Conclusions from COP28
From November 20 to December 12, 2023, members of the United Nations met in Dubai to discuss their commitment to resolving the climate crisis.
Global leaders who had failed to uphold their end of the bargain as delegated in the Paris Climate Accords were tasked with revising their plans to lower emissions by 2030. China and the United States were mainly under fire due to their climbing emissions. Leaders of both countries released statements renewing their promise to convert to sustainable forms of energy. However, many were skeptical that either country intended to move towards green energy after the conference's conclusion.
Nearly two months after the resolution of COP28, has any real change been enacted?
While large nations were singled out for their contribution to the climate crisis, small states were taking the stand to share how they have experienced disproportionate levels of destruction from global warming. Island countries have experienced years of extreme floods followed by drought, resulting in irreparable economic damage. During COP28, participants sought retribution for these losses under the clause outlining the 'loss and damages fund.’ The fund aims to source payment to remedy damages caused by climate change from those most responsible for contributing to it. While many view this fund as a victory for small nations, dissatisfaction lingers among those who expect industrial states to contribute more significantly. The loss and damage fund allocates $429 billion to small states most impacted by natural disasters. The annual impact of climate change in these states is already estimated at $400 billion annually, steadily increasing yearly. The loss and damage fund, which has no clause to facilitate further increases in funding, should have been more aggressive in the retributions it demanded of the most significant contributing states.
The conclusion of COP28 was a reiteration of the same oath pledged in each previous conference: global leaders are promising a transfer away from fossil fuels.
These words fall horrifyingly short of any meaningful action.
Action is a manifestation of policy and money. The United States, one of the leading contributors to climate change, pledged only $17.5 million to the loss and damages fund. This amount is disproportionately low compared to the United States share of total emissions, to which they contribute nearly 15 percent of all global emissions.
If the United States refuses to aid in monetarily resolving the climate crisis, the remedy is necessary through policy and legislation. With the looming election threatening a conservative supermajority, legislation favoring transitions toward green energy is unlikely.
The United States has repeatedly failed to meet its climate goals. This most recent disappointment, while not surprising, has placed a burden upon China that the state has no intention of shouldering.
Within the next decade, China is expected to peak in emissions. Despite this imminent transition, China was notably absent from the Global Renewables and Energy Efficiency Pledge signatures.
The pledge is a declaration of the signing states’ commitment to triple renewable energy capacity and double the global average annual rate of energy efficiency improvements annually until 2030.
China has upheld its role as a pioneer in the clean energy movement. Their decision to abstain from this pledge does not instill optimism in those hopeful for progress toward a climate resolution.
Before COP28, China and the United States met independently of the conference, negotiating their leadership toward a greener future as they have been leaders in the path towards an irreversible climate crisis.
Nearly two months after COP28, it appears that these independent meetings were ultimately another political showboat, resulting in no tangible forms of action.