COP 28 Was a Cop Out

The 28th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, better known as COP 28, was celebrated in many circles as a victory because of the “historic” deal resulting in a global commitment to “transition away” from fossil fuels. 

Regrettably, such universal mandates are of limited value because they fail to address the reality of the different contexts from which individual parties to the agreement operate – contexts that impact the strategies and tactics that will succeed in any given geography. Contexts that may also support the adoption of different objectives and targets for different parties rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.

Consider the following statements relevant to the context different nations bring to the global energy transition.

• Although China and the U.S. have a similar ratio of paved roads to geographic area, the U.S. uses 2.5 times as much energy on transportation as China does as a percentage of total energy consumption.
• India and Japan are the 3rd and 4th biggest users of petroleum, respectively. In each of these countries transportation accounts for about 45% of petroleum use, but transportation accounts for only 12% of all energy use in India and 19% in Japan. Per capita consumption of petroleum is 484 gallons per year in Japan and only 51 gallons per year in India.
• Among the biggest users of petroleum per capita is tiny Singapore (3,642 gallons), more than 4 times the intensity of its competing trade hub of Hong Kong (842 gallons).

This contextual variation and the failure to consider it lead to “agreements” in name only. The COP 28 agreement includes no enforcement mechanism, and for good reason: it wouldn’t work. 

Variance across regions highlights the need for tailored strategies that consider local contexts and capabilities. It begs questions like, “Should a large international organization impose constraints on citizens of countries seeking to elevate living standards, such as Nepal, Haiti, and North Korea, whose transportation activities and infrastructures individually and collectively contribute only modestly to the climate problem?”

The transition towards sustainable practices requires more than just technological innovation; it demands a fundamental reimagining of our infrastructures and systems. Electric vehicles represent a significant step forward, yet their adoption alone does not address the underlying challenges of energy sourcing and the environmental impact of production and disposal processes. The real opportunity lies in developing new infrastructures that support sustainable mobility and energy use, moving beyond the traditional reliance on fossil fuels and single-occupancy vehicles and factoring in the different infrastructures, state policies, and institutions that shape behaviors in any given geography.

The annual updating of universal mandates and the taking stock of how well each country is doing in meeting those mandates isn’t enough. As we delve into the intricacies of the different contexts that COP signatories bring to the table, it becomes evident that a one-size-fits-all solution is insufficient. The innovation challenge ahead of us warrants a Blank Piece of Paper, one that allows us to think anew about the changes in resources, human behavior, technologies, and institutions that will work given the contexts in which they are applied.

Until COP participants embrace the complexity that is the reality of the world in which we operate, all we can expect from them are more universal mandates that simply won’t work. The path forward requires collaboration, creativity, and courage. Let’s embrace the challenge, rethinking how we utilize our resources to build a future that thrives on adaptation, innovation, and sustainability appropriate to the local context.