Is COP28 another victory for the petroleum industry?

Today is the end of the much-acclaimed conference of the parties to the Paris Agreement. The conference was expected to be a game-changer where world leaders would make far-reaching cuts and commitments to end adverse climate change. The expectation was high for the conference to transform how we relate to nature, thus changing emissions of GHG. Indeed, it lived up to expectations with over 70,000 participants who graced the event either as climate tourists or as environmental advocates who are bent on reducing the carbon intensity of the global economy. Like other climate summits, it was derided as another round of 'our annual fanfare'. Climate activists arrived in Qatar with the hope of ending fossil fuels' undeniable hegemony over the global economy. But is wishful thinking, as the long-awaited COP28 final report is now available. Once again, we are accurate in our prediction, even though one would have wished for another outcome. We have finally reached the anticipated conclusion after a long and twisting negotiation. It took the global community two weeks to convey a message that was obvious from the start or could have been conducted from the comfort of our living rooms. There are not only significant omissions and gaps in the outcome document, but there are also inexcusable gaps that allow the world to continue relying heavily on fossil fuels.

The major benefit is that we were able to sneak in a reference to reducing the production of fossil fuels. It is a minor victory for those who have worked hard over the last few months to reach this point. So, we ask, did 70,000 participants travel to Qatar to sing siren songs about fossil fuels? Is this another victory for fossil fuels? What are the likely consequences?

Political deadlock

?From the start, the COP28 negotiation process was well-defined. The conference went ahead as planned, with members of the sixth column attempting to influence events in favour of the fossil fuel industry. Different countries have different expectations for COP28. For oil-exporting nations led by Saudi Arabia, any language implying an impending decline in fossil fuels through phrases such as 'phase out' spelt doom and hence was deemed too toxic for many to live with. Others believe that global action must be taken immediately to phase out fossil fuels, thereby reducing the carbon intensity of the global economy.

The failure of COP28 was not due to an inability to address the climate crisis with the urgency that is required for the most pressing issue of our time. Its demise is due to the fossil fuel industry's support and entrenchment of carbon emissions, where ambiguous language opens the door to further?emissions. The language used to reduce emissions from fossil fuels is so ambiguous that it raises concerns about the world's ability to meet the 1.5°C target.

Where we are

Other issues on the table, such as climate finance, adaptation, loss, and damage, continue to be ambiguous and subject to the whims and avarice of the donors who have other goals for their financial assistance. The summit undoubtedly broke new ground in addressing the complex issue of adaptation, as well as Article 6.2 and the loss and damage clause. Unfortunately, COP28's achievement of the net-zero target was tainted by the poorly worded document and the deletion of the phrase "phase out." With this, COP28 has failed to effectively safeguard the planet's and people's futures. More so, the final text did not expressly call for the complete phase-out of fossil fuels, as well as an equitable and quantifiable increase in renewable energy and energy efficiency targets.

Achieving net zero emissions has hit a brick wall. The fossil fuel industry has found newfound vigour from the outcome of the conference. Previous reports suggested that there was a window of opportunity and that COP28 was the turning point. I doubted then that anything substantial would shift. This much was stated in CFAN's newsletters. It is a game changer, for it has cemented the fossil fuel industry's hold on the world economy.

The inevitable end of fossil fuels is not?coming, even with the best intentions of US Special Envoy John Kerry. The introduction of the 'reduction of production and consumption' of fossil fuel phrase has the primary benefit of providing some form of compensation to the parties interested in the exit from fossil fuels. The takeaway of COP28 is that it will happen, but not on their watch.?Fossil fuels is fighting back with the exporting nation's refusal to sign their "death certificate." Yet, the Marshall Islands are at pains believing that the failure to 'phase out' fossil fuels has condemned them to a "watery grave."

What comes next?

The 1.5 degree Celsius target set in the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement has been abandoned. The fossil fuel industry has essentially been given a pat on the back and told to stop polluting or pollute in moderation. It's yet another nod to fossil fuels. But when will the climate endgame's musical chair end? We have squandered yet another opportunity to change the course of history. But time and tide wait for no one, and certainly not climate change!