U.N.'s 28th Climate Change Conference Opens Next Week in Dubai
Previewing the "global stocktake" of climate progress, demands for climate reparations, and the call for a worldwide fossil fuel phase-out.

The United Nations' 28th climate change conference will open on November 30 and run through December 12 in Dubai, where some 70,000 or so government officials, journalists, and activists are expected to participate. Expect vicious fights over climate reparations, hand-wringing about global temperature trends, and furious activist demands to ban fossil fuels. In other words, a now almost routine political exercise in climate drama.
At this Conference of the Parties (COP28) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, delegates from nearly 200 countries will engage in the first-ever "global stocktake" that will supposedly "assess the collective progress" towards meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. Specifically, the Paris Agreement calls for mitigating man-made global warming by "holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels."
So where do current global temperatures stand with respect to those goals? The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported on November 15 that October ranked as the warmest on record at 2.41 degrees Fahrenheit (1.34 degrees Celsius) above the 20th-century average. The agency calculated that "there is a greater than 99% chance that 2023 will rank as the warmest year on record for the world." On November 10, the European Union's Copernicus Climate Change Service noted that so far 2023 is "currently the warmest calendar year on record, and 1.43°C warmer than the pre-industrial reference period."
Global Stocktake
The global stocktake will almost certainly conclude that the past eight years have not seen much in the way of "collective progress" with respect to reining in climate change. Earlier this month, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) reported that "heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere once again reached a new record last year and there is no end in sight to the rising trend." In particular, the burning of fossil fuels has boosted the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide a full 50 percent above the pre-industrial levels.
The Paris Agreement is structured such that each country makes pledges called nationally determined contributions (NDC) that outline their goals for addressing climate change. For example, in its NDC, the U.S. sets an economy-wide target of reducing its net greenhouse gas emissions by 50-52 percent below 2005 levels in 2030. As of 2022, U.S. emissions have fallen only 15.5 percent below 2005 levels. In September, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimated that implementing the climate and energy provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act would result in cutting U.S. emissions 35 to 43 percent below 2005 levels.
Earlier this month, the U.N. issued a report that calculated that the world would have to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 43 percent below 2019 levels by 2030 in order to have a good chance of keeping global average temperatures from rising 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. To keep warming below 2 degrees Celsius global emissions would have to be cut around 27 percent below 2019 levels by 2030. Making the heroic assumption that all countries faithfully honored their current NDC promises, the world is instead on track by 2030 to cut emissions by 2 to 9 percent below their 2019 levels. This projection does, however, suggest that global emissions will peak before 2030.
Given these temperature and emissions trends, the Paris Agreement's aim of limiting the global average temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels is already out of reach.
The COP28 global stocktake is supposed to motivate countries to greatly increase their new NDC pledges to cut emissions which are expected to be issued and confirmed before 2025.
Loss and Damage
Wrangling over money is always a central concern at U.N. climate change conferences. Specifically, poor developing countries annually demand that rich developed countries provide them with financing to enable them to cut their emissions and adapt to climate change. Back in 2009, at COP15, the poor countries extracted a promise from rich countries to "mobilize" $100 billion per year in climate funding by 2020. The latest report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development finds that that financing amounted to almost $90 billion in 2021. In its 2019 report Financing a Global Green New Deal, the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) called for rich countries to supply $2.5 trillion in annual climate and development financing to poor countries.
The main money fight at COP28 will be over how to "operationalize" the new Loss and Damage Fund that was launched at COP27 in Egypt last year. Loss and damage generally refers to covering the costs related to climate change that countries cannot avoid or adapt to. Basically, poor countries are demanding the moral equivalent of climate reparations from the wealthy countries whose cumulative greenhouse gas emissions are causing them losses from rising sea levels and extreme weather events attributed to climate change. In its Taking Responsibility report earlier this year, UNCTAD argued that the new Loss and Damage Fund be capitalized initially at $150 billion rising to $300 billion annually by 2030. In negotiations prior to COP28, developed countries made it clear that all contributions to new funds would be voluntary. In particular, the U.S. delegation wants to make it plain that loss and damage do not involve any basis for liability or compensation.
