Your contact for new licenses
According to Climate State Secretary Jennifer Morgan in today’s interview with Bernhard Pötter, the “showdown between the fossil fuel industry and the planet” is intensifying at COP28. While the question of fossil fuel phase-out was negotiated behind closed doors last year, this time, it takes center stage at the climate conference. Morgan asserts that blockers like Saudi Arabia and Russia must realize that their stance “means the end of island nations”. The State Secretary laments that some countries are not negotiating constructively.
Resistance is building against a firm decision on phasing out fossil fuels. Too much is at stake for oil and gas-producing states. Therefore, OPEC has called on its members to block any mention of fossil fuels in the final summit agreement.
The climate movement has unequivocally positioned itself in favor of a fossil fuel exit. However, the work at COP is weakened by differing positions on the Gaza conflict, some NGO representatives complain. Forces that could be utilized for a united effort for the most ambitious COP result are diverted into conflicts between international climate organizations, as reported by Alexandra Endres.
In today’s “Dessert”, Lukas Scheid takes a look at the coffee machines at this COP and provides tips on where the caffeine tastes best.
Ms. Morgan, from an outsider’s perspective, the negotiations seem to be stuck several days before the end: There’s a very long text with all options for a fossil exit, which is not decisive. The process for adapting to climate change is blocked and slowing down everything else. Is it normal for things to be stuck like this a few days before the end?
Is it stuck? Well, we have detailed discussions about a faster energy transition with all major stakeholders. That’s a big difference from last year. On the other hand, we see that the Arab group is preventing a real discussion on adaptation. An agreement in this area would be crucial, as it rightly is the top priority for island nations and African states. Therefore, the EU is having many discussions on adaptation.
Could the reason for the blockade be precisely to prevent an approach between Africa and the EU, which would also help with the fossil exit?
I’m less concerned about the process than about the fact that not all countries and groups negotiate constructively. In adaptation, we’re not even talking about the text yet, just about the procedure. Blocking text work, as a few groups do, is already a very tough measure. Some call it hostage-taking. But slowly, we see how the overall package could look, even though the text is still very long. Now the presidency has to put together the package with options for the ministers to decide. The text should be ready by Sunday.
How professional is the presidency’s work?
It is still very transparent, another significant difference from last year. They have a good team, but the moment of truth is when the text comes. Is it balanced? Ambitious?
Some say COP28 is the last gasp of fossil fuels. Do you see it that way too?
The question is: Why are there so many fossil lobbyists here? Last year, the question of an exit was negotiated in a dark room where a few countries said no. Now it’s right in the center of things. Many fossil interests are here because they know: This is the showdown between fossil fuels and the planet. And they are here, trying to prevent the urgently needed end of fossil fuels for their own interests.
Minister Baerbock and others draw a parallel between this COP and the conference in Paris. Is Dubai like Paris?
Yes, a bit. It’s about a comprehensive package. The GST is the implementation of Paris. And there’s also this feeling: We are at a turning point. In Paris, the question was: Can we achieve an agreement? Now it’s: Can we fill the agreement with ambition and use the mechanisms? For most countries, the question is: How do we do this? Many emerging and developing countries are worried that the transition is happening too fast. But the positive thing is: We’re talking about how to do it, about power grids and storage, about financial mechanisms or investments in Africa. We’re talking about reality, about the economy. And then there are the oil-producing states that haven’t prepared and diversified like other countries.
But Germany sends mixed signals with its climate foreign policy strategy, especially regarding the fossil exit.
I don’t think so. The foreign policy strategy is fully in line with the EU position.
The text, however, mentions the exit from “unabated fossil fuels”.
It is the EU’s position that abatement, if at all, is only an option for hard-to-decarbonize sectors. But otherwise, a predominantly fossil-free energy system is required. That is an EU Council decision. Everything in the strategy is in line with the conclusions.
There is only “unabated” in the summary, not for the “hard to abate” sectors.
There is now a footnote to clarify the position in its entirety. That was just the summary, not because it’s a different position. Again, our position here is the EU position.
But if other countries like Saudi Arabia or Russia say: We’re not talking about an exit at all. How can you come together?
These countries have the duty to understand what their position means: namely, the end of island nations. And they have to think about their role in the world – what do they want? We are in a climate crisis. Are they part of the solution? Some are heading in that direction. Or are they the blockade? If this COP fails, everyone knows who the blockers are: that these states prioritize their short-term interests over the interests of island nations, African states and many people.
How diplomatic or undiplomatic are you in these negotiations when it comes to such fundamental issues?
Now is the time for plain talk. In the negotiation rooms, we speak very clearly about individual sentences and words. On other occasions, it’s more important to speak diplomatically or say nothing. And let other countries say something. The island nations and the least developed countries are very important here.
Germany has not signed twice with the High Ambition Coalition. Will you do it here at the summit?
I assume so. Germany is an active member of the HAC. If there is a statement, we are in.
Is it always helpful when the ministers negotiate, especially when it comes to such fundamental issues? Wouldn’t many things be better clarified by the experts?
