COP28 Presidency Draft GST Text Can Strengthen On Course Correction
Major concessions can block urgent action in this critical decade
Dubai, December 13th, 2023
AOSIS acknowledges that from a procedural angle, the revised Global Stocktake text is an improvement and does indeed reflect a number of submissions made by small island developing states. We welcome the inclusions to strengthen Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), the strong references to the science, and inclusions to ensure there are various support elements to create a runway from this Global Stocktake to the next. However, our world’s window to keeping 1.5 alive is rapidly closing, and we feel the text does not provide the necessary balance to strengthen global action for course correction on climate change.
AOSIS has been very clear that the Global Stocktake must be the vehicle for delivery of course correction, yet it sputters in significant areas.
In terms of safeguarding 1.5C in a meaningful way –the language is most certainly a step forward, it speaks to transitioning away from fossil fuels in a way the process has not done before. But we must note the text does not speak specifically to fossil fuel phaseout and mitigation in a way that is in fact “the step change that is needed”. It is incremental and not transformational.
We see a litany of loopholes in this text that are a concern to us.
In paragraph 26 we do not see any commitment or even an invitation for Parties to peak emissions by 2025. We refer to the science throughout the text but then we refrain from an agreement to take the relevant action in order to act in line with what the science says we have to do.
It is not enough for us to reference the science and then make agreements that ignore what the science is telling us we need to do.
The paragraph on abatement” can be perceived in a way that underwrites further expansion. Phasing out of “inefficient” fossil fuel subsidies is problematic, creating loopholes that were not there before. We see step backward with inclusion of energy poverty and just transition as caveats. “Inefficient” is an issue for us. The inclusion of “transitional fuels” is also quite problematic.
In sub paragraph 28 (d) the exclusive focus on energy systems is disappointing. We are concerned that paragraphs 28 (e) and (h) in particular, potentially take us backward rather than forward. In sub paragraph (e) we are being asked to endorse technologies that could result in actions that undermine our efforts. We need to see guardrails around this language.
AOSIS now looks forward to engaging in a spirit of cooperation with our other Parties to accelerate action in this critical decade for our vulnerable communities.
