Geopolitics—Not Just Summits—Will Shape the Transition to Clean Energy

In the waning days of 2023, likely the warmest year the earth has experienced in recorded history, nearly 100,000 people came together in the United Arab Emirates—one of the world’s largest oil and gas producers—to reach a consensus on how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The final agreement at the UN Climate Change Conference in Dubai, also known as COP28, was hailed for calling for a transition away from fossil fuels. “Whilst we didn’t turn the page on the fossil fuel era in Dubai, this outcome is the beginning of the end,” proclaimed the UN climate chief, Simon Stiell, after the agreement was announced.

Although the COP28 agreement does offer some cause for optimism on progress on climate change, it fell short of the breakthrough suggested by Stiell’s hyperbole. Still, the outcomes of COP28 more broadly hold some promise for the transition away from fossil fuels—if not necessarily in the ways advertised. A closer look at the language of the official agreement suggests that some of what was agreed to is less significant than meets the eye, whereas other, seemingly innocuous language could have real consequences for the transition.

Nevertheless, much of the real work needed to advance the energy transition falls outside the realm of the UN climate negotiating mechanism. Although there were numerous meaningful policy and technology announcements, geopolitics got short shrift in the two-week agenda, given how instrumental they are in enabling or thwarting the transition. Leaders interested in accelerating the energy transition must work to mitigate traditional sources of tension and address national security threats. A fracturing geopolitical landscape—as much as the growth in climate finance or even advancements in climate technology—will determine just how quickly (or how slowly) the transition to net-zero emissions proceeds.