By Radhey Wadhwa
As the curtains closed on COP28 in Dubai, the aftermath of this global environmental summit leaves us with a mosaic of achievements and setbacks. Distinct from its predecessors, COP28 carried the weighty task of charting a course post the Paris Agreement’s Global Stocktake. Before COP 28 even commenced, controversy emerged surrounding the selection of Sultan Al-Jaber, the head of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, as the conference president. The situation escalated for the host when a Kick Big Polluters Out report uncovered the presence of 2,456 fossil fuel lobbyists at COP 28.
Outcomes from the COP28
The conference’s First major outcome was operationalising the loss and damage fund. The Loss and Damage Fund helps the most vulnerable nations recoup losses and damages resulting from the impact of climate change. For example, the loss of land due to rising sea levels. However, the conference was over before any financial commitment was made to the fund.
The COP28 formally acknowledged that fossil fuels are the primary cause of the climate crisis and called for “transitioning away from the fossil fuels in the energy system”. This is the first-time fossil fuels have entered an agreement at any COP conference. The link between the two is quite obvious; however, only now, at COP28, has it been formally acknowledged. While ‘Phase Out’ language was conspicuously absent due to the influence of oil-producing nations, the agreement calls for nations to transition away from fossil fuels equitably and equitably. Oil-producing nations Intrinsically have powerful incentives to retain the status quo rather than advocate for reducing fossil fuel use, which is why the compromise language in the COP28 agreement is still noteworthy.
The final agreement also called for “tripling renewable energy capacity globally by 2030. The transition to renewable energy will be pivotal to reducing emissions and averting the worst of the climate crisis. And the explicit mention of 2030 is important. In India, the call to halt new coal power projects was replaced with a commitment to accelerate efforts in phasing down unabated coal, omitting specific timelines. A dedicated technology implementation program was also established to facilitate technology transfer and adoption in developing nations.
The agreement emphasised the quantity and quality of required finances, endorsing innovative financing measures. Notably, it addressed emerging trade concerns and endorsed cross-border carbon levies, cleverly proposing that proceeds be reinvested into climate initiatives.
India’s Position at COP 28 – Based on Equity and Climate Justice
India’s Environment Minister Bhupinder Yadav supported operationalising the Loss and Damage Fund. In the Coal vs Other Fossil Fuel debate, the Minister pointed out the Principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities ( CBDR-RC). He said, “ Every country wants the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C goal to be met. But we have different starting points, and some countries have the burden of poverty. So, the pressure from developed nations was not accepted”.
The discussions around Fossil Fuels and the language to be adopted for the final draft dominated the two-week-long conference. This led to sharp divisions between the developed and developing nations on the terms of such transition. While Rich Oil-producing nations like Saudi Arabia opposed the “phasing out” in the final text, other nations pointed out the lack of finances and support from the developed world. The final draft reflects that countries should “transition away from fossil fuels” but provides no further elaboration on the funding process.
The stronger language against coal in the final draft included a recommendation to “rapidly phase down unabated coal”. Developing Countries such as India, Indonesia, and China found that objectionable, as all are major consumers of coal power. India and China chose not to sign the Global Renewables and Energy Efficiency Pledge due to the draft text’s direct connection between tripling renewable energy and the “phasing down of unabated coal power.”
India intends to transition away from fossil fuels, aiming to meet 50% of its electricity installed capacity from non-fossil fuel sources by 2030. However, India’s coal dependency suggests that is unlikely to happen shortly. India does not plan to shut down any coal plants before 2030; India is the second largest coal producer in the world, accounting for 11% of coal production. Further, the total energy generation capacity from fossil fuels like oil, coal, etc, is 56%, of which coal accounts for 49%.
Further, the final text absolves developed nations of their duties, as it references natural gas as a ‘transition fuel’ in the final draft. From an Indian standpoint, it seems to exempt developed nations from the obligation of reducing their fossil fuel consumption. The mention of transitional fuels explicitly permits gas-producing countries to prioritise selling more gas rather than directing investments towards renewable energy.
(The author is a Ph.D. Candidate at the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. And holds a Master in International Relations from Jawaharlal Nehru University as well)
Disclaimer: Views expressed are personal and do not reflect the official position or policy of Financial Express Online. Reproducing this content without permission is prohibited.