COP28 president Sultan Al Jaber hailed the climate summit’s deal to transition away from fossil fuels in an attempt to reach global net-zero emission by 2050 as “historic”, reports the Financial Times. Ministers from around the world praised the deal, dubbed the UAE Consensus (read Carbon Brief’s in-depth summary on the agreement), but 39 small-island nations complained it was pushed through without their support, the FT notes. It quotes Anna Rasmussen, chief negotiator for the Alliance of Small Island States, who said: “We are a little confused about what just happened. It seems that you gavelled the decisions and the small-island developing states were not in the room.” Diplomats from nearly 200 countries approved the deal, which calls for “transitioning away from fossil fuels” in a “just, orderly and equitable manner,” report the New York Times. “Humanity has finally done what is long, long, long overdue,” said Wopke Hoekstra, the European commissioner for climate action, adds the article. He adds: “30 years – 30 years! — we spent to arrive at the beginning of the end of fossil fuels.” 

Countries will now “be judged by everybody in the world,” US climate envoy John Kerry said at the end of COP28, reports Bloomberg. “Try coming to the next COP and having not done anything. Try putting out a revision of your long-term strategy and not be actually facing up to your challenges,” he added, the article notes. Kerry “sharpened his tone” at COP28, no longer referring to emissions but to fossil fuels, and no longer insisting on the qualifier “unabated” (see Carbon Brief’s explainer of the term) within any text of ridding the world of fossil fuels, reports Inside Climate News.

UK climate minister Graham Stuart welcomed the agreement, saying: “The UK has, as ever in this space, been absolutely central to the outcomes and the most notable outcome of all, which is this global stocktake text”, reports the Press Association. He added that “there are elements here we do not like”, but that the text signals an end to the fossil fuel era, the newswire notes. The comments come despite criticism of Stuart for leaving Dubai in the final days of the negotiations to vote on the UK government’s Safety of Rwanda Bill in the House of Commons, it adds. Scotland’s first minister Humza Yousaf has branded COP28 “disappointing”, saying it failed to produce a “stronger resolution” that would have committed countries to phase out fossil fuel, reports the Press Association in a separate article. Irish transport minister and lead EU negotiator on climate finance Eamon Ryan called the UAE Consensus “historic”, reports the Press Association in a third article. Ryan had called a previous version of the global stocktake text, within which sits the fossil fuel transition language, “unacceptable”, saying it was not based on “meeting the science”, the article adds. While the final agreement is not “perfect”, he said, if the package had not been delivered it would have been a “critically sad and difficult” day for the world, the article notes.

Australia’s climate change minister Chris Bowen has welcomed the outcome of COP28, saying it sent a message that “our future is in clean energy and the age of fossil fuels will end”, although he acknowledged it did not go as far as many countries wanted, reports the Guardian. New Zealand’s climate minister Simon Watts has also welcomed the agreement, reports Radio New Zealand, noting he added: “Could more be done and should more be done going forward? Yes, but this is a significant step forward for a consensus decision.” 

Business leaders and global climate figures have joined in welcoming the agreement, reports BuisnessGreen, with Simon Stiell, the UNFCCC executive secretary, saying: “We needed this COP to send crystal clear signals on several fronts. We needed a global green light signalling it’s all systems go on renewables, climate justice and resilience. On this front, COP28 delivered some genuine strides forward.” Big oil has also welcomed the agreement, in particular, it’s focus on an “orderly” move away from fossil fuels and a continued role for “transition” energy sources, such as gas (see a recent guest post on Carbon Brief that discusses the concept of gas as a transition fuel), reports the Financial Times. 

While many leaders of the developed world hailed the COP28 agreement, Indigenous people, frontline communities and climate-justice groups have rebuked the deal as “unfair, inequitable and business as usual”, reports the Guardian. “Yet another disgraceful COP where the wealthy polluters arrogantly shirk their responsibility, abandoning any pretence of fairness or justice,” says Wanun Permpibul, of Climate Watch Thailand, adding: “They parade as climate champions, while our people and communities in the global south suffer the fallout of a crisis we did not create”. Elsewhere, critics said a lack of a clear timeline could leave parts of developing Asia increasingly vulnerable to climate shocks, reports the South China Morning Post. 

While wealthy countries have celebrated an agreement on adaptation at COP28 (see the adaptation section in Carbon Brief’s article), developing and particularly African countries have denounced the absence of a target to provide financial and other forms of support, reports Climate Home News. After the deal was agreed, which acts as a playbook for adapting to climate change in areas such as health, nature and food and water security, Senegal’s negotiator Madeline Diouf Sarr, who chairs the group of the world’s poorest countries, said that the outcome “is full of eloquent language but regrettably devoid of actionable commitments”, the article adds. The language used in the Global Goal on Adaptation “is very weak, not precise enough, and does not allow long-term monitoring of the commitments made by rich countries. Adaptation is fundamental: The more it is left aside, the more loss and damage we have – it’s a vicious circle,” Emilie Beauchamps of the International Institute for Sustainable Development tells Le Monde. The global stocktake has also been criticised for failing to put food “on the table” at COP28, reports the Times of India. The International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems said governments have failed to include the lever of food systems transformation as a key mechanism for climate mitigation, the article adds.

