Abstract
When all attending nations committed to action in the final document, which is also called the “Global Stocktake,” it marked a watershed moment in the history of climate summits. The study breaks down the agreement’s winners and losers, as well as analyzing various aspects of carbon capture and storage technology (CSS) and its place in the energy sector. Finally, the article wraps off with some thoughts on the tricky business of international climate diplomacy and the pressing need for thorough plans, closer cooperation, and swift action to secure a fair and sustainable future.
Introduction
As the 28th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28) ended in Dubai, the UAE Consensus was reached, addressing the need to transition away from fossil fuels – the main culprits in causing global warming. This document, sometimes called the “Global Stocktake,” was an attempt to get people to agree that we need to find an alternative to fossil fuels, and it marked a historic first in the annals of climate summits, as every attending nation pledged to do their part. Scientific experts sounded the alarm that humanity is perilously approaching tipping points that might have disastrous effects, even at the present level of global warming of 1.2°C above pre-industrial levels (far below the 1.5°C limit established in the Paris Agreement), which may result in sudden and permanent changes to the natural environment. According to Johan Rockström of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, it may even be too late to prevent global temperatures from exceeding 1.5°C. However, he stressed the need of quickly lowering global temperatures by eliminating fossil fuels and reducing emissions. The chances of tackling global warming, safeguarding nature, and attaining climate justice for developing countries were topics of discussion at COP28. The conference did recognize the urgency to change from fossil fuels systems to renewable energy ones. However, the document’s language was not as clear-cut as wanted, since words like “contribute to” and “transition away” were used in the final agreement instead of “require” and “phase out”. Despite being a positive development, it does not go far enough to address the urgent need for a rapid, equal, and financially supported transition away from fossil fuels, as demanded by academics, companies, and environmentalists.
This paper analyzes the results of the Global Stocktake, by pointing out who the winners and the losers of such an agreement are. Then, it gives an overview on carbon capturing and storage technologies, and whether they are actually a sustainable solution.
Winners and Losers of the Global Stocktake
The last agreement on the Global Stocktake was met with mixed reactions; some saw it as a watershed moment, while others said that the language was not clear-cut and it did not go far enough. There are concerns regarding the real impact of the agreement because it does not oblige and does not include precise goals and limits to eradicate fossil fuels. However, it is worth mentioning that this was the first time an international climate summit officially called for such a transition.
1. Winners
Paradoxically, the fossil fuel industry emerged victorious from the summit, thanks to the final text’s ambiguous phrasing that permits “abated” coal combustion and other fossil fuel usage, rather than a complete “phase-out” of the latter. Therefore, companies in such sectors can keep running as they dive more into carbon capture technology and carbon credits because there is no firm deadline or commitment. Additionally, major oil producers stand to gain the most from this result. An example is Sultan Al Jaber, who is both the president of COP28 and the chief executive officer of Adnoc, the national oil and gas firm of the United Arab Emirates. President Sultan al-Jaber made headlines first for his unique position, as there were concerns for possible conflicts of interest during negotiations. Later, he made a statement rejecting the scientific opinion that cutting back on fossil fuels is essential to keeping global temperatures below 1.5°C, which he later apologized for. On top of this, Mr. Al-Jaber stated that Adnoc would uphold its reputation as a dependable and conscientious provider of low-carbon energy in order to fulfill the world’s energy needs. In his defense, he cited the IPCC’s prediction that, even in 2050, just a trace amount of fossil fuel would be needed to bring global emissions of greenhouse gasses down to zero. In an effort to keep production at its present level rather than increase it, Adnoc intends to spend USD$150 billion over the next seven years on oil and gas. Also, international acclaim poured in for the final agreement that Sultan Al Jaber engineered as president of COP28, which allowed the UAE to boost its geopolitical position.
Despite its status as the world’s two largest polluters, the United States and China were able to skirt COP28 with relative ease. In particular, China is careful to strike a balance between economic expansion and environmental responsibility, as shown by its continued construction of coal-power plants and its unwillingness to commit to more aggressive climate action.
Another great winner of the COP28 were the companies involved in clean energy, which might benefit greatly from the plan to increase by three times the global renewable energy capacity by 2030. While renewables have typically worked to augment fossil fuels rather than completely replace them, this bold commitment signals a potential change in the dynamics of the energy market and opens enormous opportunities for wind, solar, and other forms of renewable energy.
