The COP28 climate talks in Dubai ended on Wednesday with a deal that is being heralded as both “historic” and a “lost opportunity,” as both “strong” and full of “loopholes and shortcomings.”
Who is right? Although digesting all the documents, running into several hundred pages, would take time, let me offer some initial observations.
First, kudos to COP28 President Sultan Al Jaber, the Emirati oil executive, for getting everyone over the line. After three decades of climate diplomacy, it was a petroleum insider who delivered the strongest-ever call for the fossil-fuel industry to change.
Illustration: Mountain People
However, as he said on Wednesday: “We are what we do, not what we say.”
Actions, rather than statements, are needed to fight the climate crisis. Based on previous experience, little of what was agreed at the annual UN conference translates into real policies — particularly when it costs money.
Most of the attention is on paragraphs 28 and 29 of a document called the “global stocktake.” Depending on your view, those two paragraphs contain 245 words that signal the beginning of the end of the global fossil fuel industry. Maybe — but not today, not tomorrow, and perhaps not for several more years.
Here is the first key point: “… further recognizes the need for deep, rapid and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in line with 1.5°C pathways and calls on Parties to contribute to the following global efforts, in a nationally determined manner...”
That makes an obvious point: The world needs a rapid reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. All good until here, but after that, the document “calls on” the world to act. In UN parlance, calling on is the weakest of all exhortations used in diplomatic language. It is an invitation to do something, rather than an actual demand. While stronger than initial drafts, which used the formula “to take actions that could include,” it is still at the bottom of the policy action ladder.
Then, the document enumerates a series of actions in several subparagraphs. Here are the most important points: “... tripling renewable energy capacity globally and doubling the global average annual rate of energy efficiency improvements by 2030...”
This is the least controversial of all the calls for behavioral change — and one that was agreed upon even before the summit started. The inclusion of a fixed date — 2030 — is very important. The lack of caveats and qualifiers indicates the broad support for it. Obviously, countries need to deliver, but surely it would boost the solar and wind industries. It is not attracting headlines, but to me, this is the most important agreement. If implemented, it would change the electricity industry.
“... accelerating efforts towards the phase-down of unabated coal power ...”
The final wording repeats language already agreed at COP26 in Glasgow in 2021, rather than going beyond, as previous drafts did. An earlier version for COP28 called for “rapidly phasing down” coal — language that diplomats see as stronger than the final “accelerating.” The initial draft also contained an important clause to put “limitations on permitting new” coal-fired power stations. That wording did not make into the final communique due to pressure from India and other emerging nations. A note on implementation: Since COP26 two years ago, global coal demand has increased. Agreeing to “phase down” and actually “phasing down” are very different.
“...transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade, so as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science...”
This, subparagraph D, is the headline-grabbing statement of the summit. It marks the first time that a climate document explicitly calls the world to move away from fossil fuels. Those who say COP28 marks the beginning of the end for oil, gas and coal, base their assertion on that phrasing, but those who speak about loopholes also refer to the very same wording. The truth is somewhere in between.
First, the communique talks about “transitioning away” rather than “phasing down” or “phasing out” fossil fuels. The latter is the wording that climate campaigners pushed for. Two days ago, an earlier draft used a different formula, talking about “reducing both consumption and production” of fossil fuels. The final wording is a concession to Saudi Arabia and other OPEC+ nations because it puts the onus on the demand side, rather than on production.
Rather than shutting down oil wells, as “phasing out” would suggest, by using the wording “transitioning away” the UN is effectively calling on countries to first reduce demand. It might sound like splitting hairs, but it is an important distinction. That is why Saudi officials emerged from the COP28 summit smiling. In future gatherings, they can argue that they will keep pumping oil until there are signs that transition is under way. For now, oil demand keeps increasing.
There is another victory for oil-producing nations: The transition needs to be achieved in an “orderly” fashion — a nod to the need to keep oil prices stable. To achieve such progress, oil producers argue that there is a need for continued investments in new oil fields. And by oil producers, do not think just about the Saudis. The US is today the world’s largest oil producer, accounting for 20 percent of global output. In Dubai, US Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry fought against fossil fuels, but at home, the fossil fuel industry is booming, with the support of the White House.
“... accelerating zero- and low-emission technologies, including, inter alia, renewables, nuclear, abatement and removal technologies such as carbon capture and utilization and storage, particularly in hard-to-abate sectors, and low-carbon hydrogen production...”
This is another victory for oil producers — and above all, for Big Oil companies like ExxonMobil Corp, which are betting heavily on carbon sequestration. The UN effectively has given its blessing to a technology still in its infancy, and one that many critics say will not be able to take away enough carbon dioxide to make a difference. The wording is also slightly weaker than earlier drafts at COP28, which emphasized that those technologies were a means to transition away from fossil fuels. The emphasis was omitted from the final declaration.
“… recognizes that transitional fuels can play a role in facilitating the energy transition while ensuring energy security...”
Perhaps the biggest loophole of the communique — and the source of much frustration among campaigners. First, what on Earth is a “transitional fuel?” Searching for an answer in the document is a fruitless task. That is deliberate, so every delegation can claim whatever they prefer. For some, transitional fuels are green hydrogen and uranium; for others, transitional fuels includes some fossil fuels — just do not say it out loud. To me, it opens an enormous backdoor to support the use of natural gas for years, if not decades, to come. So perhaps COP28 marked the sunset of the fossil-fuel era, only to herald the dawn of the “transitional fuel” era — in the form of transitional gas.
Who is behind that subparagraph? Many emerging countries, including China and India, believe they can only ditch coal if they have access to natural gas, but they are not alone. Japan has the same view, and the wording, particularly the emphasis on “energy security,” is similar to what I have heard from Tokyo for several months already. And do not forget who are two of the world’s top-three largest producers of liquefied natural gas — the US and Australia. Little happens in global climate diplomacy without the nod from Washington and Canberra.
Weighing every sentence, every diplomatic compromise, going word-by-word with a diplomatic-parlance dictionary at hand, what emerges is a nuanced document. That is not a bad thing. The COP28 communique does mark a historic moment — with the world agreeing that, one way or another, it needs to burn less fossil fuels, ditching an industrial model that has powered economies for 150 years, but also the day that the world acknowledged that path is far more complicated, expensive, and time-consuming than the headlines suggests. That is probably the best outcome we could have hoped for.
Javier Blas is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering energy and commodities. He is coauthor of The World for Sale: Money, Power and the Traders Who Barter the Earth’s Resources.This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
RSS