HE The most significant debate to date in the global effort against the climate crisis. A conversation that could decide whether the world averts environmental catastrophe or faces increasingly severe consequences. The dialogue that must unfold on a worldwide scale to reach broad consensus. This is the moment to act with urgency, or the planet risks another year of missed opportunities. The Dubai climate summit, COP28, was scheduled to conclude this Tuesday at noon with the signing of what many hoped would be the pivotal climate agreement of the past five years. Yet as the horizon approached, consensus remained elusive. The draft signaled a cautious step, yet many questioned whether it would demand enough to truly phase out fossil fuels. How and when a final text will satisfy all parties remains unclear. The plan to save the planet was revisited during the withdrawal period, with a broad sense of doubt about how all the pieces will finally fit together.
The United Arab Emirates released its first draft on Monday afternoon. Described as inadequate, disappointing, and even criticized as a potential setback for the most vulnerable nations facing climate chaos, the draft drew swift opposition from several countries that spent the night preparing counterarguments after a close reading of the content. The summit chairmanship in Dubai was set to begin Tuesday with the aim of sparking discussion and revealing each nation’s red lines. Initial comments suggested the new draft would be published on Tuesday, but negotiations extended into a second night, with hopes that a revised offer might emerge on Wednesday morning.
United Arab Emirates presidency prepares a new draft in response to criticism
Throughout the summit, the central issue remains the role of fossil fuels. Sultan Al Jaber, the meeting chair, repeatedly asserted a strong intent to reduce or eliminate polluting energy sources that drive climate instability. He even asserted that achieving the goal of limiting global warming to well below 1.5 degrees Celsius was achievable. In the presidency’s proposal, however, that statement was softened. The text now calls for a phased reduction of fossil energy production and consumption by 2050, with no explicit demand for a complete phase-out or a clear, time-bound calendar for a transition.
Unrest in Dubai
News of the draft drew sharp reactions and unsettled debates in Dubai. Negotiators have been working under heavy fatigue for two weeks, assembling a patchwork of compromises that have left many observers concerned about the pace and feasibility of a comprehensive agreement. Delegates fear that the prolonged discussions, coupled with mounting fatigue, could undermine the urgency needed to address climate risks. Representatives from many developing nations have signaled they might need to conclude their participation soon due to travel and scheduling pressures.
When the UAE presidency addressed the situation during a brief press interaction on Tuesday, Majid Al Suwaidi, ambassador for the United Arab Emirates, stated that discussion at this stage is a normal part of the process. He noted that the published draft revealed deep divisions on core issues, including fossil fuels. He urged negotiators to recommit to resolving differences in the coming hours and reminded all parties that the ambition of the final agreement rests with the collective choices of the negotiating teams. [Citation: UAE press remarks, official statements]
Harsh criticism of the text
A large number of observers express strong dissatisfaction with the rhetoric surrounding the draft and the proposed agreement. Environmentalists, scientists, and climate advocates argue that the document does not align with the scientific consensus or the policy demands of many vulnerable nations. Critics describe the draft as a missed opportunity that could fail to reflect the urgent need for aggressive action to curb emissions. Activists warn that the proposal risked undercutting the momentum built by climate science and by public demands for robust action. [Citation: Environmental NGOs, climate researchers, policy analysts]
We all agree that the text is not adequate
Union of Conscious Scientists
A vocal group of scientists and climate experts has voiced criticism after examining the draft in detail. They contend that the document largely ignores established scientific facts and fails to set a credible path toward meeting the 1.5-degree target. Prominent researchers argued that without a clear schedule and stronger commitments, the agreement risks leaving the world on a trajectory toward higher climate risk and more extreme events. The exchange among experts highlighted the tension between diplomatic language and the urgency expressed by the scientific community. [Citation: Statements from climate scientists and research institutions]