The latest study from January 2024 indicates that we are not on track to meet the goal of the Paris Agreement, with global warming projected to reach 2 degrees Celsius by 2050. This trajectory, fueled by continued substantial fossil fuel use for decades, represents a tragic moral failure of immense proportions. However, there remains a narrow chance to correct course by radically transforming global energy systems.<\/p>\n
This sobering assessment raises questions about the adequacy of COP28 outcomes and international climate<\/a> governance as a whole. The limitations of the UNFCCC regime become particularly apparent when considering challenges experienced by countries like Ukraine, which is grappling with an ongoing war.<\/p>\n The conflict in Ukraine underscores the complex intersectionality of climate change with geopolitical crises. While international climate<\/a> agreements strive to set ambitious targets and frameworks, they often struggle to address the immediate needs and vulnerabilities of nations facing acute political instability or conflict.<\/p>\n Moreover, the capacity of countries like Ukraine to fully engage in climate action and adaptation efforts is hampered by the urgent demands of addressing conflict-related issues, such as displacement, infrastructure damage, and humanitarian crises. In such contexts, the limitations of the UNFCCC regime become more pronounced, highlighting the need for more nuanced and flexible approaches to climate governance<\/a> that can accommodate diverse geopolitical challenges.<\/p>\n \u201cBeginning<\/strong> of the end for the fossil fuels<\/a> era\u2019<\/strong><\/u>?<\/strong><\/p>\n For the first time in 28 years of UN climate negotiations, the COP28 final text \u2013\u00a0UAEConsensus included the language calling<\/a> on nations to:<\/p>\n \u201ctransition away from fossil fuels in energy<\/a> systems, in a just, orderly, and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade, so as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science.\u201d<\/p>\n While explicitly mentioning fossil fuels can be called<\/a> a\u00a0historic\u00a0moment, one should acknowledge there have been too many \u201chistoric\u201d moments in climate negotiations. The litmus test going forth should match rhetorical ambitions with real actions. Keeping in mind that COP decisions, as well as pledges and declarations, are not legally binding, their implementation into national policies<\/a> and revised NDC submissions relies heavily on the political discretion of individual countries.<\/p>\n Thus, the critical imperative remains the adoption of precise and effective rules, encompassing national climate laws and policies<\/a>, as well as international initiatives, to facilitate the transition to a net zero. Despite the increasing number of climate-winning legal cases, such as the Oslo district court\u00a0decision\u00a0from<\/a> 18 January 2024, challenging the legitimacy and legality of fossil fuel extraction, this is not merely an easy task. Implementation of states\u2019 obligations to move away from fossil fuels should happen in the context of decreasing geological stability, ongoing energy crises, and businesses pushing back on commitments despite the\u00a0research-proven economic benefits\u00a0of the green<\/a> transition.<\/p>\n Stress Testing International Climate Governance: The Case of Ukraine In particular, Ukraine stands in a distinctive position, grappling with ongoing war and an unparalleled reconstruction challenge. The imminent task involves rebuilding nearly half of its energy sector infrastructure and assets, coupled with a substantial share of industrial assets, ushering in a transformative phase unparalleled in the experiences of most other countries. Thus, the question is whether the UNFCCC regime can effectively facilitate Ukraine\u2019s green transition, and what priority spheres and actions are imperative to ensure this transformation.<\/p>\n The response to this question is multifaceted. Initially, the classification of Ukraine as a developed country within the UNFCCC driven by historical considerations, introduces a nuanced challenge. Notably, Ukraine\u2019s per capita GDP, particularly post-war, places it lower than many lower-middle-income and even lower-income countries classified as developing nations<\/a> globally. This circumstance restricts Ukraine\u2019s access to specific instruments outlined by the convention and the Paris Agreement, such as the Green Climate Fund<\/a>, Least Developed Country Fund, and the Special Climate Change Fund\u2014resources currently unavailable to Ukraine. Despite the Global Environment Facility allocating funds<\/a> at a limited scale, it is evident that the existing framework, based on a paradigm from three decades ago, no longer aligns with the contemporary need for global decarbonization and the unique national circumstances in countries like Ukraine, particularly amid the challenges of the war. While there is mounting pressure for a recalibration of this framework, the process is gradual. In the interim, the focus should shift towards exploring regional or national<\/a> instruments.<\/p>\n On the other hand, as a developed country<\/a>, Ukraine is mandated to take accelerated action to expedite efforts beyond those of developing countries, ensuring emissions balance for neutrality by the early stages of the second half of this century. Within this context, the Paris Agreement assumes a pivotal role, potentially exerting a more significant influence in steering Ukraine towards a trajectory where reconstruction prioritizes green, sustainable, and low-emission practices. In essence, Ukraine\u2019s commitment to climate action amid the war can illustrate that even in challenging circumstances, sustainable practices can be integral to recovery and development<\/a>. It underscores the idea that prioritizing climate action<\/a> is not only an environmental imperative but also a pathway to building a more resilient, prosperous, and sustainable future for nations emerging from conflict.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, the energy transition in Ukraine is not just a national concern but a significant component of the global climate agenda. On COP28 Ukraine reaffirmed its deep commitment to achieving net zero, phasing out coal by 2035 and supporting the global ambition to triple renewable energy<\/a> capacity and double the rate of energy efficiency improvements. The Ukrainian government\u00a0presented\u00a0scenarios and plans for decarbonization of its energy system based on decentralised renewables, the case of 450 million euros of private financing attracted for the development of wind energy and Ukraine\u2019s ambition to emerge as a \u201cgreen energy hub\u201d of Europe.