Related Articles
The Paris Agreement is one of the most celebrated moments of climate action—but the event turned me into something of a COP skeptic.
COPs—or Conferences of the Parties—are annual events convened by the United Nations where world leaders try to hash out a deal to limit climate change. In 2015, the Paris group arrived at a target of keeping the global temperature rise below 1.5 degrees Celsius. While this was bold and aspirational, it hit on a very clear disconnect: Leaders can promise ambitious targets without the slightest intention of scaling up action to meet them.
In 2015, the world was on track to hit around 3.6 degrees Celsius of warming by 2100. The previously targeted limit of 2 degrees Celsius, set in Copenhagen in 2009, was already far out of reach, yet leaders promised to achieve even more. That would have been great if they had put incredibly ambitious policies on the table. But they didn’t. And without such policies, this new target seemed like a cruel promise to those for whom the difference between 1.5 and 2 degrees Celsius is their livelihoods—mostly the Small Island Developing States (SIDS) scattered across the world’s oceans. While those at Paris celebrated, I left more pessimistic than ever.
Over the past decade, I’ve become a bit less skeptical. Yes, global emissions and temperatures are still rising, and we’ve seen a year of recording-breaking heat wave events. It’s easy to look at these trends and assume that we’re in the same hopeless position as we were in 2015. But we’re not.
The 3.6 degrees Celsius increase by 2100 has become a target of 2.6 degrees Celsius, based on current policies. This is still a very frightening position to be in. We cannot end up with a 2.6-degree Celsius increase. The UN’s recent global stocktake—which assesses how well the world is progressing on its climate targets and identifies the gaps that need to be filled—makes it abundantly clear that we’re far off track. But we have shaved a degree off our trajectory. The worst-case scenario seems less and less likely.
This has been partly achieved by countries stepping up their efforts—exactly what the Paris Agreement was designed to inspire. It has a “ratchet” mechanism, where countries are expected to increase their ambitions over time. And they’ve done this, not only setting more ambitious targets, but also putting more ambitious policies in place. Many countries now have net-zero targets: If they actually meet them, it’s projected that we could stay under 2 degrees Celsius of global warming.
Progress has also been driven by the plummeting costs of low-carbon technologies. In 2015, solar and wind were among the most expensive energy technologies we had. Electric vehicles looked like a fringe market: too expensive and short range, and with only a few models to choose from.
What made me so pessimistic in 2015 was that tackling climate change was going to be prohibitively expensive: Not only were rich countries going to gulp at the price tag, but there was no chance middle- and low-income countries could afford to act. They were stuck with the awful dilemma of choosing between limiting emissions or lifting people out of poverty. That’s an unacceptable trade-off: They were always going to opt for the latter (as they should).
Most PopularGearPS5 vs PS5 Slim: What’s the Difference, and Which One Should You Get?By Eric RavenscraftGear13 Great Couches You Can Order OnlineBy Louryn StrampeGearThe Best Portable Power StationsBy Simon HillGearThe Best Wireless Earbuds for Working OutBy Adrienne So
This trade-off no longer exists in many sectors, and it is eroding in others. Low-carbon technologies are becoming the cheapest. Solar costs have fallen by 90 percent and wind by 70 percent since 2015. Electric cars are now cheaper than gas or diesel over their lifetime and will soon be just as cheap to buy upfront.
The world is building solar and wind quickly. One in five new cars is now electric. In China, this is more than one in three. China is also building renewables at breakneck speed: adding close to a UK-sized grid’s worth of renewables made up of solar and wind in one year. And the International Energy Agency expects that global consumption of coal, oil, and gas will each separately peak in the next five years. Aggregate fossil fuel consumption could peak in the next few years.
That leaves me with two thoughts that I try to hold at the same time. The situation is still dire, but we’re on a better course than we were a decade ago. Another way to frame it is that things are moving, they just need to go much faster. This also means I need to eat a little humble pie; I thought the Paris Agreement would achieve nothing. That’s not true, even if it hasn’t achieved as much as most hoped it would.
That brings us to COP28, which kicks off later this month. So, what should we be hoping for?
The most obvious demand is for countries to close the gap between their targets and policies. Empty promises mean nothing. Countries need to put real, tangible policies in place to drive down emissions.
Ambitious targets to scale up low-carbon technologies will be a key pillar. In its 2023 “Roadmap to Net Zero by 2050” report, the International Energy Agency called for a tripling of renewable energy capacity by 2030. Nearly all of this will be solar and wind. If the world wants to peak and reduce global coal production, this is essential.
This target looks like it will be spearheaded by the European Commission. Earlier this fall, it laid out its COP28 position, and a tripling of renewables was central to its negotiating position. Rapid scale-up of renewables is unlikely to be a point of controversy (although the rate might be).
What will be much more contentious is the call for a global phaseout of “unabated” fossil fuels—fossil fuels burned without carbon capture and storage. That reduction is what the European Commission is asking for. Two years ago, there were fiery debates over a phaseout of coal. In the end, a watered-down agreement was made for a “phasedown of unabated coal”: Coal consumption was to be a smaller part of the energy mix, but not eliminated completely.
Last year India called for this phasedown to be extended to all fossil fuels. Eighty countries—including those in the European Union—backed this proposed extension to oil and gas, but with strong resistance from others. The same dynamic can be expected this year, with some countries in fierce opposition. I am reasonably optimistic about an ambitious target for renewables, but I’m skeptical about the likelihood of a global agreement on phasing out (or phasing down) fossil fuels.
Most PopularGearPS5 vs PS5 Slim: What’s the Difference, and Which One Should You Get?By Eric RavenscraftGear13 Great Couches You Can Order OnlineBy Louryn StrampeGearThe Best Portable Power StationsBy Simon HillGearThe Best Wireless Earbuds for Working OutBy Adrienne So
This is concerning because growing low-carbon technologies won’t be enough to stop climate change. Real commitments to drive down fossil fuels will be essential; they need to be actively pushed down as we charge up solar and wind.
Fundamentally, the climate talks are about money. This year will be no different. There will be increasing tension between developed and developing countries, as rich countries have fallen short on their previous commitments to provide $100 billion per year in climate finance to help low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) invest in low-carbon technologies and adapt to climate impacts. Exactly which LMIC countries should receive climate finance, and how this should be spent, has remained contentious.
Once again, talks on a “loss and damage” fund—where rich countries that have contributed the most to the problem pay for climate damages in lower-income countries—will be top of LMICs’ agenda. Some countries have agreed to a blueprint proposal in the past few weeks, but that will need to be finalized next month. The fund will initially be housed at the World Bank, and how much countries should pay into it is still undecided. I expect those conversations to be heated.
Arguably the most progress happens away from the main stage, in side-room discussions. Private-sector investment and innovation are crucial, whether that’s financing low-carbon projects, implementing adaptation measures, or building new technologies. Reaching net zero will require solutions from every sector—not just electricity and transport, which dominate the headlines—but cement, steel, and agriculture too. It’s in the corridors that these solutions are built and partnerships are made.
I expect COP28 to leave me in the same pessimistic-optimistic state I’m in today. There will be positives that move us further forward, but this progress will leave us short of where we urgently need to be.
