As the sun rose on the arid Dubai sky on the morning of December 13, COP28 concluded approving a deal on transition away from fossil fuels. That transition would be in a way that gets the world to net zero greenhouse gas emissions in 2050 and follows the dictates of climate science. Called a global stocktake and arrived at after bitter and often angry haggling over the proposed draft agreement the whole of the previous night, it was one of the tamest expressions of world resolve to deal with environmental issues.
“It is a plan that is led by the science,’’ Sultan al-Jaber, the President of the Conference declared. “It is an enhanced, balanced but make no mistake, a historic package to accelerate climate action. It is the UAE consensus.” “We have language on fossil fuel in our final agreement for the first time ever,” al-Jaber, further added. Words that may comfort but betray most expectations.
The new proposal doesn’t go so far as to seek a “phase-out” of fossil fuels, which more than 100 nations had pleaded for. Instead, it calls for “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade.”
The Alliance of Small Island States said in a statement that the text “is incremental and not transformational. We see a litany of loopholes in this text that are a major concern to us.”
Many nations have criticised the agreement for failing to call for a “phase-out” of fossil fuels, which scientists say are by far the biggest source of the greenhouse gas emissions driving global warming. More than 100 countries ranging from the United States and the EU to tiny island nations had pushed for the language, but came up against strong resistance from members of the OPEC oil producer group and its allies.
Shorn of semantics, the agreement is at best a fig leaf, exposing deep fissures among the divided world community. Predictably COP28 has ended as yet another elaborate exercise of the world community crying hoarse on the problem but pussy footing when action is called for. Clearly immediate concerns fuelled by self-interest and perpetuation of an established order, dominated over long term global interests. It was a continuation of a pattern and tradition; but COP28 has been particularly dismal in outcomes. As the Chinese representative so eloquently expressed, it has been the most difficult conference in recent years. Even the presidency admitted that this conference will be best remembered for the divergence in opinions than for agreements.
A Positive Beginning
Although on the very first day of COP 28, a major breakthrough brightened the prospects for a conference that was widely feared to be a wash out, the challenges before it were formidable and intractable. But the fact that the diplomats from nearly 200 countries approved a plan for a ‘loss and damage’ fund, a demand developing countries have been making for over three decades, lifted the mood and set an upbeat tone. The pledges to this fund, as of now, add up to $549 million, with UAE and Germany contributing $100 million each while UK pledging about $75 million and Japan $10 million. The US committed a disappointing $17.5 million that many feel was niggardly from the largest economy and compared to the damage it has caused. The fund will help vulnerable countries hit by climate disasters, which are made worse by pollution spewed by wealthy nations. The adequacy of the funds may be judged by the fact that climate-related damages are expected to cost developing countries between $280 billion and $580 billion per year by 2030.
UNFCCC Reports: Evaluating Global Climate Trajectory
The UNFCCC Secretariat, just before the Conference, published two synthesis reports on Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and long-term low-emission development strategies (LT-LEDS) under the Paris Agreement. These reports, crucial for COP 28 in Dubai, revealed that despite increased efforts by some countries, urgent action was required to alter the global emissions trajectory and mitigate the impacts of climate change.
The first report, ‘Nationally Determined Contributions Under the Paris Agreement,’ analyzed the latest NDCs from 195 parties, indicating that while emissions in 2030 are projected to be 2% below 2019 levels, they lack the necessary rapid downward trend. Achieving emission peaking before 2030 depends on implementing the conditional elements of NDCs, contingent on enhanced financial resources, technology transfer, and capacity-building support.
The second report focused on LT-LEDS, incorporating submissions from 75 parties representing 87% of the world’s GDP, 68% of the global population in 2019, and about 77% of global greenhouse gas emissions in 2019. Despite a significant portion targeting net-zero emissions, many net-zero targets remain uncertain and defer critical actions to the future.
The overall assessment post-COP 27 was predicted as pessimistic, with the ongoing Middle East crisis further clouding prospects.
Even before the Conference began, doubts were expressed about any significant outcomes. Many felt that the potential failure of this event was seeded in terrorist attacks across the world by groups prioritizing hatred and violence over environmental concerns.
The task, therefore, in Dubai was both formidable and fractious.
India at COP28
India did make its presence felt at Dubai. The most dramatic, of course, was the storming of the stage by Licypriya Kangujam, a 12-year-old climate-justice activist from India. She rushed onto the stage at the COP28 climate summit on Monday, holding a sign above her head that read: “End fossil fuels. Save our planet and our future.” Kangujam, founder of The Child Movement has been active since she was six years old. She was later escorted away as the audience clapped. Her appearance briefly electrified the atmosphere.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s presence at the beginning of the conference underlined the priority and urgency India accords to the issues of environment. On 1st December, Modi addressed the opening session of COP 28, and proposed to host COP 33 Summit in India in 2028. On the sidelines of COP 28 in Dubai, Modi launched LeadIT 2.0, with a focus on inclusive and just industry transition. He added that LeadIT 2.0 focused on co-development and transfer of low-carbon technology and financial assistance to emerging economies. Earlier, addressing a session on Transforming Climate Finance, Modi urged developed countries to completely reduce carbon footprint intensity by 2050.
