�鶹��Ƶ

After two weeks of intense negotiations, world leaders at the 28th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28) in Dubai this month agreed to transition away from burning fossil fuels like oil and coal that are driving climate change. 

Max Boykoff

The agreement marks the first time in history that a U.N. climate summit mentioned reducing the use of all fossil fuels. 

“It is an important step forward,” said Max Boykoff, a professor in the Department of Environmental Studies and a fellow at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at CU Boulder. “It is a signaling of the end of an era of fossil fuel consumption.” 

Boykoff attended the annual Conference of the Parties, or COP28, as the head of a delegation from the four University of Colorado campuses. It was the seventh COP he has attended. He shared his thoughts on what the conference achieved, where it fell short and the critical role universities can play in future talks. 

Why is it important to have a CU presence at these international climate talks?

Quite frankly, there is a great need for leadership from research communities at this pivotal point in time. Especially because some of the conversations that had emerged from influential leaders in the negotiations mentioned not having policy-relevant guidance for climate action. For example, the president of COP28, Sultan Al Jaber, who is also the CEO of the United Arab Emirates’ state-owned oil company, said that there wasn't any scientific evidence to show that phase-out is needed to lower global temperatures. This sort of off-handed rhetoric is just out of step. 

Universities are well placed to provide the resources and information from a scientific understanding about what is going on. CU Boulder, in particular, is really well positioned, because we have the highest concentration of climate-related researchers in the country and arguably around the world. 

What was different about COP28?

This one is by far and away the largest event that I've been a part of. Some estimated 85,000 people attended. 

I also saw a demonstration of urgency from many civil society organizations from young people, unlike what I've seen before. This indicates clearly to me the recognition that things are not what they used to be.

The meeting also had a much larger contingent of different business interests. Some of them being oil and gas industry interests, and some of them being renewable energy interests. There were also interests in carbon capture and storage. Many businesses are now engaging fully in these spaces. 

Is bigger better?

I can see the benefits, as well as drawbacks, of these larger summits. The benefits are that more and more people and organizations want to be involved, and fundamentally engagement is welcomed. At the same time, the scale is clearly larger than what is needed just for the core negotiations themselves.

Some argue that in the final COP28 agreement, the phrase “transitioning away” fell short of the “phasing out" needed. What are your thoughts on the language used? 

It is an important step forward, because now there is a foothold of explicit mention of the reduction of fossil fuels. Many say it's shocking that it has taken us this long to take that step. True, but the bottom line is that it was taken. The deal provides a pathway for greater engagement and action to follow, with tangible constraints now around further expansion of fossil fuel extraction for example. 

The framing and the language that we're using is not a simple matter. The nuances really matter to determine what kind of trajectory we may chart a path for in the next years. That's where “phase out” and “transition away” become so pivotal. 

For example, the language that was adopted allows for natural gas, which is less polluting but still a fossil fuel, to continue. The U.S. is a top producer and top exporter of natural gas. With the “transition away” language, it allowed the ongoing production, distribution and use of natural gas. “Phase out” language would have been a more clear signal. Now the U.S. still may develop liquid natural gas export facilities and may continue to drill on federal lands—as examples—and remain in line with this “phase down” language. The absence of a detailed “transition away” timeline also remains an important issue to address in the next meetings.

Why was it so hard to come up with a deal?

Deals at COPs must be passed by consensus of nearly 200 countries, so it is very difficult. Imagine just getting together some 197 of your friends to decide on where and when to tailgate before a CU football game. 

Going into the next negotiations, there needs to be unprecedented levels of cooperation, compassion and empathy for an urgent, just and equitable transition from fossil fuels. Getting all these member nations to agree on the language is significant.

COP agreements aren’t legally binding. How can we assure countries comply?

That's where accountability and transparency about what kind of progress is being made is tremendously important. 

Unfortunately, the history of international policymaking has been one that lacks sanctions or penalties if you don't actually live up to your aspirations. Most countries have fallen short of the Paris Agreement, for example. “Calling on” language, as it is noted in the Dubai agreement, is merely like New Year’s resolutions unfulfilled unless critical elements of accountability and transparency are agreed upon and in place.

That points to a pivotal voice of the civil society, particularly the people, shaping what kind of future they want. We must consider the aspirational future that young people are growing up in and how we can make a better future for everyone.

Markets and nimble members of the business sector are already making decisions about climate change, and business actors are already moving forward. The signaling from the U.N. is useful to reassure them that their investments in a decarbonized future are secure. The world isn't waiting merely for U.N. decisions before taking action.