QUESTION: There was a global attraction for CoP 28, especially with the publication of the Apostolic Exhortation, Laudate Deum. Has CoP 28 seriously taken the concerns of Pope Francis? What are its achievements? – Ancy David

ANSWER: Saji Mathew Kanayankal CST

The last Conference of Parties (CoP 28) was held at Dubai between 30 November to 12 December 2023 and had concluded with some strong decisions to mitigate the present climate change. This CoP was being held at a time when global warming was breaking new records. The year 2023 was the hottest year in history with more than 1.5 degree Celsius of 80 days. As many have pointed out, CoP 28 was possibly the last opportunity to ensure the world some hopes of keeping within the 1.5 degree Celsius warming threshold. In this conference, nearly 200 countries agreed to a new climate deal and for some, these decisions are historic, while many are doubtful of its real achievements mainly because of its clumsy language and loopholes.
Concerns of Pope Francis Prior to CoP 28
In his Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum as well as in the message to CoP 28, Pope Francis clearly spoken on the responsibility of the human being for the climate change and requested the international community to take clear measures to mitigate climate change. In the fourth section of the exhortation, Francis makes a critical observation on different Conferences of Parties (CoPs) began with the land marking conference at Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Though he was critique on the previous conferences and their real achievements, he has also expressed his expectations and hope. According to him, many of the suggestions of the previous conferences were sincere attempts to limit the global temperature by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, the different nations have failed to execute the agreements. In his message to CoP 28 Francis said that “climate change signals the need for political change.” So he requested the international community to “emerge from the narrowness of self-interest and nationalism” and to “join in embracing an alternative vision which may help to bring about an ecological conversion, for “there are no lasting changes without cultural changes” (LD 70). International negotiations, he says, “cannot make significant progress due to positions taken by countries which place their national interests above the global common good” (LD 52).
In his exhortation Francis, invited all to view the ecological crisis with an integral approach because, we cannot search merely for a technological solution to our problems. Later, in his message to CoP 28, he urged the international community to take radical steps because, “climate change is a global social issue and one intimately related to the dignity of human life” hence, the “future of us all depends on the present that we now choose.” He categorically told that “the destruction of the environment is an offence against God.” It is both personal and structural sin, which “greatly endangers all human beings, especially the most vulnerable in our midst and threatens to unleash a conflict between generations.” He asked the members of the conference to be attentive to the cry of the earth, to hear the plea of the poor, and to be sensitive to the hopes of the young and the dreams of children.
In the fifth section of the exhortation, Francis makes an obvious and radical question by asking, what to expect from CoP 28 in Dubai? Looking ahead to CoP28 he writes; “to say that there is nothing to hope for would be suicidal, for it would mean exposing all humanity, especially the poorest, to the worst impacts of climate change” (LD 53). We must, says Francis, “keep hoping that CoP28 will allow for a decisive acceleration of energy transition, with effective commitments subject to ongoing monitoring. This conference can represent a change of direction” (LD 54). By saying these words Francis gives a clear mandate to the world leaders prior to the conference. He has tremendous hope on the capacity of human beings to think for good and do it. “If we are confident in the capacity of human beings to transcend their petty interests and to think in bigger terms, we can keep hoping that CoP28 will allow for a decisive acceleration of energy transition, with effective commitments subject to ongoing monitoring” (LD 54). The exhortation also gives certain practical guidelines for the use of clean energy sources such as wind and solar energy, and to avoid the fossil fuels (LD 55). If there be sincere interest in making this a historic event, he says, then one can only hope for binding forms of energy transition (LD 59). “This conference can represent a change of direction, showing that everything done since 1992 was in fact serious and worth the effort, or else it will be a great disappointment and jeopardize whatever good has been achieved thus far” (LD 54).
Decisive Decisions of CoP 28
The conference has taken some serious global efforts to reduce carbon emission like the agreement to move away from fossil fuels, the promise to reduce methane emissions, operationalization and capitalisation of the loss and damage fund, and an agreement on a framework for the global goal on adaptation.
It is the first time that the UN asked the countries to move away from fossil fuels, which account for nearly 80 per cent of all greenhouse gas emissions. It has never been mentioned in any previous CoP decisions. The conference has also prepared a menu of actions they can take like, “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems … accelerating action in this critical decade, so as to achieve net zero by 2050.” Tom Evans, a policy advisor at E3G, comments; “there are some good elements in here but the signal on fossil fuels is muddled – it recognizes that we are turning away from fossil fuels at long last but still too slowly.” According to Teresa Anderson, global climate lead at ActionAid, “the draft sends a signal that the fossil industry’s days are numbered. But it still contains offers several gifts to the green washers, with mentions of carbon capture and storage, so-called transition fuels, nuclear power, and carbon markets.” Some are extremely disappointed that the term “fossil fuel phase-out” had not been used. Production and consumption of fossil fuels are unlikely to be curbed significantly in the near term, but it is an important, rather unavoidable, measure in the 2050 timeframe.
