COP28: Climate talks are going through a "phase"
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
Photo illustration: Lindsey Bailey/Axios
Don't assume one of the fiercest COP28 battles will be one of the most consequential.
Catch up fast: A big sticking point is whether the summit will formally endorse a phaseout, or at least phase-down, of fossil fuels.
- A related question: whether any verbiage would target only fossil fuels without carbon dioxide capture.
- The New York Times calls the phase fight the "most contentious" thing at COP28.
Why it matters: Scientists have made clear that immediate and steep emissions cuts are needed to keep Paris Agreement goals alive.
- Paris temperature targets are meant to avoid some of the most harmful changes in a world that's already dangerously hotter.
The intrigue: Obviously, moving away from coal, oil and gas is important. But whether calling for this in a summit text helps that happen is far less certain.
Reality check: The relationship between non-binding text and action is often weak, given the stew of economic and national interests at play on the ground.
- Bloomberg columnist Javier Blas, a veteran observer of energy markets, said no matter what language might be adopted, oil use will be higher in 2030 than today.
- And global coal use has actually risen since the COP26 text in 2021 endorsed a phase-down of "unabated" use.
- "[F]ocus on language rather than policy is an unwelcome distraction," he posted on X.
State of play: The best case for why this fight deserves the spotlight goes something like this...
- These summits send market signals about where investment and policy are headed.
- Countries feel more pressure to "walk the walk" with policy once they've jointly and formally "talked the talk."
- Consider that under nations' existing policies, projected 2030 emissions increases are lower than before the largely voluntary 2015 Paris deal, per a United Nations analysis.
What they're saying: "There must be a very clear signal that meeting our climate goals means dramatically reducing fossil fuels," Jason Bordoff, who leads a Columbia University energy think tank, tells Axios via email.
- Bordoff adds that "even recognizing a key role for carbon capture, there is no scenario where we reach net-zero with business-as-usual for fossil fuel use."
What we're watching: Explicit endorsement of ditching fossil fuels would be unprecedented for these COP summits. But the hurdles are huge at talks that require consensus.
- Parties like the U.S., EU, and small island states — which face existential risks — back some kind of phase-out language.
- But there's reportedly opposition from Saudi Arabia, China and others.
The bottom line: This fight is symbolically important, but the substantive consequences may be theoretical.
