The United Arab Emirates, hosting this pivotal event, hailed the final agreement as a historic turning point; a paradigm shift in the battle against climate change.

Indeed, on paper, the deal represented a significant stride, acknowledging, for the first time, the urgent necessity to transition away from all fossil fuels. Yet, beneath this veneer of success, a more disquieting narrative unfolded—a story of exclusion and oversight, particularly of those who stand to lose the most from the escalating climate crisis.

As the gavel struck, sealing the deal and the end of Cop28, a glaring absence went initially overlooked: representatives of the Pacific Island states—regions whose very existence is threatened by the consequences of global warming—found themselves outside the plenary room.

They were not present to witness, let alone contribute to, the decisions that would profoundly impact their future. Their exclusion is more than a procedural oversight, however, emblematic of a deeper, systemic issue that continues to plague global climate discussions.

Tina Stege, the climate envoy for the Marshall Islands, expressed her shock in no uncertain terms. She cited how her and her fellow representatives’ absence from the room during the finalisation of the deal was not just surprising, but “shocking.”

Her sentiment was echoed by Anne Rasmussen from the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), who conveyed her utter confusion and dismay at how the proceedings went ahead without them. Unfortunately, their reactions were a stark reminder of how the voices of those most vulnerable to climate change are often sidelined in discussions that shape their destiny.

The Pacific Island nations, for whom the reality of climate change is not a distant threat but a present and existential danger, have long been vocal advocates for decisive climate action.

Rising sea levels, increased storm intensity, and disruptions to their marine ecosystems pose immediate threats. The proposed 1.5 degrees Celsius global temperature limit—a cornerstone of the Paris Agreement—is not just a target for these nations, but a matter of survival.

Yet, their urgent pleas for action seemed to have been lost in the corridors of power at this year’s Cop.

The summit’s final agreement, while groundbreaking in its recognition of the need to move away from fossil fuels, was viewed by these island nations as inadequate and riddled with loopholes.

The document’s language on fossil fuel phase-out was seen as feeble, lacking the commitment and urgency required to confront the existential crisis they face. The absence of definitive targets for emission peaks and concrete steps to phase out subsidies for fossil fuels left them questioning its effectiveness.

Unfortunately for Cop, this scenario was not an isolated incident but part of a pattern observed in previous climate negotiations. Despite their disproportionate vulnerability to climate change, small island developing states have consistently struggled to influence global climate policies. Their plight and the urgency of their situation are often overshadowed by the interests and agendas of larger, economically powerful countries.

This year layered on another obstacle, with the event mobbed by oil and gas lobbyists looking to force their agenda on the final decisions to protect the lucrative billion-dollar industry they have built that only remains if oil and gas continue to flow.

The role of big oil and technological solutions in this year’s climate discussion was another point of contention. While such approaches offer some potential for emission reduction, they are often seen as diverting attention from more direct actions against the primary drivers of climate change.

For the Pacific Island nations and many climate activists, the focus on technological fixes without a clear commitment to phase out fossil fuels represented a missed opportunity.

The reaction from Greenpeace Australia Pacific, as expressed by Shiva Gounden, underscored the disillusionment felt by many this year. The document’s language, according to Gounden, was full of loopholes that leave the door open for false solutions.

The outcome of COP28, then, presents a complex picture.

While it marks a significant step forward in the global response to climate change, it also highlights the persistent challenges in achieving true climate justice.

What should have been at least a positive step out of this year’s summit has once again been tarred with the same brush as previous events, bringing up the same challenges indicative of broader systemic issues in international climate policy around representation and inclusion.

As the world moves forward in its efforts to combat the climate crisis, the voices and concerns of those most affected must not only be heard but actively incorporated into the decision-making process.

The story of Cop28 is thus one of both hope and caution—a reminder that the path to a sustainable future must be paved with fairness and inclusivity.