Reacción a "Reactions: COP28 approves "transition away from fossil fuels" in Global Stocktake"

The 28th Climate Summit ended with a report that was better than expected on the last day, but insufficient. The agreement is historic in some respects because, undoubtedly, there is finally talk of moving away from our dependence on oil and fossil fuels. That is historic. It is also historic that this has been achieved in an oil-producing country, with a president of the summit who is also the president of an oil company. It has many historic nuances and some cause for celebration, but it is clear to no one that COP28 has fallen far short, especially because the terms are not strong enough. Let's remember that it was swinging between the word "phase out" fossil fuels, especially oil, and "reduce", which was ambiguous, vague and very disappointing for almost everyone. A phrase was found, an intermediate terminology, which is to "transition" towards reduction and elimination, and this has been accepted and is in the document and is somewhat better than just leaving a vague "reduce", but it reflects the diplomatic difficulties and the difficulties for serious commitments. 

For me the main problem with this document and the resolutions reached is that they are not binding. Countries are left free to do or not to do, and there is no sanction, no consequence if countries do more or do less. These two features make these agreements just too loose a framework for the situation we are in, where climate change has picked up extraordinary speed in the last two years. That speed of climate change is not at all reflected in this document, in these summit conclusions. 

Summit 28 is full of very generic but rather vague words, which could also have been used at a summit 10 years ago. We are not there and yet, as is often said, we are continuing to make pompous and polite declarations, but it is true that some progress has been made. There are aspects related to human health, with adaptation to climate change, which is already here, with compensation funds for damages and losses caused by climate change. However, these are modest steps forward. Let us think about the amounts that countries are contributing to this compensation fund for damage and losses. They are, for the moment, small amounts and also the international organisations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, are not yet able to fully specify and orchestrate the financial mechanisms. 

So we have made progress since the Glasgow Summit (last year's summit in Egypt was just a short break). In Glasgow, many of the issues that are now being addressed were on the table and some progress has been made. In other words, there is some reason to rejoice but, in general, there is more reason to be concerned. I think we have to channel our concern, from citizens to professionals more or less related to aspects that may have a carbon footprint or strategies to mitigate climate change. We have to channel that concern towards concrete and quick solutions, something that is not in the COP document. They are neither concrete nor quick. There is talk of a transition decades away. Methane is indeed being mentioned as a gas - apart from CO₂ - that is important in the greenhouse effect, and there is a call for emissions to be reduced. Emphasis has been placed on tripling renewable energies and doubling energy efficiency, which is a step in the right direction, but these are not miracle solutions either. 

This opens up an uncertain and perhaps not entirely fortunate parenthesis on other forms of energy that are less carbon-intensive or have a smaller environmental footprint, even opening up the possibility of nuclear energy once again. These are doors that are being left open, probably with a view to complicated futures. Gas has been one of the big beneficiaries because it is seen as the transitional energy form par excellence and we know that gas, although it is better - in the sense of emissions - than oil and much better than coal, is by no means free of causing climate problems, so relying too much on gas is not the solution either. It can help transition, which is the spirit, but in the way it is written it allows countries, companies and organisations to interpret and apply it in different ways. 

So the summit leaves a lot of work to be done, it is not concrete enough, it does not reach the levels of urgency commensurate with an emergency, but at last it explicitly addresses the key problem of fossil fuels and not the generic umbrella of emissions - in a vague sense - that need to be reduced. Oil production and consumption is now talked about as something to be eliminated, although the word "eliminate" itself has been qualified a little. These are some small steps forward in a summit that has fallen short, but less short than we feared in the last few hours.