Experts are talking to each other all the time. But now is the time for political decisions. Ministers have to do that. It’s about tough political decisions, where you can go along or not.
Above all, the UAE is facing a decision on whether they want to end this COP with a fossil exit.
Yes, the UAE has a great responsibility. As COP presidency, they must clearly position themselves: Are they part of the solution and the future, participating in the energy transition? Or are they part of the past? They say they want a very ambitious COP full of solutions – now is the moment to show that.
The exit from coal, oil and gas – not just from fossil emissions, as is currently also under discussion – is one of the core demands of NGOs at COP28. They quickly formulated a common position for negotiations at the summit. “Strategic cooperation for the exit from fossil fuels is working well,” says Christoph Bals, political director of the environmental and development organization Germanwatch.
Before the summit, there were concerns that the debate on the Gaza war could overshadow the climate-related work of organizations or even divide the movement. At least outwardly, this does not seem to be the case. However, there are sometimes strenuous debates internally.
German activists tend to stay away from the solidarity actions of the international movement for Palestine. For example, on Saturday, a diverse crowd gathered to demand an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. The demonstration also featured signs with slogans like “End the Occupation”, which are viewed critically from the German side.
While international NGOs in Dubai call for solidarity with Palestine, German climate organizations insist that Israeli suffering must also be acknowledged, and the Hamas massacre on Oct. 7 must not be ignored. Some invest a lot of time and effort in bridging the differences in internal discussions. For example, on Friday, the Climate Action Network International (CAN) awarded its daily “Fossil of the Day” negative award to Israel. German organizations are also part of CAN.
Usually, the “Fossil of the Day” goes to countries with inadequate climate policies. In the case of Israel, the award was expressly justified with the conflict between Israel and Palestine and the resulting human suffering. “Without human rights, there can be no climate justice,” the justification stated, concluding with the call: “Ceasefire now.”
In a statement on Oct. 20, CAN had expressed solidarity with “Palestinian, Israeli and all families” affected by the recent conflict. However, on the COP grounds, the network wants to show solidarity with Palestine. The justification for the award does not mention Hamas. It is heard that an initial draft of the text contained sharper criticism of Israel, which was apparently softened following the intervention of German activists.
Apart from the “Fossil of the Day,” cooperation is reportedly sometimes challenging within the German movement. Due to different views on the Gaza war, Germans are currently not participating in some working groups. It also involves interpersonal trust that has been damaged.
When inquiring with CAN International, there is some incomprehension regarding the German position on Gaza. However, CAN chief Tasneem Essop says, “I wouldn’t say we are divided. We have different views on the conflict. There is a particular German perspective on Gaza that we do not share. We came to COP to express our solidarity with Palestine and call for a ceasefire. But we all came to Dubai to achieve good results for the climate on COP. In that regard, we are united. We all want to exit from fossil fuels, a global adaptation goal – all these things we have been fighting for for years.”
“The human rights and international law apply to everyone,” describes Christoph Bals, the director of Germanwatch, the stance of his organization on the Israel conflict. “Empathy and solidarity with all civilians are important. These are the principles by which our positions must be measured.” Kai Niebert, president of the German Federation for Nature Conservation, says, “The position of German environmental and climate organizations is very clear here: We condemn the Hamas attack on Oct. 7 and simultaneously call on Israel to show restraint in this war. Human rights apply on all sides.”
While the organizations may agree on climate policy issues, the internal dispute over Gaza “diverts resources that could be better invested elsewhere,” says Niebert, “for example, putting pressure on OPEC states to decide on an exit from fossil fuels, not just from fossil emissions.”
On Friday, CAN International also accused the UN Climate Secretariat of preventing declarations of solidarity with Gaza on the summit grounds.
CAN CEO Essop said the secretariat had dictated to organizations which messages they could send on the summit grounds, especially regarding Palestine. On Friday, Kufiyas, so-called Palestinian scarves, were confiscated during security checks at the entrance, and wearing solidarity keychains in Palestinian colors was prohibited. “All our other actions, about fossil fuels, damages and losses, etc., were fine. But as soon as it was about Palestine, it became a problem.“
Activists were threatened with the withdrawal of their access badges and expulsion from the premises if they did not remove scarves and keychains, said Asad Rehman, CEO of the British climate justice organization War on Want. Even using the word “ceasefire” was allowed only after a week of negotiations. However, CAN has been calling for an immediate ceasefire in its daily COP bulletin since the first day of the conference. “This is the most restrictive climate summit we have ever experienced,” Rehman said.
The Climate Secretariat responded to the allegations from CAN with a written statement. The United Nations is committed to “preserving the rights of all participants to ensure that the perspectives of all are heard and their contribution… is recognized,” it says.
The secretariat also refers to its code of conduct, which, in summary, states that protest actions must have a climate reference and that neither individuals – such as heads of state or delegates – nor member states should be vilified. “No naming and shaming,” summarizes a secretariat staff member. There were apparently different interpretations of how to understand this.
At least in the actual COP28 negotiations, the debate about Israel and Palestine does not play a direct role, says DNR Chief Niebert. On Saturday morning, Niebert still hoped that the climate movement could turn its attention back to the ‘important issues here‘. But in the afternoon, there was another protest for Palestine.
