On Wednesday morning, hours after COP28 was officially meant to end, United Nations negotiators reached an agreement on fossil fuels, the most hotly debated topic on this year’s agenda. The agreement — dubbed the UAE Consensus — will kickstart a “transition away from fossil fuels” towards net-zero emissions by 2050. The agreement acknowledges the need for rapid change, to the tune of a 43 per cent cut in global greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, and a 60 per cent reduction by 2035, compared to 2019 levels. It also added more specific targets to triple renewable energy capacity and double energy efficiency by 2030, with the ultimate aim of limiting global warming to 1.5°C as per the Paris Climate Agreement.
It marks the first time fossil fuels have been explicitly named in a COP agreement (previously, they have focused on emissions). But it’s not a clear win: the final text doesn’t deliver the hardline “phase out” activists and academics were hoping for. It also allows oil producers to continue drilling, lacks detail for how to finance a green transition and is not legally binding. Still, the UN says it’s a step in the right direction, laying the foundations for “a swift, just and equitable transition, underpinned by deep emissions cuts and scaled-up finance”.
For the fashion industry, it signals the beginning of a complicated but necessary journey to wean off of virgin synthetic materials, non-renewable energy sources and other uses of fossil fuels.
“Whilst we didn’t turn the page on the fossil fuel era in Dubai, this outcome is the beginning of the end,” UN Climate Change executive secretary Simon Stiell said in his closing speech. “Now all governments and businesses need to turn these pledges into real-economy outcomes, without delay.”
A “litany of loopholes”
COP28 was controversial from the outset. Its president Dr Sultan Al Jaber also acts as CEO of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (Adnoc), and the BBC reported that he allegedly planned to use the event to forge new oil deals. “An agreement is only as good as its implementation,” he said in his closing remarks. “We must take the steps necessary to turn this agreement into tangible action. If we unite in action, we can have a profoundly positive effect on all our futures.”
The parties most vulnerable to climate change were less optimistic. Minister Cedric Schuster, the top negotiator for Samoa and chair of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) said that certain parties had been given “preferential treatment” in the negotiation process, while small island states felt overlooked. In a statement responding to the draft proposal, he added that the “weak language” and the voluntary stance adopted would “obliterate” the chances of meeting global climate goals. When the final agreement passed this morning, Schuster said it contained “a litany of loopholes”.
The language around fossil fuels is not strong enough overall, says Dr Hakan Karaosman, co-founder of the EU-funded research center Fashion’s Responsible Supply Chain Hub (FRESCH), chair of the Union of Concerned Researchers in Fashion, and assistant professor at Cardiff University. It also allows for “transitional fuels”, such as natural gas, which can potentially be more problematic than coal because of methane leaks. Expansions are already underway in the US, he notes. Critics also say it relies too heavily on biofuel, a growing but controversial source of energy in multiple industries, including fashion.
“It’s great in hitting all the buzzwords — just, equitable, action, science — but it’s not very specific on what that means and how to achieve it,” echoes Fabiola Schneider, assistant professor at Dublin City University and co-lead of environmental rights advocacy Green Watch. The wording is even less explicit for fashion, Schneider notes, as it specifically relates to fossil fuels as energy systems, which doesn’t cover the extent of their presence in the fashion industry.
Overall, Karaosman says, COP28 delivered minor tweaks to a system that is fundamentally flawed, but it was never designed to generate the level of change that’s really needed. “From climate to fashion-specific industrial summits, the most influential platforms are not designed for systemic change, they are organized as trade fairs,” he says. “Delegates go, talk, promote and hijack conversations at the expense of marginalized communities. Time and again, we fail to create holistic and inclusive pathways to tackle climate, leadership and humanity crises we face.”
Who should finance the transition?
New commitments mean very little without the financing to meet them. As such, the agreement encourages parties to submit economy-wide Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), and recognizes the need to accelerate the pace of reforming global financial systems. Credit rating agencies were specifically called out for the first time, and negotiators called for concessional and grant finance to be scaled up, alongside adaptation finance (linking to last year’s commitment to a loss and damage fund).
Finance has been a key topic at COP28, after years of lessons learned that good intentions are meaningless without it. Outside of the UAE Consensus, a further $85 billion in funding was pledged during the two-week event. This includes the UAE’s $30 billion catalytic private finance vehicle, Altérra, and $792 million worth of early pledges for loss and damage. This might sound like a lot, but it will cover less than 0.2 per cent of the estimated $400 billion needed, says George Harding-Rolls, who heads strategy consultancy Eco-Age’s advisory division and campaigns for a fossil fuel-free fashion industry — or, in Canopy founder Nicole Rycroft’s words, it could be wiped out in “one good flood”. For context, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates that global fossil fuel subsidies reached $7 trillion in 2022 — putting approximately 10,000 times more into subsidizing fossil fuels than paying loss and damages.
The fashion industry will have to face up to the question, one it has so long evaded, of who pays for the transition away from fossil fuels. “Fast fashion’s business model weakens and disenfranchises suppliers and workers. But in their attempts at decarbonization, brands are putting direct and indirect pressure on the same groups, and not giving them enough agency. If fashion brands don’t bankroll the transition, there will be no transition,” says Harding-Rolls.
And for as elusive as adequate climate funding has been, decarbonizing the supply chain is also far more complicated than the finance needed to boost renewable energy. “These actions must be created and orchestrated with supplier and worker representation to make this transition as fair, equitable and just as possible,” says Karaosman. “Many (fast) fashion giants promote and endorse technology and innovation as the ultimate solution. But these tools cannot bring any change if we do not talk about the real problem: production volumes.”
For fashion, it’s about more than just energy
The final text emphasizes the transition away from fossil fuels in the energy sector, but the fashion industry should take this as a sign of deeper changes to come, says Leah Temper, health and economic policy program director at the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, from material choices to the entire business model. “This is a clear signal for the end of the fossil fuel era,” she explains. “A just transition away from fossil fuels necessitates the scaling down of excess consumption, particularly for the wealthy. With fast fashion being a major source of unnecessary emissions and waste, the fashion industry will need to seriously clean up its act.” This includes synthetic materials, which fashion remains heavily reliant on.
Fashion supply chains are saturated with oil, gas and coal, especially in manufacturing hubs such as China, Vietnam, Bangladesh and India, adds Harding-Rolls. “This is where the lion’s share of fashion’s emissions lie, and also one of the hardest and most costly scopes of emissions to slash. Fashion will need to be swift, stump up the cash, and ensure workers are treated fairly in the process — three things the industry has a terrible track record of in the past.”
Karaosman remains similarly unconvinced, citing research by FRESCH. “There is a mismatch between their projected sales growth and stated decarbonization targets. Climate goals are impossible to meet if they keep increasing their sales,” he says.
