Good COP or bad COP for climate summit in oil's heartland?

Editor's note: Lucian Peppelenbos is a climate and biodiversity strategist at the Dutch asset management firm Robeco. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

It's the first formal stocktake of how seriously the world is taking measures to combat climate change. So, will the COP28 summit in Dubai yield any concrete results?

I believe the answer is yes, and I hope to be pleasantly surprised about progress, though some things may end up simply as more hot air.

Holding the 28th edition of the more grandly titled Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has already raised eyebrows, since the country is the world's seventh largest oil producer.

There are three other things to watch out for: the creation of a loss and damage climate fund, the phasing out of fossil fuels, and the delivery of global climate finance. So, will it be a good COP or a bad COP?

The Global Stocktake

At the heart of the agenda is the first "Global Stocktake," which aims to provide the first comprehensive assessment of progress in decarbonizing the world since the Paris Agreement was signed in 2015.

The Paris Agreement seeks to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius, and preferably limit to 1.5 degrees, compared to pre-industrial levels. However, the most recent UN report calculates that the world is heading for 2.4 degrees.

All governments need to rush through policies, but given the current political landscape, we are unlikely to see a major breakthrough on this.

Good COP: If we can get a 10 percent improvement on the 2.4 degrees and go down to 2.2 degrees, then that would be a good step to keep the wheel spinning in the right direction.

Bad COP: Geopolitics continue to take center stage, and nations do not commit to reducing emissions further.

The global loss and damage fund

This was a big achievement from COP27. It aims to set up a global fund that will help countries suffering from climate-related damage such as floods, forest fires or droughts. Developing countries want developed nations which have historically generated the most significant emissions to pay for this damage.

Climate change is becoming more and more material. Last year, for instance, one third of Pakistan was flooded just weeks before the COP took place.

Good COP: The agreement among the 24 nations about the set-up of the fund is ratified by the 199 countries at the summit.

Bad COP: Not having an agreement will block meaningful progress on any agenda item.

Phasing out fossil fuels

Ironically, the Paris Agreement makes no mention of fossil fuels, even though burning coal, oil and gas is the main cause of global warming, making it the proverbial elephant in the room. However, ironies may be a good thing, given that the summit is taking place in the world's oil-producing heartland.

Good COP: Even if any agreement signed this year is low ambition, it's still going to be historic to have one of the world's top oil-producing nations.

Bad COP: Letting the elephant in the room roam free for another year.

Delivering climate finance

Beyond loss and damage, the Paris Agreement also envisages financial support by rich countries to support mitigation and adaptation in developing countries. The problem here is that pledges have not been met with hard cash.

Developed countries have committed $100 billion a year to help developing countries mitigate climate change and $40 billion a year to adapt to climate change. While the fundraising has significantly improved in recent years, that money still doesn't flow sufficiently.

The delivery capacity is a challenge, which is where the role of the World Bank and other multilateral finance institutions has been heavily criticized. This year the World Bank has a new president, and you can see him starting to reform it. So that's pretty positive.

The big challenge is that even with that $140 billion, there's still a massive gap for adaptation alone. Developing countries need around $380 billion per year for adaptation, and for mitigation, we're talking in the trillions.

Much of the problem is that countries where help is needed most are those carrying the greatest macroeconomic risk. Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, is a great place to install solar panels, but the countries of the region are unstable, hampering investment.

Good COP: Seeing some concrete operational agreements for unlocking climate finance and reforming the relevant institutions.

Bad COP: More talk and no action.