Climate deal is a win for India. It got semantics right for developing economies

Swasti Rao

The 28th Conference of Parties in Dubai, COP28, concluded on 13 December with some important, and may I say, pleasantly surprising decisions.

To start with, given the world’s divisions and economic challenges, expectations were low that the climate conference would add anything significantly new.

Since this year’s conference was a stocktake of the efforts made through the COP platform toward Paris goals, it had not kindled the same engagement and enthusiasm as COP27 in Egypt.

Last year’s COP concluded with a historic agreement to set up a Loss and Damage Fund for poor countries, but the task of setting a realistic target for contributions from advanced economies was left to later negotiations.

In a major breakthrough, this fund has been established this year with new pledges totalling $792 million. But that is not all. COP stocktakes happen every few years, and the conclusion drawn is mostly bleak for the future of climate goals.

This time, however, it promises to be different with a new climate deal, with brand new semantics of ‘transitioning away’ rather than ‘phasing out’ from fossil fuels.

After two weeks of controversy and bitter negotiations, not only did the 200 parties agree to this deal but also took at least eight other important decisions.

Of these, three are directed toward establishing or strengthening dialogues, three are procedural, one sets the date for the next global stocktake (starting 2026), and another creates a new tech-implementation programme.

Technical as they may sound, they are all focused on the core objective of limiting global warming to 1.5º C and reaching net zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050.

But here’s where the discourse starts to get muddled. Since carbon emissions continue to rise, the final COP28 agreement made stronger pitches for the parties to focus on the goal of tripling renewable energy capacity globally by 2030.

However, India has lobbied painstakingly on behalf of itself and other developing economies to not get stuck with the baseline of 2030, allowing countries the freedom to be flexible and choose a baseline that suits their economic situations.

While this may seem like a digression from climate policies, it realistically acknowledges the requirements of the non-industrialised world.

In yet another victory for India and other developing economies, the agreement has factored in objections to the term ‘phase out’ for fossil fuels, landing on the safer alternative of “phase down of unabated coal power”.

However, the most cardinal part of the entire text is the section on transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems in a just, orderly, and equitable manner to achieve net zero by 2050.

A semantic solution to perennial deadlocks?

This is the first time in almost three decades that “fossil fuels” have been cited in the final agreement of climate talks.

While critics have highlighted the inherent weakness of “transitioning away from fossil fuels” compared to the more robust “phasing out”, the latter remains an elusive goal in realistic terms.

What this year’s climate deal has done right is that it has introduced fossil fuels into the debate by adhering to a safer expression instead of getting mired in the politically divisive expressions.

This approach also helps keep developing economies aligned with the industrialised world.

The former are not prepared to phase out traditional fuels without adequate support from developed economies for transitioning to renewables and maturing their own industries.

The other reason is purely commercial and singularly pressing—the vital interest of giant fossil fuel companies and petrostates. Fossil fuels not only remain the backbone of heavy industry for most economies, they are actually being phased up as the world grapples with uncertainty and geopolitical challenges.

Behind the reassuring phrases of our collective green future, unresolved economic interests still lurk. The language of “transitioning away from fossil fuels” sends an essential signal to the industry, but its utility ends there.

It remains conspicuously silent regarding any decision on peaking global emissions, which is a critical task for ensuring sustained reductions.

It would be interesting to see how Germany, Europe’s biggest economy, responds to this decision, as it has maintained an anti-nuclear stance even after Russia’s war in Ukraine choked natural gas supplies from Moscow.

Germany’s posture seems to defy any rational explanation given its struggle to transition to renewables amid a slowing