#COP28 Ends: What does it mean?
We arrived at the "Beginning of the End." The future is in our hands.
After two weeks of discussing whether phasing out or phasing down was the right language, COP28 arrived at “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems”. This follows the EU insisting the important thought was making sure the language signals the “beginning of the end for fossil fuels.”
After two weeks of concern that a fossil energy executive representing a fossil energy nation could not do this, it happened. It was far from perfect. The opportunity was seized to push it into the water as a ‘leaky waka/boat’ while the Alliance of Small Island States was conferring out of the room. All nations must now continue in this waka – in the hope that moving on is better than not moving.
Take a moment to consider other viewpoints
First, consider why agreement occurred so suddenly.
Shortly after declaring the decision the #COP28 UAE consensus, Samoa takes the floor and notes that the 39 nation alliance of small island states was out of the room coordinating when the decision was adopted. Their statement was applauded and proceedings moved on. (View the moment on Youtube)
As I’ve noted before, phasing out seemed to be politically to many states who still saw fossil energy development, often in their territory, as the path to equity with rich ‘western’ nations like the US, Canada, Australia and EU. It seems phasing out without a pathway to equity was just the next phrasing of colonialism to many in the Global South?
And so we have:
“transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems,
in a just, orderly and equitable manner."
“Transitions” need to be the future
A good linguist might point out that transitioning is future focused, and less disruptive than tranforming, whereas phasing out feels more like it is about the past than the future? Does that help you embrace the new words, if you have no idea there are substantial work streams in COP on just transitions and equitable transitions, and language to match in the statement.
I spent much of the last year working to describe what just transitions mean for communities in Aotearoa New Zealand. If you want to use this as a base for understanding transitions, start here.
The beginning of the future starts here?
What does Bill McKibben say? He’s done more than anyone I can think of to shape the language of progress on climate change, and make climate progress look more sane and mainstream than many politicians in the US.
He lauds the language – the precise wording. Despite everything that is leaky about the waka, the language makes everything possible. We need to push bravely on and look after each other. The language gives activists and people who take action what they need, to stop the expansion of fossil energy and begin the transition in a serious, just, equitable and orderly way.
Out of order: ferry decision is symbolic
The transition – if done in a serious, just, equitable and orderly way – requires planning and communication. The decision, shocking many big stakeholders, to halt Government investment in the Interisland ferries needed to maintain and improve rail and road freight represents the worst of New Zealand. It is symbolic that it comes right on top COP28’s wording. We need to do better.
Bernard Hickey says it will cost us in the big picture, because we are now destined to lose reliable rail services connecting our islands to deliver a 40% emissions reduction. Patrick Smellie says it was the right decision to cut costs, but points to Winston Peters and Shane Jones, now back in cabinet, as why the investment started with rail service in mind. Pending anyone running the numbers, Bernard Hickey seems clearly right and here’s why.
The finance minister has provided the wrong analogy to a Toyota Corolla – it appears we’ve been told to just get a Corolla when in fact the towbar can’t handle the load needed. That is to say, continuing to retrofit aging ferries from calmer water that happen to fit our terminals has not served us safely. This leaves everyone dependent on freight unsure where they’ll sit on costs and emissions, when the future depends on both.
In effect, we may be permanently trapped in our own version of the planning fallacy, where large projects are undercosted until all details are understood. That led to the cost overruns causing concern and cancellation. But if we realised we need to get past them once to have certainty in future infrastructure, we’d continue to get this across the line and learn how to plan better along the way. Instead, every decision is now up in the air, and will face repeated iterations of the planning fallacy in everything, everywhere all at once. In effect, we’ll be trapped in what Wellington journo Georgina Cambell has defined as an ongoing saga: “Dire Straights.”
Thanks for this series, Troy. Just brilliant.
Ngā mihi nui.