This article is part of The Climate Frontline, a monthly newsletter that celebrates the people and policies making a difference in climate. It is brought to you by the Government Climate Campus, Apolitical's learning hub for connecting public servants with the tools and training they need to address the climate crisis. Subscribe here.

The negotiation rooms are empty, the cafeterias have closed and the murmurs of conversation that filled the hallways and streets of Expo City in Dubai have quieted. COP28 has come to an end. Its final outcome is a deal that has been called everything from “historic” to “grossly insufficient”.

The policymakers and civil servants who have been negotiating tirelessly can finally enjoy a full night’s sleep, but some of us are just getting up to speed.

There’s plenty to look into — from declarations on food systems to pledges on health and global cooling. Here are what we consider to be the key highlights and talking points from COP28.

Apolitical at COP28

Apolitical was delighted to co-host an event on building climate capable governments in the Capacity Building Hub. Our Green Skills Survey showed that 68% of public servants in the Apolitical community feel climate change has an impact on their work, yet 65% have never received any climate training. That’s a gap we need to close.

At our event, representatives of 10 government bodies — including Brazil, Canada, the UK and the UAE — made pledges to significantly scale up climate training for their teams. As Apolitical’s co-founder and CEO, Robyn Scott, said: “It’s not enough, but it’s a start — and it will matter.”

Pro-fossil fuel lobbyism

COP attracts people with many different interests. The Guardian reported that COP28 welcomed over 2,400 fossil fuel lobbyists, 475 carbon capture lobbyists and a record number of meat and dairy lobbyists.

According to InfluenceMap, who mapped the corporate advocacy landscape at COP28, there was a “strong bias in favor of fossil fuels.” This bias became particularly visible when a leaked letter from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) urged its members to “proactively reject any text that targets energy, i.e. fossil fuels.”

The president of COP28, Sultan Al Jaber, who is also CEO of Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC), was questioned after allegations that the UAE intended to use COP28 to strike new fossil fuel deals.

What to do with fossil fuels

It was expected that COP28 would produce a final text that explicitly mentioned fossil fuels for the first time. One of the biggest talking points ahead of COP28 was exactly what phrase negotiators would agree on.

While many debated whether countries would agree to ‘phase down’ or ‘phase out’ fossil fuels, neither phrase actually made it into the final text.

Instead, the final text “calls on Parties to contribute to [...] 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.”

Most will interpret ‘transitioning away from’ as a phase down rather than a phase out. While some see the explicit mention of fossil fuels as a historic achievement, others find the language too weak to celebrate. (In UN jargon, ‘calls upon’ is the weakest phrase to convey an invitation or request. It ranks below ‘encourages’, ‘recommends’ and ‘invites’.)

Paragraph 28b of the text, which calls on Parties to contribute to “accelerating efforts towards the phase-down of unabated coal power”, is another example of the vague language many find unacceptable.

The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) is one of many voices to express concern with the language on transition fuels and carbon capture and storage. AOSIS argues that such language weakens the text further, creating “a litany of loopholes” that allow countries to keep producing and consuming fossil fuels.

Several other questions remain: What exactly do energy systems include? What is a sufficient contribution? And what steps should countries take to facilitate a just energy transition?

The Global Goal on Adaptation

Another key topic at COP28 was the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA). Until now, the COP process has mainly focused on reducing emissions, also known as climate mitigation, to keep temperature rises to well below 2ºC. But many climate-vulnerable countries have pushed for an increased focus on climate adaptation since the Paris Agreement was signed in 2015.

COP28 fleshed out some of the details of the GGA. Countries did, for example, agree on themes that would guide policymakers and civil servants in their adaptation work, and they discussed sub-goals for each theme. The seven themes are: food, water, health, poverty reduction, infrastructure, ecosystems and cultural heritage.

The big questions on finance proved more difficult. According to the UN Environment Programme, “the adaptation finance needs of developing countries are 10-18 times as big as international public finance flows.” It’s still unclear how this significant finance gap will be addressed.

Covering loss and damage

Since the first COP in 1995, small island states have fought for funds to cover the damage being caused by climate change. They’ve faced resistance from wealthier nations, such as the US, UK and EU, who have long been wary of climate compensation due to their historically large emissions.

Countries agreed to set up such a fund at COP27, and to the pleasant surprise of many, the loss and damage fund was settled on the first day of negotiations at COP28. Establishing this fund is a big win for those who have fought for it for decades.

The UAE and Germany each pledged US$100 million to get the fund going. Other developed countries made their own pledges, bringing the total up to $770 million. But, as many observers were quick to point out, this represents just 2% of developing countries’ annual needs.

The US — the world’s largest oil-producing country — pledged US$17.5 million (less than Spain and Ireland), and some of the historically highest emitters, like the UK and Canada, didn’t pledge any new money to the fund.

While this is “understandable in the short term,” as the Climate Envoy of Barbados told Carbon Brief, “we need now to get new, additional resources.”

The official name of the fund is still to be decided after the US rejected any reference to loss and damage, preferring to use the term “climate impact fund.” Other unanswered questions include: How will the gap be closed between the amount pledged and the amount needed by developing countries? Which countries will qualify for the fund? How will the funds be delivered?

What’s next

Apolitical will keep publishing articles, delivering courses and hosting events on climate in 2024. Look out for updates in this newsletter or check our Government Climate Campus.

And if you’re keen to be involved in COP29 next year, you can start booking your trip — it’ll be hosted by Azerbaijan in November 2024.

In the meantime, countries are preparing the next round of their national action plans, also known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs). The NDCs are due in 2025, and they’re a chance to draw up improved plans that build on the foundations laid at COP28.

As UN Climate Chief, Simon Stiell, said: “This agreement is an ambitious floor, not a ceiling. So, the crucial years ahead must keep ramping up ambition and climate action.”