Toward the tail end of 2023, leaders, climate activists, scientists, business executives, and a slew of lobbyists gathered for the 28th time to forge a global response to the climate emergency at the UN’s annual summit in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), one of the world’s leading petrostates.
The gathering—formally known as the 28th Conference of the Parties (COP28), centered around a crucial agenda—to formulate a strategy expediting the worldwide shift away from fossil fuels because burning them is dangerously heating Earth. In true COP fashion, the 28th iteration of the climate talks were contentious and ran into overtime. The world awaited the outcome with bated breath. But these summits have developed a history of swinging between periods of total dispute and then transient consensus, punctuated by moments of high drama and occasional triumph (such as the Paris Agreement in 2015) as well as disaster (as witnessed in Copenhagen in 2009).
Last year's COP28 was no stranger to controversy.
While some experts greeted the outcome or the deal as historic, others deemed it weak and ineffectual, pointing out a litany of loopholes. Among the issues that didn't receive the attention they deserved were the funds required for expanding clean energy (mitigation), preparing vulnerable communities for escalating climate impacts (adaptation), and aiding recovery after disasters (loss and damage). Although the text recognises the need for trillions of dollars in investment, it falls short of providing specific numbers and timelines. And without adequate funding, discussions on climate action remain mere rhetoric. A global plan for adaptation, a top priority for some of the most vulnerable countries, is outlined in the text but is deemed weak and lacking specifics. Another unaddressed concern relates to putting an end to the destruction of forests. The decision text from COP28 raises concerns about wealthy nations paying to restore or protect forests in developing nations rather than making significant efforts to reduce their own emissions.
On the fossil fuel front, the text clearly outlines the monumental challenge, and the final agreement takes a somewhat firmer stance, calling on countries to undertake the following actions by 2030: ‘tripling global renewable energy capacity and doubling the global average annual rate of energy efficiency improvements. While experts believe that is commendable, the absence of quantifiable goals, due to objections from China and India, provides maneuvering space for countries to select baselines that suit them, potentially undermining the overall goal.
Upon careful examination, the call to accelerate efforts in phasing down unabated coal power reflects a stance no more forceful than the one presented two years ago at COP26. For climate activists and the world in general, this is bad news, considering the urgency to swiftly phase out the dirtiest fossil fuel. To understand the successes and shortcomings of last year's UN climate talks, The Express Tribune conducted an interview with Professor Adil Najam. As a scholar in the field, Professor Najam is affiliated with Boston University and presently holds the position of President at WWF, the Worldwide Fund for Nature. The opinions shared during the discussion may not necessarily reflect his role as the President of WWF.
ET: What stood out to you about COP28?
AN: Nothing really stood out to me about COP28; what consistently strikes me is the fact that it's the 28th iteration. It's a meeting, and it's the 28th meeting. It's been 28 years, and it hasn't yielded substantial results — that's what 28 means. It's not like the Olympics, which have been ongoing for 56 years, and that's impressive. The most significant indictment of COP28 is that it is the 28th meeting.
What will we be discussing at COP422? I mean, it will happen, and we will keep returning, justifying our presence and nominal progress. What strikes me is, on the one hand, the triumph of human ability to maintain hope despite repeated experiences. The same narratives are replayed every year.
Now, this is not to say that nothing has happened. Arguments in response to this point out that the term "fossil fuel" was introduced, steps were taken regarding food, and a fund was established in this regard. It's akin to watching paint dry on the wall, and I'm patient enough to appreciate paint drying. However, celebrating paint drying on the wall becomes challenging when you've been painting the wall for 28 years while the world around you is in peril.
It's not that nothing is achieved at this conference. It's evident that 120,000 people, including presidents and prime ministers from around the world, gather in one place for two weeks. Something had to happen. But the critical assessment revolves around whether what was achieved in this 28th meeting is worth the effort. This is not to suggest that the summit shouldn't be held; it's to say that COP should have higher ambitions.
ET: What are your views on the contrasting opinions following COP28 – some describing it as 'remarkable' and historic, while others argue it was a complete failure?
AN: The negotiations began 28 years ago with the goal of reaching an agreement, yet it hasn't materialised. There are two prevailing logics explaining why these efforts end up the way they do. One asserts that while we may not have achieved everything desired, there's still some progress with each COP, typically involving the establishment of a damage fund and the inclusion of fossil fuels. Optimists believe these goals will be gradually realised, but the issue is that we don't have the luxury of gradual progress. The second logic, perfected at this COP, involves negotiation managers presenting a take-it-or-leave-it scenario, asserting that what's on the table is the best achievable outcome. This tactic was evident with the quick acceptance of the loss and damage fund on the first day. The media was already framing it as the best possible outcome before the negotiations even began, creating a mentality of taking what's offered or getting nothing. Some of us, advocating for more decisive action, are willing to accept small victories and continue the fight. Personally, I don't believe there has been genuine ambition in COPs for a long time. Even Paris, which I'm not a fan of, included COPs that didn't strive for high ambition. The legacy of Copenhagen seems to be the last time a COP genuinely aimed to accomplish something, but its failure led to a collective decision to never aim so high again. As a result, we keep lowering our ambitions even as the evidence of the climate crisis becomes more apparent. While some argue that we did achieve something, my concern lies not in the assessment but in the lack of ambition.
