The presidency of the UN climate conference (COP28) in Dubai published a second draft agreement early this Wednesday in which, for the first time, it proposes that nations “undertake a transition away from fossil fuels.” “, among other options that they can resort to when developing their national plans to combat climate change. The text does not include either the most forceful expression “abandon”, nor the weakened “reduce”. Diplomacy pulled a middle ground out of the hat when everything seemed to be leading to the precipice in Dubai. The world must leave the era of fossil energy through a “transition” that leaves behind the fuels whose burning is dangerously warming the planet.
The new compromise proposal, which arises from conversations held during the early hours of the morning, asks the world to eventually move away from fossil fuels that heat the planet, using an expression (transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems) that winks at countries that considered the first draft too weak.
The new proposed resolution does not specifically use the term calling for or achieving a “phasing out” of fossil fuels, as more than 100 nations had advocated.
Instead, it alludes to “a transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a fair, orderly and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade.”
This transition would be carried out through an emissions reduction path that would lead the world to net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 following the dictates of climate science.
In the first draft it only referred to a “reduction in the production and consumption of fossil fuels”, which seemed insufficient to almost hundreds of countries.
The text is part of the Global Balance, a key document of the COP, which includes the first review process of what has been achieved since the Paris Agreement (2015).
The expression “transition away from fossil fuels” would, in any case, be the highest level of commitment that has been reached so far in an agreement of the Climate Change Convention.
If adopted (since plenary consideration is pending), it would be the first time in three decades of COP climate summits that nations have agreed to a concerted move away from oil, gas and coal, fuels that currently account for around 80% of world energy.
Scientists highlight that fossil fuels are by far the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions that drive climate change.
The document proposed to the plenary “recognizes the need” for countries to undertake “deep, rapid and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions”, in accordance with the 1.5 °C trajectories demanded by science . The objective is to achieve a reduction of 43% by 2030 and 60% by 2035 compared to 2019 until reaching the balance of net zero emissions by 2050.
And, for this reason, it asks the signatory countries of the Paris Agreement (almost 200) to contribute to these global efforts “in a way determined at the national level” and, taking into account the Paris Agreement and the particular circumstances, national policies and approaches.
And at this point the eight possible options that they can resort to to undertake their policies are listed. These are:
1) – Triple global renewable energy capacity and double the global average annual rate of improvement in energy efficiency by 2030.
2) – Accelerate efforts to progressively reduce the use of carbon-based energy without mitigation systems (unabated, without CO capture and storage technologies).
3) – Accelerate global efforts toward net-zero energy systems using low- or zero-CO2 fuels “well before or around mid-century.”
4) – “Transition away” from fossil fuels in energy systems in a fair, orderly and equitable manner, accelerating action in “this critical decade” to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, according to the science.
5) – Accelerate low or zero emissions technologies, including renewables, nuclear and carbon capture and storage, particularly in sectors that are difficult to decarbonize, as well as the production of low-emission hydrogen.
6) – Accelerate and substantially reduce emissions of greenhouse gases other than CO2, particularly methane by 2030.
7) – Accelerate the reduction of road transport emissions with measures such as the deployment of infrastructure and low- or zero-emission vehicles.
and 8) – Phase out as soon as possible “inefficient” fossil fuel subsidies that do not address energy poverty or just transitions.
In addition, it is indicated that greenhouse gas emissions should reach their maximum peak in 2025, a proposal that will surely displease China, whose planning has placed this ceiling somewhat before 2030.
The draft aims to collect the consensus opinion of almost 200 countries gathered at the Dubai conference, where dozens of governments have demanded strong language to signal an eventual end to the era of fossil fuels, while Saudi and its allies in the oil producing group oil OPEC have stood up to avoid any reference to fossil fuels, since their wish is (it remains to be seen what is said in the plenary session) that they only point to emissions without clarifying what they are referring to.
Representatives of the countries have been summoned by the COP28 presidency awaiting a final meeting to be held on Wednesday morning, to bless the agreement and put an end to two weeks of tough negotiations that have lasted for a day in extra time.
But, as always, we will have to wait for the plenary session.
The agreements reached at the UN climate summits must be approved by consensus, that is, with the unanimous support of the almost 200 participating countries. Then, countries must comply with the agreements through national policies and investments that they must communicate to the Secretary of the Climate Change Convention.
The Alliance of Small Island States called the proposal “a litany of legal loopholes” in a proposed text for a climate agreement at the COP28 summit.
“The text does not specifically talk about phasing out or mitigating fossil fuels in a way that brings about the radical change that is needed,” said this alliance of countries (AOSIS=, which represents the nations most vulnerable to climate change). climate effects due to sea level rise.
Environmental organizations and analysts of the climate negotiations affirmed that the new draft of the Global Balance is an “improvement” and a “collective recognition” that we must move towards the end of fossil fuels, although they demanded more ambition to address a “transformation “.
