Glimmer of hope at COP27 amid
With the first global climate conference to be held on African soil this decade behind us, DM168 analyses the
After delays and disagreement took negotiations well beyond the official end of the conference, COP27 (the 27th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, ended with an agreement that can be described as a mixed bag of outcomes that have probably teed up COP28 in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to be the site of yet more contestation and geostrategic to-ing and fro-ing.
In the background, the dirty fossil fuels that have for decades powered the global economy will continue to be extracted, refined, beneficiated and burnt, sending millions of tonnes of planet-heating gases into the atmosphere and taking the Earth ever closer to the thresholds that herald “dangerous climate change” and irreversible changes to the habitability of the planet.
So what does the COP27 cover decision text – or Sharm el-Sheikh Implementation Plan – say and what were the major breakthroughs and disappointments? was there and sought some of the answers.
On backsliding amid complex, interconnected global issues related to war, energy and the coronavirus pandemic, the agreement was solid.
Ahead of COP27, there were concerns that countries would backtrack on their climate commitments as a result of energy-related difficulties caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as well as inflation and the aftermath of the coronavirus pandemic.
The Sharm el-Sheikh Implementation Plan says the COP “… stresses that the increasingly complex and challenging global geopolitical situation and its impact on the energy, food and economic situations, as well as the additional challenges associated with the socioeconomic recovery from the coronavirus pandemic, should not be used as a pretext for backtracking, backsliding or [de-prioritising] climate action”.
While there was a strong call for the global geopolitical situation not to be used as a pretext for backtracking on climate action, the plan did not move the needle on taking more ambitious measures.
In Glasgow, parties agreed that the COP “expresses alarm and utmost concern” that “human activities have caused around 1.1°C of global warming to date and that impacts are already being felt in every region” and “stresses” the “urgency of enhancing ambition and action in relation to mitigation adaptation and finance in this critical decade to address gaps between current efforts and pathways in pur- suit of the ultimate objective of the Convention and its long-term global goal is to hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, [recognising] that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change”.
The Sharm el-Sheikh Implementation Plan merely “reiterates that the impacts of climate change will be much lower at the temperature increase of 1.5°C than 2°C and resolves to pursue further efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C” and “recognises” the “impact of climate change on the cryosphere and the need for further understanding of these impacts, including of tipping points”.
This seeming lack of ambition was most poignantly displayed in the hotly contested reference – or lack thereof – to fossil fuels in the
final text.
Fossil fuels escape formal condemnation – again
The COP26 cover text – or Glasgow Climate Pact – made history in 2021 as the first to explicitly target action against fossil fuels, calling for a “phasedown of unabated coal” and “phase-out” of “inefficient” fossil fuel subsidies.
At COP27, activists, certain parties and negotiating blocs wanted to broaden this call to include a phase-out/phasedown of all fossil fuels, not just coal.
In the end, a phase-out/phasedown of fossil fuels did not make the cover decision at COP27. This may or may not have had something to do with the 636 fossil fuel industry representatives present at the conference in Egypt – major fossil-fuel-dependent parties also considered the inclusion of a call to phase out/phase down fossil fuels a red line.
Responding to the plan, Jeni Miller, the executive director of the Global Climate and Health Alliance, said: “Despite support from over 80 countries, governments’ collective failure to deliver a clear commitment to phase out all fossil fuels puts us on course to go beyond the already dangerous 1.5°C global temperature rise, and locks in [a] further increase in loss and damage due to climate impacts on people’s health and livelihoods.
“Limiting warming to 1.5°C, essential to avert catastrophic health impacts, requires phasing out all fossil fuels; and only full fossil fuel phase-out will deliver the maximum health benefits from clean air and a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.”
Wanjira Mathai, vice president and regional director for Africa at the World Resources Institute, added: “On mitigation, we need to see more ambition. The current text does not improve on the Glasgow one. The absence of oil and gas phase-out among the biggest emitters is crucial for the deep and sustained decarbonisation required to keep within 1.5 degrees.”
The Sharm el-Sheikh Implementation Plan instead largely reuses language from the Glasgow Climate Pact, calling on parties to accelerate efforts towards the “phasedown of unabated coal power and phase-out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies”. In this sense, negotiators in Egypt were jogging on the spot, not sprinting forward in the way the science confidently says is increasingly urgent.