For the first time at a UN climate conference, food and food systems play a crucial role in Dubai. There is, for example, a Food Pavilion, and the theme day on “Food, Agriculture and Water” also puts the topic on the agenda of COP28. The discussions on this topic are approached from two perspectives. Firstly, addressing hunger and ensuring food security in times of climate change. Secondly, discussions revolve around how to reduce the consumption of meat and dairy products since they cause significantly more emissions per kilogram and calorie compared to plant-based foods. This year, COP mainly offers vegan catering.
Food systems contribute to one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions. Approximately two-thirds of these emissions come from the production of animal products, even though they constitute only 19 percent of the calories and 41 percent of the protein of all globally produced foods. One of the key issues is land-use changes and deforestation. Industrial agriculture also contributes to biodiversity loss.
So far, dietary change as a driver of climate change has played a subordinate role in political measures: While more than 100 countries have included agriculture in their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), only five NDCs address consumption. These five countries are developing nations with relatively low greenhouse gas emissions from food. At the same time, climate change has significant impacts on food production: droughts and other factors increasingly bring about food insecurity. Due to the war in Ukraine, the issue of food insecurity has gained prominence in international discussions and is now a top priority for many countries, far ahead of the transition of food systems.
The UAE called on countries to sign a declaration on Sustainable Agriculture, Resilient Food Systems, and Climate Action.
In the declaration, states are urged to integrate food and agriculture systems into various climate action measures, namely:
The declaration is not an official negotiating document of the COP. However, there is also a negotiation process on food and climate: the Sharm el-Sheikh Joint Work on Implementation of Climate Action on Agriculture and Food Security (SSJW). The SSJW is the official mechanism that brings food and agriculture into the UNFCCC. The SSJW process is to last four years, was launched at COP27 and is the continuation of the previous Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture.
The name alone indicates that there is now more awareness of the complexity of food and climate action issues. The work program acknowledges the priority of ensuring food security and ending hunger but also recognizes the particular vulnerability of food production systems to the impacts of climate change. It also emphasizes the role of farmers, including smallholders and herders, as key actors in change and acknowledges that solutions are context-specific and must take national circumstances into account.
As a result of COP28, a three-year work plan for the SSJW will be developed.
At the end of October, around 85 NGOs such as WWF, The Food Systems Partnership, and the Food and Land Use Coalition called for recognizing the relevance of food systems to climate and the Paris Agreement. They particularly criticize the lack of a holistic approach to nutrition in the SSJW.
The work program should also include the following key elements:
NGOs also demand that food systems receive widespread attention in national climate protection policies and long-term planning before COP30.
Regularly, it is also criticized that consumption issues in the context of nutrition are not adequately addressed, and there are too few measures that actually change behavior and eating patterns.
A concrete output and success already lie in the declaration on agriculture and nutrition. 134 countries have signed it, covering 75 percent of emissions from food production. Environmental organizations welcomed the declaration, stating that it could bring additional funds for sustainable food systems. Additionally, it can help make solutions for sustainable and climate-friendly nutrition visible.
At the same time, the SSJW work program is being pushed forward and discussed. However, significant progress in this regard is unlikely as results from this process are expected only in 2026 at COP31.
Many of the voluntary climate initiatives and pledges presented at COP28 are neither new nor detailed enough to make a significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. This is the result of an analysis by the Climate Action Tracker. According to the analysis, since the start of COP28, 74 new “pledges and declarations” or climate action initiatives have been announced. Of the total emission reductions that could be achieved through these commitments, one-quarter are not new and are already part of national climate action plans (NDCs), and half are difficult to achieve unless the initiatives are better designed. Only one-quarter is considered new and achievable, according to the analysis.
The initiative to triple renewable energy capacity and double energy efficiency is considered positive. If both goals are achieved, it could close one-third of the gap to the 1.5-degree path by 2030. However, doubling efficiency is more challenging than tripling renewables. This goal should not be neglected.
Many of the other voluntary climate initiatives and pledges either have minimal additional climate action effects or none at all, according to the Climate Action Tracker. The “Oil and Gas Decarbonisation Accelerator” aims to achieve net-zero CO2 emissions from oil and gas production by 2050 and net-zero methane emissions by 2030, involving 50 oil and gas companies. However, the initiative does not cover the majority of emissions generated by the use of oil and gas. The production of oil and gas needs to be phased out, not decarbonized, according to the analysis. Additionally, the Accelerator fails to specify by when methane emissions should actually reach net-zero. According to the NGO Environmental Defense Fund, achieving the goal for methane emissions would be a significant step forward.
The commitment to scale up applications for capturing and storing CO2 (CCS, DACCS and BECCS) to one gigatonne of CO2 per year by 2030, as announced by members of the Carbon Management Challenge at COP28, is considered completely implausible by the Climate Action Tracker. Currently, there is a global CCS capacity of 45 million tonnes of CO2 per year. However, in practical application, these facilities often capture much less CO2 than their capacity suggests. Even under optimistic assumptions, the capacity is expected to grow to only about 300 million tonnes by 2030. “CCS will play only a marginal role in reducing emissions by 2030,” concludes the Climate Action Tracker.
