The COP28 climate conference ended Wednesday with an agreement to “transition away from fossil fuels.”

Climate change experts from Northeastern University say that does not go far enough.

“It is historic that there is a mention of fossil fuels; specifically, transitioning away from fossil fuels,” says Jennie Stephens, dean’s professor of sustainability science and policy at Northeastern. “But it’s disappointing that they didn’t decide to phase out or phase down fossil fuels.”

Laura Kuhl, assistant professor of public policy and urban affairs and international affairs, concurs.

“Apart from climate optimists and enthusiasm among the private sector, I don’t think there were many people who came away from this thinking this was a success,” Kuhl says. “If the final agreement were to be considered a success, it would only be in contrast to the absolutely abysmal draft text that was released a few days ago.”

An agreement is only as good as its implementation.
This historic Consensus is only the beginning…

إن معيار نجاح أي إتفاقية هو تنفيذ بنوده.
وهذه الإتفاقية التاريخية تمثل البداية فقط.#UAEConsensus #UniteActDeliver #COP28 pic.twitter.com/5t9M67b2dH

— COP28 UAE (@COP28_UAE) December 13, 2023

For the past two weeks, negotiators representing around 200 countries at the United Nations climate summit in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, have hashed out how the world should address climate change and meet the target of limiting total global warming to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius), compared to preindustrial levels. Scientists say that if warming exceeds that level, humans could struggle to adapt to rising seas, extreme weather and drought, and other effects of climate change caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

Neither Stephens nor Kuhl had high hopes for the talks. The UAE is one of the world’s main fossil fuel economies, the host of the conference is an oil executive, and a huge number of fossil fuel lobbyists attended the negotiations. 

“The power dynamics here are really problematic — the countries that had most power and influence in negotiations are kind of reinforcing their interests,” Stephens says, citing the UAE, Saudi Arabia, United States and other fossil fuel producers. “That’s really insufficient and inadequate when looking at the climate emergency.”

But there were some positive steps.

It is historic that there is a mention of fossil fuels; specifically, transitioning away from fossil fuels. But it’s disappointing that they didn’t decide to phase out or phase down fossil fuels.

Jennie Stephens, dean’s professor of sustainability science and policy at Northeastern

First, even mentioning fossil fuels in the pact was considered a success.

“It’s explicit that fossil fuels are mentioned, as that is the crux of what the whole world is facing,” Stephens says. “They’re mentioned, and transitioning away from them is acknowledged as what countries need to do.”

But Stephens says the agreement is very “demand-sided.”

“A lot of climate policy has focused on the demand side: trying to reduce how much we use fossil fuels,” Stephens says. “The problem is that fossil fuels are so versatile and they’re being used all over the world in lots of different ways. Even if one university, community or city says they’re becoming fossil fuel free, they’ll be used somewhere else.”

Rather we should focus on the supply of fossil fuels, Stephens says. 

“There needs to be a coordinated effort globally that we’re going to reduce, phase down and phase out the fossil fuel supply because, until that happens, emissions will continue,” Stephens says.

And that’s where the resolution falls short, although a phaseout of fossil fuels caused heated debate in the final days of the conference.