Analysis from the Guardian’s Fiona Harvey highlights that, after 30 years, COP28 finally “addresses the elephant in the room” with its direct reference to fossil fuels. Although “he was personally vilified…Sultan Al Jaber has managed what no other COP presidency has ever done”, the article notes. BBC News notes that, in UN terms, the deal is the “biggest step forward on climate since the Paris Agreement in 2015”. Matt McGrath, the article’s author, notes how the initially strong language around a fossil fuel phaseout faced opposition and was dropped from the second iteration of the global stocktake draft text, prompting “fury among progressives and much finger-pointing at oil producers”. The change wasn’t all the fault of countries such as Saudi Arabia, however, with a key factor in the “softening” of the text being the attitude of middle-income developing countries, the article adds. This draft, published on Monday, was labelled by one Pacific island minister as “death warrant” for communities threatened by the warming planet’s rising seas, reports Politico. But, over the two subsequent days, a compromise deal was agreed, it notes, thanks to a clutch of loose international coalitions “scrambling” to salvage it. The article quotes US climate envoy John Kerry, who said: “There were times in the last 48 hours where some of us thought this could fail.” The final text makes the “huge challenge of reducing fossil fuel use crystal clear”, notes Damian Carrington in the Guardian. He explains how the language around “transitioning away” is weaker than “phasing out”, plus highlights the “litany of loopholes” included in the text. Adam Vaughan in the Times explores how the deal went from a “menu of dead rats” to “beginning of the end” for fossil fuels. The Financial Times explores how the COP28 deal was won, but notes that “the battle for 1.5C may be lost”. The Independent sets out “five key takeaways” from the summit, including its corporate nature, funds without finance and the rise of renewables. Another article in Politico also explores renewables at COP28, looking at the price tag of the pledge to triple the world’s renewable energy capacity by 2030 (see more on the pledge, in Carbon Brief’s COP28 key outcomes piece). The New York Times looks at what was missing from the final COP28 deal, while Forbes highlights that there is more to be done. 

Zhao Yingmin, head of the Chinese delegation to COP28 and China’s vice-minister of ecology and environment (MEE), says that “COP28 has provided a general direction for the next phase of global climate action”, according to state newswire Xinhua. He stresses that “the first-ever global stocktake…has further consolidated the general global trend toward a green and low-carbon future”. The Wall Street Journal reports that the “final wording was acceptable to China”, a person familiar with Beijing’s thinking said, because the proportion of fossil fuels in the country’s energy mix has been declining. Reuters reports that Chinese climate envoy Liu Zhenmin on Wednesday said “some issues” still remained with the final draft of the global stocktake text, although this was reported before the text was formally agreed. AFP via France24 quotes Li Shuo, an expert on Chinese climate policy at the Asia Society Policy Institute, who says “the Dubai agreement showed less of the US-China fingerprint than the Paris accord”. The article also says “the spirit of cooperation was on full display” at a press conference held by US climate envoy John and his “beaming” Chinese counterpart Xie Zhenhua.

Meanwhile, Bloomberg says that “China’s clean energy firms are looking to the Middle Eastern kingdom to globalise their manufacturing bases as firms come under unprecedented margin pressure at home and trade tensions worsen with the US and its allies”. The Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post says that oil giant Saudi Aramco is “collaborating with a Chinese partner to build a pilot plant in China to convert ammonia into hydrogen as part of its research into low-carbon energy”.  

Elsewhere, the Communist party-affiliated People’s Daily says that “a new round of large-scale rain and snow weather should hit the country” and that “daily snowfall in [northern] regions is expected to be extreme”, which it links to global warming and El Nino. Bloomberg reports that Beijing “cancelled flights and shut schools Wednesday as…heavy snowfall expected across northern China”. The state-supporting newspaper Global Times says that “China’s energy demand continues to rise as cold waves are affecting many parts of the country”. It quotes Xiamen University’s Prof Lin Boqiang saying “traditional energy will retain a dominant role in the country’s energy supply this winter”.

Finally, Chinese outlet Jiemian carries an interview with Zhao Penggao, deputy director of the environmental resources department of the national development and reform commission (NDRC), who explains the plans and incentives the Chinese government will develop to establish “effective carbon-peaking pilot cities”.