The voluntary climate initiatives announced since COP26 in Glasgow have resulted in “little more than ‘greenwashing’ of inaction“, according to the analysis. It lacks accountability, clear targets, and measurability. nib
Franziska Tanneberger is a highly sought-after expert at COP28. The specialist in fen ecosystems rushes from event to event to talk about peatland conservation and to bring this “climate construction site” into sharper focus.
Peatlands have a calming effect on Franziska Tanneberger. Field research, meetings with NGOs, or hearings in the Bundestag – the daily routine of the 45-year-old is usually hectic. “But in the wet bog, I sink in, I automatically walk slower and enjoy the landscape.”
Together with her colleague Greta Gaudig, Tanneberger has been co-heading the Greifswald Mire Centre since 2015. Her focuses are on research on biodiversity and climate action, such as greenhouse gas emissions from peat soils, as well as projects for the practical implementation of land-use concepts.
After studying landscape ecology and nature conservation at the University of Greifswald, she initially researched peatlands in Eastern Europe. Until she wondered about the condition of peatlands closer to home.
In the EU, peatlands cover an area of around 59 million hectares, and about half of them are considered damaged due to peat extraction and drainage. The Greifswald Mire Centre collects data on their global condition in the Global Peatland Database. “In Germany, over 95 percent are damaged. The most important cause is not peat extraction but drainage for agriculture,” explains Tanneberger.
In Germany, 7.5 percent of annual greenhouse gas emissions come from the decomposition of peat soils. “Peatlands are the big climate construction site,” says Tanneberger. Many of the negative factors, such as the release of CO2, were not known to people in the past, according to Tanneberger: “We have heavily drained and altered our peatlands to better manage the areas. But it’s important to me not to point fingers at anyone.”
With the Natural Climate Action Program, approved by the cabinet in March 2023, four billion euros will be provided for ecosystem protection until 2026 – including peatland rewetting. In 2023, the Greifswald Moor Centrum conducted a study on the obstacles and solutions to the implementation of peatland conservation. Building local structures is particularly important to implement measures more effectively and quickly, explains Tanneberger.
“I’m also afraid the term ‘renaturation’ scares off many farmers and does not motivate them for rewetting,” says Tanneberger. However, a naturally high water level is essential for the peatland ecosystem.
And this offers various land use possibilities: for example, the use of peat plants such as reeds and bulrushes as building or packaging materials, suggests Tanneberger. She is currently researching this and supporting its implementation: “Learning from and collaborating with farmers really drives me.”
The ToMOORow project is particularly close to her heart: Here, the Michael Otto Environmental Foundation, the Michael Succow Foundation and the Greifswald Mire Centre collaborate with businesses. “It’s about activating the potentials of peatland conservation for businesses,” says Tanneberger. She hopes that this way, the growing willingness of farmers for climate action and the interest of businesses in climate-positive products will converge – and more peatlands will be rewetted.
Franziska Tanneberger has been living with her family on the island of Rügen for over 14 years. When she’s not in the bog, she enjoys swimming in the Baltic Sea. In March, she also published her first book. Leoni Bender
One shouldn’t reveal their treasures. That’s why I’m only now coming up with one of the most important rankings that COP28 has to offer: Where can you get the best coffee in the morning? The caffeine juice has saved many a COP, and allegedly, the Paris Agreement wouldn’t have come about without coffee.
After taking a metro ride of ten to 60 minutes to Expo City in Dubai, covering a distance of one and a half kilometers to the security checkpoint and finally arriving at the COP site, you have a choice. Do you pay 25 Dirhams (around six euros) for a cappuccino at the numerous but often crowded refreshment stations, or do you try your luck in one of the pavilions, where the pick-me-up is occasionally offered for free – and, above all, of higher quality?
As an investigative researcher, I spent ten days searching for the best spot. Here are my top three coffee highlights at COP28:
The less sustainable capsule coffee at the German Pavilion at COP28 has a crucial advantage. It’s nearby, for example, when you’re waiting again for 45 minutes for the delayed press conference of the foreign minister. The coffee tastes decent, and there’s a choice between cow and oat milk. The downside: the German Pavilion is extremely busy. Other events with different guests take place every hour – so the waiting times are often long.
For the very first time, Bulgaria has its own pavilion at COP. While the small space is somewhat plain and only dimly lit, they’re playing with the big ones when it comes to the coffee game. Not because the coffee tastes surprisingly good – they also use environmentally intensive plastic capsules here – but because of the cups. These cups are made of wafers and are, therefore edible. Pro tip: drink the coffee first, then eat the cup.