Lastly, carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies were also well represented at COP28, suggesting that they will have a significant impact on the results. Since the final agreement favored CCS and did not address the issue of carbon trading market regulation, it is reasonable to assume that industry lobbyists were effective in protecting their interests during discussions.
2. Losers
As the most at-risk nations in the world because of their susceptibility to climate change and rising sea levels, small island states are worried that the agreement reached at COP28 to transition away from fossil fuels did not go nearly far enough, as such gaps will make it harder to cut emissions of greenhouse gasses to the level needed to keep global warming below 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Also, some delegates of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) were unhappy with the procedure since they felt they would not be able to participate in the final decision-making.
Additionally, developing nations will have to pay a lot more to cover the climate-related expenses than what was set aside in the COP28 Loss and Damage Fund, which reached USD$700 million, as clean energy alone will require USD$4.5 trillion annually by the early 2030s, according to the International Energy Agency. Therefore, the agreement does not go far enough in meeting the demands of poorer nations. According to Greenpeace, since the fossil fuel business has made a lot of money, the rich countries should pay more attention and punish polluters from that industry for all the damage they have done. However, developed countries are not bound to give developing nations the money they need to make a fair transition away from fossil fuels, making it a major point of criticism. Rich countries have promised to chip in, but it will not be nearly enough to speed up the transition. For instance, the US allocated a pitiful sum of just over USD$20 million to aid developing countries, despite the fact that it is a major player in the global oil and gas industry. There are also no hard deadlines or targets for nations to eliminate fossil fuels in the text either.
Several climate activists, scientists, and academics also argued that the wording was lacking specificity and was not adequate. Although the agreement does contain an indication to end the era of fossil fuels and increase the use of renewable energy and efficiency, this signal is swamped by other issues and that there are not enough provisions for a just and rapid transition. They also pointed out that there were not enough financial pledges and no real results from the efforts to phase out fossil fuels.
Carbon Capture and Storage: A Sustainable Solution?
At the COP28, a recurring topic surfaced: how Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology could influence fossil fuels’ long-term viability and international initiatives to reduce carbon emissions. In the face of mounting environmental concerns and pressing demands for action, CCS was promoted as a technological panacea that could drastically cut CO2 emissions, as the IPCC stresses the need of increasing carbon dioxide removal methods to billions of tons per year in the next decades to keep global warming below 1.5°C.
The technology’s economic feasibility, environmental impact, and the possibility that it would divert attention away from the essential shift to renewable energy sources have all ignited heated debates.
1. What is Carbon Capture and Storage?
The goal of CCS technology is to keep carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from factories and power stations out of the air. The procedure entails capturing CO2, transporting it, and safely storing it underground (typically in deep salt aquifer formations or depleted oil and gas fields). Recognition is being extended also to the possibilities of sequestration based on nature, as several approaches are being investigated to harness natural processes for carbon sequestration, such as restoring forest landscapes, regenerative agriculture, and increased rock weathering.
Since it is difficult to directly apply renewable energy to industries like power generation, refining, cement, and steel, proponents of CCS contend that it may significantly decrease emissions from these sectors. This system would turn the polluting industries into “abated fossil fuels”, a term that became relevant during negotiations at COP28. Prominent companies like ExxonMobil promote CCS as a ready-to-use technology that may greatly reduce climate impacts without sacrificing the ability to use fossil fuels. Despite these assurances, CCS has been criticized for being too expensive, too complicated, and an ethical minefield because it might extend the life of fossil fuel companies.
2. The CCS Investment and Economic Debate
While the prices of renewable energy sources have been lowering at a rapid pace over the last four decades, CCS has remained relatively unchanged, making it an economically unappealing option. Despite this, public and corporate sectors are pouring resources into CCS projects in the vain hope that these technologies will help usher in a greener industrial revolution. The recent CA$200 million investment in Entropy, a carbon capture business based in Calgary, by the Canadian government is a prime example of this optimism. This investment is part of a larger plan to establish Canada as a global leader in CCS technology, with the goal to encourage the construction of modular CCS plants focused on industries that are difficult to regulate. Additionally, the United States is quickly becoming an important litmus test for CCS’s viability. The country is preparing for an unprecedented push under the Inflation Reduction Act, having invested over USD$83 billion on CCS over the previous 30 years, and establishing large incentives for carbon capture with the goal of drastically reducing the country’s carbon footprint. Nonetheless, there are obstacles to this lofty goal, as, for instance, constructing a vast infrastructure network to transport and store carbon dioxide is a huge undertaking that might cost the United States as much as USD$230 billion. Also, challenges with technology, regulations, and public opinion will inevitably arise throughout the course of this project’s development of massive storage facilities and thousands of kilometers of pipelines.