Fossil Fuel Phase-Out?
In 2021, at COP26 in Glasgow, Scotland, an initial call for parties to agree to a "rapid phase-out of coal" power was watered down in the Glasgow Climate Pact. At the insistence of China and other parties, the pact merely called upon parties to accelerate "efforts towards the phasedown of unabated coal power and phase-out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies." Unabated means coal power generation in which carbon dioxide is not captured and sequestered underground or through forest growth.
Last year at COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, a proposal backed by 80 developed and developing countries (including the U.S. and the European Union) calling for the phasing down of all fossil fuels was not adopted. In his welcoming letter to the delegates, COP28 president Dr. Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber (who is also the head of the UAE's national oil company) declared, "Phasing down demand for, and supply of, all fossil fuels is inevitable and essential."
At COP28 the European Union plans to encourage all parties to agree on phasing out all unabated fossil fuels. However, back in September China's climate envoy Xie Zhenhua asserted, "It is unrealistic to completely phase out fossil fuel energy." Russia also is against any global agreement to phase out fossil fuels. Major oil and gas producer Saudi Arabia more artfully argues for phasing out emissions by capturing and sequestering them while maintaining the production and use of fossil fuels. A global pact to phase out fossil fuels at COP28 seems unlikely since agreements reached at U.N. climate change conferences must be achieved via consensus of all of the parties.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
How many people attending are net carbon zero?
The approximate number of delegates arriving by sailboat is zero.
HOW DARE YOU!
Climate creep
With them, it isn’t the wind that blows.
It's the 8 year Olds they bring in
Wrong— take a look at the Dhow Jones average.
I wouldn't be surprised if the CO2 Coalition reps arrived by Stanley Steamer, but they seem to prefer camels
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2022/11/in-empty-quarter-climate-denial-is.html
I'm sure they buy enough indulgences to offset all their emissions.
The forest carbon offsets approved by the world's leading provider and used by Disney, Shell, Gucci and other big corporations are largely worthless and could make global heating worse, according to a new investigation.
The Guardian:
The research into Verra, the world's leading carbon standard for the rapidly growing $2bn voluntary offsets market, has found that, based on analysis of a significant percentage of the projects, more than 90% of their rainforest offset credits -- among the most commonly used by companies -- are likely to be "phantom credits" and do not represent genuine carbon reductions.
The analysis raises questions over the credits bought by a number of internationally renowned companies -- some of them have labelled their products "carbon neutral," or have told their consumers they can fly, buy new clothes or eat certain foods without making the climate crisis worse. But doubts have been raised repeatedly over whether they are really effective. The nine-month investigation has been undertaken by the Guardian, the German weekly Die Zeit and SourceMaterial, a non-profit investigative journalism organisation. It is based on new analysis of scientific studies of Verra's rainforest schemes. It has also drawn on dozens of interviews and on-the-ground reporting with scientists, industry insiders and Indigenous communities. The findings -- which have been strongly disputed by Verra -- are likely to pose serious questions for companies that are depending on offsets as part of their net zero strategies.
Did they tack their 95 theses to a windmill? Or a field of solar panels?
Damned heretics should be burned at the stake ....
....and the CO2 captured and turned into plastic bottles.
What kind of emissions though?
The term “Dubai porta potties” is a thing.
Wait until they’re all in attendance, then flatten the place. Carbon emissions will will subsequently plummet. Just eliminating the amount of hot air released from John Kerry is a huge win.
Nothing more than rich televangelists and their faithful followers.
If they were televangelizing, they'd at least be practicing what they preach.
So I suppose they're Jim Bakker.
