Opinion
Sultan Al Jaber’s claim that green policies harm economic growth is false and extremely harmful
For months, Sultan Al Jaber, the president of the Cop28 climate negotiations in Dubai, has insisted that there is no conflict with his day job as CEO of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) state oil company.
Instead, he argued, the dual role allowed him to push fossil fuel companies to change. And some early successes in the talks gave some credibility to that claim.
Now it is in tatters after the Guardian exclusively reported on Sunday his rejoinders to Mary Robinson, the former president of Ireland and UN special envoy for climate, during a live event on November 21.
He claimed there was “no science” to show that phasing out fossil fuels would keep the world below the internationally agreed benchmark limit of 1.5°C rise above pre-industrial levels – beyond which 11 irreversible tipping points lurk, which threaten to plunge the world into an even more hostile climate. In fact, he suggested, such an exit could “push the world back into the cave.”
As soon as Al Jaber’s comments were made public, the scientific community jumped on him, with top experts citing the overwhelming body of hard evidence supporting the urgent need to phase out coal, gas and oil.
For example, they pointed out that the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – prepared by scientists from around the world and endorsed by its governments – showed that warming could not otherwise be limited to 1.5°C.
Al Jaber said his words on climate science had been “misinterpreted.” Meanwhile, his other claim that human civilization was returning to caves received much less attention. But it is even more harmful.
Opponents of action on climate change have almost completely stopped denying science in the face of conclusive evidence (which makes Al Jaber’s claim against it all the more extraordinary). Instead, they focus on the claim that the scale of intervention required would be economically ruinous.
They have made progress. Far-right parties on the rise across the West have taken up the issue and it appears to have influenced Rishi Sunak’s decision to postpone net zero targets. In this new political atmosphere, fossil fuel companies are increasing their drilling but investing little in renewable energy.
Al Jaber’s “back to the cave” cue will give them comfort. But it couldn’t be more wrong. Far from hurting growth, economists, businesses and governments are increasingly recognizing that green policies offer the best chance of achieving this goal.
One study after another has revealed its immense potential. A report by Deloitte for the World Economic Forum concluded that a transition to net zero could bring $43 trillion in benefits to the global economy over the next five decades.
A commission of some of the world’s leading businessmen and financiers concluded that similar measures could create 380 million jobs. And a report by leading European institutes has calculated that this could lift three to four billion people out of poverty.
This isn’t just theory either. The UK has reduced CO2 emissions by 44% since 1990 while growing by 78%. Another study found that the country’s green economy is already almost four times the size of its manufacturing sector and supports more than 1.2 million jobs.
Finland now gets 95% of its electricity from “carbon-free” sources and remains wealthier per capita than France, Italy or the UK. The US has launched a massive $369 billion push towards a green economy. The EU is following suit. Sunak’s government remains an outlier, but other top Conservatives have understood what is at stake.
Theresa May has repeatedly described net zero as “the growth opportunity of the century”, while William Hague says it is “the biggest opportunity we will ever have to increase investment levels and productivity in the UK economy”.
Of course there would be a catastrophic crash if the world stopped burning oil and gas overnight, but no one sane is suggesting that. The demand – including from the International Energy Agency, which was founded in part to promote fossil fuels – is to stop developing new fields.
However, it is true that, as important as an exit is, we have put things off so late that it would not be enough to avoid the 1.5 degree mark in the next few decades. Studies show that even a drastic reduction would only save around 0.1 °C by 2050, also because carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for a long time.
Fortunately, reducing short-lived climate pollutants – particularly methane, a warming agent 20 times more potent than CO2 – produces quick results. The UN says low-cost emissions reduction measures already available could halve the rate of warming and save 0.3C as early as 2045, buying time to phase out fossil fuels.
These “non-CO2” pollutants have so far been scandalously neglected in the cop trial. Last week, a “methane summit” was convened by the United States, China and the United Arab Emirates.
Al Jaber deserves credit for this. But now, under threat of resignation, he must be held accountable for retracting his reckless comments – and for making an exit decision in Dubai.
Geoffrey Lean is a specialist environmental correspondent and author
Cop28: Can fossil fuel companies switch to clean energy?
Join Damian Carrington, Christiana Figueres, Tessa Khan and Mike Coffin for a livestream discussion on Tuesday 5 December from 8:00pm to 9:15pm (GMT) about whether fossil fuel companies can switch to clean energy. Book tickets here or at theguardian.live
{{#Ticker}}
{{top left}}
{{bottom left}}
{{top right}}
{{bottom right}}
{{#goalExceededMarkerPercentage}}{{/goalExceededMarkerPercentage}}{{/ticker}}
{{Headline}}
{{#paragraphs}}
{{.}}
{{/paragraphs}}{{highlightedText}}
{{#choiceCards}}
One-time, monthly, yearly
Other
{{/choiceCards}}We will be in touch to remind you to contribute. Watch for a message in your inbox. If you have any questions about contributing, please contact us.