Two years ago, at COP28 in Dubai, consensus was reached among countries that there was a need to move away from fossil fuel usage, but nothing came out in terms of a phasing out timeline in this regard since, including in COP29 last year.
Hence, it was hoped, given it had been around two years since this consensus was reached, and also because global average annual temperature had crossed the threshold of 1.5°C, that a timeline would be reached in the consensus document of this year’s COP meetings in Belem, Brazil.
Having said that, what to talk of consensus, the very words ‘fossil fuel’ were not even mentioned in the ‘Draft decision -/CMA.7’; reportedly at the back of strong lobbying by countries with a vested interest in hurdling the progress towards non-fossil fuel sources of energy, which apparently was too strong for the efforts made by close to 80 countries at the COP30, coming together to push for a consensus on phasing out fossil fuel as per some timetable.
One strong negative that came out of COP30, was an attempt to make controversial, otherwise very respected findings in the international scientific community over the years of the United Nations ‘Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
An article ‘COP30 climate summit reaches deal that leaves many nations unhappy’ in Bloomberg that came out on November 22, pointed out in this regard ‘A group of about 80 countries and the European Union had pressed for a more explicit road map to guide the transition away from oil, gas and coal toward a cleaner economy but met resistance from key oil and gas producing states from the Middle East as well as Russia. … Several countries raised concerns Saturday, complaining that their views had been overlooked inside negotiating rooms and the final session. A representative from Panama said the nation was “extremely disappointed” with the final outcome, saying it pretends to measure work on adaptation while refusing to offer meaningful resources to fund it. Colombia raised an objection to a text addressing how to limit warming because it was silent on the fossil fuels responsible for the majority of climate change.’
In an article titled ‘Oil producers, but maybe not the planet, get a win as climate talks end’, which was published by New York Times (NYT), highlighting this unfortunate attitude with regard to provision of a timeline for moving away from fossil fuel usage, the article indicated ‘Global climate negotiations ended on Saturday in Brazil with a watered-down resolution that made no direct mention of fossil fuels, the main driver of global warming. The final statement, roundly criticized by diplomats as insufficient, was a victory for oil producers like Saudi Arabia and Russia. It included plenty of warnings about the cost of inaction but few provisions for how the world might address dangerously rising global temperatures head-on. Without a rapid transition away from oil, gas and coal, scientists warn, the planet faces increasing devastation from deadly heat waves, droughts, floods and wildfires.’
In addition, although there was consensus reached whereby COP30 ‘Decides to urgently advance actions to enable the scaling up of financing for developing country Parties for climate action from all public and private sources to at least USD 1.3 trillion per year by 2035…’ not much details were provided on how the climate finance related commitment would be fulfilled in terms of source of finance, and timelines.
Moreover, while it was important to enhance the fiscal space with countries, especially developing countries like Pakistan, which are both highly climate change vulnerable, and are also deeply debt distressed, at the same time, there was a need to reduce debt servicing related expenditures. For this, there was need to make changes in the global financial architecture, for instance, in terms of revisiting over-board austerity policies that significantly enhance debt repayment related expenditure needs– taking away in the process from important needs of spending on resilience, and overall sustainable development goals (SDGs)– and in improving the global debt restructuring framework. Hence, while the draft decision ‘Welcomes efforts to reform the international financial architecture…’ no specifics were provided. Seen overall, COP30 fell meaningfully short of fulfilling its promise, as it was being tipped as the ‘Consensus COP’, happening ten years after the important ‘Paris Agreement’ with high hopes that this COP will finally turn the tide on years of lacklustre performance of COPs.
One strong negative that came out of COP30, was an attempt to make controversial, otherwise very respected findings in the international scientific community over the years of the United Nations ‘Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
A November 27, Financial Times (FT) published article pointed out in this regard ‘Fights over finance and fossil fuels dominated the UN COP30 summit in Brazil– but climate science also took a less high profile but worrying battering at the talks in the Amazonia port city of Belém. The work of the UN’s body of global scientists known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was relegated to footnotes of some technical talks and the latest science was not considered, leaving countries increasingly hit by extreme weather events, such as Bangladesh and Australia, up in arms, joined by dismay from the EU and UK and others. “We are also deeply concerned about the consistent attempts to weaken references to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as the provider of the best available science, not only under this agenda item but across several others,” Bangladesh said during one set of talks.’