<\/p>\n While clarity regarding Ukraine\u2019s commitment is paramount, the most significant challenge is that Ukraine has to rebuild quickly and whether this can be executed in a \u2018green\u2019 manner aligned with climate goals and net zero targets is the foremost question raised by many\u00a0experts.\u00a0\u00a0In July 2022, during a head-of-states conference in Lugano, Switzerland, the Ukrainian government\u00a0presented\u00a0the initial version of its 10-year national recovery plan, outlining proposed recovery pathways for major sectors<\/a> at an estimated cost of $750 billion. It showcased that green, inclusive, low-carbon, and sustainable post-war reconstruction for Ukraine is feasible. Provided the right political decisions are taken, Ukraine can become a role model, demonstrating that decoupling economic growth from carbon emissions is possible even in the most extreme circumstances and recovery scenarios and a front-runner in the global energy transition<\/a>.\u00a0\u00a0However, little can be achieved without international financial and institutional support.<\/p>\n For this purpose, for instance, the new collective quantified goal for climate funding<\/a> for 2024, discussed at COP28, must address the requirements for both rapid recoveries during the war and long-term post-war reconstruction, supporting post-conflict regions and aiding these nations in rebuilding destroyed assets and infrastructure in alignment with the Build Back Better principles.<\/p>\n Additionally, there is an urgent need to develop international legal instruments to hold aggressor nations<\/a> accountable for war-related GHG emissions. One viable approach is formulating a liability mechanism under the UNFCCC regime to formally assess and attribute responsibility. Total emissions linked to Russia\u2019s war on Ukraine\u00a0are estimated\u00a0to have already amounted to 150 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent as of September 2023 \u2013 representing $9.6 billion in global climate<\/a> damage. This could be claimed as a breach of the global climate commitment tied to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change<\/a>. Integrating quantified climatic<\/a> harm into the registry of losses under the\u00a0Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage\u00a0would enable economic valuation and claiming of wartime losses and damages. Concretely, the expenses associated with Russia\u2019s invasion-attributable excess emissions could be documented and claimed based on global cost estimates. Constructing formal attribution and liability systems through UNFCCC processes or loss\/damage registries will help discourage environmentally destructive warfare while promoting climate<\/a> accountability.<\/p>\n End of the beginning?<\/strong><\/p>\n Merely two months later, the concerns over loopholes posed by ambiguous UAEConsensus are coming true \u2013 none of the major historical emitters is implementing policies<\/a> to move away from fossil fuels but actively expanding production. Canada is launching the\u00a0$23.05 billion expansion project\u00a0to<\/a> triple the flow of crude oil to 890,000 barrels per day, the UAE state oil company ADNOC is expanding its oil production capacity from four million barrels a day (bpd) to 5 million bpd by\u00a02027\u00a0and the UK adopting\u00a0Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill\u00a0to boost oil and gas extraction in the North Sea.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, the Russian war against Ukraine continues to serve as a compelling case study that demonstrates the broader implications of fossil fuel dependence. Beyond its apparent role in contributing to a temperature rise, the conflict underscores that reliance on fossil fuels is a matter of global security and a fundamental determinant of life and death on a global scale. There is a growing body of\u00a0evidence\u00a0suggesting that the devastating war in Ukraine was, to an extent, enabled and financially supported by the fossil fuel industry.<\/p>\n This calls for the development of comprehensive policies that seamlessly integrate climate<\/a> and conflict considerations, aligning energy policies with climate objectives while addressing geopolitical vulnerabilities and reducing dependence on specific regions or fuels that may contribute to geopolitical tensions.<\/p>\n However, with COP29 set to be hosted by Azerbaijan, such seamless integration raises concerns<\/a>. Azerbaijan\u2019s fossil fuel production represents 40% of the nation\u2019s GDP, accompanied by expansion of oil and gas exploration in the Caspian Sea and limited progress on renewables, accounting for just 17% of domestic energy consumption as of\u00a02018. Though the government set a target for 30% renewable energy<\/a> integration by 2030, one can argue this paradoxical embrace of production growth alongside green pledges echoes the UAE\u2019s contradictory climate positioning at COP28. Compounding concerns, Azerbaijan saw 30 wrongful dissident imprisonments\u00a0in 2022\u00a0amid strained human rights conditions, displacing tens of thousands in renewed conflict with Armenia, undermining its credibility in\u00a0\u201cconvening different players in a spirit of inclusion and compromise\u201d\u00a0on the world stage.<\/p>\n The influence of fossil fuel interests, combined with the support of authoritarian regimes and dictatorships so far has been diluting global climate action<\/a>. The substantial financial investments in the expansion of oil and gas infrastructure worldwide exacerbate the situation. Establishing universally applicable and impactful mechanisms for international climate action<\/a> remains elusive unless decisive measures are taken, including possibly considering the\u00a0suspension of countries like Russia\u00a0from the UNFCCC process.<\/p>\n
\n<\/strong>COP28 has left a significant number of unaddressed issues, such as the\u00a0Global Stocktake\u00a0lacking a full set of actions needed to close the emission and adaptation gaps and a failure to reach a deal on carbon trading mechanisms to endorse standards for the carbon credit market. However, these are not the only shortcomings of the UNFCCC regime, as evident from COP28 outcomes. The case of Ukraine highlights the constraints of the current climate governance, even as Ukraine demonstrates commitment to global climate goals and green energy transition in the face of existential threats.<\/p>\n