It’s not really a secret anymore – Australian baristas have been making the best COP coffee for several years. But last year, you stood in line for a good 20 minutes before your turn in the Sharm el-Sheikh desert. In Dubai, you hold a fresh flat white in your hand after just a few minutes. This is certainly due to the fact that the Aussies have hidden themselves in the Outback of the COP site, and only a few venture there. Good for me, and if you accompany the negotiations until the end in Dubai, good for you now, too. luk
According to Climate State Secretary Jennifer Morgan in today’s interview with Bernhard Pötter, the “showdown between the fossil fuel industry and the planet” is intensifying at COP28. While the question of fossil fuel phase-out was negotiated behind closed doors last year, this time, it takes center stage at the climate conference. Morgan asserts that blockers like Saudi Arabia and Russia must realize that their stance “means the end of island nations”. The State Secretary laments that some countries are not negotiating constructively.
Resistance is building against a firm decision on phasing out fossil fuels. Too much is at stake for oil and gas-producing states. Therefore, OPEC has called on its members to block any mention of fossil fuels in the final summit agreement.
The climate movement has unequivocally positioned itself in favor of a fossil fuel exit. However, the work at COP is weakened by differing positions on the Gaza conflict, some NGO representatives complain. Forces that could be utilized for a united effort for the most ambitious COP result are diverted into conflicts between international climate organizations, as reported by Alexandra Endres.
In today’s “Dessert”, Lukas Scheid takes a look at the coffee machines at this COP and provides tips on where the caffeine tastes best.
Ms. Morgan, from an outsider’s perspective, the negotiations seem to be stuck several days before the end: There’s a very long text with all options for a fossil exit, which is not decisive. The process for adapting to climate change is blocked and slowing down everything else. Is it normal for things to be stuck like this a few days before the end?
Is it stuck? Well, we have detailed discussions about a faster energy transition with all major stakeholders. That’s a big difference from last year. On the other hand, we see that the Arab group is preventing a real discussion on adaptation. An agreement in this area would be crucial, as it rightly is the top priority for island nations and African states. Therefore, the EU is having many discussions on adaptation.
Could the reason for the blockade be precisely to prevent an approach between Africa and the EU, which would also help with the fossil exit?
I’m less concerned about the process than about the fact that not all countries and groups negotiate constructively. In adaptation, we’re not even talking about the text yet, just about the procedure. Blocking text work, as a few groups do, is already a very tough measure. Some call it hostage-taking. But slowly, we see how the overall package could look, even though the text is still very long. Now the presidency has to put together the package with options for the ministers to decide. The text should be ready by Sunday.
How professional is the presidency’s work?
It is still very transparent, another significant difference from last year. They have a good team, but the moment of truth is when the text comes. Is it balanced? Ambitious?
Some say COP28 is the last gasp of fossil fuels. Do you see it that way too?
The question is: Why are there so many fossil lobbyists here? Last year, the question of an exit was negotiated in a dark room where a few countries said no. Now it’s right in the center of things. Many fossil interests are here because they know: This is the showdown between fossil fuels and the planet. And they are here, trying to prevent the urgently needed end of fossil fuels for their own interests.
Minister Baerbock and others draw a parallel between this COP and the conference in Paris. Is Dubai like Paris?
Yes, a bit. It’s about a comprehensive package. The GST is the implementation of Paris. And there’s also this feeling: We are at a turning point. In Paris, the question was: Can we achieve an agreement? Now it’s: Can we fill the agreement with ambition and use the mechanisms? For most countries, the question is: How do we do this? Many emerging and developing countries are worried that the transition is happening too fast. But the positive thing is: We’re talking about how to do it, about power grids and storage, about financial mechanisms or investments in Africa. We’re talking about reality, about the economy. And then there are the oil-producing states that haven’t prepared and diversified like other countries.
But Germany sends mixed signals with its climate foreign policy strategy, especially regarding the fossil exit.
I don’t think so. The foreign policy strategy is fully in line with the EU position.
The text, however, mentions the exit from “unabated fossil fuels”.
It is the EU’s position that abatement, if at all, is only an option for hard-to-decarbonize sectors. But otherwise, a predominantly fossil-free energy system is required. That is an EU Council decision. Everything in the strategy is in line with the conclusions.
There is only “unabated” in the summary, not for the “hard to abate” sectors.
There is now a footnote to clarify the position in its entirety. That was just the summary, not because it’s a different position. Again, our position here is the EU position.
But if other countries like Saudi Arabia or Russia say: We’re not talking about an exit at all. How can you come together?
These countries have the duty to understand what their position means: namely, the end of island nations. And they have to think about their role in the world – what do they want? We are in a climate crisis. Are they part of the solution? Some are heading in that direction. Or are they the blockade? If this COP fails, everyone knows who the blockers are: that these states prioritize their short-term interests over the interests of island nations, African states and many people.
How diplomatic or undiplomatic are you in these negotiations when it comes to such fundamental issues?
Now is the time for plain talk. In the negotiation rooms, we speak very clearly about individual sentences and words. On other occasions, it’s more important to speak diplomatically or say nothing. And let other countries say something. The island nations and the least developed countries are very important here.
Germany has not signed twice with the High Ambition Coalition. Will you do it here at the summit?
I assume so. Germany is an active member of the HAC. If there is a statement, we are in.
Is it always helpful when the ministers negotiate, especially when it comes to such fundamental issues? Wouldn’t many things be better clarified by the experts?
Experts are talking to each other all the time. But now is the time for political decisions. Ministers have to do that. It’s about tough political decisions, where you can go along or not.
