full-on hostility. The deal had groups threatening to walk out as others called it incomprehensible. In short, it was received terribly.
What drew people’s ire was that it was woefully short when it came to discussing the requirement for a full phase-out of fossil fuels. The term phase out means the complete ending of fossil fuels, whereas a phase-down refers to a structured reduction in fossil fuel usage.
These terms are incredibly polarising. They insinuate that the world is serious about slowing climate change and keeping global warming to a manageable level. It is something that fossil fuel-reliant countries are opposed to.
For example, Saudi Arabia is vehemently opposed to the phase-out or phase-down of fossil fuels. Saudi Arabia and Iran have been reported to apply pressure to remove these terms from any agreement, leading to negotiations stalling.
There have also been reports of The Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries asking its member nations to reject any wording for the phasing out of fossil fuels. In a world where fossil fuels are the major contributor to the climate crisis we face, the fact that these voices have a platform at this event calls its credibility into question.
COP28 president Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber, who is the chief executive of the state-owned Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, has previously said there is no science that fossil fuels will lead the world to the target of 1.5°C.
He has since amended his statements saying that a phase-down and a phase-out is inevitable.
The global goal for adaptation is another contentious issue. Driven by the African group of negotiators, of which South Africa is a part, there have been calls for adaptation funds to increase.
The negotiators are unhappy that it hasn’t yielded anything tangible in that there are no funds committed to this cause. They argue the money is desperately needed and without it, countries will have to deal with the consequences of climate change from their own pockets.
Without this funding being agreed, the summit will seem like a failure for African countries, which are set to suffer the harshest impacts of the unfolding climate crisis. The funding for adaptation is sorely lacking and will no doubt leave people feeling as though the summit has once again not delivered on the funding that is needed.
There is criticism for countries like the United States, which is dragging its feet when it comes to funding for adaptation, according to Mohamed Adow, founder and director of Power Shift Africa.
But it is not yet too late for the event to be a success. The final text is confirmed, and fossil fuels and phasing them out have made an appearance.
On adaptation, the positive sign is that a text on the global goal for adaptation is written. It needs strengthening.
More funding for adaptation must be achieved in a way that doesn’t put countries more in debt. The funding that is needed for adaptation is estimated to be about $160 billion to $340 billion by the end of the decade. The estimate for current funding received sits at about $29.5 billion in climate finance committed to Africa in 2019 and 2020. This is far below what is needed to deal with climate change.
Adow recently explained it the following way: phasing out fossil fuels deals with climate change in the future and adaptation finance deals with the impacts that are happening now.
At this critical juncture, COP28 feels like another failure. The words are there but they are thin. They need to be robust in calls for the end of fossil fuels and for the funding of adaptation.