On January 18, 2024, the National Academies conducted a Climate Conversation about COP28. One of the panelists had had an official role in 25 of the 28 COP meetings.
There were some interesting points raised that I felt were worthy of sharing.
First, it wouldn’t hurt to be reminded of four strategic takeaways that are empowering participants and observers to declare COP28 to have been a success. First, there was agreement on a commitment to double efficiencies, a commitment to triple renewables, a commitment to transition away from fossil fuels (although many were disappointed that stronger language didn’t survive the consensus-building), and, although the loss-and-damage fund was previously established, it was unfunded until the pledges made at COP28. In addition, COP28 had record-breaking attendance, more than twice as many (approximately 115,000) as last year’s record-breaking attendance of approximately 50,000.
There was strong opposition to having the World Bank handle the loss-and-damage fund, but no viable alternatives were put forward. Accordingly, the decision was made to allow the World Bank to administer the funds for a limited period of four years, with clear rules to be promulgated within 6 months.
There was also some step-back-to-get-a-perspective conversation: Are the COPs really a useful tool? There was acknowledgement that the consensus-building and unanimity requirements make progress slow. There was acknowledgement that enforcement is on the honor system. However, the most significant benefits are unique. All countries have an equal voice at the table, and all underrepresented peoples are heard. There is no other venue in which these characteristics are present.