The Environment Minister Bhupendra Yadav invoked Prime Minister Modi’s earlier call for LiFE-Life Style for Environment, further stating that equity and climate justice must be the basis of global climate action. This can be ensured only when the developed countries take the lead in ambitious climate action. He also recounted the initiatives taken by India on augmenting non-fossil fuel energy sources. “India’s contribution to climate action has been significant through its international efforts such as International Solar Alliance (ISA), Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure (CDRI), creation of LeadIT, Infrastructure for Resilient Island States (IRIS) and the Big Cat Alliance,” he said. The Global Biofuel Alliance, launched when the G20 leaders met in New Delhi earlier this year, seeks to serve as a catalytic platform fostering global collaboration for advancement and widespread adoption of biofuels, he added.
Role of Terrorism: Missing Piece in Global Discourse
COP28 could not have taken place at a more inopportune time. The world’s attention riveted to Middle East in the wake of Hamas-Israel conflict, poised to escalate into a widespread crisis of extraordinary proportions, diminished the attention and intensity of discussions in Dubai. Undoubtedly COP28 has happened under the dark shadows of the crisis in the Middle East, the Hamas-Israel conflict, and the Russo-Ukraine war. The world is still at an edge hoping to obviate a global conflagration. The Middle East crisis is clearly created by the barbaric and reprehensible terrorist attack by Hamas. Terrorism, thus, casts a shadow on all endeavours of global cooperation, including COP.
Terrorism has never been discussed as a factor that affects obtaining progress on Global Environmental Goals. This omission seems both glaring and shocking in the background of terrorist activities across the globe duly and defiantly supported and financed by nations that must play a crucial role in achieving mitigated carbon emissions. For instance, many of the fossil fuel producing nations whose commitments are crucial in achieving any progress openly harbour terrorist organisations on their soil; and support and fund terrorist organisation in their own country and based on foreign soils. Terrorism requires all the natural resources that we are seeking to conserve. The economy of many of these countries is entirely dependent on producing fossil fuels. Terrorism leads to increased demand of these resources and those supporting terrorism act clearly in defiance and opposition of the global intent, rather hypocritically trumpeted by the same countries who openly work against them.
Seven Arguments Linking Terrorism to Environmental Risks
Arguably, terrorism may not directly cause environmental degradation, but it poses significant risks to environmental sustainability. Here are seven key arguments highlighting the link between terrorism and environmental threats:
- Resource Diversion: Counterterrorism efforts demand substantial resources, diverting attention and funding away from environmental initiatives, hindering sustainable practices and green technology development.
- Political Instability: Terrorism induces political instability, disrupting governance and policy-making. This instability challenges the establishment and enforcement of environmental regulations, as governments prioritise security over environmental protection.
- Infrastructure Damage: Acts of terrorism cause physical harm to critical infrastructure, such as energy facilities and transportation systems. Reconstruction may prioritize functionality over environmentally friendly practices, leading to increased emissions and pollution.
- Global Cooperation Disruption: Terrorism strains international relations, hampering global cooperation on environmental agreements. Diplomatic efforts are disrupted, hindering the development of effective global solutions to climate change.
- Economic Impact: Terrorism has severe economic consequences, diverting attention and resources from green technologies. Economic downturns lead to reduced investment in sustainable practices as immediate financial concerns take precedence.
- Migration and Resource Scarcity: Terrorism-induced forced migration increases pressure on resources in host regions, potentially worsening environmental degradation. Competition for scarce resources may result in unsustainable exploitation of natural habitats and increased carbon emissions.
- Security Risks from Climate Change: Climate change contributes to security risks, such as resource scarcity and extreme weather events. These challenges create conditions conducive to terrorism and conflict, forming a feedback loop between environmental issues and security concerns.
The Need for Global Acknowledgment
The lessons from the disappointing outcomes of COP28 must make us think why terrorism should not be brought on board as a factor and instrument of impeding environmental security of the globe and to deal with it accordingly. Given the geo-political compulsions and polarisation, the move shall surely be challenged and opposed, even berated. But it will be to the peril of the globe, to push it under the carpet. Recognizing terrorism’s role in impeding environmental insecurity is crucial. Policymakers must acknowledge its impact to foster global stability, cooperation, and resilient infrastructure for simultaneous progress in security and sustainability goals. Ignoring terrorism’s role risks undermining meaningful environmental progress.
It may be seeking a tall order. And the prevailing atmosphere of hostility, revenge, distrust, conceit and self-preservation does cloud a reasonable approach.
An Honest Assessment
In a letter of July 2023, the incoming UAE presidency of COP28 outlined four paradigm shifts for the summit: Fast-tracking the energy transition and cutting emissions before 2030, transforming climate finance, prioritizing nature and people in climate action, and aiming for the most inclusive COP ever. And as COP28 concludes, the first three shifts have at best seen limited progress, and the fourth still remains largely aspirational.
But there is an acknowledgement of the elephant in the room, as one of the ministers observed. Given the current world scenario, it is still a considerable achievement and gain. The reaffirmation of the world’s environmental ambitions does find a strong expression, only it seems deferred for the present.
This may be a dark hour but isn’t the night darkest before the dawn?*The writer, a Harvard educated civil servant, is a former Secretary to the Government of India. He also served on the Central Administrative Tribunal and as Secretary General of ASSOCHAM. He commands extensive expertise in the fields including Media and Information, Industrial and Labour Reforms, and Public Policy.
