In the outcome clause of the 28th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the phrase “accelerating efforts toward the phase-down of unabated coal power” suspiciously aligns with a common political phrase: “we will make meaningful progress.” However, both of these nonbinding statements — with little to no supporting action — define the organization as a whole.
Since its debut nearly three decades ago, the United Nations’ annual Conference of the Parties has been heralded as the cornerstone of international climate governance. However, after a 2023 meeting in Dubai, controversy arose regarding whether COP was serving its proclaimed purpose of taking voluntary actions to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Rather than acting as a mechanism for decisive climate action, it has unequivocally devolved into a platform for symbolic language, diluted commitments, and geopolitical stalemates, delaying urgent transitions.
The Illusion of Progress
While the Dubai meeting was held with the intent of phasing out fossil fuels, the conversation quickly shifted toward a reduction alternative. Even then, compared to prior discussions, this was a success. Failing to even approach the topic of fossil fuels, prior COPs hastily signed renewable energy agreements that quickly collapsed and were voided shortly after.
Thus, despite its shortcomings, COP28 was already considered a step forward compared to prior meetings. From these closed doors emerged an agreement signed by 198 of the 200 countries present. Yet despite the overwhelming support for this document, the reasons as to why remain far more sinister. Written with deliberately vague language, the document enforced little to no accountability on countries abandoning outlined guidelines, similar to what occurred in previous COP meetings. For an institution charged with safeguarding the future of the planet, these half measures, from channeling only $300 billion of the $1.3 trillion target to the lack of binding obligations, constitute not progress, but rather an abdication.
Failed Consensus
At COP28, the majority of parties possessed sharply diverging incentives. While developed countries (notably Europe and North America) sought stronger fossil fuel language to boost their climate credibility, their commitments were undercut directly by inconsistent domestic policies. Developing nations (primarily Africa and South Asia) insisted on financing the plan — financing that has been repeatedly promised in prior meetings but rarely delivered.
Meanwhile, fossil-fuel-supplying regions, such as the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, leveraged their hosting power to weaken binding agreements that could potentially harm their oil revenues. Rather than clarifying documentation, COP28 offered a platform where competing interests, namely large emitting countries against the Alliance of Small Island States, cancelled one another out.
Hence, the lowest common denominator of consensus was reached. Instead of leadership, the meeting demonstrated its state of managed paralysis as well as a global attitude toward promoting individual fiscal gain rather than community sustainability.
Misalignment with Historic Interests
Even further, short-term outcomes unveil COP’s failure toward its core mission. While the “loss and damage” fund, a budget aiming to provide financial assistance to nations most vulnerable and impacted by the effects of climate change, was celebrated as a win for climate justice groups, it remains chronically underfunded due to developed nations’ failure to commit adequate resources. Since its founding, it has hardly met the 40 percent threshold outlined for resource funding. The vague call for transition away from fossil fuels has led to governments and corporations delaying structural changes under the pretense of action.
Under the Paris Agreement , adopted in Dec. 2015, global leaders set a 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold goal to limit global warming over the coming century. Yet just nine years later, the temperature has increased by 1.1 degrees Celsius. COP’s stated objective includes limiting dangerous climate change through global action, yet it continues to fall dramatically short. The celebrated breakthroughs fail to mask the widening gap between promises and reality as global cooperation toward sustainability falls further off its mark with every meeting.
The Future of COP
With COP30 scheduled to occur from Nov. 10–2 in Belém, Brazil, the question surfaces of whether the more than 190 attending countries will follow through with the established agreements. The topics most likely to be discussed include finances, climate change adaptation, and the energy transition, similar to those portrayed in previous meetings. However, the criticality of this meeting will set the precedent for future agreements, as the US has recently abandoned the Paris Agreement for a second time. Thus, the meeting will serve as a pivotal moment to evaluate the global climate efforts set forth and maintained in an ever-metamorphosing geopolitical climate.
COP28 revealed biased decision-making resulting from host country influences. Unfortunately, this notion may resurface with the unequivocal economic ties Brazil maintains in BRICS, a coalition of 10 countries focusing on developing economic and diplomatic policies, founding new financial institutions, and reducing dependence on the U.S. dollar. In a party with Russia, a major petroleum exporter, as well as China and India, global trade giants, the possibility of resolving the aforementioned issues drastically diminishes. Paralleling Dubai’s influence over petroleum exportation, China and India rely heavily upon fossil fuels to drive up their gross domestic product rates. As a result, the influence of other BRICS members could downplay attempts at resolving climate change challenges.
BRICS Jan. 2024 expansion to encompass more than six countries | Image Source: News Central TV
External influences have been a recurring issue within COP. If the organization truly anticipates climate change mitigation, the dilution of these conflicting-interest organizations would be a necessary step. With the growing number of shortcomings COP has presented over the last decade — from unfulfilled resource mobilization to scrubbed statements — it becomes imperative to address these critical areas of failure.
Featured Image Source: Japan 2 Earth