3. The Controversial Role of CCS at COP28
Some view the current drive for CCS as an attempt by fossil fuel companies and nations with high emissions to keep things the way they are, as at least 475 lobbyists representing CCS at the COP28 session suggested the technology as a way to keep using fossil fuels while reducing their negative effects on the environment. While the summit’s support for CCS represents a possible step forward in climate technology, it has also sparked questions about the technology’s efficacy and the risk of shifting focus away from renewable energy and other more sustainable options.
Many people are pessimistic about CCS, despite all the excitement around it. They say it will not solve the problem and is bad for the environment, as it keeps coal plants running even if they are not profitable and takes attention away from the urgent need to switch to renewable energy. The feasibility of CCS within the necessary time and scale is another point of contention, with some worrying that depending on CCS may make people move away from cutting back on fossil fuels, which is a major concern for climate activists and environmentalists. Also, most of the current CO2 collection projects are expensive and one-of-a-kind, and they use chemical solvents and two towers to separate the gas. They go on to say that previous CCS projects, like Chevron’s Gorgon in Australia, have been unsuccessful, which makes people question the technology’s dependability and effectiveness. They propose that CCS be kept for use in heavy sectors, where renewable energy sources are not as practical. The utilization of collected CO2 for better oil recovery in certain projects can have the paradoxical effect of increasing emissions and fossil fuel extraction.
6. Going Forward
There is still a lot of back and forth about CCS’s place in the global effort to cut emissions of greenhouse gasses and move towards a future of more sustainable energy. CCS could be a means to cut emissions, especially in industries where other options are few, but it obviously cannot stand alone. A comprehensive strategy that prioritizes social and environmental justice, a quick shift to renewable energy, and ongoing innovation in carbon capture and storage is the way to go for successful climate action in the future. Decisions and conversations at COP28 and beyond will be vital in shaping CCS into a powerful weapon in our climate armory or a costly distraction from the critical work at hand.
Conclusion
COP28 in Dubai signaled a substantial but subtle change in international climate policy. Although it reached a landmark agreement on the necessity of moving away from fossil fuels, the results were welcomed with different opinions. However, in the agreement the critical need to act quickly towards climate change and environmental protection were recognized. Because there was no clear cutoff date or specific wording in the deal, the fossil fuel sector came out as the main winner of the agreement. Small island states and other vulnerable nations, instead, thought the treaty did not go far enough to aggressively combat climate change. Arguments concerning the economic viability of CCS technology and the risk that it would divert attention away from the urgent need to transition to renewable energy sources exemplified the thorny issues surrounding climate solutions. Although CCS presents an avenue for reducing emissions in specific industries, it is not a panacea and needs to be included into a larger plan that also incorporates a speedy shift to renewable energy sources and better international collaboration. As the results of COP28 show, international climate diplomacy is complicated, and it is difficult to unite different national interests around the critical need to act on climate change. We still have a long way to go before we reach the lofty targets set out by the Paris Agreement and prevent the worst possible climate change consequences. Nevertheless,the summit did help set the stage for future discussions. A fair and sustainable future for all must remain at the center of the current international debate, as we prepare for COP29 and beyond.
Bibliography
Marley, Jack. “How Fossil Fuel Companies Won COP28.” The Conversation, 20 Dec. 2023, theconversation.com/how-fossil-fuel-companies-won-cop28-211212. C-2
Tabacek, Kai. “COP28 Sends the Signal the Fossil Fuel Industry Has Been Afraid of - Greenpeace Comment.” Greenpeace UK, 13 Dec. 2023, www.greenpeace.org.uk/news/cop28-sends-the-signal-the-fossil-fuel-industry-has-been-afraid-of-greenpeace-comment/. A-1
Ramirez, Angela Dewan, Laura Paddison, Ella Nilsen, Rachel. “World Agrees to Climate Deal That Makes Unprecedented Call to Move Away from Fossil Fuels, but “Cavernous” Loopholes Remain.” CNN, 13 Dec. 2023, edition.cnn.com/2023/12/13/climate/cop28-climate-summit-makes-unprecedented-call-for-transition-away-from-fossil-fuels-but-cavernous-loopholes-remain/index.html. B-2
Snead, Dara. “COP28: New Path to Transition Away from Fossil Fuels Marred by Lack of Finance and Loopholes.” Climate Action Network, 13 Dec. 2023, climatenetwork.org/2023/12/13/new-path-to-transition-away-from-fossil-fuels-marred-by-lack-of-finance-and-loopholes/. C-2
Dlouhy, Jennifer A , et al. “How the World’s First Deal to Ditch Fossil Fuels Was Forged at COP28.” Bloomberg.com, 15 Dec. 2023, www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-12-15/cop28-how-negotiators-reached-deal-to-transition-away-from-fossil-fuels. B-2
Fisher, Jonah. “Carbon Capture: What Is It and How Does It Fight Climate Change?” BBC News, 28 Feb. 2023, www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-64723497.