However, back in September China's climate envoy Xie Zhenhua asserted, "It is unrealistic to completely phase out fossil fuel energy." Russia also is against any global agreement to phase out fossil fuels. Major oil and gas producer Saudi Arabia more artfully argues for phasing out emissions by capturing and sequestering them while maintaining the production and use of fossil fuels.
If you find yourself in a world where China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia are being pragmatic, economically libertarian, anti-globalist, anti-authoritarian in favor of their own countries/people, you've stared into the abyss for too long.
Methinks Saudi Arabia has a conflict of interest.
Methinks the only people without a conflict of interest are dead.
If you want everyone else to live in the stone age --
If you don't want to live in the stone age --
You have a conflict of interest.
WEF: You'll own nothing, and you'll be happy!
WEF: Have some bug loaf!
I too have a conflict of interest. I have an ICE truck in my driveway which can go ~300 miles without a charge, and when I do need a charge, it takes 2.5 minutes to get from 1% to 100%. It can tow heavy objects and drive far up into the mountains and leaves me plenty of charge to get home. It has a large carrying capacity and thus gives me great versatility and comfort.
That's my conflict of interest.
Its pragmatic in the sense that their economies depend on fossil fuels, but I don't think its economically libertarian (there may be some overlap in the desired outcome, but the motivation certainly isn't libertarian) Nor is it anti-globalist (they still want to direct to the global economy, just in a manner that benefits their established, state-owned industries) And certainly not anti-authoritarian, since their own authoritarian power depends on on their state-owned industries flourishing.
It may be fair that I should've said "more" relative to the edicts coming from Vox Gaia but, absent that, I'm going to need to see a copy of your libertarian manifesto where it says motivations are more critical than policies or outcomes.
Otherwise, it looks an awful lot like you're prioritizing the motivations of lesser regional authorities over those of larger global authorities in a distinctly "boaf sidez" gesture.
Russia, China, Saudi Arabia are accidental libertarians....
....on this one issue.
You think the WEF is exterminating fossil fuels on accident?
And what will the who's who be wearing!?
Sackcloth and Ashes for the true beleivers https://www.alamy.com/the-penitents-performance-troupe-sackcloth-and-ashes-extinction-rebellion-climate-change-protest-westminster-london-uk-image330013384.html
I call for all parties to support a monorail connecting all peoples! For safety it only goes in one direction. For direction, copy the Detroit People Mover. Only fiddy cent to ride!
Monorail!
What about us brain dead, slobs?
You'll all be given cushy jobs.
Monorail!!
More testing needed!
Win.
So they are having this conference in Dubai, a city largely made habitable as a tourist destination because of exorbiant expenditures of energy.
The United Arab Emirates, where Dubai is, has, if not the highest then pretty close, per capita CO2 emissions of any nation.
It's 6th on the list. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=table&time=latest
Behind Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Brunei, and Trinidad and Tobago
Sheer madness.
It's all happening via Zoom, right? Because surely these people aren't gigantic flaming hypocrites!
No?
Hunh. How strange.
“that October” – Wildly cherry-picking a month.
“2023 will rank as the warmest year on record”
“As of 2022, U.S. emissions have fallen 15.5 percent below 2005 levels”
Let’s all stand on our heads and think contradictions are normal thinking processes…. I mean WTF. Emissions are down 15% and Temperature is worse than ever?????? F’En clowns and idiots. The very statements are contradictions to the narrative they sell.
Obviously the only thing the Power-mad psychopaths are after is monopolizing the worlds energy industry.
The power and massive wealth redistribution.
Well, China has traditionally doubled its carbon emissions every decade, as has India. I figured once that if U.S. emissions dropped to zero tomorrow, China and India alone would make up for the reduction in global CO2 in less than 10 years.
China's CO2 emissions outrank the combined output of the entire EU27, the USA, India, and Russia. Having more than doubled since 2005, while the rest of the world has embarked on massive efforts to reduce emissions.
Yes, and they have made
goodterrible use of the energy.Foreign Aid: Taking money from poor people in rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries.