ET: Why should we take these (or other) COP commitments and aspirations seriously?
AN: We shouldn't take them seriously. The COPs have perfected the art of substituting promises for action, especially in realizing that countries, particularly the larger ones, have become adept at making grand promises without intending to fulfill them. If there's no intention to keep a promise, the strategy is to make it exceedingly grand. This observation is not cynicism but rather empirical. Promises are not kept, and what is termed as deals in reality doesn't hold up as true agreements. The COP operates on the basis of a divine will, and it has been doing so since its inception. Our role as scholars, civil society, academia, and journalists should not be that of cheerleaders but rather keepers of the promises, consistently reminding that these commitments were made. The only thing we should take for granted at face value is action. Hence, I am no longer inclined to celebrate promises; instead, I am eager to celebrate actions when they are evident. Therefore, our collective responsibility should be to ensure, encourage, and support countries in keeping their promises.
ET: While COP28 has taken some strides, it appears to be falling short of the significant leaps that the world urgently requires. What are your thoughts on this?
AN: I don't think it's even close to being giant steps. The issue is not just that COP28 failed to do what it should have; it's a consistent pattern across all COPs, not just this one. None of these conferences have attempted to take the giant steps necessary. When talking about giant steps, I mean setting ambitious goals. Some might argue that such targets are too big to achieve. However, in policymaking, we often set incremental goals. For example, if I need to lose weight, I don't set an ultimate goal and expect to achieve it in a week. I break it down into smaller, achievable steps, defining what I will and will not do, and outlining the consequences if I fail to meet these goals. The issue lies not only in a lack of ambition but also in a lack of imagination regarding what can be accomplished.
When we discuss giant steps, the narrative tends to suggest that achieving seemingly unattainable goals is extremely challenging. However, I believe we can do better; both science and economics support this notion. The idea that there isn't enough money is baseless. In reality, when the world acknowledges a problem's seriousness, money becomes available. We witnessed this during the COVID pandemic in every country. People, not just governments, are part of the problem. When we collectively recognise a problem's reality, we halt regular activities, adopt standard operating procedures (SOPs), and allocate trillions within days. This isn't merely a lack of ambition; it's a lack of imagination and conviction, not only on the part of governments but also on the part of consumers like you and me.
ET: To meet COP28 pledges consistently, a more proactive policy-making approach is necessary, potentially inviting political opposition and public backlash. What are your thoughts on this?
AN: Yes, it will in many different countries. That's why we should make pledges carefully in every country but then implement them with resolution. When we label a policy issue as difficult, it becomes challenging precisely because there will be opposition. However, we must provide alternatives to opposition, acknowledging that there will be winners and losers. We should support the winners, such as renewable energy, and help the losers transition to something else, once again, potentially renewable energy. While not easy, it's essential to recognise that this is one of the most significant transformations in human history, and it will be difficult. Therefore, we need to take it more seriously as a policy enterprise.
When discussing COPs, it seems they have become less about policy and more about optics. Recent conferences are curated for Instagram, emphasizing picturesque locations and social media posts rather than substantial policy discussions. Policymakers and politicians are responding to a large audience outside, and the focus has shifted from policy discussions in dingy rooms to becoming a spectator sport. COPs have become performances for the public, emphasizing statements, grand promises, and attractive photo ops. The disconnect arises when countries claim to achieve targets, yet the global climate crisis persists.
Looking outside the window, the climate is not reflecting the speeches and promises made at COPs. This shift to a spectator sport is a collective problem, affecting journalists, policymakers, and consumers. Instant policy demands, especially for issues like climate change, don't work. We need to allow policymakers the time to develop effective policies. Setting a deadline for COPs, like COP34 or COP35, rather than extending indefinitely, can refocus efforts on achieving actual, legal, workable, and binding agreements. This was the initial goal of COPs, as seen in Kyoto.
Despite these critiques, I'm not intending to sound negative. As a friend of the COP, I aim to measure success based on ambition and action, not just promises. We should avoid the notion that this is the best we can do. In this era of humanity's greatest wealth, knowledge, and technology, there is room for greater achievements. Young people are rightfully asking, "Are we there yet?" after 28 years. We owe them an answer, acknowledging that the challenge is not just in reaching the goal but also ensuring we are moving in the right direction.
