Although the agreement, signed by almost 197 countries and Europe, was considered “historic”, it sparked debate on two key points: the Transitioning away from fossil fuels and phasing out their inefficient subsidies. According to the final document published this Wednesday, the agreement does not provide for immediate abolition, but rather an “orderly and just transition”.
The urgent call of Pope Francisco was apparently partially neglected or postponed in his Laudate Deum exhortation before COP28 in Dubai. The pope warned of the danger of not quickly abandoning fossil fuels and switching to clean energy, stressing that the current pace could have catastrophic consequences for the climate and society. Although almost 30 years have passed since the first COP, the dependence on fossil fuels, which are responsible for 86% of pollutant emissions, is only slowly being recognized.
Bishops of Europe: vague language
“While we welcome the challenging agreement to phase out fossil fuels, we are concerned about the authenticity of the parties’ commitment to implement it effectively.” These statements mark the beginning of a series of reflections following the conclusion of the climate conference in Dubai. Father Manuel Barrios Prieto, Secretary of the Commission of Bishops' Conferences of the European Union (COMECE), emphasizes that the European bishops celebrate the consensus reached on important issues, such as seriously addressing loss and damage and promoting the gradual and just phasing out of fossil fuels Fuels . However, there is concern that “vague wording” may reflect a lack of real commitment.
The agreement is influenced by what is perceived as “vague wording”, particularly in points d and h, where the term “transition” is discussed in relation to “fossil fuels”. This word emerged after intensive dialogues between the participants and was a term that made it possible to reach agreement. The United Nations, activists and more than 150 countries have specifically advocated for the text to specifically mention “phasing out fossil fuels.” However, this was taken into account unacceptable for Saudi Arabia and other oil producers. As a result, the negotiations resulted in a linguistic compromise using the expression “transition”.
Neither reduce nor eliminate
The text advocates a “transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems”. in a fair, orderly and equitable manner, with an accelerated focus on developing countries. The 224 countries of the UN Convention against Climate Change came to this consensus. Surprisingly, neither “exit” nor “exit” were included in the final version of the text. Furthermore, section “h” highlights the urgency to “phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that do not address energy poverty or simply transitions as soon as possible.”
This milestone is classified as “historic” in view of the intensive debate between positions. Nevertheless, Pope Francis urges in his Laudate Deum an efficient, binding and easily controllable energy transition, has not yet been fully addressed. This call calls on leaders to act for the common good, the future of the next generations and especially the poorest countries, where the majority of “forced migrants” come from due to climate change.
Decarbonization: What is the future of oil?
The stocktake at COP28 is praised for setting guidelines Contributions at national level (NDC) for economic decarbonization and controlling global warming below 1.5 degrees. Still, the flexible options for each country raise concerns about the effectiveness of the agreement as they could lead to minimal progress. In fact, Article 28 allows countries like Saudi Arabia to justify emissions reductions through various technologies, but the agreement lacks immediate binding force. Countries are expected to submit new plans in 2025 to assess progress towards the 1.5 degree target by the end of the century.
Reduce emissions, but when or over what period?
The text recognizes the urgency of reducing emissions significantly, quickly and continuously, but lacks a precise date for reaching the maximum emissions peak. Notes 43% reduction targets by 2030 and 60% by 2035, compared to 2019 levels, with the ultimate goal of achieving zero emissions by 2050. However, developing countries and activists criticize that the text remains unclear. For example, it focuses on reducing energy from unburned coal, referring to carbon removal technologies that scientists believe are ineffective on a large scale. Furthermore, they are mentioned as transitional fuels without their implementation being clearly defined.
Funds without enough money for poor countries
A provisional fund managed by the World Bank to mitigate climate damage in vulnerable countries was approved at COP28. Although it raised more than $700 million in donations, it is not enough compared to the donations 109,000 million that these countries need after devastating climatic impacts. The 39 countries of the Alliance of Small Island States They criticize the agreement, saying it is unsafe and unfair because it does not adequately address the problem of rising sea levels. Promised funding for developing countries postponed to COP29. Despite progress, the agreement postpones resolution of this urgent problem.
On the other hand, multilateralism has made progress on the climate crisis in part by uniting nations with diverse interests, such as members of OPEC and the G-20, which account for 20% of global emissions. The active participation of the Holy See delegation in COP28 marks a milestoneFor the first time, it goes beyond the role of observer, as was the case at previous United Nations summits.