The agreement talks about “accelerating and substantially reducing non-cabon-dioxide emissions globally, including in particular methane emissions by 2030.” Methane, a powerful planet-warming gas, which accounts for nearly 25 per cent of all emissions, is about 80 times more potent than CO2 in causing global warming. The US announced regulations to cut methane pollution by nearly 80% through 2038. Almost fifty major oil and gas companies, signed a pledge to cut their methane emissions by the end of this decade. As per the agreement, countries are required to update their national plans in 2025 to reduce emissions, detailing how much they will cut down on planet-warming pollution by 2035. The US and China, the world’s two biggest emitters, have already jointly committed that their plans will cover all economy-wide climate pollution, and reduce emissions from non-CO2 gases such as methane and hydrofluorocarbons. However, many countries, including India, are extremely opposed to any mandate to cut methane emissions, mainly because it is one of the major sources happens to be agriculture and livestock. Cutting methane emissions could involve tweaking agricultural patterns which could be extremely sensitive in a country like India. Possibly in deference to the concerns of such countries, the agreement does not mention any targets for methane emission cuts for the year 2030, although a group of about 100 countries had made a voluntary commitment in Glasgow in 2021, to reduce their methane emissions by 30% by 2030.
The agreement also calls upon countries to contribute to tripling of global installed renewable energy capacity and a doubling of energy efficiency, by 2030. It has also asked the countries to make a detailed adaptation plans by 2025, that shows their dealings with the current and future impacts of the escalating climate crisis. These two measures have the potential to avoid emissions of about 7 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent between now and 2030. Tripling is a global target, and it is not incumbent on every country to individually triple its current installed capacity. It is thus not clear how this tripling would be ensured.
Another important step of the conference is the creation of Loss and Damage Fund. Though there was a decision to create such a fund in the previous conference at Sharm el-Shaikh, it had not been realised and no money was promised. As a result of different talks in CoP 28, many countries have agreed to commit making for the carbon funds. At the end of the conference, with the promises of the participants, an amount worth about US$ 800 million had been made to provide financial help to countries trying to recover from climate-induced disasters. This Green Climate Fund is an important decision for the poor and vulnerable countries, because this will be the major finance vehicle to help them adapt to the climate crisis and cut fossil fuel pollution.
Some Loopholes
However, like all previous CoPs, it remained an underachiever, unable to measure up to the expectations, particularly in galvanising more ambitious climate action in the immediate term. Though the conference speak of reducing fossil fuels, it does not speak of “phase-out” of fossil fuels. Though many countries, including United States and European Union, supported such an ambitious language, many fossil fuel states such as Saudi Arabia and Russia fiercely opposed it. In fact, a letter from the secretary general of Oil Producing and Exporting Countries (OPEC), addressed to its members and a few others, asking them to reject any such provision, had created quite a storm before conference. Their position seemed to have prevailed in getting the provision diluted in the latest draft agreement. Many scientists and other experts have said that carbon capture is unproven at scale and a distraction from policies to cut fossil fuel use, potentially giving license to polluters to carry on burning fossil fuels.
Despite being a fossil fuel, coal has received a separate mention in the agreement. Though coal was already singled out for phase-down in the Glasgow conference in 2021, there was no time stipulated for the same. There was a move to stipulate that no new coal fired power plants could be opened without an in-built carbon capture and storage facility, but this was strongly resisted by India, China, South Africa and other countries. It was dropped, and finally the Glasgow language was reiterated. There is nothing about how this phase-down is to be measured, or from what baseline.
Global Goal on Adaptation was another important step developing countries had been waiting for. Historically, adaptation has not received enough attention, or resources, as compared with mitigation activities, mainly because adaptation is largely a local endeavour. Its benefits also are mostly local. But developing countries had been arguing that a global framework for adaptation was necessary to bring more attention to it. Accordingly, the Glasgow conference had decided to set up a two-year work programme to define the contours of this framework. The work programme resulted in the identification of some common adaptation goals, important for the entire world. These included reduction in climate-induced water scarcity, attaining climate-resilience in food and agricultural production, supplies and distribution, and resilience against climate-induced health impacts. While observing the document, we can understand that the conference has tried to address the major issues raised by Pope Francis. However, I seriously doubt whether the conference has done enough to address the present crisis. I do join with Wopke Hoekstra, EU Climate commissioner, “there are good things, but overall, it is clearly insufficient and not adequate to addressing the problem we are here to address.”