Good morning to you – COP28 came to a close last week. After our team and delegation traveled and rested, we spent some time analyzing the final results of the conference. We’re diving into the outcomes for our final digest today. Thank you for spending your time with us these past two weeks!
Just one day beyond the scheduled end of COP28, negotiators attended the closing plenaries to agree on the official outcome document: the UAE Consensus. Let’s dive into the top three outcomes, both from the document and the conference itself. Consider these your climate talking points over the winter and holiday season.
- The document calls for the “transitioning away” from fossil fuels.
Yes, this is a hard-fought, 30-years-in-the-making moment. If you remember last year’s outcome, the final document only called for the phase down of coal and harmful subsidies of fossil fuels. Some are calling this language, this moment, the beginning of the end of fossil fuels. While that may be true on some level, the document is also disappointing, imperfect, and not enough. In a time when phasing out fossil fuels is paramount to mitigation emissions and operating in line with climate science, the “transitioning away” language falls flat. There’s no naming of oil and gas, or hard deadlines for phase out.
This language was included and agreed on in the face of massive opposition from fossil fuel interests — the largest number of lobbyists ever to attend a COP, in fact. And still, countries on the front lines of the climate crisis are rightly naming the document as full of loopholes.
The document, in an ideal world, could be a catalyst for the renewable energy transition. It calls for the tripling of renewable energy by 2030 and doubling energy efficiency. In its essence though, it is fragile. The words rely on serious, urgent, and well-funded action from the exact leaders that agreed on the words. In the coming months ahead of COP29, the world will be watching for actual action. Not just words.
- The need for justice is the writing on the wall.
The inclusion of “transitioning away” from fossil fuels language would not have been possible without the pressure from Indigenous leaders, island nations, activists, civil society, and countries on the frontlines of climate change impacts; the people and communities who do not have time for posturing, because their lives are at stake. Many have called this COP “business as usual” due to the lack of real ambition in its outcomes.
While the Loss and Damage Fund was realized, COP28 finished with roughly $770 million dollars pledged — roughly 0.2% of what frontline countries actually need annually to adapt to extreme weather, drought, loss of life, loss of infrastructure, and other impacts. Since there is no obligation to pay into the fund, the level of trust is low; not to mention the fact that some of the funds pledged were repeats of existing pledges.
A lack of funding overall getting into the hands of communities on the frontlines is limiting justice-based solutions, leaving poorer countries with small capacity to pay for clean energy, adaptation, and mitigation measures. And these communities should not have had to wait 30 years for the mere mention of fossil fuels to come into play. If the global community had taken incremental action at the scale needed 30 years ago, lives would have been saved.
- Carbon conversations are on the rise — removal, storage, and capture.
The mechanics for carbon removal, and capture and storage, are central to Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, however not much progress was made at COP28 to instill trust, standards, or regulations for this process.
Ranging from nature-based carbon sinks like mangroves to climate tech like direct air capture, carbon removal is part of the conversation. Yes, the IPCC states we need to remove carbon from the atmosphere to align with the 1.5 goal. The main concern? The technologies aren’t viable yet to make any massive impact — and carbon removal is often seen as an excuse to continue emitting, rather than a needed tactic in tandem with phasing out fossil fuels. If there is any way forward with the voluntary carbon markets, it must be developed while phasing out fossil fuels and listening to the communities that are often the ones managing the basis of the carbon credits (i.e. preserving forests on Indigenous lands, etc.)
Science tells us we need both mitigation and carbon removal, but the current iteration of carbon markets, carbon offsets, and strategies is mistrusted, riddled with loopholes, and does not contain clear reporting across the international community. We expect these conversations to become more charged, regarding the injustices they contribute to, during COP29.
For more specific pledges, actions, and commitments made during COP28 crossing issues from agriculture to methane mitigation, see this list from Carbon Brief.
While international agreements are critical for funding action, creating diplomacy, and providing spaces for civil society to hold leaders accountable, the actual agreement text isn’t what makes action happen. It’s the people. The people in leadership positions, in communities, on the ground, pushing for local solutions like fighting pollution, stronger standards, public transportation, youth empowerment, education, justice, health, and so much more.