ET: Given the visible collapse of the multilateral system and the rise of climate deniers in power, what implications does this hold for actions aimed at preventing climate change?
AN: If my frustration is evident in my voice, it's because, firstly, we know what needs to be done, secondly, we have the resources to do it, and thirdly, while we label COP as historic, I'm not entirely convinced it is, but the era we are living in is undoubtedly historic.
As we sat in the COP, less than a thousand miles from Gaza, it symbolises a time when our capabilities are high, yet the world is less conducive to collaborative efforts. The multilateral system is visibly collapsing, evident in the international relations theory perspective. The COP is just another data point showcasing the crumbling infrastructure of multilateralism in dealing with global problems together. We witnessed a similar breakdown during COVID, with each country prioritizing its interests. The Security Council is also in a state of decline.
This scenario represents another form of crisis. At a time when we need multilateralism the most, it faces its greatest threat, exacerbated by the rise of not just climate deniers but leaders who oppose global action. The challenge lies in the fact that climate change is inherently a global problem, and even the most powerful nations cannot tackle it alone. Therefore, merely cheerleading the COP is insufficient. Instead, there should be a stronger push, especially from those willing and able to act.
This includes countries like Pakistan, which must embrace humility and move beyond being mere recipients. There's a realisation that relying solely on external aid is not a sustainable strategy. Instead of being content with being recipients, countries like Pakistan should assert that they will take meaningful actions independently and seek support accordingly. Acknowledging the internal discourse, such as discussions about floods, should not be a tool for seeking aid but a catalyst for self-driven change. The plea is for a shift in perspective, where countries like Pakistan don't just ask for money but assert their commitment to taking substantial steps toward addressing climate challenges.
ET: How do you see the significant mistrust between the global south and the north regarding this issue?
AN: Yes, there is substantial mistrust, but it is not confined to the global south and global north, which used to be the principal dimension. It is now only one dimension among many. Multiple barriers exist, and trust is the fundamental issue. There is distrust not only between the global south and global north but also within these regions. The logic of climate policy in India, for instance, differs significantly from that in Fiji or even Pakistan. Mistrust extends between the poor and the rich, encompassing disparities within both developing and developed countries. Furthermore, there is substantial mistrust between the young and the old.
These layers of mistrust exist on multiple levels, and the only way to overcome them is through action. Therefore, I advocate for evaluating the success or failure of COPs not merely by promises and pledges but by tangible action and ambitious goals.
ET: What are your thoughts on the fact that the next COP, COP 29, is scheduled to take place in a gas-exporting country with a regime that is not very democratic and has an aggressive military track record?
AN: Some of this discussion about location is misguided because there aren't too many good locations in the world. Somehow, when it happens in UAE or Armenia, or even Egypt, which is not even oil-producing, there was a lot of resentment, and I hope it's not bigotry. Before that, it was in Glasgow, an oil-producing region where the industrial revolution and colonialism started, and we didn’t question it there. We should judge every COP and every presidency by its action and ambition rather than by our preconceived notions or biases. I am willing to give them that space, but they have to then prove whether it is Glasgow or whether it is Dubai or the next one. There aren't too many good places in some ways. Sometimes the COP makes the host become more climate-friendly because there was so much pressure on the presidency in the UAE that the fossil fuel world might have come in because of that.
I don't know how long that lasts, but in some ways, my yardstick is very simple: show me action, show me ambition. I will measure up with that. Don't give me promises, don't tell me pledges; thank you very much, wake me up when they happen.
ET: How seriously should the COP topics be widened in the future to address the entirety of nature or the overall impact on nature?
AN: I believe there is a definite need for it. Climate should indeed be viewed as an integral part of nature, and human development should be perceived in the context of nature. It's crucial to integrate climate and nature closely. However, we must not let this become an excuse for not making progress on the existing topics.
In a sense, if we want to be fair to the COPs, in 28 years, they have been more successful at expanding their agenda than completing the issues they started. Each COP is often lauded for what it adds rather than what it accomplishes. Therefore, while acknowledging the urgency to connect climate and nature meaningfully, we should also maintain focus, returning to the question of urgency.
ET: The transition discussion regarding fossil fuels overlooks food production. Although central to the debate, it wasn't a focal point in the negotiated outcome. The sector is not on track for the 1.5-degree limit. What are your thoughts on global agriculture?
AN: Firstly, on the science aspect, nothing is on track for 1.5 degrees. Achieving it involves overshooting and then entering negative territory, a challenge often downplayed to avoid giving deniers ammunition. The urgency remains. Regarding food, if there's a silver lining to this COP, it's the emphasis on climate and its intersections with other issues—climate and food, climate and health, climate and oceans.
