- UN targets fossil fuels
- Compromised language on transition
- Global reactions mixed
At the United Nations climate summit, countries have explicitly targeted the utilization of fossil fuels for the first time.
After the negotiations in Dubai came perilously close to disintegrating, nations agreed to “transition away” from coal, oil, and gas in a dramatic turn of events.
However, small islands severely impacted by climate change protested, claiming the agreement was hurried without their input.
Furthermore, it weakened the phrase “phase out fossil fuels” from its previous, more forceful manifestation.
Numerous nations, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union, advocated for a phase-out since the inception of the negotiations.
Nearly two hundred countries spent almost two weeks in the United Arab Emirates to progress in the fight against climate change in the wake of months of extraordinary weather.
There were minimal anticipations that the oil-rich United Arab Emirates could execute an agreement targeting the fossil fuel industry. The dual function of COP28 president Sultan al-Jaber and CEO of Abu Dhabi oil giant Adnoc drew additional criticism.
“Don’t miss out! Grab your free shares of Webull UK today!”
Navigating Controversial Leadership
The suspicions of observers regarding a potential conflict of interest appeared validated when leaked documents indicated that Mr. Jaber intended to utilize his presidency to negotiate business transactions.
However, Mr. Jaber delivered an ecstatic address on Wednesday, stating that the conference “ought to be ecstatic about our historic accomplishment.”
His leadership will presumably regard the current agreement as a triumph.
Despite surprising several delegates, the plenary chamber enthusiastically applauded and gave a standing ovation to the deal.
However, as soon as remarks were accepted, a representative of the Alliance of Small Island States (Aosis), representing nations at the forefront of climate change, took the microphone.
She stated that the decisions seemed hasty and lacked the presence of the minor island states.
Furthermore, she stated that Aosis is apprehensive that the guiding language regarding the transition from fossil fuels “could potentially impede progress rather than promote it.”
Countries will “contribute… to the transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems in a just, orderly, and equitable manner,” according to the 21-page agreement that Mr. Jaber presided over.
It is worth noting that while global warming gas emissions are expected to reach their zenith before 2025, developing nations may experience a later peak.
Resistance from oil-producing countries, such as Saudi Arabia, effectively reduced the commitments.
Diverse Reactions to Climate Accord
Iraq and other impoverished countries dependent on the export of fossil fuels opposed the harsher language because it inaccurately reflected their negligible contribution to climate change.
In addition, numerous developing nations asserted that additional COP28 agreements failed to secure sufficient funding to facilitate their transition to renewable energy sources or compensate for the revenue lost from the sale of fossil fuels.
All participating nations, however, consent to the compromise of the agreement.
US Climate Envoy John Kerry described the agreement as a “reason for optimism” in light of the ongoing conflicts in Israel, Gaza, and Ukraine.
While acknowledging that the text did not encompass all the demands put forth by the United States, he maintained that it constituted a progressive stride and exemplified areas where countries could reach a consensus.
The climate commissioner of the European Union, Wopke Hoekstra, hailed the agreement as a noteworthy accomplishment following three decades of impasse regarding fossil fuels.
Climate minister Graham Stuart of the United Kingdom stated in the plenary that it marked “the start of the end of the fossil fuel era,” but acknowledged that “there are elements here that we do not like.”
Aside from the rhetoric of politicians, scientists and activists criticized the agreement, stating that it does little to address the escalating issue of greenhouse gas emissions contributing to global warming.
Countries must catch up in their attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 45 percent within six years.
Vanessa Nakate, a youth activist from Uganda, stated that the decision is “far from adequate” and referred to the meeting as “a COP out for fossil fuels.”
25-year-old Tuvaluan negotiator Mervina Paeuli expressed “mixed feelings” and is concerned that the agreement does little to benefit her home in the Pacific island nation.
She stated, “If the overarching objective was to encourage action towards the 1.5C target, then today is not a good day for me,” about the internationally recognized goal of restricting temperature increase to 1.5C.
Scientific Skepticism and UN Leadership Response
Many scientists are skeptical of the agreement, despite the head of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Professor Jim Skea, stating that Mr. Jaber is “attentive to the science” during the COP talks.
“There will undoubtedly be much applause and back-slapping, but the physical laws will be indifferent to it.” Professor Kevin Anderson of the University of Manchester asserts that the temperature will continue to rise if the new agreement maintains high emissions levels.
António Guterres, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, also rendered his verdict. He stated that “it was watered down” even though numerous administrations desired an apparent reference to the phase-out of fossil fuels.
“Fossil fuel phase-out is inevitable, whether you like it or not.” “We can only hope that it is not too late,” he advised.
Azerbaijan, the gas-rich Caucasus nation, will host the 2024 United Nations climate conference.
