The UAE Consensus, the Fast Gavel, and Climate Tech
Let the COP28 narrative war begin.
Welcome back to Wicked Problems. The climate tech newsletter and show that runs on caffeine and optimism buoyed by a sense of the absurd.
The verdicts are coming through quickly. We’ll get to some of those takes in a moment.
The Fast Gavel?
In the end it’s a footnote, but immediately after the key agreement text was gavelled through Ann Rasmussen of Samoa, representing the coalition of 39 small island states, took the floor. The text had been adopted, she said, while they were out of the room. It’s only a few minutes - and the reactions are something. Cheering from the floor, confusion on the podium - complete with the president’s licking of lips that featured so prominently in his press conference last week.
The key takeaways:
“This is not an approach that we should be asked to defend.”
“We reference the science throughout the text and even in this paragraph. But then we refrain from an agreement to take the relevant action in order to act in line with what the science says we have to do.
It is not enough for us to reference the science and then make agreements that ignore what the science is telling us.”
Objection to the focus on electricity generation, not all fossil fuel consumption.
Objection to the endorsement of CCUS and not enough to end fossil fuel subsidies.
It’s hard to know what actually happened. Were the small island states planning to object and thus prevent “consensus”? Or was this a tactical absence, to provide cover later? The ovation she received - and the mixed reactions on the podium are really worth watching - suggest cockup more than conspiracy. But in international diplomacy, you never know.
Given that clearly this was meant to be read into the record for history, it doesn’t seem indulgent to share in full what she said:
Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, let me thank you and your team, as well as the Secretary, for all your hard work. We didn't want to interrupt the standing ovation when we came into the room. But we are a little confused, confused about what happened. It seems that you just gavelled the decisions and the Small Island Developing States were not in the room. We were working hard to coordinate the 39 Small Island Developing States that are disproportionately affected by climate change. And so we were delayed in arriving here.
So allow me, Mr. President to deliver the statement that we were going to deliver before this text was adopted.
This cop had one objective: to ensure that 1.5 is safeguarded in a meaningful way. Our leaders and ministers have been clear. We cannot afford to return to our islands with the message that this process has failed us.
This first [Global Stock Take] GST is of particular significance. It is the only GST that matters for ensuring that we can still limit global warming to 1.5 degree. The draft text you have presented to us contains many good elements. We see strong references to the science complemented by a clear runway with milestones for strengthening party efforts to prepare and submit enhanced NDCs through to 2025. We also welcome the establishment of the technology implementation programme. These elements are important. The questions we have considered as the alliance of small island states is whether they are enough.
Zoning in on paragraph 26 and 29 of this of this decision, we have come to the conclusion that because correction that is needed has not been secured. We have made an incremental advancements over business as usual, when what we really need is an exponential step change in our actions and support. Mr. President in paragraph 26, we do not see any commitment or even an invitation from parties to peak emissions by 2025. we reference the science throughout the text and even in this paragraph. But then we refrain from an agreement to take the relevant action in order to act in line with what the science says we have to do.
It is not enough for us to reference the science and then make agreements that ignore what the science is telling us. We need to do.
This is not an approach that we should be asked to defend.
Mr. President on paragraph 28, we are exceptionally concerned that there's not just this does not do what we need. In sub para 28 D, the exclusive focus on energy systems is disappointing. We are concerned that paragraphs 28 E [CCUS and other technologies] and H [subsidies] potentially take us backward rather than forward. In subpart. E we are being asked to endorse technologies that could result in actions that undermine our efforts. In sub par. Ah, we see a litany of loopholes. It doesn't deliver on a subsidy phase out and it doesn't advance us beyond the status quo. Mr. President, and on paragraph 11. We have requested repeatedly that this be moved to the preamble to be in line with the Paris Agreement. We do not want to renegotiate the Paris Agreement. This reasonable request has been ignored. We do not consider para 11 to have any effect on the obligations and benefits contained in the Paris Agreement and convention on the special circumstances of the seats and LDCs.
