- What timeline options were delegates debating?
- How did the timeline discussions unfold?
- What were the main points of disagreement?
- Why is the IPCC in a ‘serious funding crisis’?
- How have scientists reacted?
- What other issues remain unresolved?
- How are the IPCC AR7 reports progressing?
- How might the IPCC use AI and enhance gender inclusivity?
In just over two weeks nearly 200 governments will signal what they believe the world needs to do next to tackle the climate crisis.
The final outcome of Cop28 will – when it finally lands around 12-13 December – offer the best assessment of how far and how fast leaders are willing to go to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
That deal will not be easy for Cop28 President Dr Sultan Al-Jaber to deliver. But given revelations by the BBC that the UAE planned to use Cop to cut oil deals, he will be under intense scrutiny and pressure to deliver a high ambition outcome that charts a pathway to fossil fuel phaseout.
This meeting comes at an exceptionally difficult time globally and with the backdrop of many tensions, the war in the Middle East being the most recent addition. Yet the annual UN climate summit is no stranger to diplomatic heat.
In the near 30 years of these meetings tensions have often been high: this in itself cannot be used as an excuse for failure.
Governments are faced with a clear challenge. This year will be the hottest year on record. Global greenhouse gas emissions are at all time highs. Climate impacts are hitting home, driving up food inflation, choking the Panama canal, drying the Amazon, killing crops in Africa, burning vast swathes of North America and leaving areas of India, China underwater.
Given the scale of the crisis, the benchmarks for success at Cop28 are high. The evidence – as presented in the Global Stocktake – must inform the results and that means a high ambition outcome.
Fossil fuel phaseout
For one, Cop28 must land a collective plan for a just and equitable phaseout of coal, gas and oil – the key drivers of the climate crisis.
To keep 1.5C within reach, the energy transition needs to accelerate.
Slow or insufficient action on fossil fuels would mean more economic instability through the 2020s and 2030s.
If “abatement” technologies are applied in some sectors, they need to capture all emissions, not delay action.
Cop28 decisions can send a clear signal that “business as usual” and relying on uncertain future abatement technologies is no longer viable.
Renewables and efficiency
Second, countries are expected to commit to triple renewable energy by 2030 and double energy efficiency.
Many are on track for this already but a common – united goal – will send market signals and can strengthen the fossil fuel phase out. Setting a framework for delivering this at Cop28 with measures to track progress is essential.
Finance
Three, clean energy and measures to beef up adaptation and resilience of countries to extreme weather need finance.
That the $100 billion has now been met is good news, but it’s far short of the $1 trillion a year that’s required to support poorer nations.
We need agreement at Cop28 from major development banks and donors that access to finance will be faster and at lower costs. No finance, no future.
Stocktake
Four, a flotilla of new climate plans for 2035 are due in around 15 months.
The Global Stocktake outcomes should be used to ensure 2025 sets a new standard for governments to meet.
That means tougher targets covering more sectors. It also means ensuring that adaptation is treated as a priority: scaling up plans to cope with future disasters is essential, as is the cash to support that.
Loss and damage
Five, delivery of the loss & damage fund at Cop28 will be a major milestone. Success will depend on funding.
We’ll need to see this during and after the World Leaders Summit from 1-2 December to rebuild trust and reassure poorer nations that those with the resources have their back when extreme weather hits.
A final deal without these five pillars is not credible. It would deny the realities faced by the poorest and most vulnerable countries and leave them in the lurch.
No number of assorted voluntary “pledges” or “statements” at Cop28 can make up for a concrete agreement by all countries under the UN.
Carefully worded press releases and neat spin from major PR firms will be tomorrow’s recycled paper. A “Dubai Deal” under the UN will have a legacy, and one the UAE could be proud of.
Landing these five pillars takes diplomatic leadership. It requires the EU, the UK and Canada to step up and build an alliance with small islands, low income nations and African leaders like Kenya’s William Ruto by recognising and meeting asks for support.
At a time when confidence in the “West” is low and accusations it is not supporting developing countries are rife, Brussels, London and Washington need to deliver – on more than just rhetoric.
Cop28 offers a platform for leaders in India, China and Brazil to address on the global stage the deep risks their populations face as the world warms, and recognise the profound reward they will gain from leaning into a strong outcome.
All three nations are clean energy powerhouses; all three have key resources for the clean transition; all three have an interest in deals that deliver jobs, prosperity and curb the rising cost of living.
Fearing repression in Dubai, non-binary people stay away from Cop28
Most of all success at Cop28 also depends on Dr Sultan Al-Jaber’s ability to make this summit his country’s moment to stand tall and deliver globally.
A presidency that pursues its own domestic and regional interests is one that usually fails.
Given his role as CEO of an oil giant, Al-Jaber will need to work harder than most to underline his climate credentials.
Deliver on the above and this could be the UAE’s greatest achievement.
Fail and he will blow a glorious opportunity to cement the UAE as a global player and confirm the worst fears of those who said his heart was never in it.
Alex Scott is E3G’s climate diplomacy and geopolitics programme lead, based in London
Linda Kalcher is executive director at the Strategic Perspectives think tank, based in Brussels
The post Here’s how the oil-rich UAE delivers a Cop28 ‘win’ appeared first on Climate Home News.
Continue Reading
Climate Change
Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs
Three countries have been named by the Paris Agreement’s compliance committee for failing to submit a nationally determined contribution (NDC) and repeatedly snubbing offers of help with their climate plans.
After months of internal debate over whether to identify serial non-responders, the Paris Agreement’s Implementation and Compliance Committee (PAICC) named the three countries which have failed to engage with it over their NDCs on Friday.