Join us in thanking our COP28 delegates for their late nights, perspectives, content gathering, emotional processing, and collaboration as they were our eyes and ears on the ground in Dubai.
Thanks to all of you for reading and experiencing this COP with us.
We are looking forward to seeing you in the work ahead!
The post Your Summary of Negotiations –– COP28 Outcomes appeared first on Climate Generation.
SYDNEY, Thursday 30 October 2026 — In response to reports that the Albanese government is set to introduce draft legislation this year that would seek to ban data centres in Australia’s suburbs, Joe Rafalowicz, Head of Climate and Energy at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said:
“These reports are a testament to the growing community opposition to these completely inappropriate AI factories that have sprung up across our suburbs, and Big Tech corporations should take heed — the data centre build-out must not happen without the endorsement of the Australian people.
“But the government can’t simply ship this problem out to regional Australia without addressing the fundamental issues with this extractive new industry.
“We’re already seeing a trend of AI data centre proposals moving to the regions, in areas that are more water-scarce, more environmentally sensitive, and next to sources of fracked and coal seam gas to support their massive BYO gas-fired power plans — a pattern we’ve seen play out in the United States.
“From the Beetaloo Basin in the NT to the Western Downs in Qld, we’re seeing a wave of AI data centre proposals that would see new gas fast-tracked to support their massive energy demand, and threaten to completely derail Australia’s energy transition.
“Just as suburban Australians are asking, “what for?”, regional communities like Berry Springs and Dalby do not want dirty data centres setting up shop with absolutely no benefit to their communities. Greenpeace is calling for a moratorium on AI data centre developments until strict and enforceable safeguards are in place to protect our climate and our communities.”
-ENDS-
Media contact
Kate O’Callaghan on +61 406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
AI data centre ban in suburbs would not address fundamental issues: Greenpeace
In the thick of the COP29 climate summit in Azerbaijan in 2024, the UN climate talks were rattled by what can only be described as a major PR disaster. The BBC, Reuters and The Guardian all carried headlines, attributed to leading climate policy experts, that the COPs were “no longer fit for purpose”.
The articles outlined a series of reforms called for in an open letter signed by 22 eminent scientists and politicians, including a former UN secretary-general and previous UN climate chief, with a further 150 lending their support. The headlines shook confidence in the COP process, just as governments were wrestling over a new climate finance goal.
The Club of Rome – which handled the media relations for the letter – hurried to say that its “constructive, supportive ideas” had been “misinterpreted”. Negotiators kept calm(ish) and carried on, in the end landing the finance goal after some high-stakes drama on the final day.
-
Early speakers’ list suggests few powerful leaders will attend COP31
Just 77 heads of state or government are scheduled to address the COP31 climate summit in Antalya, a third less than the COP28 peak -
Africa wants adaptation finance on COP31 agenda, raising risk of a fight
The African Group wants dedicated space on tripling adaptation finance, the Green Climate Fund and trade, setting up a possible clash
To my surprise, when I went back this week to read the letter again, I could not find the offending line about the COPs not being fit for purpose. The Club of Rome has yet to respond to my query about its disappearance.
Whatever happened to the wording, that sentiment has been widely shared. COPs have ballooned in size while the importance of their outcomes seems to have diminished since the 2015 Paris Agreement (with the exception of the 2023 COP in Dubai where countries agreed to transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems).
The same on the surface
Two years on from those painful headlines in Baku, has anything changed for the better? You might be forgiven for thinking not. Official decisions are still made by consensus rather than the majority voting some have called for to stop blockers.
Tens of thousands of officials, activists and business execs still scurry around the halls to an ever-growing list of side events, roundtables and dialogues, while deals still come down to rows, all-nighters and jargon-filled texts adopted to rounds of applause.
But it would not be true to say that COPs have completely failed to respond to the very real need to translate the words of the Paris Agreement into action in the outside world.
Global warming is projected to be around 1.3C lower this century than it would have been if the world had not committed to tackle the climate crisis under that accord. Developing countries have a valued space at COPs in which their voices have equal weight in decision-making, unlike in many other international fora. And most importantly, perhaps, there has been a subtle shift, tipping the balance away from negotiating towards doing.
