COP28 delivers historic consensus in Dubai
COP28 delivers historic consensus in Dubai
Recognizing the claims of the Global South
The COP28 Presidency of the United Arab Emirates has achieved what may prove to be a decisive turn in the struggle of humanity against environmental damage caused by human forms of production and consumption. The UAE Presidency has attained a consensus agreement that, in the first place, begins implementation of Global South demands for financing the costs of adaptation to environmental damage in the developing countries, which are the most affected but least capable of adapting to climate changes caused by the patterns of production and consumption of the Global North. Secondly, the Agreement accelerates goals with respect to climate change, on the basis of recognition that the Parties to the Convention on Climate Change have not fulfilled their commitments.
The Consensus Agreement was a consequence of a year of diplomatic engagements and two weeks of intense negotiations at the 28th Conference of the Parties of the UN Convention on Climate Change, held in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, from November 30 to December 12. The process was led by COP28 President Dr. Sultan bin Ahmed Al Jaber, Minister of Industry and Advanced Technology of the United Arab Emirates. The process was oriented from the beginning by the inclusion of representatives of the Global South, thus putting their concerns on the table at the outset. This enabled unity of voice with respect to actions demanded by scientific knowledge and by fundamental moral principles, eclipsing the capacity of particular powerful interests to confuse the discussion and prevent consensus.
As expressed by Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel in a Summit of the G-77 and China, held on December 2 in the context of the COP28 conference, the irrational patterns of production and consumption of the developed countries is the principal cause of the environmental crisis, but they expect the developing countries, whose development has been retarded by colonialist and imperialist practices, to pay for the costs of adapting to and mitigating environmental damage. He declared that “the South cannot be obligated to choose between development and climate action, inasmuch as the two are indelibly linked.”
.
The need for reform of the international financial architecture
The Consensus Agreement recognizes that “human-caused climate change impacts are already being felt in every region across the globe, with those who have contributed the least to climate change being most vulnerable to the impacts.” It notes that developing countries have “specific needs and special circumstances,” particularly those that are most vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change.
The Agreement recognizes that financing and technology transfer are “critical enablers of climate action.” The Agreement recalls that in the Paris Agreement the developing countries committed to provide $100 billion per year by 2020 for the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change, but their obligation was not met, with the result that the gap between developed and developing countries with respect to investment in climate change actions is widening. In addition, the Agreement “highlights the persistent gaps . . . in technology development and transfer and the uneven pace of adoption of climate technologies around the world.” It recognizes that unequal responses across regions in adapting to climate change will increase, if current levels of implementation are maintained.
The Agreement maintains that the financing of adaptation to and mitigation of climate change will “need to increase manyfold.” There is “sufficient global capital to close the global investment gap, but there are barriers to redirecting capital to climate action.” It therefore “underscores the importance of reforming the multilateral financial architecture” and “underlines the fundamental role of technology development and transfer, endogenous technologies and innovation in facilitating urgent adaptation and mitigation action aligned with achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement and sustainable development.”
The Agreement calls for acceleration of the response to the demands of the Global South for reforms of the international financial architecture, with recognition of the fact that the current global financial structure deepens underdevelopment, which itself is one of the principal causes of environmental destruction.
The need for reform of the architecture of the international financial system has been a central demand of the countries of the Global South, as the necessary foundation for the development of their economies. The Declaration of Havana, emitted on September 16, 2023, by the Group of 77 and China, representing 116 countries of the Global South, expressed concern with serious problems experienced by countries in development that are generated by an unfair international economic order. It declared the following.
“We stress the urgent need for a comprehensive reform of the international financial architecture and a more inclusive and coordinated approach to global financial governance, with greater emphasis on cooperation among countries, including increasing representation of countries in development in global decision and policy-making bodies, which would enhance the capacities of countries in development to access and develop science, technology and innovation.
“We reiterate our firm belief that all states and stakeholders should devote themselves collectively to the pursuit of global development and ‘win-win’ cooperation for scientific and technological development.”
.
Revised and accelerated climate goals
The Agreement recognizes that the “parties are not yet collectively on track towards achieving the purpose of the Paris Agreement and its long-term goals.” It therefore formulates new goals that will accelerate climate change actions in mitigation and adaptation. The Agreement maintains that there is “need for deep, rapid and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions,” which can be attained by: “tripling renewable energy capacity globally;” “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems;” “accelerating zero- and low-emission technologies,” including renewable and nuclear energy; and accelerating the reduction of emissions in road transportation through the “rapid deployment of zero-and low-emission vehicles.” The agreement also calls for support for sustainable agriculture and food production, which is one of the principal causes of environmental destruction.
Practical steps toward implementation of support for developing countries
In the first day of the two-week conference, the new Loss and Damage Fund was made operational. The Fund had been approved at COP27 in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt, and it is designed to provide financial assistance to developing countries for the implementation of climate change adaptations. In announcing the activation of the Fund, COP28 President Sultan Ahmed al-Jaber opened the possibility for governments to announce small pledges, which would function as a stimulus for the building of a substantial sum. United Arab Emirates pledged $100 million, which was followed by $51 million from the UK, $17.5 million from the USA, and $10 million from Japan. Subsequently, the European Union pledged $245.39 million, including $100 million from Germany. Dr. Al Jabar declared, “What was promised in Sharm El Sheikh has been delivered in Dubai.”
