From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

COP28 has finished with the usual backslapping, tears and claims of a historic, planet saving, landmark deal.

As usual though, when you dive into the detail of the agreement, you find that it is mostly smoke and mirrors:

https://news.sky.com/story/cop28-agreement-latest-standing-ovation-after-world-first-agreement-but-activist-left-confused-why-people-are-happy-13029276

The main so-called achievement is the mention of the need to move away from fossil fuels, the first time it has ever been included in a Final Agreement. As one Professor points out, it has only taken 28 COPs, rather like the Ents in the Lord of the Rings, who took three hours to say hello to each other!

But just as in Glasgow at COP26 with coal, there was a total refusal from many countries to endorse the term “Phase-Out”, or even “Phase-Down”. Instead the Agreement states:

“Transitioning away from fossil fuels in our energy systems, beginning in this decade, in a just, orderly and equitable manner so as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science”

This is, to all intents and purposes, a meaningless fudge. The get out clause, in a just, orderly and equitable manner, will allow China , India and the rest of the 24 strong Like-Minded grouping of developing countries (LDMC), who vetoed the phase out of coal at COP26, to carry on using as much fossil fuel as they like.

Even the term “transitioning” is weaker than “phase-down”. China, for example, could argue it is already transitioning away, because it is increasing the share of renewables. It is of course also increasing its fossil fuel consumption in absolute terms if not share!

The Agreement is also notable for making no mention of any financial package. It says nothing about how much money must be provided to developing countries, how it should be funded or distributed. This is a bitter blow to poorer countries, who are only interested in cash.

The rest of the Agreement seems to be full of loopholes as well.

• Rapidly phasing down coal – this was already agreed in Glasgow, and the “limiting” of new coal power generation is another meaningless term, which will allow China and India to carry on as usual
• “Accelerating efforts towards Net Zero emission systems” is another meaningless statement.
• “Accelerating zero and low emissions technologies” notably includes carbon capture, which will ensure a future for fossil fuels. There is also mention of “low carbon hydrogen”, which implies steam reforming natural gas. (After all, green hydrogen is “carbon free”)
• “Phasing out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that do not address energy poverty or just transitions, as soon as possible.” – Energy poverty, just transitions and as soon as possible, of course, will allow all countries to carry on as usual.

There is also mention in the Agreement of the need for “transitional fuels”, which is a code word for natural gas!

Even the tripling of renewable capacity by 2030 will probably do no more than offset the increase in demand for energy in the interim.

But the biggest weakness of all in this Agreement is that it is not binding on any country. There are no national targets laid down as to who must do what. Instead it merely calls on countries to contribute to global efforts to transition away from fossil fuels.

It is interesting that, according to the Guardian, there was no debate on the final text;

There was confusion in the plenary hall shortly after the agreement was passed as many parties had assumed there would be a debate over the text, which was released to countries for consideration only four hours before it was passed.

The Alliance of Small Island States, representing 39 countries, said it had not been in the room when the deal was adopted as it was still coordinating its response. Its lead negotiator, Anne Rasmussen from Samoa, did not formally object to that decision and believed the deal had “many good elements”, but she said “the process has failed us” and did not go far enough. She said the deal had a “litany of loopholes”

I suspect there was a very real fear that it would have been rejected by some countries, because it was so weak.

The Agreement will of course be used by our politicians and media to demand that we must do our share, and decarbonise faster. They will try to gaslight us into thinking that the rest of the world is doing more than us.

But without doubt, in a few months time we will have all of the usual warnings that next year’s COP will be the last chance to save the world, just as we hear every year.

And the world will carry on using fossil fuels regardless!