The recently concluded annual climate change conference (COP28) in Dubai fell much short of the expectations laid on it. The day-one announcement of setting up a $400 million Loss and Damage Fund—to compensate poor states for real losses incurred due to the impacts of climate change—is too little to meet its objectives. Sultan al-Jaber, president of COP28, put up an upbeat face and hailed "true victory for those who are sincere in addressing climate change." But this did not resonate much further beyond the plenary hall, with the alliance of small countries and climate justice advocates expressing their disappointment.

Differences in opinion among parties, including lobbies of the private sector—notably those of fossil fuel interests—seemed to be pushing concrete actions to reach net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions further away. Crafting global mechanisms to oversee, assess needs, and ensure justice for all in accessing and utilising resources were considered to be lacking in details, if not in intentions.

This is bad news and frustrating not only for the low-lying lands (islands like the Maldives, deltaic lands like Bangladesh), but also for biodiversity, and even for less-suspected lands like Libya and the US (Puerto Rico). And it is not just the rise of sea levels, the flooding, and the tidal waves; it is also the heat, the bush fires induced by the heat, and the huge environmental pollution that go with it.

Read more

The consensus and clashes COP28 brought up

Last year, The Economist lamented the slow progress of COP meetings by noting that an emissions pathway with a 50/50 chance of meeting the 1.5-degree-Celsius goal was only just credible at the time of Paris COP21 (in 2015). Intervening years of rising emissions mean such pathways are now firmly in the realm of the incredible. IPCC data shows that we are still emitting too much carbon dioxide to limit Earth's warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2050. We seem to be regressing instead of progressing to tackle the problem head on.

One critical area for urgent action is curbing fossil fuel use, identified as a major factor for global warming. Fossil fuel consumption has increased significantly over the past half century, around eightfold since 1950 and roughly twofold since 1980.

Fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) contribute over 75 percent of global GHG emissions, and nearly 90 percent of carbon dioxide emission. Obviously, the path to reduced GHG emissions has to include a drastic reduction of fossil fuels. UNEP's Emissions Gap Report 2022 noted that the current policies point to a rise in temperature to 2.8 degrees Celsius by the end of the century, and current pledges could only slow this increase to 1.8-2.1 degrees. Much more needs to be done to reach near the intended target of 1.5 degrees, and to reach net zero emissions by 2050.

This fossil fuel problem is largely due to the excessive, compulsive consumption pattern of developed countries. The US, for example, is highly dependent on fossil fuel. Natural gas provides 38 percent of US energy needs, the largest source for generating electricity. This is the case of many other rich countries.

Globally, in 2021, fossil fuels accounted for 82 percent of energy generation. Renewables such as hydroelectricity and nuclear energy make up only 18 percent of the world's primary energy use.

Given such dominance of fossil fuels in generating energy globally, reduction of its usage should be the priority in any attempt to control GHG emissions. But it is not an easy task. Fossil fuels are cheap and easily available. While developed countries can pay for higher cost-alternative energies, developing countries don't have that option, nor the capacity to shift to those sources of energy. Both the high cost of transition and lack of access to technology constrain them from shifting to the green sources.

Read more

Without proper follow-up, what is the point of COP28?

Poor countries trying to move away from poverty have no other alternative but to depend on fossil fuels for their journey to prosperity, unless technology, know-how and resources are placed at their disposal to migrate to alternative green energy sources at cheap costs. This is an area where COP could focus on, and where developed countries could extend their helping hands.

Beyond all these, there is also a strong fossil fuel lobby, which is active globally and even invaded the COP meetings in large numbers. According to an analysis of the Kick Big Polluters Out coalition, the number of lobbyists working on behalf of the fossil fuel industry with access to COP28 rose to at least 2,456, from 636 at the COP27 summit, giving them visibility and more talk time than the COP members.

The green growth can be a very expensive affair. It is estimated that $4-6 trillion will need to be invested each year in renewable energy, technology and infrastructure development until 2030 to enhance resilience for people living in the most climate-vulnerable communities as well as building infrastructure to move away from GHG-emitting energy sources. The global community can and should aim at achieving that target. The $400 million committed for the compensation fund is too little, too late for the poor countries.

Dr Atiqur Rahman is an economist, former adjunct professor at John Cabot University, visiting professor at the University of California, Riverside, and former lead strategist at International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), Rome.

Views expressed in this article are the author's own.

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.