Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy


5 Quick Things to Know About the COP28 Agreement

Unsurprisingly, not everyone’s happy with it.

Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

After two weeks of intense negotiations and apparent stalemate in Dubai, all 198 delegates swiftly approved a breakthrough climate agreement this morning at COP28. The deal — a culmination of a two-year process known as the global stocktake — isn’t perfect, and it was met with a mix of praise and disappointment. United Nations climate chief Simon Stiell said that while the deal doesn’t “turn the page” on fossil fuels, it marks “the beginning of the end” of the fossil fuel era. Here are five things worth knowing about the agreement:

1. It doesn’t call for a fossil fuel phase-out

The agreement avoids the contentious “phase out” wording that nearly derailed the climate talks earlier. But it does call on countries to accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels this decade in pursuit of achieving net zero by 2050. This marks the first time a post-oil and gas future has been mentioned in a COP agreement, something that would have been “unthinkable just two years ago,” said Business Green’s James Murray.

The text also calls for tripling renewable energy capacity, phasing down unabated coal, reducing methane emissions, phasing out “inefficient” fossil fuel subsidies, and accelerating zero and low-emissions technologies including nuclear energy and carbon capture and storage.

“This sends a clear signal that the world is moving decisively to phase out fossil fuels,” said Jake Schmidt, the senior strategic director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “It puts the fossil fuel industry formally on notice that its old business model is expiring.”

2. It appears to greenlight natural gas

The final text features a paragraph making it clear that “transitional fuels” can play a role in the energy transition. This is likely a nod to natural gas — a fossil fuel often labeled as “clean” compared with coal but that leads to emissions of methane, an extremely potent greenhouse gas. Environmentalists worry those emissions will put net zero goals in danger, but “producers have long argued that gas should complement the roll-out of intermittent renewables, replacing dirtier fossil fuels like coal and oil,” explained Stephen Stapczynski at Bloomberg Green.

3. It uses ‘weak’ language

One of the biggest criticisms of the deal is that it only “calls on” countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions, which some see as little more than an invitation. “It is the weakest of all the various terms used for such exhortations,” saidCarbonBrief’s Leo Hickman.

4. Saudi Arabia gave a nod of approval

Saudi Arabia was chief among major oil-producing nations to object to a call for phasing out fossil fuels, so to eke out a deal, the COP presidency had to find language that signaled progress on curbing pollution without crossing Saudi Arabia’s red line. A source toldReuters the Saudis agreed to the deal because it offers "a menu where every country can follow its own pathway."

5. It doesn’t do nearly enough on finance

The text lacks specific commitments from rich nations to help developing nations transition away from fossil fuels. “Asking Nigeria, or indeed, asking Africa, to phase out fossil fuels is like asking us to stop breathing without life support,” Ishaq Salako, Nigeria’s environmental minister, toldThe New York Times.

The theme emerging from the reactions seems to be that this deal is good, but not nearly as good as it could have been. Former Vice President Al Gore’s lukewarm reaction sums it up pretty well:

Jessica  Hullinger profile image

Jessica Hullinger

Jessica Hullinger is a freelance writer and editor who likes to think deeply about climate science and sustainability. She previously served as Global Deputy Editor for The Week, and her writing has been featured in publications including Fast Company, Popular Science, and Fortune. Jessica is originally from Indiana but lives in London.

Dan Patrick.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Load growth is becoming controversial in Texas, where its isolated, uniquely free market electricity system makes a sometimes awkward fit with the state’s distinctive right-wing politics. They crashed together Wednesday, when the state’s conservative Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, who a few weeks ago was attending Donald Trump’s criminal trialin New York City, expressed skepticism of the state’s bitcoin mining industry and the prospect of more data centers coming to Texas.

Responding to “shocking” testimony from the head of ERCOT, which manages about 90% of Texas’s electricity grid, Patrick wrote on X, “We need to take a close look at those two industries [crypto and AI]. They produce very few jobs compared to the incredible demands they place on our grid. Crypto mining may actually make more money selling electricity back to the grid than from their crypto mining operations."

Keep reading...Show less

There’s Gold in That There Battery Waste

Aepnus is taking a “fully circular approach” to battery manufacturing.

Lithium ion batteries.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Every year, millions of tons of sodium sulfate waste are generated throughout the lithium-ion battery supply chain. And although the chemical compound seems relatively innocuous — it looks just like table salt and is not particularly toxic — the sheer amount that’s produced via mining, cathode production, and battery recycling is a problem. Dumping it in rivers or oceans would obviously be disruptive to ecosystems (although that’s generally what happens in China), and with landfills running short on space, there are fewer options there, as well.

That is where Aepnus Technology is attempting to come in. The startup emerged from stealth today with $8 million in seed funding led by Clean Energy Ventures and supported by a number of other cleantech investors, including Lowercarbon Capital and Voyager Ventures. The company uses a novel electrolysis process to convert sodium sulfate waste into sodium hydroxide and sulfuric acid, which are themselves essential chemicals for battery production.

Keep reading...Show less
Donald Trump and Jaws.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Former President Trump wants to know: Would you rather be electrocuted or eaten by a shark?

On Sunday, during a rally in Las Vegas, the Republican nominee floated the question for what is at least the second time this campaign season (an odd choice, perhaps, given that Nevada is hardly shark territory, and therefore his supporters there are unlikely to have given the question much thought).

Keep reading...Show less