{"id":61137,"date":"2023-11-29T10:11:08","date_gmt":"2023-11-29T18:11:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/energi.media\/?p=61137"},"modified":"2023-11-29T10:11:08","modified_gmt":"2023-11-29T18:11:08","slug":"here-are-the-4-issues-to-watch-at-cop28","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/energi.media\/news\/here-are-the-4-issues-to-watch-at-cop28\/","title":{"rendered":"Here are the 4 issues to watch at COP28"},"content":{"rendered":"

This article was published by Grist<\/a> on Nov. 29, 2023.<\/em><\/p>\n

By Grist staff<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Every year, world leaders gather under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to assess countries\u2019 progress toward reducing carbon emissions and limiting global temperature rise. The most famous of these so-called Conferences of Parties, or COPs, resulted in the landmark 2015 Paris Agreement, which marked the first time the world\u2019s countries united behind a goal to limit global temperature increase. That treaty consists of 29 articles with numerous targets, including reducing greenhouse gas emissions, increasing financial flows to the most climate-vulnerable countries, and establishing a carbon market.<\/p>\n

This year\u2019s COP, which commences in Dubai on Thursday, is all about determining whether that agreement succeeds or fails. For the first time since the Paris accords, the negotiators assembled at COP28 over the next two weeks will conduct a \u201cglobal stocktake\u201d to measure how much progress they\u2019ve made toward those goals.<\/p>\n

While activists up the ante with disruptive protests and industry leaders hash out deals on the sidelines, the most consequential outcomes of the conference will largely be negotiated behind closed doors. In the coming weeks, delegates will pore over language describing countries\u2019 commitments to reduce carbon emissions, jostling over the precise wording that all 194 countries can agree to. (In past years, negotiations have been saved\u00a0by shifting a single comma<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

With more than 70,000 participants expected \u2014 not just national negotiators but also academics, activists, and civil society representatives \u2014 this year\u2019s meeting promises to be particularly contentious. The conference is being hosted by the United Arab Emirates, the world\u2019s fifth-largest oil producer, and is being presided over by the CEO of the country\u2019s oil company, Sultan al-Jaber.\u00a0Recent media reports<\/a>\u00a0suggesting that he has been using the COP28 presidency to push oil and gas deals have further stoked fears that he may not be a neutral arbiter to oversee the proceedings. Against that backdrop, countries will be negotiating the precise language that signals the world\u2019s transition away from fossil fuels.<\/p>\n

Countries are also expected to decide whether they can commit to tripling renewable energy use and doubling energy efficiency, measures that al-Jaber is pushing and are widely seen as a barometer of a successful COP. But a number of other major issues loom over the conference. Here are the big-ticket items to watch as negotiations get underway.<\/p>\n

\u2013 Naveena Sadasivam<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

Will world leaders commit to a phaseout of fossil fuels?<\/strong><\/h2>\n

In 2015, the international community agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to try to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. But it wasn\u2019t until 2021, at the\u00a0COP26 in Glasgow<\/a>, Scotland, that a U.N. climate deal explicitly referenced fossil fuels \u2014 the biggest contributor to climate change \u2014 for the first time. In that conference\u2019s final decision text, which sums up the outcomes of COP discussions, diplomats agreed to pursue a \u201cphasedown of unabated coal power\u201d and a \u201cphase-out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.\u201d Last year at COP27, diplomats\u00a0repeated the same commitment<\/a>, leaving this language mostly untouched.<\/p>\n

At both negotiations, governments fiercely debated whether to agree to a phaseout<\/em> or a phasedown<\/em>\u00a0of coal \u2014 a subtle difference with major policy implications. Some countries, including small island nations, advocated for a full \u201cphaseout,\u201d which refers to a complete displacement of coal with renewables. Oil-exporting countries like Saudi Arabia and coal-reliant economies like India instead pushed for a \u201cphasedown,\u201d which would dramatically reduce coal use but stop short of eliminating it entirely. Efforts to limit all fossil fuels \u2014 and not just coal \u2014 have also failed in the last two years.<\/p>\n

These debates will likely continue at COP28, according to climate policy experts. A State Department official told reporters in November that whether it\u2019s \u201cphasedown,\u201d \u201cphaseout,\u201d or a completely different phrase altogether, the final decision of the conference will likely have some reference to the transition away from fossil fuels. In a recent joint statement,\u00a0the United States and China agreed to develop renewables<\/a>\u00a0to \u201caccelerate the substitution for coal, oil, and gas generation,\u201d offering another potential wording option.<\/p>\n

Adding to the complexity is disagreement over the use of the word \u201cunabated.\u201d Abated fossil fuels refers to coal, oil, and gas projects that use carbon capture technology, which the International Energy Agency recently characterized as \u201cexpensive and unproven at scale<\/a>.\u201d Wealthy nations including the U.S. and those in\u00a0the European Union<\/a>\u00a0have called for a \u201cphase out of\u00a0unabated fossil fuels<\/a>\u201d \u2014 wording that Barbados, Finland, the Marshall Islands, and others have argued would leave the door open for \u201cabated\u201d fossil fuels. Those countries have instead called for\u00a0a plain \u201cphase out of fossil fuels.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2013 Akielly Hu<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

Will developing countries be paid reparations for the loss and damage wrought by climate change?<\/strong><\/h2>\n