Casey, Tina. “Carbon Capture and Sequestration in the Spotlight at COP28.” Triplepundit.com, 24 Dec. 2023, www.triplepundit.com/story/2023/carbon-capture-sequestration-cop28/790816. C-2
Lakhani, Nina. “At Least 475 Carbon-Capture Lobbyists Attending Cop28.” The Guardian, 8 Dec. 2023, www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/08/at-least-475-carbon-capture-lobbyists-attending-cop28. B-2
Segal, Mark. “Canada Invests $200 Million in Carbon Capture Startup Entropy.” ESG Today, 21 Dec. 2023, www.esgtoday.com/canada-invests-200-million-in-carbon-capture-startup-entropy/. C-2
Harvey, Fiona. “After 30 Years of Waiting, Cop28 Deal Addresses the Elephant in the Room.” The Guardian, 13 Dec. 2023, www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/13/cop28-deal-significant-progress-tackle-climate-crisis. B-2
Harvey, Fiona. “Cop28 President Says His Firm Will Keep Investing in Oil.” The Guardian, 15 Dec. 2023, www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/15/cop28-president-sultan-al-jaber-says-his-firm-will-keep-investing-in-oil. B-2
Watts, Jonathan. “Cop28’s Winners and Losers: From Fossil Fuel Firms to Future Generations.” The Guardian, 14 Dec. 2023, www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/14/cop28-winners-and-losers-fossil-fuel-climate-crisis. B-2
Natter, Ari, and Dave Merrill. “Carbon Capture Needs Enough Pipelines to Circle Earth Four Times.” Bloomberg.com, 14 Dec. 2023, www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-green-revolution-needs-96000-miles-of-new-pipeline/. B-2
Directorate-General for Communication. “UN Climate Change Conference: World Agrees to Transition Away from Fossil Fuels and Reduce Global Emissions by 43% by 2030 - European Commission.” Commission.europa.eu, 13 Dec. 2023, commission.europa.eu/news/un-climate-change-conference-world-agrees-transition-away-fossil-fuels-and-reduce-global-emissions-2023-12-13_en. A-1
Rowling, Megan. “Climate Tipping Points Raise Game for COP28 Fossil Fuel Phase-out | Context.” Www.context.news, 6 Dec. 2023, www.context.news/climate-risks/climate-tipping-points-raise-game-for-cop28-fossil-fuel-phase-out. C-2
Sanderson, Katharine. “COP28 Climate Summit Signals the End of Fossil Fuels — but Is It Enough?” Nature, 13 Dec. 2023, www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-04025-y, https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-04025-y. B-2
Poast, Paul. “The “Historic” COP28 Climate Change Agreement Isn’t All That.” World Politics Review, 22 Dec. 2023, www.worldpoliticsreview.com/climate-change-fossil-fuels-cop28/. C-2
Marley, Jack. “The Real Winners and Losers of COP28.” Corporate Knights, 21 Dec. 2023, www.corporateknights.com/category-climate/the-real-winners-and-losers-of-cop28/. C-2
Information Content | ||
1 | Confirmed | Confirmed by other independent sources; logical in itself; coherent with other information on the topic |
2 | Presumably true | Not confirmed; logical in itself; coherent with other information on the topic |
3 | Maybe true | Not confirmed; reasonably logical in itself; coherent with some other information on the topic |
4 | Uncertain | Not confirmed; possible but not logical in itself; no other information on the topic |
5 | Improbable | Not confirmed; not logical in itself; contradicts with other information on the topic |
6 | Not able to be evaluated | No basis to evaluate the validity of the information |