Indeed. But I don't care if it's from the rich to the poor. It isn't these interlopers money to be taking (and skimming) and giving in the first place.
No kidding. We should just import them all here and pay them directly once they cross the border.
We should since 98% of the people that cross the border are not permitted to seek employment. At least that is what has been inferred.
Basically, poor countries are demanding the moral equivalent of climate reparations from the wealthy countries whose cumulative greenhouse gas emissions are causing them losses from rising sea levels and extreme weather events attributed to climate change.
Sure, just as soon as they pay the West back for all the inventions, medicines, legal systems, administrative procedures, business procedures, etc. they have benefited from developed by the West. After all, that’s what developed nations used those GHG emissions for: science, engineering, technology, medicine, law, etc.
We can get a lower bound on what developing countries owe the West just by looking at populations. Conservatively, setting the value of a life at $1 million, and, conservatively, estimating that Western innovations have allowed 3 billion extra people to live in developing countries, that means a bill of at least $3 quadrillion to developing countries.
We take our payment in gold, oil, platinum, or lithium. Payment is due within 30 days, but we are happy to give these nations an affordable 5% interest on late payments. Thank you for your business.
We have been told that if we don't take drastic measures in 8 years, the world is gonna end!
For more than 30 years.
No, and HELL NO, I'm not returning to a 'dark ages' economy based on a 100% record of failed predictions.
Reminder/reposting:
It's not about climate change or environmentalism, and it really hasn't been for a long time...it's about socialist economic policy--redistribution of wealth. The leaders of the movement readily admit as much.
(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): "Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War... First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, made the revealing admission in a meeting with Democratic Washington Gov. Jay Inslee’s climate director in May. A Washington Post reporter accompanied Chakrabarti to the meeting for a magazine profile published Wednesday: “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all...Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing,” he added.
Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth: “A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources.”
Christiana Figueres, leader of the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.”
Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Gus Hall, former leader of the Communist Party USA: "Human society cannot basically stop the destruction of the environment under capitalism. Socialism is the only structure that makes it possible."
Daphne Muller, green-progressive-liberal writer for Salon: "This moment requires we the people to rethink democracy as a global mechanism for enacting policy for and by the planet."
Peter Berle, President of the National Audubon Society: "We reject the idea of private property."
David Brower, a founder of the Sierra Club: "The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature's proper steward and society's only hope."
"Socialism is the only structure that makes it possible." To really mess up the environment.
For example, what the Soviet government wrought in the destruction of the Aral Sea.
Will Dennis Meadows be there?
“I HOPE THE DEPOPULATION WILL OCCUR IN A CIVIL AND PEACEFUL WAY”
Paging Vicar Swift.
Um ... Dean Swift.
What's Tom Swift, chopped liver?
If "climate change" people want to talk seriously about reducing CO2 emissions with scrubbers or catalytic converters, or want to talk about nuclear power, or how to build up a resilient and reliable grid that would be able to support an all-electric US economy on all-electric, or carbon capture technologies, or desalination, or space-based microwave-delivered power, any number of things, I'm happy to talk about those because those are aiming at being a "solution". There is no "solution" ever to be found in the climate change problem by taking money away from "rich" people or countries and giving it to people and countries.
Which is largely what the IPCC proceedings on climate change actually talks about. The IPCC is the ultimate global authority on the subject of climate change. They do a fantastic job of documenting the observed changes and presenting lots of models about the potential changes. But then they spend as much time addressing poverty and inequality as they do talking about actual solutions (and most of the "solutions" proposed take the form of getting government force people to emit less CO2, by any means required...they call it "behaviour- and lifestyle- related measures" and "demand-side management" but what they really mean is "Enabling this investment requires the mobilization and better integration of a range of policy instruments that include the reduction of socially inefficient fossil fuel subsidy regimes and innovative price and non-price national and international policy instruments.") The whole report is basically about money, money controlled by governments...
