COP28 outcome: The road (not taken) towards a fossil-free future
The 28th annual climate summit (COP28) concluded with a mixed set of reactions, ranging from welcoming to downright dismissive. After a series of intense negotiations and heated debates, the outcome of the first global stocktake (GST) recognises, for the first time, the need for transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems. In the history of UN-led climate negotiations over the past three decades, this recognition has been long overdue and is now considered a remarkable COP28 outcome that signals the beginning of the end of the fossil fuel era. However, the weak and aspirational language, plus the lack of concrete commitment to transitioning, remains deeply problematic given the climate emergency and the urgent need for climate justice.
Firstly, the recognition of the need to "transition away from fossil fuels" does not assert any legal implications, let alone binding obligations on the state parties; rather, it is acknowledged as being part of facilitative "global efforts" to reach the 1.5 degrees Celsius goal. As per the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in order to contain the global temperature rise to below 1.5 degrees Celsius, the world is required to reach net zero emissions by the year 2050. The GST also refers to achieving net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science. However, quite contradictory to the science-based demand, the GST mentions "accelerating efforts towards the phase-down of unabated coal power" instead of "requiring" the full phasing out of fossil fuels. Scientists see such a compromise as devastating and dangerous considering the urgency of climate action. If we fail to reach the 1.5 degrees Celsius goal, to be achieved through deep carbon cuts and phasing out of fossil fuels, the fund requirements for climate adaptation and loss and damage will eventually be impossible to meet.
In the absence of clear timelines and allocation of responsibilities associated with the transition, such soft language leaves room for petrostates to interpret the COP28 outcome in ways that serve their own interests—fulfilling energy needs through oil and gas usage.
Secondly, the GST calls for tripling of renewable energy capacity and doubling the average yearly rate of increase in energy efficiency by 2030. However, transitioning away from fossil fuels and increasing renewable energy capacity require a huge flow of finance, especially into developing countries. It is estimated that $9.2 trillion per year is needed to make net zero transition happen by 2050 globally, where developing countries would require about $2 trillion annually. Developing countries also require $160-340 billion for climate adaptation and about $6 trillion per year for implementing less than half of the climate action activities listed in their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) by 2030. Moreover, at least $400 billion is needed each year to address loss and damage. The COP28 deal fails to address such a gigantic finance burden for the developing countries, and merely outlines the "need" for finance by mentioning some fractional financial pledges from the high-polluting developed countries.
The framing and un-framing of fossil fuel transition should not only be limited to lowering carbon emissions and establishing a net zero economy; it should also be designed to deconstruct the unsustainable economy and question the thoughts, science, technology, and institutions that create the cage of modern rationality and accelerate the climate crisis.
The GST mentions, with regret, the failure of the developed countries in fulfilling their commitment, as established in 2009, for mobilising the $100 billion (which itself is a fraction of what is needed to support developing countries to achieve climate goals in accordance with the Paris Agreement). For example, Bangladesh requires $230 billion to implement its National Adaptation Plan (2023-2050). It is worth noting that this huge gap in funding will naturally widen over time due to the prevailing economic and financial shocks. Injecting climate finance through public and private capital from the Global North is urgently required for the developing countries to fulfil their finance and knowledge gaps.
Thirdly, along with climate finance, the other critical priorities for the transition include capacity building, job creation, technology and data transfer. Considering the digital divide predominant in developing economies, technology transfer should be driven by public good rather than being only commercial and profit-oriented. Research findings and data should be shared with poorer developing countries unconditionally to enable green and renewable energy technologies that are best suited to the communities. The priorities concerning the transition should be foregrounded in accessibility, inclusivity, and equity in addressing the needs and concerns of developing countries. For Bangladesh, the transition implicates far beyond job security and employment generation, as the country faces extreme vulnerability to external shocks of the economic and developmental nature. The colossal impacts of climate change and the country's socioeconomic vulnerabilities need to be foregrounded in transition planning towards a low-carbon and resilient economy.
Fourthly, transitioning away from fossil fuels will inevitably cause uneven and disproportionate impacts for developing countries that are still dependent on fossil fuels for energy, income, and jobs. Becoming a net zero economy, without guarantees for adequate financial support, will be another driver of inequality and injustice for the prevailing vulnerabilities in developing countries. These countries are already bearing the brunt of historic climate injustice fuelled by deep carbon inequality. According to a study in The Lancet, as of 2015, developed countries from the Global North are responsible for 92 percent of excess global carbon emissions while the US alone was responsible for 40 percent of it. Bangladesh's contribution to the causation of climate change is 0.4 percent, but devastating impacts are posing existential challenges for the country.
While countries like Bangladesh are entitled to climate credit (that is, the right to a fair share in carbon emissions), developed countries must disburse the ecological debt for their historic emissions. The pathway to transition away from fossil fuels needs to underscore these unequal dimensions—which are missing in the COP outcomes—in order to avoid actions that shift risks to developing countries or reinforce existing vulnerabilities and inequalities.
A just, orderly, and equitable transition should integrate both distributive and procedural aspects. Distributive justice signifies a fair allocation of costs and benefits so that vulnerable and marginalised communities do not bear the burden of transition. The procedural justice dimension of a fossil fuel transition requires engaging with transition-affected communities and restoring trust through meaningful social dialogue between transition enablers and affected people. Underscoring such dimensions of justice and equity is essential for the pace, scale, and quality of the transition.
The framing and un-framing of fossil fuel transition should not only be limited to lowering carbon emissions and establishing a net zero economy; it should also be designed to deconstruct the unsustainable economy and question the thoughts, science, technology, and institutions that create the cage of modern rationality and accelerate the climate crisis. More importantly, the transition towards renewable and clean energy should be equitable, with the most vulnerable protected and the most responsible carrying the bulk of the burden.
Mohammad Golam Sarwar is PhD researcher on climate law and alternative development at SOAS, University of London. He is also assistant professor (on study leave) at the Department of Law in the University of Dhaka.
Views expressed in this article are the author's own.
Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.