After an earlier draft of the Stocktake text drew criticism from climate advocates, leaders of small island states, and others, negotiators went back to the drawing board, delaying the official end of COP28. After about twenty-four hours of tense negotiations, another draft was released on December 13.
The new and final draft of the Global Stocktake stops short of calling for a total phaseout of fossil fuels. But it does seem to have taken into account the criticism that the previous draft was too ambiguous on the need for parties to transition their economies away from fossil fuels. Item 28 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,” and lists among the actions parties should take toward that goal that “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” and “Accelerating efforts globally towards net zero emission energy systems, utilizing zero- and low-carbon fuels well before or by around mid-century;”
These statements are much more in line with the scale of what is needed to keep the goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C, the target scientists say will help us avoid the worst impacts of climate change (though there will be some, as 2023’s likely designation “hottest year in recorded history” makes clear).
Some are optimistic about the Stocktake. UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell declared in his closing speech that the era of fossil fuels may be nearing its end.
But it is important to note areas of potential concern in the new language. One action parties can take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions listed in Item 28 is “Accelerating efforts towards the phase-down of unabated coal power.” Not only does the language “accelerating efforts toward” leave generous room for interpretation, the qualifier “abated” is worrisome. The word “abated” was a source of much conversation at this year’s climate talk. Abated coal (or other fuel) means a process where coal will continue to be burned as a fuel, but the emissions will be “scrubbed” to remove CO2 before it can escape to the atmosphere.
Unfortunately, the technology required to capture CO2 from coal-fired facilities has not been shown to work effectively on the scale required to make a meaningful impact on CO2 emissions from coal. Additionally, CO2 is not the only harmful effluent from coal-fired processes. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) both cause poor air quality, which leads to poor health outcomes for the very young, the very old, and vulnerable groups, like people with asthma. Abatement also doesn’t address the dangers of coal mining to both workers and the environment.
While a total phaseout of coal would be preferable, it is often used in what are referred to as “Hard to Decarbonize Industries,” like steel milling and concrete production, which require significant amounts of heat that are hard to generate using renewably generated electricity. The Stocktake should not be used as an excuse to resign ourselves to continued use of coal in these industries, but instead be an inspiration to redouble efforts to decarbonize these industries through innovation.
In Item 29 the document “recognizes the role of transitional fuels in facilitating the energy transition.” Because natural gas is most often the go-to for those interested in transitioning to a lower carbon source for electrical generation, this item requires a caveat. Natural gas is only cleaner burning than coal at the point of combustion. Leaks of methane during the recovery and transport processes mean that when used as a fuel, natural gas is equally carbon intensive as coal for each unit of energy. The recent EPA Methane Rule, announced at the beginning of this year’s COP, is one attempt to reduce those additional emissions of methane. These improvements can all be done using currently available technology.
Other sections of the Stocktake “request” parties “revisit and strengthen 2030 targets in their nationally determined contributions as necessary to align with the Paris Agreement temperature goal by the end of 2024” and “encourages” parties to ensure their next nationally determined contributions include “ambitious, economy-wide emission reduction targets covering all greenhouse gases.” Some advocates hoped for stronger language than “requests” and “encourages,” but the nature of the COP process, even if the language was stronger, is that it relies on parties to follow through with their commitments voluntarily. Given the vigorous advocacy for strong language after the release of the second to last draft of the document, we hope parties will be equally enthusiastic in their efforts to reduce emissions in response to the Stocktake findings.
Another shortcoming of the document is the limited attention to climate finance. Although the Loss and Damage Fund was historically passed on the first day of the COP, current commitments for funding are not at the level needed to address adaptation and mitigation needs. Without adequate support, especially from developed countries whose economies have benefitted most from the use of fossil fuels, developing nations have to make difficult choices between contributing to climate mitigation efforts, adapting to the significant climate impacts they are already facing, and engaging other projects, like lifting their citizens out of poverty. Advocates had hoped that the Stocktake document would include strong language calling for developed parties to contribute to climate finance, but in its final form the document merely acknowledges that climate finance is needed and “notes with deep regret” that climate finance promises made at the time of the Paris Agreement have not been kept.
Despite these concerns, there are things to celebrate in this final draft of the Stocktake. This is the first publication in any COP to tie climate change to fossil fuels and to call for a phase down of their use. Some find hope in the responsiveness of the COP presidency to feedback regarding the draft. Susana Mohamed, Minister of Environment and Sustainable Development of Colombia, was quoted in a Grist article saying that it was because so many oil-producing countries were at the negotiations that we were able to secure the fossil fuel phasedown language in the Stocktake. She said “I imagine a lot of political capital was expended in this process,” she said of the UAE presidency. “It was a fair process. And what the text reflects is what the real political situation is. It is the best possible outcome.”
Whether you celebrate the step forward represented by the Stocktake outcome or you lament the absence of a clear call for a fossil fuel phaseout, one thing is clear. Without advocacy efforts from those on the side of a safe and healthy climate, the influence of OPEC and the other oil-producing countries in attendance would have meant a much weaker outcome. It was the voices of small island nations, climate advocates, and the faith community that forced the COP presidency to bring the parties back together to negotiate the stronger final draft we have now. For me, this evidence of the power of public witness is one great outcome of this year’s COP.