The take of the Western media and activists
The Secretary General of the United Nations, António Guterres, praised the results of the 28th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. He praised in particular the clear affirmation to limit the increase of the world temperature to 1.5°C. And he noted that the Agreement will accelerate reform of the international financial architecture. At the same time, UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell declared that the Agreement is the beginning of the end of the fossil fuel era.
The agreement also was praised by representatives of various governments of the Global South. For example, Barbara Creecy, Minister of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries of South Africa, observed that the African continent and other vulnerable nations have struggled for years to attain recognition of the importance of adequate financing from the developed countries for actions of adaptation to climate change.
The Dubai conference was attended by 154 Heads of State and Government. And it was attended by 85,000 representatives of civil society, business, indigenous peoples, and philanthropic organizations. This provided a gold mine for the mainstream and social media, which focused on real and imagined divisions, thus generating confusion.
Leftist activists and their supportive cast of academic specialists were not satisfied with the conference, whose point of view was reported in The Guardian. In an article entitled “Failure of Cop28 on fossil fuel phase-out is ‘devastating’, say scientists,” the “independent” UK news outlet reported: “The UN climate summit ended on Wednesday with a compromise deal that called for a ‘transition away’ from fossil fuels. The stronger term ‘phase-out’ had been backed by 130 of the 198 countries negotiating in Dubai but was blocked by petrostates including Saudi Arabia.” The article then cites ten specialists who maintain that the Agreement is a setback and will have devastating consequences for the environment. All the quoted specialists are from the UK, the USA, and Germany. Forbes, Time, and other Western media outlets followed suit.
Let us look at the wording from the Consensus Agreement. The Agreement in its revised form states that the Conference “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,” including “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.”
There was discussion in the Western media concerning the difference between “phasing out” and “transitioning away,” which generally suggested that “phasing out” implies doing away with completely. Which prompts me to ask the Western media: if the production of fossil fuels were to be produced at a low level that did not contribute to global warming and would enable the attainment of the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C, why would low-level production of fossil fuels be bad, especially if it were part of the development plan of low-income countries?
The article mentions Saudi Arabia as among the sixty-eight nations opposed to the “phase-out” language, consistent with the media take that it was oil-rich nations that were opposing the language. But, in reality, oil rich nations do not necessarily have an interest in blocking complete phase out, because being rich, they have ample possibilities to invest in diverse forms of production and commerce, as many are now doing. On the other hand, oil producing nations that are not rich have an interest in preventing complete elimination, as do low-income countries that depend on a low level of fossil fuel energy importation. Cuba, for example, extracts and refines oil, not of a quantity and quality that enables exportation, but it plays a central role in the generation of electricity. And since the Cuban economy is small, its production of petroleum is not on a scale that contributes substantially to global warming. Should the total elimination of oil production be imposed on a developing nation like Cuba, even in a future era in which fossil fuel emissions globally have been reduced, and global warming has been eliminated? What would be the impact of total elimination on small, low-income countries that have not been able to put renewable energy in place, and that depend on the importation of fossil fuel energy on a scale that has low impact on the environment? The goal is 1.5°C, not a narrowminded morally righteous purity that ignores the real needs of countries in development.
The Western media and activists have their axes to grind. They focus on the superficial and miss the essential. They are not looking for reasonable common ground, taking into account the different needs of each nation. They have an interest in finding a devil lurking, which undermines careful listening to the representatives of the neocolonized. The effect of their noise is to fuel the cynicism of their peoples, thereby serving the interests of the elite.
Looking to the future
The Dubai Consensus Agreement expands mechanisms of communication with the presidencies of COP29 and COP30, Azerbaijan and Brazil, respectively, thereby facilitating continuity and implementation. Azerbaijan and Brazil are principal actors in the movement of the countries of the Global South. Azerbaijan has served as President of the Non-Aligned Movement since 2019. Brazil is a member of BRICS and has been one of the leading actors in the process of Latin American integration and union.
Those representing the governments of the world see the Dubai conference as an important step in the struggle to limit global warming, and they are calling upon the governments of the world to continue to progress in the formulation and implementation of climate and environmental goals, with necessary attention to the needs of the developing countries. They will continue their mature and real quest to construct an alternative world order, one which includes ecologically sustainable forms of production and commerce. They will continue to insist in international forums that what has been demonstrated to be true with respect to climate change pertains to the human condition: underdevelopment for many of the world’s peoples is contrary to the interests and needs of humanity. They will continue to construct in practice, day-by-day, an alternative, pluripolar world order based on mutually beneficial trade and respect for the sovereignty of all nations, leaving behind the decadent world order that today’s humanity has inherited as the legacy of Western colonialism and imperialism.
A free subscription option is available, with capacity to read, send, and share all posts. A paid subscription ($5 per month or $40 per year) enables you to make comments and to support the costs of the column; paid subscribers also receive a free PDF copy of my book on Cuba and the world-system. Ten percent of income generated through subscriptions to the column is donated to the Cuban Society for Philosophical Investigations.
Follow me on Twitter: Charles McKelvey@CharlesMcKelv14