There's literally an entire CHAPTER devoted to income inequality...in a climate change report!
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/chapter-5-sustainable-development-poverty-eradication-and-reducing-inequalities/
Why is this even a topic for the IPCC? And it's not limited to one chapter in the report, either:
Enabling Rapid and Far-Reaching Change
The speed of transitions and of technological change required to limit warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels has been observed in the past within specific sectors and technologies {4.2.2.1}. But the geographical and economic scales at which the required rates of change in the energy, land, urban, infrastructure and industrial systems would need to take place are larger and have no documented historic precedent (limited evidence, medium agreement). To reduce inequality and alleviate poverty, such transformations would require more planning and stronger institutions (including inclusive markets) than observed in the past, as well as stronger coordination and disruptive innovation across actors and scales of governance.
Ron Bailey agreed to disagree and went with the IPCC.
Sustainable Development, Poverty Eradication and Reducing Inequalities
Yet, progressive policies are achieving the exact opposite: they are unsustainable, create poverty, and increase inequality.
All it will take is to dissolve the UN and redirect all the funding to a huge PR campaign that we have conquered global climate warming change.
(not sure of the CO2 impact of all the crying over the lost graft)
Did you know the science says that much of the USA has experienced COOLER summers over the last 50 years?
.
Where does that come from? A climate change hazard analysis.
This entire endeavor is completely pointless and impossible even if it were desirable. See Mark Mills, The Energy Transition Delusion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgOEGKDVvsg&ab_channel=SKAGENFondene
Interview with Michael Shellenberger on the Climate Change Cult Religion.
I know where we should initiate the next foreign war.
No, seriously, we should just start bombing all the climate change concerned countries back to the stone age. Depopulate the major population centers by turning them to ash that can serve as the first stage of renewing mother gaia, and leave whoever remains to eek out agrarian lives as dirt farmers. Give the planet and its non-human inhabitants a chance to reassert itself and regrow.
They can't possibly object to it. These are all things that climate change acolytes preach in their sermons. Congress, do the right thing - and start declaring war on anyone from any nation attending COP28. And if that means, in fairness, that we have to bomb a few of our own metropolises - then let's just rip that bandaid off and get it done.
For the environment.
"The real fight is not between right and left, but rather between humanists and extinctionists."
-Elon
Not sure but I don't think explosives are carbon neutral. That and burning buildings are bad for carbon output.
Only in the short term. Kinda like a forest fire.
That makes a lot of sense. I withdraw my objection good sir.
"In particular, the burning of fossil fuels has boosted the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide a full 50 percent above the pre-industrial levels." - LIES
"the world would have to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 43 percent ... in order to have a good chance of keeping global average temperatures from rising 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels." - ALSO LIES
Aside from the lies manufactured by official "scientists" to push a Luddite socialist agenda, we also have here a refusal by their tame media cheering squads to challenge the "pre-industrial" benchmark in the first place. Current average global temperatures are not even close to the highest temperatures estimated at the peaks of the interglacial maximums over the last five hundred thousand years! And it totally ignores the evidence that CO2 levels follow - and are caused by - temperature rises between Ice Ages, not the other way 'round! In fact, there is almost no evidence that industrial age burning of fossil fuels has contributed more than a few percent of the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, or contributed more than a few percent to global warming. And, therefor, there is almost no reason to believe that dramatically cutting the burning of fossil fuels for energy could reduce global warming, although it will almost certainly cause catastrophic global economic disasters.
Ron how come you didn't discuss
"two primary takeaways from their latest data. First, the group concluded in 2015 that we were facing a global average temperature increase of 3.5 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial era levels. That figure is now “completely off the table,” according to their experts. The revised figure is 2.7 degrees. The second conclusion is that many countries are not meeting their goals, and emissions continue to rise every year, though not as quickly as they had previously anticipated."
CO2 going up but planet not heating up like thought. So far they were off by what 25%?