The annual climate conferences, or COPs, have always been under-achievers, almost certainly in the last two decades. During this period, the only time they delivered broadly in line with the environmental needs was when the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated.

From the environmental perspective, it has been a downhill journey ever since. The international arrangements to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, the only way to keep global warming in check, has been progressively weakened, mainly at the behest of the rich and powerful nations.

It was, therefore, probably too much to expect that COP28 would deliver a result that would miraculously raise the scale of climate actions to put the world on the 1.5 degree Celsius track. Compared with some other COPs, like the previous one in Sharm el-Shaikh, the Dubai meeting did, in fact, deliver a few meaningful decisions, but they were nowhere in line with the enormity of the task the talks were set out to accomplish.

Action Gap

The scientific ask has been quite clear for a few years. Greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced by at least 43 per cent from 2019 levels by 2030 to keep the 1.5 degree Celsius target alive, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Official data has shown that the total emissions in 2019, without accounting for those from land use and forestry, was 52.6 billion tonnes. That means emissions in 2030 need to be around 30 billion tonnes.

A recent assessment by the UN Climate Change of all the climate actions being taken, or planned, said that these would lead to just a 2 per cent decline in emissions by 2030. Clearly, a very large action gap exists. In quantitative terms, this gap would be worth about 22 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions equivalent in the year 2030.

 

In other words, the annual projected emissions in 2030 is expected to be 24 billion tonnes more than what it should be. The enormity of the problem becomes evident by the fact that all the current climate actions are expected to result in a reduction of just one billion tonnes in annual emissions by 2030.

Clearly, something dramatic needs to happen in the next seven years for the world to still be on track to meet the 1.5 degree Celsius goal. It was expected that COP28 would somehow respond to the urgent need and do better than previous conferences in delivering outcomes that are more in line with the scientific requirements.

Little Progress

There were two decisions in the COP28 final outcome that can help in bridging the emissions gap. One of these related to an agreement to triple the global installed capacity of renewable energy and double the annual rate of energy efficiency improvements by 2030. The other one was about “accelerating and substantially reducing” emissions of methane and other non-CO2 greenhouse gases. Important though they were, they alone would not be sufficient to bridge the entire gap.

The decision on tripling of renewable energy was expected, especially since it had been endorsed by the G20 countries a couple of months earlier. According to the International Energy Agency, this single measure could result in avoidance of about seven billion tonnes of CO2-equivalent emissions between now and 2030, or about one billion tonnes every year on an average.

Considering that all the other measures together yield just about one billion tonnes of emissions reductions by 2030, renewable energy tripling does seem to be a big step forward. However, achievement of the target is not a given. There are several question marks over how this is to be achieved – whether the target would be met organically or every country would be expected to do its bit.

The decision on methane emissions reduction is even more vague. There is not even a quantified target for reduction. Also, the benefits from methane emission cuts are often overplayed. Methane indeed is more dangerous than carbon dioxide in causing global warming, but its effect lasts for barely 20 years unlike carbon dioxide that stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years.

Methane emissions account for about 25 per cent of all greenhouse gas emissions every year. Even a 20-30 per cent cut in methane emissions between now and 2030 -- a very ambitious ask -- would result in only marginal gains, particularly if the CO2 emissions are also not reduced substantially.

Fossil Fuel Debate

Nothing illustrates the helplessness of the COP process in delivering an ambitious outcome than the debate on the phase-out of fossil fuels. Climate negotiations so far have talked only about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, never about tackling the sources of these emissions.

Fossil fuels -- oil, gas and coal -- generate nearly 80 per cent of all emissions, so it is clear that emissions reductions cannot take place without curtailing the use of fossil fuels. But somehow, a reduction in fossil fuel use, the elephant in the room, was never addressed.

Most of the influential nations, developed as well as developing, are heavily dependent on fossil fuels, either as producers or as consumers, or both. Emissions can be reduced by bringing in higher efficiency measures, or by increasing productivity, but a mandate to cut fossil fuel use hurts the economy directly.

At COP28, fossil fuel phase-out was discussed formally for the first time. No one expected the countries to agree to an aggressive phase-out of fossil fuels, and shift entirely to renewables in three to four decades. But a clear intent signalling the beginning of the end of the fossil fuel era was being considered to be a very good outcome.

What finally came out, following strong resistance from Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries to any mention of phase-out, was some benign language on countries agreeing to contribute towards “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems”, without any timeline or targets.

What Next?

Hopes for attaining the 1.5 degree Celsius target appear doomed as of now. Not in the least because the temperature rise is happening even more rapidly than expected. This year, 2023, has already been declared to be the warmest ever, and likely to be 1.4 degree Celsius warmer than the pre-industrial average.

Several days during the year breached the 1.5 degree threshold for daily averages. It would not be very long before the decadal averages, which is what the 1.5 degree Celsius threshold really is, also begins to get breached.

But the 1.5 degree or 2 degree thresholds are arbitrary cut-offs, selected by scientists. These are not natural tipping points. There is no sudden catastrophe beyond these thresholds. But the climate impacts would get progressively more and more difficult, and expensive, to cope with.

Three decades of climate negotiations have made it abundantly clear that economic and strategic interests far outweigh concerns on rising temperatures and the destructive consequences it brings. And it is a vicious cycle.

Prioritising economic and strategic interests does not allow ambitious climate action, and because climate action is inadequate, countries feel it is better to secure their economic and strategic interests since that would be extremely crucial in building resilience and adapting to climate change.

(The author is Deputy Editor with the Indian Express. Views expressed are personal)