The most important development affecting the negotiations at the 28th Conference of the Parties (COP-28) of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in December 2023 did not take place at the conference venue in Dubai, but thousands of miles away. That is the assessment offered by Harvard Project on Climate Agreements Director Robert Stavins in an analysis published in the latest edition of the journal Economics and Policy of Energy and the Environment.
The analysis draws upon Stavins’ deep expertise in environmental economics and climate policy as well as his experience having attended 16 COPs as the leader of Harvard’s delegation, beginning with COP-13 in Bali, Indonesia in 2007.
In the journal article, Stavins posits that the agreement signed by the leaders of the two largest carbon emitting nations weeks before last year’s COP may be seen as a critical turning point in the global effort to address climate change.
“It was not until much more recently that it became clear that China and the USA might truly resume cooperation and co-leadership, and that was two weeks before COP-28, when the most important development for COP-28 (Dubai) took place 8,000 miles away, in Sunnylands, California, when the same two heads of state met… and signaled in even more certain terms, and in writing in their ‘Sunnylands Statement,’ their renewed cooperation on climate change,” Stavins writes. “U.S.-China cooperation is essential for meaningful progress on climate change, and the Sunnylands Statement – jointly signed by the two presidents in November, 2023 – is ultimately more important than any individual accomplishments at COP-28 in Dubai.”
\While some have stated that the so-called “UAE Consensus,” contained in COP-28’s closing statement endorsing “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner,” was the headline emerging from the talks, Stavins argues that the statement is “essentially a non-binding resolution about future ambitions.”
“I say this despite my recognition that the closing statement about fossil fuels and – more importantly – the press coverage it has received may have some symbolic, signaling value, and can ‘normalize ideas and measures once seen as too radical to be globally agreed,’” he writes. “Indeed, the statement has received the lion’s share of press attention, because the press and many others like to characterize these annual COPs as either ‘successes’ or ‘failures,’ and the closing statement provides a very convenient focal point.”
Stavins admits that he was pleasantly surprised with the increased attention at the COP devoted to methane emissions, specifically the many discussions and side agreements forged by governments in attendance.
“The importance of reducing methane emissions is linked with the fact those emissions account for about 30% of the warming that has taken place since pre-industrial times, and may be responsible for nearly half of the warming taking place this decade,” Stavins remarks.
Stavins also writes that he was disappointed by the lack of support for international carbon markets under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement and by the direction that Article 6.2, which allows countries to exchange emissions reductions through bilateral agreements, seems to be taking.
“If that concern was not bad enough, the negotiations at COP-28 in Dubai took several steps backward, producing a major setback for international carbon markets… with some countries attempting to re-open what had been settled issues regarding the nature of the 6.2 mechanism, as well as ongoing politicization of other parts of Article 6,” he remarks. “In the end, Bolivia was able to block steps toward implementation of market-based approaches under the Paris Agreement (although international exchanges can take place independently).”
In general terms, however, Stavins remarks that the COP was a success in the way in which it highlighted the potential impact of private sector climate action moving forward.
“Hundreds of companies from very diverse sectors – including but by no means limited to energy generation (fossil and renewable) – were present to showcase technologies, management practices, adaptation, and finance in support of fulfilling the promise of the Paris Agreement, and the UNFCCC more broadly,” he concluded “For some observers, this was a distinctly negative aspect of COP-28, while others (including myself) found the participation of private industry to add to the diversity, the meaningful contributions, and perhaps the pragmatism of COP-28.”
Stavins’ analysis, “What Really Happened at COP-28 in Dubai: A Personal View,” is contained in the July 2024 edition of the journal Economics and Policy of Energy and the Environment.
