I’m not seriously expecting to see warming limited to 1.5°C above what it was in the late 1800s, or even a fossil fuel phase-out — Al Jaber, the oil executive presiding over the conference, is likely to threat the rules requiring consensus as meaning “unanimity” which would give OPEC (one member of which employs him) a veto over any agreement to phase out fossil fuels.
Does the atmosphere really feel the difference, whether that flying circus of COP diplomats settle on “down” or “out”, except for the impact of planes and hotels for 80,000 people gathering to debate four characters ? Sure, it sends some signal for investment, for those who follow the herd rather than work it out for themselves. I’d say the quantitative NDC targets - next round is due by COP30, and their implementation matter more.
As for the problem of unanimity, indeed it’s crazy - always has been - I remember the absurd discussions about draft rules of procedure back at COP2. So maybe better start by reforming or replacing UN (the time is ripe, given obvious failure in recent conflicts) - on basis that power is rooted in citizens, excluding autocracies where it comes from oil revenue. So if there’s no phase-out - it’s not yet climate breakdown, but it could be UN breakdown.