The 28th meeting of the United Nations Conference of the Parties (that’s COP 28 to most of us) - designed to help stop and reverse climate change - has come to an end in Dubai.
It’s been a conference mired in controversy - and even the ultimate act at the end of two weeks of deliberation, is proving contentious.
So what has it achieved, and will it help drive the change needed in global emission reductions that Governments signed up to in Paris back at COP 21.
Let’s start with the good news.
For the first time in the history of COP conferences, the almost 200 countries taking part have agreed to transition away from fossil fuel usage - a commitment made in the ‘Global Stocktake” statement issued on the final day.
The exact wording is this: “Transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade, so as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science.”
The COP conferences have been going for almost 30-years now, so you might well wonder why it’s taken so, so long to come to this decision - given the key role fossil fuel burning has played in climate change.
Yet, with so many countries with differing viewpoints and economies involved, achieving a consensus on this fundamental issue has been hard. And if any one country fails to agree the wording of the commitments, the consensus doesn’t get signed. So, in this respect, securing agreement from all participants that they will move away from gas, coal and oil and reduce their usage - and indeed naming fossil fuel burning as a core problem - is a big success.
This is especially true given the furore that surrounded the start of the conference.
That furore started with accusations - strongly denied by COP 28 President, Sultan Al-Jaber - that host country United Arab Emirates was planning on using the conference to strike oil deals.
Given that Mr Al-Jaber is also head of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company - which extracts around 2.7m barrels of oil every day - it was a serious allegation fundamentally at odds with the conference's stated aim of reducing fossil fuel usage.
And yet - despite his oil company planning on increasing oil extraction - Mr Al-Jaber has succeeded in getting this phasing out agreement accepted - including securing the approval of countries like Saudi Arabia - who had previously vetoed any mention of fossil fuels in any COP agreements.
This achievement was highlighted by UN Secretary General Antonio Gutterres, who had warned prior to the event that humanity’s use of fossil fuels had opened the gates of hell.
Yesterday, however, he responded to the agreement by saying: “For the first time, the outcome recognises the need to transition away from fossil fuels. The era of fossil fuels must end, and it must end with justice and equity.”
But his second sentence highlights the second area of contention - the difference in impact of climate change between richer developed nations, and poorer developing nations. Part of the COP agreement included the provision of funding for the latter to help them deal with the impact of climate change. However critics argue it has not gone far enough - the US, for example, one of the world’s biggest polluters, committed just $20m in support funding.
There is a second money-related issue too. The agreed text references the need for trillions of dollars in funding needed to transition the world to clean energy and help prevent the aim of stopping global warming passing the 1.5C mark. That’s the level at which scientists believe the world moves into a very dangerous scenario - with droughts, floods, heatwaves and extreme weather events causing worldwide catastrophe.
And yet, the agreement signed says very little on how this funding will be realised - and without that financing in place, humanity’s ability to change the dial on global warming and prevent catastrophe, looks weak.
Which brings us to the last major issue - loopholes. Critics of COP28 say while the stated agreement on phasing out fossil fuels is important, the devil remains in the detail. For example, two areas where climate scientists and activists say loopholes have been left are around the inclusion of what they call dangerous distractions.
Distraction one is said to be carbon capture and storage - which people fear leaves the door open for oil producing countries to claim they are countering oil and gas production with greenhouse gas sequester technologies. The issue here is carbon capture and storage is incredibly expensive and unproven, and even ineffective, technology - but could be used to justify continued extraction and burning of fossil fuels.
The second is around a line saying there is a need for transitional fuels on the path to cleaner energy - which to a lot of experts is simply a get out of jail clause for the gas industry - as gas is seen as cleaner than coal or oil.
So what are we to make of this?
Ultimately, it will be the actions of the world’s governments - especially the biggest polluters - that will matter. If this agreement to phase out fossil fuel usage becomes a reality, and everyone from individuals to important stakeholders like banks, start to demand we do this - then this conference could be the start of something really positive.
And in which case the wording agreed at COP28 will genuinely be significant.
But actions speak louder than words - so we will have to watch this space and see how things develop before COP29 takes place in Baku in Azerbaijan next November.