Mr. President, we must leave here with a set of decisions that meet the magnitude of the climate crisis that meet the expectations that the world has of us and that meet what is needed to secure the future of the coming generations. I thank you, Mr. President.
Climate agreements are, at best, a lagging indicator
It Could Have Been Worse
Reactions at least from the Global North could be summed up as, “well it could have been worse”.
Recapping the highlights:
3xrenewables for energy and 2x energy efficiency by 2030
2050 as an annual figure for net zero emissions from fossil fuels
Global reduction in methane emissions by 2030
This marks the beginning of the end of the fossil fuel era. For the first time, the world has recognised the scale of ambition required this decade to build the new clean energy system: a tripling of renewables and doubling of efficiency improvements. Renewables and efficiency must now be at the top of every energy and climate plan. Together they are the single largest actions that can deliver rapid fossil fuel cuts this decade. There’s so much to gain from transitioning to a clean, electrified energy system: it’s time for governments to grab the opportunity with both hands.…
Renewables has got great momentum to build from - most governments already know what to do, and are doing it, but just need to do it faster and better.
Efficiency, less-so. We are not a world of unlimited clean energy - we need to use energy more wisely, else CO2 emissions won't fall fast enough. We need much more electrification - of cars, of heating, of industry - and this dramatically lowers energy use. We need better appliance standards, esp on air conditioning. We need clean cooking (2 billion people still rely on biomass). We need a culture of less energy-intensive living: to avoid overheating homes, reducing excessive flying.
"Tripling renewables" means hitting 11TW of renewables electricity capacity by 2030, and "doubling energy efficiency" means growing energy use by 4% less than GDP growth every year to 2030, compared to 2% last year (and since global GDP is expected to rise at <4%/year, that actually means a fall in energy use this decade).
Eric Solheim, former Norway environment minister:
It was not a political decision which transitioned the world away from horse transport. Daimler and Benz invented a better engine in Stuttgart 🇩🇪.
It was not the old companies who made the information technology revolution. Steve Jobs held up the smart phone in California 🇺🇸.
Phasing out of oil will not happen thanks to an agreeed global decision. It will happen because LONGi, Tongwei, Goldwinds, CATL and many more renewable companies make solar and wind much cheaper and better than fossils. Solar energy has fallen 90% in price in a decade. Wind energy nearly as much. Add hydropower, geotherminal, green hydrogen and nuclear.
Solitaire Townsend, Futerra:
Wow, if we landed a commitment to ‘transition away from fossil fuels’ at #cop28uae - with over 2,000 oil/coal/gas lobbyists there - IMAGINE what the real commitment is!
These words had to survive those lobbyists, survive the petrostates veto, be gavelled through by an oil baron.
So behind these carefully compromised phrases I see another agreement.
The real agreement that fossil fuels are done, a global change in perspective.
It’s exciting, and infuriating.
What Comes Next
Our old pal
released a well-timed podcast with an Sabrina Ehrlingen, CEO of Grid Systems Software at Siemens Energy on the implications for the energy system.And because other grid experts are available, do check out our conversation with Gerhard Salge of Hitachi Energy:
The Narrative War
Fiona Harvey’s hot take in the Guardian sums up the battle already being fought:
“is this a historic deal that will spell the eventual end of fossil fuels? Or will it be one more step on the road to hell?
In the world of climate talks, these two are not mutually exclusive.”
The glass half full/half empty debate will roll on. As we wrote yesterday, whatever was going to be decided in Dubai, is not as important as the fact that the technology runs ahead of the policy. Climate agreements are, at best, a lagging indicator - because they reflect policymakers’ understanding of things that are far from the bleeding edge of either the climate science or the climate technologies.
On to Baku.
Thanks
We hope you found something mildly amusing or worth your while.
We’ll be back tomorrow with our conversation with John Hartley, CEO of Levidian, who spoke to us from Dubai. And we’ve got a few more guests lined up for chats in the coming days.
In the meantime, because the climate system doesn’t care about your feelings, Andy Reisinger had some things to say that might be worth revisiting, ICYMI:
