Author: Luna Abadia

Post-COP, I’ve tried to detangle how I feel about the outcomes. The more I sit with the text, the more I am in awe that the almost 200 nations agreed on so much.

Of course, “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner” is the big news headline. And given that this language is in the Global Stocktake (GST), it doesn’t just sit as nice words forever: the purpose is to directly shape the guidelines for every Member State that will update their Nationally Determined Contributions every five years per the Paris Agreement. The call to “accelerate action in this crucial decade” builds a pressure (that civil society can hold governments accountable to) to ensure we see increased ambition in the next two NDCs (set for 2025 and 2030).

There are quite varied views on whether this GST language is an applaudable success. 

Some, like Samoan climate justice activist Brianna Fruean who I first met at COP26 in Glasgow, remind us that “we’re given crumbs to celebrate, but it’s like asking us to celebrate flowers that will lie on our graves. How do we celebrate that?” I think she’s right. Science and feedback loops show us there is some action we can only take now—while some issues will require negotiation throughout my life, we can’t push all action to the future COPs. If action now is not strong enough, that is a huge loss in particular to island nations and the most affected people and areas.

Many youth and climate groups were calling for a “fast, full, fair, funded, feminist, forever” phase out of fossil fuels. These adjectives were not seriously expected in the outcome text given they have no agreed meaning or past use under the UNFCCC. But as a visionary framework, this language represents the level of equity, ambition, clarity, and permanence that many were expecting from governments.

Governments fell short of this, particularly with the loopholes that encourage abatement technology, inexplicitly allow natural gas as a “transitional fuel,” and avoid placing clear accountability against methane or coal (there was no progress made from the Glasgow Agreement’s “accelerating efforts towards the phase-down of unabated coal power”). 

However, one AP article I read on the plane ride back offered me a new perspective. According to Li Shuo of the Asia Society, if you translate “transition away from fossil fuels” in some languages like Japanese and Mandarin, it is understood the same as “phase out.” What we needed and what we got are not worlds away. Likewise, while oil and gas have yet to be explicitly named in COP agreements, we all know the elephants in the room. Reading this helped me reframe my initial disappointment in the GST. We can acknowledge that the work continues, while also shaping Dubai into the win we need. Outside of its use to shape domestic government pledges, these precedents can be taken into many other spaces. To be able to say that almost all the worlds’ countries agree fossil fuels are a problem is remarkable — and should not be taken lightly.

Here is my breakdown and perspectives on a few other notable agreements from COP28.

On youth: YOUNGO, the UNFCCC youth constituency, was quite involved in the institutionalization of a recurring two-year appointment of a Youth Climate Champion to support future COP presidencies and engage in COP and CMA proceedings (read the Presidency youth climate champion text here). This year was the first YCC appointment, and it is great to be seeing this continue. It’ll take, as the agreement states, “meaningful, inclusive engagement of youth” to ensure this position is truly impactful and non-tokenistic.

On adaptation: The Global Goal on Adaptation was a sticking point at COP, and many are disappointed that the GGA remains a series of “dialogues.” It does call for all countries to enact “gender-responsive, participatory and fully transparent national adaptation plans” by 2030. On adaptation, there is also a call for progress on universal multi-hazard early warning systems by 2027, which according to UNEP, can “reduce damage by 30 percent” with only 24-hours notice of a climate-related disaster.

Overall, though, the text avoids addressing means of implementation. There is a desperate need for more finance to help developing countries adapt. While there was initially a call for a doubling of finance, data shows we need much more than that (18x, in fact). The growing gap was (kind-of) reflected in the text.

On mobility: Most of the language came through the GST Loss and Damage section.  It calls “to improve coherence and synergies between efforts pertaining to disaster risk reduction, humanitarian assistance, rehabilitation, recovery and reconstruction, and displacement, planned relocation and migration, in the context of climate change impacts, as well as actions to address slow onset events.” This is a win!

For more analysis, I love Carbon Brief. 

Thank you to Duke and Ina, Jackson, and Gabriela for this amazing opportunity!

I’m back for blog post #2! I’ll be covering some highlights from my day 1 – day 4. 

Within an hour of being at COP, I was unexpectedly launched right into the negotiations side of COP. I had started my day at the Mobility Pavilion to begin my client work, and immediately saw a group huddled. I overheard them discussing the COP draft texts. I introduced myself and asked if there were any developments on displacement language. They gave a rundown better than I could have asked for! I learned that displacement language has not been governments’ highest priority, likely because data on the correlations between climate and human movement is underdeveloped and fundamentally difficult to grasp. I learned that text addressing climate-induced displacement had been introduced into the Global Stocktake draft and that other countries might be willing to get on board. The group shared that they were working to contact party negotiators and bring the issue to their attention. I did not know any negotiators, so I set out on a mission to meet some!

