COP28 ends with a reality check

Almost one hundred years ago, James Hilton published Lost Horizon, a book that became famous when made into a film and coined Shangri-La, a place in the middle of the Himalayas that was home to a perfect society that managed to live in peace and harmony without aging. I have always regarded Shangri-La as a metaphor for introducing the concept of the ‘bubble’ in which our society seems to live. We are obviously nothing like Shangri-La, but I do believe that we share the belief that we, as a society, are shielded from almost everything. This, however, has its limits: the global environmental crisis being one of the most obvious. 

Regarding this crisis, this year’s Climate Conference of the Parties, COP28, differed little from last year’s in Sharm el-Sheikh. Not only because both took place in petrostates, but because the two main issues in which robust improvements and progress were expected were the same: funds to compensate the most vulnerable countries for damages and losses, and the setting of a date for the phase-out of fossil fuels in the global economy. 

The financial package approved for the damage and loss fund – less than necessary in any case – sent a very positive message in the opening days of the conference. It must, however, be remembered that we are still a long way from complying with other agreements reached in previous COPs to fund climate adaptation and mitigation solutions. In addition, many countries are earmarking considerable financial packages for on-going wars, making it impossible to deliver more funds for other emergencies – apparently only of importance in the medium and long term. 

Powerful organizations such as OPEC are against setting a date for the phase-out of fossil fuels

The phasing out of fossil fuels was once again the most cherished goal of COP28 (it’s been on the agenda for several years now), sidelining other issues also of vital importance such as: managing the risks of adapting to something that is already very predictable; accelerating technological innovation and extend its to third countries; solving our relationship with the environment in terms of food, farming, land use, water use; managing migration issues, climate justice, etc. 

It is evident that unless fossil fuels are phased out, the climate crisis cannot be solved. Some actors, however, believe that this phaseout would impact the global economy and that it would be irresponsible to set a deadline. No one seems to know how to proceed and, furthermore, very powerful organizations such as the OPEC are against the concept of doing away with fossil fuels altogether by a predetermined deadline, preferring the more comfortable approach of a gradual reduction. In other words, there is too much inertia in the system. 

Something’s not right 

In the end, advances have been made at COP28 – but this is not enough. “Yes, we have made progress, but we still have a lot to do,” said Sultan Ahmed al Jaber, president of COP28, Minister of Industry of the United Arab Emirates and CEO of the Dubai National Oil and Gas Company (ADNOC), at the close of COP28, as is more or less traditional at these conferences. As for fossil fuels, it has been recorded that they will hopefully be gradually phased out ("transitioning away", as reflected in the final agreement) on the basis of the scientific evidence underpinning the Paris Agreement, but this is nothing new and the final agreement obviously falls short. 

Furthermore, there are signs that that something is not right because the gradual phasing out of fossil fuels promoted by COP28 is out of step with other international reports. According to this year’s annual global energy report by the US Department of Energy, global energy-related CO2 emissions from fossil fuel consumption will increase over the next 30 years in most of the scenarios analyzed and, along with them, the levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs). 

The final agreement of COP28 obviously falls short

Using the contents of this report together with public, transparent NASA data about GHG levels and temperature, a simple spreadsheet can be drawn up. The resulting graph presents a scenario in which we overstep the acceptable limit (450 parts of GHGs per million units of air volume) around 2035. By 2040, or even sooner, we would exceed the increase of 1.5o in global temperature compared to the oft-mentioned pre-industrial levels. This would greatly affect the likelihood of our exceeding 2oC just five years later. A reality check indeed. 

Apart from the unfortunate statements of the COP28 president in the months prior to this conference regarding the lack of scientific evidence about the relationship between the use of fossil fuels and levels of GHGs in the atmosphere (how ridiculous!), there can be no doubt that accelerating the decarbonization of the economy is the basis for the energy transition. There is talk of trebling renewable energy by 2030 and maximizing energy efficiency: aims deemed to be realistic and necessary, although we still need to implement a swathe of new policies and convince ourselves that ‘everyone’ must grasp the issue and work on it. 

Step outside the bubble  

It’s about this ‘everyone’ – because there will always be climate deniers, just as there are still people who believe the Earth is flat – that I want to end by talking about. As usual the glass can be seen as half empty or half full but, most importantly, we must take a reality check. Firstly, regarding the climate crisis and secondly, regarding something even greater: our planet’s global socio-environmental crisis that could burst our famous ‘bubble’. Stepping away from this false sense of protection and developing visible behaviors able to find solutions to this problem in the search for a new global economy should also be part of this new reality check. 

Some time ago, we wrote that nature and the way it works is not like a supermarket providing life resources or a place we enjoy visiting when we feel like it (“Human and Nature”): we must realize that we are part of said nature and that we must live in it in a geoethical and rational way (“Human in Nature”). The only possible solution is for those of us who have helped create this global crisis to be able to react, understand that what we do is the cause of climate change, and find solutions, each one within their possibilities. 

It doesn’t matter if you are left-wing or right-wing, whether you believe in God or not, whether you are a Man City or Man United fan, ... or that you don’t like football at all. It doesn’t matter, this issue affects us all. We must all help solve the problem. Firstly, by reducing our energy consumption, which is often extremely high. Secondly, by changing the energy system in our homes and businesses — your electricity may be much cheaper than you think – or even free in many cases – if you produce your own. Besides, we cannot afford to have the roofs of so many companies and businesses empty, without solar panels, or otherwise we will subsequently have to plan where to effectively locate the new renewable energy plants that we need. Thirdly, by not replacing one problem with another, because many renewable energy solutions are degrading or will further degrade biodiversity, and this is unacceptable too. And fourthly, by stepping outside our ‘bubble’ once and for all – outside our own cocoon in the middle of the Himalayas. The solution we adopt must help generate a spiral of change towards a tomorrow without emissions, or at least emissions generated by energy consumption and mobility. We’ll talk about protecting biodiversity on another occasion. 

As we leave our ‘bubble’, many of us must become global ambassadors who promote behavioral change in society. So, let’s hope COP29 brings better news. Meanwhile, let’s take action, because tomorrow is uncertain, and the reality is extremely harsh.