Above all, the UAE is facing a decision on whether they want to end this COP with a fossil exit.
Yes, the UAE has a great responsibility. As COP presidency, they must clearly position themselves: Are they part of the solution and the future, participating in the energy transition? Or are they part of the past? They say they want a very ambitious COP full of solutions – now is the moment to show that.
The exit from coal, oil and gas – not just from fossil emissions, as is currently also under discussion – is one of the core demands of NGOs at COP28. They quickly formulated a common position for negotiations at the summit. “Strategic cooperation for the exit from fossil fuels is working well,” says Christoph Bals, political director of the environmental and development organization Germanwatch.
Before the summit, there were concerns that the debate on the Gaza war could overshadow the climate-related work of organizations or even divide the movement. At least outwardly, this does not seem to be the case. However, there are sometimes strenuous debates internally.
German activists tend to stay away from the solidarity actions of the international movement for Palestine. For example, on Saturday, a diverse crowd gathered to demand an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. The demonstration also featured signs with slogans like “End the Occupation”, which are viewed critically from the German side.
While international NGOs in Dubai call for solidarity with Palestine, German climate organizations insist that Israeli suffering must also be acknowledged, and the Hamas massacre on Oct. 7 must not be ignored. Some invest a lot of time and effort in bridging the differences in internal discussions. For example, on Friday, the Climate Action Network International (CAN) awarded its daily “Fossil of the Day” negative award to Israel. German organizations are also part of CAN.
Usually, the “Fossil of the Day” goes to countries with inadequate climate policies. In the case of Israel, the award was expressly justified with the conflict between Israel and Palestine and the resulting human suffering. “Without human rights, there can be no climate justice,” the justification stated, concluding with the call: “Ceasefire now.”
In a statement on Oct. 20, CAN had expressed solidarity with “Palestinian, Israeli and all families” affected by the recent conflict. However, on the COP grounds, the network wants to show solidarity with Palestine. The justification for the award does not mention Hamas. It is heard that an initial draft of the text contained sharper criticism of Israel, which was apparently softened following the intervention of German activists.
Apart from the “Fossil of the Day,” cooperation is reportedly sometimes challenging within the German movement. Due to different views on the Gaza war, Germans are currently not participating in some working groups. It also involves interpersonal trust that has been damaged.
When inquiring with CAN International, there is some incomprehension regarding the German position on Gaza. However, CAN chief Tasneem Essop says, “I wouldn’t say we are divided. We have different views on the conflict. There is a particular German perspective on Gaza that we do not share. We came to COP to express our solidarity with Palestine and call for a ceasefire. But we all came to Dubai to achieve good results for the climate on COP. In that regard, we are united. We all want to exit from fossil fuels, a global adaptation goal – all these things we have been fighting for for years.”
“The human rights and international law apply to everyone,” describes Christoph Bals, the director of Germanwatch, the stance of his organization on the Israel conflict. “Empathy and solidarity with all civilians are important. These are the principles by which our positions must be measured.” Kai Niebert, president of the German Federation for Nature Conservation, says, “The position of German environmental and climate organizations is very clear here: We condemn the Hamas attack on Oct. 7 and simultaneously call on Israel to show restraint in this war. Human rights apply on all sides.”
While the organizations may agree on climate policy issues, the internal dispute over Gaza “diverts resources that could be better invested elsewhere,” says Niebert, “for example, putting pressure on OPEC states to decide on an exit from fossil fuels, not just from fossil emissions.”
On Friday, CAN International also accused the UN Climate Secretariat of preventing declarations of solidarity with Gaza on the summit grounds.
CAN CEO Essop said the secretariat had dictated to organizations which messages they could send on the summit grounds, especially regarding Palestine. On Friday, Kufiyas, so-called Palestinian scarves, were confiscated during security checks at the entrance, and wearing solidarity keychains in Palestinian colors was prohibited. “All our other actions, about fossil fuels, damages and losses, etc., were fine. But as soon as it was about Palestine, it became a problem.“
Activists were threatened with the withdrawal of their access badges and expulsion from the premises if they did not remove scarves and keychains, said Asad Rehman, CEO of the British climate justice organization War on Want. Even using the word “ceasefire” was allowed only after a week of negotiations. However, CAN has been calling for an immediate ceasefire in its daily COP bulletin since the first day of the conference. “This is the most restrictive climate summit we have ever experienced,” Rehman said.
The Climate Secretariat responded to the allegations from CAN with a written statement. The United Nations is committed to “preserving the rights of all participants to ensure that the perspectives of all are heard and their contribution… is recognized,” it says.
The secretariat also refers to its code of conduct, which, in summary, states that protest actions must have a climate reference and that neither individuals – such as heads of state or delegates – nor member states should be vilified. “No naming and shaming,” summarizes a secretariat staff member. There were apparently different interpretations of how to understand this.
At least in the actual COP28 negotiations, the debate about Israel and Palestine does not play a direct role, says DNR Chief Niebert. On Saturday morning, Niebert still hoped that the climate movement could turn its attention back to the ‘important issues here‘. But in the afternoon, there was another protest for Palestine.