The UK government has formally backed plans to ban gas and “hydrogen-ready” boilers from newbuild homes in England from 2025, reports the Guardian. The proposals form part of the long-delayed consultation on low-carbon building standards and could mean heat pumps being installed as standard as part of measures to make all new homes “net-zero ready” from 2025, it notes. It follows the consultation ruling that there was “no practical way to allow the installation of fossil fuel boilers while also delivering significant carbon savings”, the article adds. Meanwhile, the UK energy regulator Ofgem has said the phaseout of gas boilers will push up household energy bills by £43 a year from as early as 2026 under plans to reach net-zero, reports the Daily Telegraph. The extra cost is due to an increase in network charges on their gas bill from 2026, used to compensate gas distribution network owners for their past investments, “based on an assumption that their assets will essentially be worthless when Britain reaches net-zero”, it explains. The charge will continue till 2050, at which point only a very small number of households are expected to be connected to the gas grid, the article adds. 

A separate article in the Daily Telegraph reports that energy secretary Claire Coutinho is set to approve plans for hydrogen factories around the UK’s coasts. Coutinho will publish a “hydrogen roadmap”, setting out how the UK will produce and use hydrogen gas in “industrial quantities”. Hydrogen offers a “clean alternative to natural gas”, which could potentially replace diesel as a fuel for lorries, trains and ships, as well as in various heavy industry applications, the article adds. 

Around the world, dozens of newspaper editorials focus on COP28. The Jakarta Post says: “There is already an agreement on the creation of the loss and damage fund to help developing countries make the transition, but we have not seen clear commitments from developed countries regarding how much and how soon they are willing to contribute…What the world needs in the face of the climate crisis is leadership, and this is not forthcoming from those champion wannabes who are able to lead by virtue of their economic size. Instead, they are quick to find scapegoats for any delays…Eight years after the Paris meeting, we are almost sure to miss the [1.5C] target. And even if we want to mitigate global warming at a slower pace, we need huge funding. At least we know who to blame.” South Africa’s Mail & Guardian says: “If the fossil fuel industry is a key contributor to this problem the world faces, why do they have a voice and a seat at a summit where the removal of fossil fuels is crucial? The credibility of this event must be called into question.” Brazil’s O Globo says: “The Dubai document does not have the power to force signatories to fulfil their promises. The effect, however, will be palpable. Public policy decisions and private investments will take it into account. Countries that fall behind will suffer pressure from public opinion. On balance, it will always be possible to say that the result of COP28 fell short of what was necessary, but no one has any doubt that it went beyond what was expected. It will now be up to the next conferences, especially COP30 scheduled for Belém [in Brazil] in 2025, to complete the remaining work.” The Hindustan Times in India says: “The consensus on realising a future without oil, gas and coal is a major achievement. The focus will now be on implementing it…While the language appeared weak on a clear pathway to reaching the ‘net-zero by 2050’ goal, it reiterated the Glasgow commitment to phase down ‘unabated coal power’ and recognised the need for tripling renewable energy capacity by 2030, without diluting the principle of equity in achieving these goals.” The National, based in Abu Dhabi, says: “The hard-won ‘UAE consensus’ reached in Dubai is the springboard for nothing less than the reorganisation of the world’s economic and energy systems…COP28 may be over but Dr Al Jaber’s North Star remains a guiding principle – keeping global warming to below 1.5C. The summit in Dubai was a significant and timely move in the right direction. With the right will in the right circumstances, all things are possible.”

In the US, an editorial in the Los Angeles Times says: “Whether this deal truly signals the ‘beginning of the end’ of the fossil fuel era, as UN officials have said, depends entirely on what steps countries take next to scale up clean, renewable energy and hasten the demise of planet-warming coal, oil and gas. Now governments must quickly take action to avoid a disastrous future, including the collapse of ecosystems and mounting human suffering from worsening storms, fires, heat waves, floods and other climate-fueled disasters.” In contrast, an editorial in the climate-sceptic comment pages of the Wall Street Journal says: “The COP28 agreement, weak as it is, reflects the arrogance of global elites who are ignoring what electorates are saying about the costs they are willing to pay. Elites have turned to government mandates and vast subsidies – i.e., coercion – because they can’t persuade voters that the climate benefits from reducing CO2 emissions justify the social and economic costs.”

