Five versions of the COP28 text were published and hotly debated by negotiators. Franceinfo takes up the formulations about the end of fossil fuels responsible for climate change.
“Fair and orderly” phase-out, “reduction”, “transition”… For two weeks, negotiators from around the world debated formulas around fossil fuels for the final text of COP28 in Dubai. They finally came to an agreement on Wednesday, December 13th. “For the first time we include language on fossil fuels in the final agreement,” said Sultan al-Jaber, Emirati president of COP28. It took almost 30 years of COP to reach “the beginning of the end of fossil fuels,” applauded EU Climate Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra.
However, the words used to bring everyone to agreement have changed significantly under pressure from certain oil-producing countries. Franceinfo has been working on the draft texts and the final version since the start of the climate conference in Dubai.
A first draft envisages an “exit” from fossil fuels
A first draft text (PDF) dated December 1, prepared by the United Kingdom and Singapore as a basis for discussion, proposes to include fossil fuel phase-out in black and white in the text. “It is more ambitious than anything brought to the table during COP27, so the mere fact that it is among the options is a major step forward,” Lola Vallejo, director of the climate program, welcomed on December 1 from the Institute of Sustainable Development and International Relations (Iddri).
Nevertheless, the document proposes an alternative in the 20th paragraph, with a choice between the terms “phase-out” or “phasedown”, i.e. “gradual phase-out” and “gradual reduction” of the exploitation and use of fossil fuels.
A second draft provides for the possibility of not raising the issue
The second draft contract (PDF), published on Tuesday, December 5, mentions fossil fuels a little later, in paragraph 35. The text “calls on the parties to take additional measures in this critical decade to. ..,” he begins, before introducing several all-round options.
“A gradual, orderly and fair phase-out of fossil fuels,” firstly. The appearance of this formulation foreshadows a possible consensus on a common goal and allows countries to design their timetable according to their level of development and dependence on hydrocarbons. “Accelerate efforts to phase out fossil fuels without remedial action [de capture et stockage de carbone] and rapidly reduce their use to achieve net-zero carbon emissions in energy systems by or around mid-century,” suggests Option 2. Two formulations balanced with a new, more radical possibility: Decide nothing at all about fossil fuels, a reflection of the opposition between Saudi Arabia and China.
The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries does not hide its preference. The day after the document was released, OPEC Secretary General Haitham al-Ghais “urgently” called on its 23 member or associated countries, including the COP host country, to “proactively reject” any agreement that directly targets fossil fuels “. “instead of emissions” of greenhouse gases. In a letter he denounces “excessive and disproportionate pressure on fossil fuels” that “could reach a tipping point with irreversible consequences.”
“The focus is on the presidency of COP28” to see “whether it will negotiate an agreement for a just transition or whether it will allow itself to be influenced by Saudi Arabia and the oil industry,” responds Andreas Sieber from the NGO 350.org the AFP.
A third version “longer but weaker”
Talks about an agreement surrounding the fate of oil, coal and gas are ongoing. According to observers quoted by AFP, China appears to be more “constructive,” while several Arab countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, remain “very obstructive.” The result of these negotiations, the third version of the text (PDF) published on December 8th, also offers several options in paragraph 36.
The first two add to a “gradual phase-out” of fossils the need for conformity “with science.” The third focus focuses on the “gradual phase-out” of only fossil fuels that are not supported by a capture and storage system, and then “recognizes the need for a peak in their consumption this decade and emphasizes the importance of the fact that the The energy sector should make this a priority “to be free of fossil fuels well before 2050.”
The fourth option also advocates a “phase-out” of fossil fuels, not supported by a capture and storage system, with the aim of achieving “carbon emissions neutrality” around 2050, again with the possibility of adding more oil or gas to consume and promote while relying on the promise of capture. Finally, the “no fossil fuels” option remains.
It is a “longer but weaker” text, estimates climate diplomacy expert Ed King in his daily newsletter and also refers to the entry into the “transitional energies” scene. We can actually read that the text “recognizes the important role played by transition energies”, a reference to gas, which is, however, fossil.
A fourth non-binding project
Despite pressure from marches organized around the world on Saturday calling for a move away from fossil fuels, the fourth draft treaty (PDF) released on Monday proves even weaker. The terms “exit” and “phase down” are rarely used. Especially when it comes to proposals for the energy transition and thus for fossil fuels, they are preceded by a slightly compelling conditional (“could”, could).
Solutions highlighted include “renewable energy, nuclear energy, containment and elimination technologies, including carbon capture and storage, and low-carbon hydrogen production,” with the aim of “increasing efforts to replace fossil fuels in energy systems.” One sentence also suggested “reducing” fossil fuel consumption and production “in a fair, orderly and equitable manner.”
This new version disappoints NGOs. Arnaud Gilles from the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) speaks of a “list of solutions, each vaguer than the other, to which this or that country follows”. This text “is much less ambitious than what we have previously seen on the table of negotiators,” he denounces, describing a “very confusing” language that “mixes real and cheap solutions with solutions that are still beyond the technical imagination and which are very high.” expensive”. Ed King, on the other hand, describes a “chaotic and unbalanced” text that leaves you “at a loss”.
A final compromise that calls for a “fossil fuel transition.”
The final version will be adopted in the early hours of Wednesday, December 13th. The document's 28th paragraph (PDF) states that the world must “phase away from fossil fuels in energy systems in a fair, orderly and equitable manner and take accelerated action in this crucial decade to achieve carbon neutrality in 2050.” . in accordance with scientific recommendations. Tackling all fossil fuels, which account for about three-quarters of all human-caused emissions, is “unprecedented in this process,” David Waskow, director of international climate action at the World Resources Institute, told AFP.
By choosing the term “Transitioning Away”, the document no longer clearly speaks of “Phase Down” and “Phase Out” in order to call for an exit from fossil fuels. The first term continues to be used for coal that is not supported by a capture and storage system. The second simply calls for the gradual end of “subsidies for inefficient fossil fuels that are independent of poverty and the energy transition” and this “as quickly as possible”.
A source close to the Emirati presidency told AFP that the text had been precisely “calibrated” to avoid a blockade by Saudi Arabia in particular. But the wording leaves so much ambiguity that everyone can find what they need.
In the agreement we find elements already mentioned, such as the recognition of the role of “transitional energies” in ensuring the “energy security” of developing countries, again a concession to the producers of fossil gases. Or even a call to further develop the emerging carbon capture and storage defended by oil-producing countries in order to continue pumping hydrocarbons.