Although this was the first time for a UN climate summit, the option was on the table; In the end it was watered down by a commitment to “divest” from oil, gas and coal. Other agreed points included the creation of the loss and damage fund and the commitment to triple the share of renewable energy by 2030.
The beginning of the end of the fossil fuel era. This is how the United Nations catalogs the results of COP28 in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. The reason for this lies in what was agreed in the “World Review” to assess the state of the Paris Agreement and determine the way forward to be able to limit global warming to 1.5°C.
In the document, they asked countries to contribute to reducing global temperatures with eight options. One is to “divest from fossil fuels in energy systems in a fair, orderly and equitable manner and accelerate action in this critical decade to achieve zero neutrality by 2050, according to science.” In other words, start by phasing out Oil, gas and coal, which have polluted the planet the most since the era of industrialization.
COP28 President Sultan Al-Jaber, who is also CEO of the Emirates state oil company ADNOC, welcomed the decision. “For the first time in history, we are talking about fossil fuels in our final agreement,” he said in his closing speech at the UN climate summit. An achievement that was not praised by the Saudi Arabian delegation.
The Saudi delegation was among those pushing hardest not to talk about fossil fuels; as well as the United States, Australia, Norway and the United Kingdom, which has been denounced by NGOs such as Greenpeace and the Climate Action Network. All of these countries are among the largest producers or exporters of oil, gas or coal in the world.
Additionally, according to the organization Kick Big, the fossil fuel lobby was the largest ever recorded at a climate summit, with nearly 2,500 members from industry and another 500 from carbon capture and storage (CCS). Polluters Out.
Nevertheless, the COP28 Global Review is the first text of all summits held since 1995 to address all fossil fuels. The closest thing came was the final document from COP26 in Glasgow, which only referred to reducing one type of coal.
“Turning away” from fossils rather than “eliminating” them: the COP28 pun
Although these fossil fuels were left in the final text, this was not done in the same language in which it was originally discussed. The first three drafts, published between December 1 and 8, explicitly included the option to “phase out” some fossil fuels.
And here came the first word that hid the trick: “unabated,” in English. This term primarily refers to CCS technologies that capture CO2 dioxide during oil, gas and coal production; and then store in the ground.
The fossil fuel industry fought an uphill battle in Dubai, claiming that the problem was not the source of pollution, but the pollution itself. In other words, oil production or any other exploitation should not be stopped, but on the contrary, carbon capture should be increased become. But even though this technology has been around since the 1970s, it has never fully worked.
“Carbon capture has never been used on a large scale and the numerous efforts it has made have not been successful. They are very expensive and that's why they got rid of them. Or because they haven’t captured the amount of carbon they should,” Bill Hare, managing director of Climate Analytics, told France 24.
For this reason, international environmental organizations described it as unrealistic to talk about green fuels and continued to insist that the final text retains the option to phase out these fuels.
From the COP28 presidency to the activists who were in Dubai, everyone agreed that these negotiations were taking place at an opportune time. The COP had even begun with the unexpected news of the approval of the Loss and Damage Fund, something that the countries of the Global South had been demanding for more than 30 years so that the most developed nations would give them money to deal with the impact, that this fund leaves behind. the climate crisis. The Paris Agreement itself recognizes that the latter are most responsible for global pollution and therefore must take the lead in this type of action.
The surprise came on December 11th. The Al-Jaber-led presidency put a new version of the final document on the table, and there was no option anywhere to “cancel” it. On the contrary, they returned to the principle agreed in Glasgow of only reducing coal that captures its pollutant emissions.
They were perhaps the two most tense days of negotiations. Al-Jaber met with delegations from all groups of countries until 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. local time. Finally, early on December 13, there was a new text that, while not addressing the abolition option, did refer to “shifting away” from fossil fuels. A few hours later, Al-Jaber himself declared during the plenary session that the text had been approved.
“It is not enough that we rely on science and then make agreements that ignore what the science tells us we need to do. This is not an approach we should defend.”
This was not the final act, but the opening scene of another battle for 1.5. pic.twitter.com/Twe25QufC0
– AOSIS (@AOSISChair) December 13, 2023
But not everyone was in the room, the island states publicly rejected the COP28 President's approval of the final document without reaching the plenary session, showing their dissatisfaction with various parts of the text.
04:04 COP28 © France 24
For many, it's not about words, but about survival. Shiva Gounden is Director of Greenpeace Australia Pacific. Born in Fiji, he has endured 25 hurricanes in his lifetime and knows firsthand that rising sea levels can wipe out island nations like his. For this reason, the option of “eliminating” the fuels that pollute the planet the most and therefore contribute to global warming has been called for.
“The text is extremely disappointing and painful. What we needed was clear language about eliminating fossil fuels, the root cause of the climate crisis. And that now means that the Pacific still has to fight for its right to exist,” he told France 24.
Although the text also mentions other celebrated measures, such as the promise to triple the share of renewable energy and double energy efficiency by 2030, he says the final document is full of gaps.
Now the discussion is on whether the option of phasing out oil, gas and coal will become more important again in Azerbaijan and Brazil, the host countries of the UN climate summit in 2024 and 2025, respectively.