For the first time at a UN climate conference, food and food systems play a crucial role in Dubai. There is, for example, a Food Pavilion, and the theme day on “Food, Agriculture and Water” also puts the topic on the agenda of COP28. The discussions on this topic are approached from two perspectives. Firstly, addressing hunger and ensuring food security in times of climate change. Secondly, discussions revolve around how to reduce the consumption of meat and dairy products since they cause significantly more emissions per kilogram and calorie compared to plant-based foods. This year, COP mainly offers vegan catering.
Food systems contribute to one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions. Approximately two-thirds of these emissions come from the production of animal products, even though they constitute only 19 percent of the calories and 41 percent of the protein of all globally produced foods. One of the key issues is land-use changes and deforestation. Industrial agriculture also contributes to biodiversity loss.
So far, dietary change as a driver of climate change has played a subordinate role in political measures: While more than 100 countries have included agriculture in their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), only five NDCs address consumption. These five countries are developing nations with relatively low greenhouse gas emissions from food. At the same time, climate change has significant impacts on food production: droughts and other factors increasingly bring about food insecurity. Due to the war in Ukraine, the issue of food insecurity has gained prominence in international discussions and is now a top priority for many countries, far ahead of the transition of food systems.
The UAE called on countries to sign a declaration on Sustainable Agriculture, Resilient Food Systems, and Climate Action.
In the declaration, states are urged to integrate food and agriculture systems into various climate action measures, namely:
The declaration is not an official negotiating document of the COP. However, there is also a negotiation process on food and climate: the Sharm el-Sheikh Joint Work on Implementation of Climate Action on Agriculture and Food Security (SSJW). The SSJW is the official mechanism that brings food and agriculture into the UNFCCC. The SSJW process is to last four years, was launched at COP27 and is the continuation of the previous Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture.
The name alone indicates that there is now more awareness of the complexity of food and climate action issues. The work program acknowledges the priority of ensuring food security and ending hunger but also recognizes the particular vulnerability of food production systems to the impacts of climate change. It also emphasizes the role of farmers, including smallholders and herders, as key actors in change and acknowledges that solutions are context-specific and must take national circumstances into account.
As a result of COP28, a three-year work plan for the SSJW will be developed.
At the end of October, around 85 NGOs such as WWF, The Food Systems Partnership, and the Food and Land Use Coalition called for recognizing the relevance of food systems to climate and the Paris Agreement. They particularly criticize the lack of a holistic approach to nutrition in the SSJW.
The work program should also include the following key elements:
NGOs also demand that food systems receive widespread attention in national climate protection policies and long-term planning before COP30.
Regularly, it is also criticized that consumption issues in the context of nutrition are not adequately addressed, and there are too few measures that actually change behavior and eating patterns.
A concrete output and success already lie in the declaration on agriculture and nutrition. 134 countries have signed it, covering 75 percent of emissions from food production. Environmental organizations welcomed the declaration, stating that it could bring additional funds for sustainable food systems. Additionally, it can help make solutions for sustainable and climate-friendly nutrition visible.
At the same time, the SSJW work program is being pushed forward and discussed. However, significant progress in this regard is unlikely as results from this process are expected only in 2026 at COP31.
Many of the voluntary climate initiatives and pledges presented at COP28 are neither new nor detailed enough to make a significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. This is the result of an analysis by the Climate Action Tracker. According to the analysis, since the start of COP28, 74 new “pledges and declarations” or climate action initiatives have been announced. Of the total emission reductions that could be achieved through these commitments, one-quarter are not new and are already part of national climate action plans (NDCs), and half are difficult to achieve unless the initiatives are better designed. Only one-quarter is considered new and achievable, according to the analysis.
The initiative to triple renewable energy capacity and double energy efficiency is considered positive. If both goals are achieved, it could close one-third of the gap to the 1.5-degree path by 2030. However, doubling efficiency is more challenging than tripling renewables. This goal should not be neglected.
Many of the other voluntary climate initiatives and pledges either have minimal additional climate action effects or none at all, according to the Climate Action Tracker. The “Oil and Gas Decarbonisation Accelerator” aims to achieve net-zero CO2 emissions from oil and gas production by 2050 and net-zero methane emissions by 2030, involving 50 oil and gas companies. However, the initiative does not cover the majority of emissions generated by the use of oil and gas. The production of oil and gas needs to be phased out, not decarbonized, according to the analysis. Additionally, the Accelerator fails to specify by when methane emissions should actually reach net-zero. According to the NGO Environmental Defense Fund, achieving the goal for methane emissions would be a significant step forward.
The commitment to scale up applications for capturing and storing CO2 (CCS, DACCS and BECCS) to one gigatonne of CO2 per year by 2030, as announced by members of the Carbon Management Challenge at COP28, is considered completely implausible by the Climate Action Tracker. Currently, there is a global CCS capacity of 45 million tonnes of CO2 per year. However, in practical application, these facilities often capture much less CO2 than their capacity suggests. Even under optimistic assumptions, the capacity is expected to grow to only about 300 million tonnes by 2030. “CCS will play only a marginal role in reducing emissions by 2030,” concludes the Climate Action Tracker.