While acknowledging the positive shift, I also caution against distraction from core negotiation points. It's crucial to add clarity to commitments rather than continually expanding topics without substantive commitments. Progress, to me, means seeing more commitments than pledges, including those related to food. Another celebrated aspect is methane inclusion, closely tied to food production, originating from oil and cattle emissions, as well as agricultural activities like rice cultivation.
However, I express concern about the potential burden on the poorest people. Methane production often involves very poor communities, and without careful consideration, the responsibility for action might shift from the wealthy to the impoverished. This is particularly pertinent when dealing with agriculture and methane. Negotiators must ensure that the onus of action doesn't disproportionately fall on the poorest individuals.
ET: Is there any chance left for us to reach the 1.5-degree target, or is it a lost cause?
AN: It's a challenging argument to make, but I assert it without denialism. Achieving the 1.5-degree goal doesn't seem feasible based on the current trajectory. However, this shouldn't be a reason to abandon the pursuit. On the contrary, it's a call to intensify our efforts. If we maintain the current pace, we risk overshooting the target even further. Even if we surpass 1.5 degrees, it should serve as a catalyst for increased ambition and action. The urgency persists, and we must strive harder; otherwise, we risk falling even further behind.
ET: Now, shifting to the Loss and Damage fund, it appears to be insufficient given the magnitude of the crisis. Your thoughts on having a fund of half a billion or maybe a billion dollars – is it a mere drop in the ocean?
AN: Indeed, it is a drop in the ocean. While I acknowledge the fund's existence, especially as Pakistan advocated for it, its meaningful impact remains uncertain. The speed at which it was established is not necessarily a cause for celebration. The fund's size is inadequate, and I question its significance. Comparing it to the estimated loss and damage from a single flood in Pakistan, it becomes evident that the fund falls short. The disparity between the funds allocated and the actual damages raises concerns about the adequacy of international contributions. The fund is not proportionate to the scale of the crisis.
Moreover, the manner in which the fund was swiftly established prompts skepticism. It was presented as a "take it or leave it" scenario, implying that this was the best achievable outcome. This further highlights the inadequacy of the fund in addressing the profound challenges posed by climate-related losses and damages.
The question arises about who bears the financial burden of loss and damage. In the case of Pakistan, the loss and damage evaluation, conducted by the World Bank, estimated damages at around 30 billion dollars. Even if we consider this figure exaggerated, the funds received, such as the 800 million from an 8 billion pledge, demonstrate a significant shortfall. This raises serious questions about the priorities of global financial contributions.
The conversation needs to extend beyond loss and damage funds to a more comprehensive consideration of climate finance. We must recognise that real climate finance occurs on the ground, involving the poorest communities directly affected by climate impacts. The actual financing happens at the local level, where individuals, often with limited resources, bear the immediate costs of rebuilding homes and livelihoods.
In the context of climate finance, the focus on large international contributions can overshadow the reality that the poorest people and countries are the ones shouldering the financial burden of climate change impacts. The urgency lies in redefining climate finance to encompass the direct contributions made by those who suffer the loss and damage and have no alternative but to fund their own recovery.
Additionally, the trend of forcing climate policies on the most distressed countries through institutions like the IMF raises ethical concerns. Forcing climate action on nations least responsible, least prepared, and most distressed adds an extra layer of burden. It underscores the need for a more thoughtful and equitable approach to climate finance that addresses the ground-level realities faced by the most vulnerable populations.
In summary, the Loss and Damage fund's current size is inadequate, and the swift establishment prompts concerns about its effectiveness. The larger conversation on climate finance needs to shift towards acknowledging and supporting the direct contributions of the poorest individuals and countries affected by climate impacts. Climate finance must move beyond traditional aid models to truly address the immediate and ongoing needs of those on the front lines of climate-related challenges.
ET: The outcomes weren't as anticipated, not meeting the expectations of those who care about climate. Many refer to it as a death certificate, or in the words of the head of the Marshall Islands, a leaky vessel. What did we overlook? What could have been accomplished?
AN: Firstly, I don't view it as a death knell, and I don't believe it achieved nothing. The criticism revolves around the lack of ambition and action, not a complete standstill. Progress was made, albeit slow, as we have inched forward at each COP.
The challenge now lies in the fact that the problem itself is escalating much faster than our incremental progress. Our slow advancement is insufficient. What could and should have happened is a greater emphasis on a negotiated treaty. Returning to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and establishing meaningful, implementable commitments would be ideal. I would have preferred actual commitments outlining the phasedown of fossil fuels by a certain percentage by a specified date, with consequences if not achieved.
Let's reconsider this as a treaty, reinstating the structure where you either fulfill your commitments or face consequences. We've veered too far into the realm of the Instagram COP. It's time to return to the rigorous task of treaty-making, focusing on implementable commitments by countries.