It named Democratic Republic of Congo, Senegal and North Korea in a footnote of its annual report, adding that it decided to name them “with a view to facilitating engagement”, adding that representatives of the three nations had been invited to its meeting in early 2027 “with the purpose of identifying any challenges and constraints”.
“The Committee noted the importance of Parties engaging with the Committee in a timely manner, while noting that some delays may be due to the national capabilities and circumstances of the Parties”, the report said.
In July, PAICC said 12 countries had ignored its repeated attempts to discuss why they had not published an NDC as required every five years under the 2015 Paris accord.
Members of the committee had been divided over whether to name them, but at a September meeting decided to do so in their annual report to the annual climate COP summit.
By the time the report was published on Friday, only Congo, Senegal and North Korea “had not communicated an NDC or submitted a [Biennial Transparency Report] and had not yet responded to any of the Committee’s notifications, despite several reminders issued by the Committee in this regard”.
Rainforest and renewable energy ambitions
The silence from Congo and Senegal is notable because the former is home to much of the Congo Basin rainforest while the latter has sought billions of dollars in climate finance to support its renewable energy ambitions.
After Brazil, Congo has more rainforest than any country in the world. This forest, and the country’s peatlands, absorb huge amounts of greenhouse gas but are fast being lost to expanding farmland, charcoal production, logging and mining.
Senegal signed a Just Energy Transition Partnership with Canada and wealthy European nations in 2023, to help it meet its renewable energy targets under the-then government of Macky Sall. It was chair of the Least Developed Countries group between January 2022 and December 2023.

Tejas Rao, who is researching the PAICC as part of a doctoral thesis at Cambridge University, said the governments of the three countries should engage with the committee.
“Engagement costs these governments very little and the committee has shown it will listen,” he said.
“Silence leaves the committee with no basis to help, and it leaves the [governments] exposed to the narrative that they are simply disengaged,” he told Climate Home News.
Paris Agreement requirement
The 2015 Paris Agreement requires all parties to publish an NDC every five years outlining their emissions reduction targets, with each plan meant to be more ambitious than the country’s last NDC.
The latest set – the third round of plans, with new targets for 2035 – was due in February 2025. While most countries missed this deadline, all but around 30 – mostly small emitters but including Egypt, Vietnam and Argentina – have now submitted them.
Over the year, the PAICC – which is made up of government climate officials from developed and developing countries – has been communicating with governments that have not submitted NDCs and trying to overcome barriers to them doing so.
Some nations have cited exceptional circumstances as the reason for not submitting an NDC, a process that requires a significant amount of work in tracking emissions and consulting on how to curb them across the economy. For example, a letter from a Sudanese official to the PAICC, seen by Climate Home News, said that the country’s civil war had led to the suspension of its NDC preparation.
The US and Iran are not signed up to the Paris Agreement and so do not have active NDCs, nor does Taiwan, which is not a UN member state.
Rao said that because the PAICC is “facilitative and non-punitive”, naming the countries “is meant to open a door, not close one – the invited consultation is the point”.
“In recent months, governments that explained their constraints, whether capacity, finance or domestic process, have been met with follow-up and support rather than sanction, and the number of silent governments has fallen sharply,” Rao said.
The post Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs appeared first on Climate Home News.
Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs
Climate Change
Q&A: Why a pivotal IPCC meeting in Ethiopia ended in ‘profound disappointment’
Countries have failed – for the sixth time running – to agree on the timeline for publishing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) next set of influential reports.
The IPCC’s 65th session (IPCC-65) was seen by many to be the final opportunity for countries to agree on a schedule where its seventh assessment report (AR7) would be published in time for the UN’s second “global stocktake” of climate action.
Before last week’s meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, IPCC chair Prof Sir Jim Skea had warned that releasing the reports in time for the stocktake in 2028 would depend on a timelines being agreed by the end of 2026.
But the week-long meeting descended into fraught disagreements between governments, resulting in Skea “suspending” the talks on Friday evening with no decision made.
Countries were also unable to agree on the IPCC’s budget for the rest of the AR7 cycle, leaving the body with a “serious funding crisis”.
The IPCC has pledged to reconvene the meeting at the “earliest opportunity”; however, it has not yet given an indication of when this will be.
In his concluding remarks, Skea described the Addis Ababa summit as a “profound disappointment” and “among the most difficult IPCC meetings”, according to reporting from the Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB).
Some countries have reacted with dismay to the breakdown of negotiations, warning that a failure to have the IPCC’s latest assessments on climate adaptation and mitigation ready for the UN stocktaking exercise would undermine global climate action.
A climate envoy from a Pacific island state said it was a “travesty that a handful of countries continue to delay the IPCC’s reports – the science we need back home to help us save lives and livelihoods”.
Below, Carbon Brief explores the key developments, debates and disagreements at the IPCC meeting.
- What timeline options were delegates debating?
- How did the timeline discussions unfold?
- What were the main points of disagreement?
- Why is the IPCC in a ‘serious funding crisis’?
- How have scientists reacted?
- What other issues remain unresolved?
- How are the IPCC AR7 reports progressing?
- How might the IPCC use AI and enhance gender inclusivity?
What timeline options were delegates debating?
Top of the agenda during the Addis Ababa meeting was a decision on the timeline of the publication of AR7’s three working group reports – also known as the “work plan”. The three reports cover climate science (WG1), impacts and adaptation (WG2) and mitigation (WG3).
Countries failed to reach a resolution on the scheduling of the