The voluntary climate initiatives announced since COP26 in Glasgow have resulted in “little more than ‘greenwashing’ of inaction“, according to the analysis. It lacks accountability, clear targets, and measurability. nib
Franziska Tanneberger is a highly sought-after expert at COP28. The specialist in fen ecosystems rushes from event to event to talk about peatland conservation and to bring this “climate construction site” into sharper focus.
Peatlands have a calming effect on Franziska Tanneberger. Field research, meetings with NGOs, or hearings in the Bundestag – the daily routine of the 45-year-old is usually hectic. “But in the wet bog, I sink in, I automatically walk slower and enjoy the landscape.”
Together with her colleague Greta Gaudig, Tanneberger has been co-heading the Greifswald Mire Centre since 2015. Her focuses are on research on biodiversity and climate action, such as greenhouse gas emissions from peat soils, as well as projects for the practical implementation of land-use concepts.
After studying landscape ecology and nature conservation at the University of Greifswald, she initially researched peatlands in Eastern Europe. Until she wondered about the condition of peatlands closer to home.
In the EU, peatlands cover an area of around 59 million hectares, and about half of them are considered damaged due to peat extraction and drainage. The Greifswald Mire Centre collects data on their global condition in the Global Peatland Database. “In Germany, over 95 percent are damaged. The most important cause is not peat extraction but drainage for agriculture,” explains Tanneberger.
In Germany, 7.5 percent of annual greenhouse gas emissions come from the decomposition of peat soils. “Peatlands are the big climate construction site,” says Tanneberger. Many of the negative factors, such as the release of CO2, were not known to people in the past, according to Tanneberger: “We have heavily drained and altered our peatlands to better manage the areas. But it’s important to me not to point fingers at anyone.”
With the Natural Climate Action Program, approved by the cabinet in March 2023, four billion euros will be provided for ecosystem protection until 2026 – including peatland rewetting. In 2023, the Greifswald Moor Centrum conducted a study on the obstacles and solutions to the implementation of peatland conservation. Building local structures is particularly important to implement measures more effectively and quickly, explains Tanneberger.
“I’m also afraid the term ‘renaturation’ scares off many farmers and does not motivate them for rewetting,” says Tanneberger. However, a naturally high water level is essential for the peatland ecosystem.
And this offers various land use possibilities: for example, the use of peat plants such as reeds and bulrushes as building or packaging materials, suggests Tanneberger. She is currently researching this and supporting its implementation: “Learning from and collaborating with farmers really drives me.”
The ToMOORow project is particularly close to her heart: Here, the Michael Otto Environmental Foundation, the Michael Succow Foundation and the Greifswald Mire Centre collaborate with businesses. “It’s about activating the potentials of peatland conservation for businesses,” says Tanneberger. She hopes that this way, the growing willingness of farmers for climate action and the interest of businesses in climate-positive products will converge – and more peatlands will be rewetted.
Franziska Tanneberger has been living with her family on the island of Rügen for over 14 years. When she’s not in the bog, she enjoys swimming in the Baltic Sea. In March, she also published her first book. Leoni Bender
One shouldn’t reveal their treasures. That’s why I’m only now coming up with one of the most important rankings that COP28 has to offer: Where can you get the best coffee in the morning? The caffeine juice has saved many a COP, and allegedly, the Paris Agreement wouldn’t have come about without coffee.
After taking a metro ride of ten to 60 minutes to Expo City in Dubai, covering a distance of one and a half kilometers to the security checkpoint and finally arriving at the COP site, you have a choice. Do you pay 25 Dirhams (around six euros) for a cappuccino at the numerous but often crowded refreshment stations, or do you try your luck in one of the pavilions, where the pick-me-up is occasionally offered for free – and, above all, of higher quality?
As an investigative researcher, I spent ten days searching for the best spot. Here are my top three coffee highlights at COP28:
The less sustainable capsule coffee at the German Pavilion at COP28 has a crucial advantage. It’s nearby, for example, when you’re waiting again for 45 minutes for the delayed press conference of the foreign minister. The coffee tastes decent, and there’s a choice between cow and oat milk. The downside: the German Pavilion is extremely busy. Other events with different guests take place every hour – so the waiting times are often long.
For the very first time, Bulgaria has its own pavilion at COP. While the small space is somewhat plain and only dimly lit, they’re playing with the big ones when it comes to the coffee game. Not because the coffee tastes surprisingly good – they also use environmentally intensive plastic capsules here – but because of the cups. These cups are made of wafers and are, therefore edible. Pro tip: drink the coffee first, then eat the cup.
It’s not really a secret anymore – Australian baristas have been making the best COP coffee for several years. But last year, you stood in line for a good 20 minutes before your turn in the Sharm el-Sheikh desert. In Dubai, you hold a fresh flat white in your hand after just a few minutes. This is certainly due to the fact that the Aussies have hidden themselves in the Outback of the COP site, and only a few venture there. Good for me, and if you accompany the negotiations until the end in Dubai, good for you now, too. luk