Many UK publications have published editorials reacting to the conclusion of COP28. The Financial Times says: “The outcome is very far from perfect. It is better than feared but less than needed. It bows too much to the forces of international diplomacy, and too little to the immovable realities of science. Yet the COP28 climate conference in Dubai has delivered a historic and unmistakable message that the global energy system must move away from the use of coal, oil and gas…Ultimately, individual governments, banks, investors and companies will decide whether all these goals are met. COP28 missed the chance to offer firmer signposts on the speed and scale of global climate action. But it still marks a step forward – rather than the retreat that many had feared.” The Guardian says: “The measures agreed – to triple renewable capacity and double the rate of energy efficiency – could limit warming to the 1.5C threshold. But this relies on an equitable climate financing deal for developing countries. On this key issue, the Cop28 outcome had little to say.” The Daily Mirror is not impressed with the wording about “transitioning” away from fossil fuels: “ Future generations may regard it as an historic missed opportunity.” London’s Evening Standard says: “If these negotiations were fraught, what comes next will be even tougher: the implementation. That will require robust nationally determined contributions and the ramping up of clean energy production in both high and low-income nations – to turn an agreement on paper into the habitable planet we say we want for our children. Time is running out to make that a reality.” And an editorial in the Economist concludes: “Projects in poor countries are much costlier than those in rich ones, because the private sector demands a premium to compensate for the associated risk. But rich countries will try to limit their financial obligations to the developing world. Bridging the gap, far more than diplomatic backslapping in Dubai, will determine whether the beginning of the end for the fossil-fuel era has come.”

A wide range of commentators have reacted to the outcome at COP28. The veteran climate campaigner and author Bill McKibben writes for Heatmap News: “Local oilman Sultan al-Jaber…quick-gaveled through an agreement that included a sentence calling for ‘transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner’…That may not seem like much – it is, after all, the single most obvious thing one could possibly say about climate change…But it is — and this is important — a tool for activists to use henceforth. The world’s nations have now publicly agreed that they need to transition off fossil fuels, and that sentence will hang over every discussion from now on — especially the discussions about any further expansion of the fossil fuel energy. There may be barriers to shutting down operations (what the text of the agreement obliquely refers to as ‘national circumstances, pathways and approaches’). But surely, if the language means anything at all, it means opening no more new oil fields, no more new pipeline. No more new LNG export terminals.” Brady Dennis in the Washington Post lists the “winners and losers”, with the losers being “vulnerable and developing nations” and “1.5C”. The Guardian carries a comment piece by Asad Rehman, the executive director of War on Want, who writes: “Those of us who fight for climate justice are often told we are on the fringe, or that we are being unrealistic. But it is the people with the most power at the moment who are being unrealistic. We are the ones who actually know this is a life-and-death fight. We are the realistic ones, and so we are the only hope for the future. So we will come back, stronger and more powerful, until it is the interests of people and not of profit that shapes the climate talks.” Also in the Guardian, Prof Frank Jotzo, who is the director of the Centre for Climate Economics and Policy at the Australian National University (and a Carbon Brief contributing editor), says: “The words on the pages of COP decisions carry weight. They can become a point of reference for government decisions about policies and emission targets, and they echo in boardrooms and banks. This COP outcome makes it harder to justify investments that contradict climate change objectives.” In the Times of India, Chandra Bhushan, the CEO of the International Forum for Environment, Sustainability and Technology, writes: “COP28 took a realistic approach to transitioning from fossil fuels. India’s argument that only coal can’t be a climate villain won. But the rich world still isn’t forking out enough cash.”

Meanwhile, the UK’s right-wing press predictably gives much space to its climate-sceptic commentators. The Daily Mail provides a full page to Matt Ridley, a former Conservative peer with links to climate-sceptic lobbyists and whose inherited estate has earned an income from coal mining, argues: “Whatever verbs Cop’s self-important delegates use, the world’s governments – and more important, its peoples – have no intention of slowing down, let alone ending, production of fossil fuels. And nor should they, for as long as prosperity depends on them.” Rod Liddle in the Sun makes the eye-catching (and misleading) claim: “It should be remembered, incidentally, that the UK has done more than almost any other country on earth to reduce carbon emissions. We are one of the greenest countries on the planet.” The Times gives a full page to its climate-sceptic, pro-fossil fuel columnist Juliet Samuel to write: “A better approach in the short term would be to accelerate the global shift from coal to gas, reduce natural gas leakage and flaring, and insulate our buildings. In economies still heavily reliant on wood and charcoal, even switching to oil would improve the mix.” And, of course, the omnipresent climate-sceptic commentator Ross Clark is given space, this time by the Daily Telegraph: “COPs have become a ridiculous spectacle. Cut out the private jets, cut out the five-star hotels and start doing your climate negotiations like everyone else does business nowadays: online.” [This was tried for the Bonn negotiations in 2021 during Covid and widely perceived to have been a failure.]

A new study examines how climate policy scenarios differ in some of their key outcomes and identifies the underlying factors responsible. The specific climate target (e.g. below 1.5C in 2100 with limited or no overshoot) explains most of the spread across scenarios in the IPCC’s AR6 database in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, fossil fuel use, total renewable energy and total carbon capture and storage, the paper finds. But model differences “unexpectedly” account for most other outcomes. This reflects “intrinsic uncertainties about long-term developments and the range of possible mitigation strategies”, say the authors.