Brazil branded last year’s summit in Belém as the “COP of Implementation”, corralling the sprawling Action Agenda into six axes. This was a bid to impose some structure on the mushrooming efforts between governments, UN agencies, cities, businesses and civil society to set targets and spur faster results on their pet issues, from methane emissions to health and adaptation in conflict zones. COP30 alone saw the launch of 120 “plans to accelerate solutions”.
COP30 roadmaps off the cuff
Meanwhile, as the formal negotiations drew to a close, it was clear that consensus decision-making was evolving into something a little more improvised.
With only around half of all countries on board with the idea of a roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels, COP30 President André Corrêa do Lago announced his team would put one together over the coming year, along with another on how to meet a global goal to halt deforestation by 2030. Those roadmaps will be launched next week, presented and discussed at COP31, though it’s still unclear whether or how they’ll be incorporated into the formal negotiating agenda.
Some leading policy-makers don’t think that matters too much. Speaking to journalists before the Antalya summit, COP30 CEO Ana Toni and Dutch climate minister Stientje van Veldhoven said “coalitions of the willing” can move ahead without needing consensus from the COPs. This, they said, was evident this year at the first global conference on TAFF, co-chaired by van Veldhoven and attended by 60 countries.
“Consensus or no-consensus in the general COP doesn’t make a difference for the choices I have to make in my country to get my country to phase out fossil fuels,” said the Dutch minister. The Netherlands recently became one of the first to publish a national TAFF plan.
COP31 banks on flagship voluntary initiatives
This thinking has permeated the management and expected outcomes of this year’s COP too. Earlier this year, Türkiye, supported by international energy agencies, floated the idea of a voluntary goal to boost electrification to 35% of the world’s final energy consumption by 2035 – and this is now being touted as one of the main results to be expected from Antalya.
Türkiye is also championing a pledge on AI and climate, while co-host Australia is pushing to ease access to climate finance for least developed countries and small island states.
COP31 presidency announces AI pledge as UN climate chief says Big Tech ‘on thin ice’
None of these needs consensus. But with a political cover decision already in the works, as trailed by the COP presidents, they – and perhaps the fossil fuel roadmap – may find a home in the official text if language acceptable to most can be found, giving them them additional weight.
UNFCCC reform process in the shadows
Formal reform is underway too, if quietly. UN climate chief Simon Stiell is leading a review informed by ongoing consultations with a group of 15 well-respected climate policy experts, three of whom signed the open letter in 2024.
Among them is leading Swedish climate and sustainability scientist Johan Rockström who has strong ideas about how to make COPs function better, including a switch to majority voting. He told the same press briefing nothing stands in the way of this, because the rules of procedure for making decisions at COPs have never been formally agreed.
Still, to get away from the default setting of consensus would require agreement on a new system that may be impossible to achieve given the rise in bullying tactics by fossil fuel heavyweights.
Comment: The UN climate process was built for negotiation – now it must support implementation
The deliberations with the high-level policy gurus, as reflected in a summary of June’s session in Bonn, largely echo what’s already happening organically, calling for stronger partnerships and accountability both in and between the Action Agenda and negotiations. It doesn’t mention voting.
A general overview of the reform exercise says that “improving and optimizing the [UN climate] process over the medium to long term… will be critical to fostering trust, enhancing collaboration, and catalyzing increased ambition”.
In the short term, don’t hold your breath for anything concrete on reform at COP31 but watch for signs in what ends up dominating the headlines from Türkiye.
The post Editor’s Desk: COP reform is happening quietly, behind the headlines appeared first on Climate Home News.
Editor’s Desk: COP reform is happening quietly, behind the headlines
With the COP31 climate summit in Turkey looming, all eyes are on China to see what the country will push for in the negotiations.
At COP30 last year, China helped to secure a “dialogue” on climate-related “unilateral trade measures”, as well as a two-year “work programme” concerning climate finance.
The nation also championed south-south cooperation throughout the conference and co-led a summit on methane, alongside Brazil and the UK.
In a recent press conference, China’s environment vice-minister Li Gao noted the need to “uphold multilateralism” and send a “clear political signal” that the global community is united around climate action.