At COP27 last year, against the backdrop of devastating floods that left\u00a0one-third of Pakistan underwater<\/a>, countries united behind a landmark climate reparations fund. While it was a\u00a0triumph decades in the making<\/a>, negotiators ultimately did little more than agree to set up a fund to pay for the \u201closs and damage\u201d suffered by the world\u2019s most vulnerable countries, who have emitted relatively little carbon but are poised to suffer outsized climate impacts. This year, countries are gearing up to figure out the nitty-gritty details of putting the fund into action.<\/p>\n

\u201cLoss and damage is the main event at COP, to be honest,\u201d said Avinash Persaud, a climate envoy from Barbados.<\/p>\n

Some of the key questions surrounding the fund\u00a0began to get settled<\/a>\u00a0at a\u00a0meeting of negotiators in Abu Dhabi<\/a>\u00a0earlier this month. The negotiators recommended that the World Bank host the fund and that countries that have polluted the most historically, such as the U.S., U.K., and European Union nations, be the primary donors to the fund.<\/p>\n

The recommendations did not please all parties, particularly developing nations who cited the World Bank\u2019s history as a U.S.-aligned, bureaucratic institution that often favors loans over direct grants. A loan system defeats the purpose of a loss and damage fund, said Kishan Kumarsingh, head of multilateral environmental agreements for Trinidad and Tobago.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt should not be loans against which you have to pay interest because then you\u2019re paying for your own loss and damage,\u201d said Kumarsingh.<\/p>\n

Over the next two weeks, COP negotiators will decide whether to adopt the recommendations from the Abu Dhabi meeting. A U.S. State Department official indicated on a call with reporters earlier this month that this was likely. Negotiators are also likely to hash out which country will host the fund and take steps toward appointing a board. Other key points include when the fund will begin paying out, as well as how vulnerable countries will be prioritized for funding. Developed nations led by the United States are also looking to rope in high-emitting developing nations,\u00a0like China,<\/a>\u00a0to contribute to the fund.<\/p>\n

The success of the fund depends on how much money it\u2019s able to raise. The global cost of loss and damage is expected to exceed\u00a0$300 billion<\/a>\u00a0a year, and representatives for developing nations have called on wealthy nations to provide a minimum of\u00a0$100 billion annually by 2030<\/a>. The European Union has already pledged to make a \u201csubstantial\u201d contribution. All eyes are on the U.S. to see if it\u2019ll pony up.<\/p>\n

\u2013 Siri Chilukuri<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

Will a global carbon market save the Paris Agreement \u2014 or sink it?<\/strong><\/h2>\n

For years, private companies have been using\u00a0carbon markets<\/a>\u00a0to make progress toward their emissions reduction goals. When it\u2019s too difficult to reduce their own climate pollution, they can buy credits equivalent to the amount of carbon dioxide \u201cremoval\u201d generated by activities like tree-planting \u2014 carbon that allegedly, if not for the credit, would have accumulated in the atmosphere.<\/p>\n

Now, the United Nations is trying to create its own carbon market under the Paris Agreement, to help countries reach their individual emissions reduction targets. The stakes are high: According to one\u00a0estimate<\/a>, allowing countries to trade carbon credits could allow them to slash 50 percent more emissions at no additional cost. But at the same time, experts are wary of replicating the private markets\u2019\u00a0many, many flaws<\/a>\u00a0\u2014\u00a0including insufficient rules and oversight to ensure that sequestered carbon doesn\u2019t escape back into the atmosphere. Some observers have described the private sector\u2019s carbon markets as \u201criddled with fraud<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

To craft a better system for U.N. member states, a group of experts has been working since 2021 on recommendations for the\u00a0kinds of projects that should be allowed to generate carbon credits<\/a>, and\u00a0how their emissions reductions should be counted<\/a>. The group finalized its recommendations on November 17, less than two weeks before COP28. Among them: a definition for removals; requirements for these removals to be monitored for \u201creversals,\u201d in which they release their locked-up carbon; and what to do in case of a reversal.<\/p>\n

Now, these proposals will be discussed by a small body of negotiators at COP28 and, if all goes according to plan, presented for approval by the larger group of countries that have ratified the Paris Agreement. There\u2019s significant pressure for countries to at least reach a compromise; if not, the expert group will likely have to wait until COP29 to submit revised recommendations.<\/p>\n

Even under the smoothest of circumstances, however, there are still other issues to be resolved before the U.N. carbon market becomes fully functional. Notably, countries need a registry capable of tracking carbon credits as they\u2019re generated and traded. This\u00a0may not materialize until 2024<\/a>. Isa Mulder, a policy expert for the nonprofit Carbon Market Watch, said it\u2019s \u201cunlikely\u201d that any credits will be issued before 2025.<\/p>\n

Mulder also criticized the expert group\u2019s recommendations for leaving too much up to \u201cfurther guidance,\u201d meaning it\u2019s unclear whether they\u2019ll adequately address some of the problems that have plagued existing carbon markets.<\/p>\n

Pedro Martins Barata, associate vice president of carbon markets and private sector decarbonization for the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund, said there won\u2019t be a single moment \u2014 a \u201cribbon cutting,\u201d as he put it \u2014 that brings the new carbon market to life, neither during COP28 nor afterward. Rather, COP28 negotiators will \u201cget as far as possible,\u201d he said \u2014 far enough, he hopes, for worthy carbon credit project developers to get the ball rolling.<\/p>\n

\u2013 Joseph Winters<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n