My first step was attending a U.S. government briefing for civil society that a fellow Duke cohort delegate told us about (thanks Katie!). Almost all of the U.S. negotiators were present. We all sat around a roundtable, and civil society was given the chance to ask them questions. I just listened. Officials addressed backlash on their support for abatement technologies and explained that ‘no one’ expects CCS to deliver anything significant in this decade, but that abatement could be a solution to close final gaps in longer term emissions reductions. They also referenced the U.S.-China progress made at Sunnylands, and addressed Congressional challenges preventing further contributions to the Loss and Damage fund approved on Day 1 of COP. I stepped out of the session feeling pretty hopeful. It is clear there are challenges, but what I saw in the room were people all trying to do their best within the contexts of expected constraints. The way in which U.S. officials candidly addressed these difficulties, listened to peoples’ lived experiences, and demonstrated a resolve to achieve the most ambition possible left me with clarity and hope for the democratic promise of multilateralism. After the session, I spoke to the U.S. govt point person for civil society, and she kindly put me in contact with two U.S. negotiators!

By day 3, I had found my planned schedule of events unraveling. Partly because there are fewer events happening, and partly because I underestimated how interested I would be in tracking negotiations and supporting all the incredible young people advocating to shape them for the better!

Here’s what that has looked like: As the crowds of networkers and corporates disperse, a mighty and focused group of grassroots organizers and negotiation trackers remain. They camp in B1, sitting on chairs and the floor—whatever space is left. The general mood is one of resolve, to do whatever possible to target parties. As time ticks forward, the game is one of breaking through the fatigue to touch parties emotionally. Most of the young people are being supported in some way by an organization that has insight on the text, like the awesome Women and Gender Constituency. 

I spent most of the rest of COP with these young people. We made a statement of youth demands after reading the disastrous GST draft text released, and we gave these demands to negotiators as they exited the negotiation rooms. We stood outside closed meetings and told ministers to “hold the line” on a phase out of fossil fuels. We planned last minute actions outside the building to sing and speak and unite in solidarity. Let it be known that there were many hands working at all hours to ensure world leaders know that any decision will not go unnoticed.

The last thing I’ll mention is my meeting with two U.S. negotiators. I was honestly surprised and incredibly grateful they were willing to sit down and talk personally with me for what became close to an hour! We talked about what it means to operate as public servants and build consensus. I shared my perspectives on what youth want from spaces like COP. They were immensely kind, well-spoken, and inspiring. In reflection, this may have been the first time I have learned about someone’s job and 100% aspired to do what they do. I hope to continue learning from people like them.

Hello from COP! 

After almost 20 hours of travel and the much-needed ‘COP rest day,’ I am here at the venue with the Duke week two cohort. 

One of my first reflections is that I am so grateful for the U.S.’s Clean Air Act! Trying to go on a run yesterday was a slight fail because I didn’t realize how bad the air quality in Dubai would be. The PM2.5 levels have been around 160-180. 

Having been forced to evacuate my home state of Oregon in 2020 due to potentially fatal levels of air pollution after climate-induced wildfires, I carry a lot of trepidation and fear about the health impacts of poor air quality.

According to the New York Times, the COP venue “Expo 2020” is situated only “11 miles away from the largest natural gas power plant in the world.” Every COP delegate that rides the metro to the venue will be highly aware of this fact, since the metro passes right by its sprawling and haze-covered infrastructure.

As my client for this course, I am unofficially supporting the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration. They had a small team on the ground during week one, but not week two, so they were receptive to my offer to help take notes on climate mobility, migration, and displacement topics. To do so, I’ll be attending events at the Mobility Pavilion, and writing a short report post-COP. I hope to share stories, civil society insights, and examples of other governments’ national policies on climate mobility that I come across.

I am interested in mobility because I believe it is an important nexus in which the other issues I care about (gender justice, technology ethics, national security, etc) come into play. Knowing that by some analyses our world may have 1.2 billion climate migrants by 2050 (IEP) only solidifies my urge to prepare for a future in which we will all be touched by these issues.

Outside of client work, I also hope to keep track of the negotiations. This may be difficult because there are so many draft agreements, and as the days go on, meetings become “closed” and accessible only to high level officials and ministers. But I’ll try!

I’m passionate about multilateralism. Having served as youth delegate on the U.S. govt delegation to the U.N. gender conference (CSW67) this March, I learned a lot about how the U.S. negotiates and why non-binding agreements can be impactful. Little bits and pieces of understanding from this experience (for example: why the U.S. is rarely the first country to speak on a given paragraph, or how the residing Presidency shapes agreements by choosing to be more or less hands on) are front and center in my mind as I attempt to adjust to the COP way of doing things.