WWF Deputy Head of Global Energy and Climate Stephen Cornelius said this text is “a much-needed improvement on the last version, which rightly caused outrage. The language on fossil fuels is much improved, but still not goes so far as to demand the total elimination of coal, oil and gas.
On the other hand, E3G think tank analyst Tom Evans indicated that if this text is adopted, it will show “a collective recognition that we must move away from fossil fuels and move towards a cleaner future.”
However, he acknowledged that this text could “help avoid disaster in Dubai, but it does not prevent disaster on the planet.”
The head of Energy and Climate at Ecologistas en Acción, Javier Andaluz, criticized that this text presented is “very far from being an answer.” He highlighted the new expression included in the document to “transition away” from fossil fuels in energy systems, but asserted that “we do not have time to transition anywhere, what we need is to make a rapid, fair and equitable transformation of the fossil fuels”.
The UN climate summit in Dubai (COP28) was due to close yesterday, December 12, a date reserved by the Emirati authorities to commemorate the eighth anniversary of the Paris Agreement (2015) against climate change. But it was a bitter anniversary. The discrepancies over the first draft of the Global Balance – the key document of the meeting – presented on Monday by the presidency forced the negotiation to be extended beyond the scheduled deadline.
The summit hosts made a last-ditch attempt early Wednesday to forge a new deal after their first proposal was deeply rejected by developed and many developing nations.
The new text was in preparation for more than 24 hours, after the talks, which have lasted 15 days, were extended by one day beyond the deadline, which was Tuesday.
Sultan Al Jaber, who has chaired the talks on behalf of the United Arab Emirates, engaged in an intense round of shuttle diplomacy throughout Tuesday, holding meetings with heads of delegation, individually and in groups, in meetings that were expected to last up to until 3 a.m. on Wednesday.
The first document made public caused enormous consternation, since it does not respond at all to what developed countries had envisioned. It discards the proposal for a “progressive elimination” of fossil fuels. And, alternatively, it suggests countries undertake “a reduction in both consumption and production of fossil fuels” in order to achieve the goal of net zero emissions before or around 2050.
Saudi Arabia and some allied countries are a small minority that have publicly raised strong objections to including any reference to reducing fossil fuel production and consumption in the text of a potential deal.
Many developed countries are publicly pushing for the phasing out of coal, oil and gas, although with no concrete timetable on the horizon.
Many countries in the developing world have been arguing that any commitment to phase out fossil fuels must be “fair, funded and fast” so that rich countries contribute financial funds to ensure their own transition.
Mohamed Adow, director of Nairobi-based energy and climate think tank Power Shift Africa, said money was key. “Rich countries say they want a global phase-out of fossil fuels, but they refuse to finance it. “There is simply not enough content in the current text for developing countries to believe that there will be financing to help them decarbonize.”
African countries would be willing to side with the rich world, but only if they received guarantees that their transition to renewable energy was fully funded.
The draft was harshly criticized by the EU, the United States, Australia, Canada, Chile and Norway, as well as South American countries. Alema delegate Jennifer Morgan said the talks had entered a “critical, critical phase.”
The most widespread interpretation is that the first draft was weakened by pressure from Saudi Arabia and the oil-producing countries, which reject a pact to the detriment of fossil energy. Its influence is detectable in the phraseology of the document. Other evidence is the constant references to legitimize CO2 capture and storage systems (which prevent emissions into the atmosphere); These are very limited implementation technologies, expensive and of questionable effectiveness, but they serve to justify the use of fossil fuels.
The general director of the conference, Majid al Suwaidi, hid himself by saying that the first draft of the Global Balance was “a starting point” to know the red lines of each country and thus be able to write a new more ambitious and balanced text with the proposals. of the parties to address climate change. This diplomatic statement is surprising, given that the starting positions were known and those red lines were very predictable. He admitted, however, that there are those who want the progressive elimination of fossil fuels while others want progressive reduction, but the objective is to “reach a consensus” and prevent it from causing blockages in the process.
Meanwhile, Beijing has opposed the document stating that greenhouse gases must peak before 2025 (as planned for 2030 or earlier). Saudi Arabia has pushed for no reference to fossil fuels in the agreement. However, the first known draft does make a reference, when it gives the option to countries to “reduce both the consumption and production of fossil fuels.”
According to the interpretation of Susana Muhamad, Minister of the Environment of Colombia, the crisis unleashed is due to a serious miscalculation by the organizers. “The presidency never calculated that in the end this COP was going to be about fossil fuels in the most important fossil fuel producing region. And that causes political tension,” she noted.
The summit has revealed a strong division between two blocks: on the one hand, there is the resistance of the producing countries (of fossil fuels) and, on the other, a vast majority on the planet that expresses awareness of the climate emergency. “There is a sector, which is not minor, that does not want to see any reference to the elimination of fossil fuels. They are obviously defending their legitimate economic interests. But that cannot be done at the expense of everyone’s safety,” Muhamad told Efe.
