The president of the climate conference, Sultan Al Jaber, has been forced to vehemently defend himself by exposing his views on climate science, after a comment of his was known, in which he pointed out that “there is no science or no scenario” that supports the need for a phase-out of fossil fuels as a requirement to limit global warming to 1.5°C.
Sultan Al Yaber, who is also the CEO of the UAE state oil company (Adnoc), said at a press conference organized at the summit in Dubai: “I respect science in everything I do. I have repeatedly said that it is science that has guided the principles or strategy as president of COP28. “We have always built everything, every step of the way, based on science and facts.”
Al Yaber made his controversial comments in a very bad-tempered response to the former president of Ireland, and former UN climate envoy, Mary Robinson, during a debate held on November 21 but released on Sunday.
“In no way do I join any alarmist debate. There is no science, nor any scenario, that says that the progressive elimination of fossil fuels is what will allow us to reach (the goal of) 1.5 ° C, ”he said verbatim.
During a heated exchange with Robinson, he also said: “Show me the roadmap for an exit from fossil fuels that is compatible with sustainable socioeconomic development unless you want to return the world to the age of caves,” he added.
At the press conference, a calmer Al Yaber said: “I have incredible respect for Mary Robinson.” He added: “I have said time and time again that the gradual reduction and phasing out of fossil fuels is inevitable. In fact, it is essential.”
More than 100 countries already support a phase-out of fossil fuels.
But it remains to be determined whether the final agreement accepts this formula or uses weaker language such as “gradual reduction.” This is one of the most discussed issues at the summit.
Former US Vice President Al Gore said a commitment to phase out fossil fuels would be the COP’s only measure of success.
Al Jaber said: “I know there are strong opinions among some [countries] about reducing or phasing out fossil fuels. Let me say this again: this is the first presidency to actively call on the parties to submit texts on all fossil fuels for the negotiated text.” Glasgow Cop26 2021 agreed for the first time to “phase out” coal use.
Al Yaber did not directly refer to the controversy highlighted by his words but said that it was “a statement taken out of context, with misrepresentations and misinterpretations, that gets maximum coverage.” However, his words were very clear and sincere.
The president of COP28 maintains a speech that consists of saying, every time he takes the floor, that the reduction of fossil energy is “inevitable”, but that first it is necessary to build the energy system of tomorrow without dispensing with fossils.
“If anything, judge us by what we deliver at the end [of COP28],” he said.
The question of a phase-out or reduction is complicated by the terms’ lack of agreed definitions and the highly uncertain role of technologies in “reducing” fossil fuel emissions, such as carbon capture and storage.
Al Yaber’s comments to Robinson sparked a strong reaction from scientists who had read the transcript of his words, who called them “incredibly worrying” and “verging on climate denial.” They also conflicted with the view of UN Secretary-General António Guterres, who told Cop28 delegates on Friday: “The science is clear: the 1.5°C limit is only possible if we finally stop burning.” all fossil fuels. Do not reduce, do not decrease. Gradual elimination, with a clear schedule.”
Professor Johan Rockström, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, said: “I don’t see scientifically that there is any communication other than that we need to phase out fossil fuels.”
Alden Mayer, of the E3G think tank, said: “It was a mistake for him to talk about ‘returning to the caves’; That’s an old metaphor from the fossil fuel industry. I bet if he could, he would take it back.”
“Exit” or “reduction” of oil, gas and coal?
On Monday, Sultan Al Jaber attempted to clarify his position on this issue, saying: “I have said time and again that the reduction and exit from fossil fuels is inevitable.”
Therefore, he did not speak out clearly in favor of either of these two formulas, which is the center of heated debates in the corridors of the COP28 meeting rooms.
“Only a complete and rapid exit of energy will allow us to achieve” the 1.5°C objective and “this is the agreement that must be promoted for COP28 to be a success,” said Romain Ioulalen, from the NGO Oil Change. International.
The COP presidency, which is supposed to remain neutral in this debate, had caused some discomfort by mentioning only the word “reduction” in a summary of the debates of the first days of the conference published on Monday, even though many leaders They called for an end to the use of fossil fuels.
In reality, it will be the approximately 200 nations represented in Dubai that will end up deciding.
The two options currently appear in the first draft of the final text that the conference must prepare between now and December 12, which will take the form of a “global evaluation” of the 2015 Paris Agreement.
The tens of thousands of people present in Dubai are eagerly awaiting a second version of this text, which summarizes the often contradictory positions between the countries.
Island nations and several Latin American countries (Colombia, Peru, Chile…), as well as the European Union, firmly defend the goal of 1.5°C instead of 2°C. And to do this they propose getting out of fossil fuels as soon as possible.
Other developed countries that produce hydrocarbons (United States, Canada, Australia, Norway) are also in favor of this solution, but with less ambition.
Most African countries are also in favor of an exit from fossil fuels, but on the condition of benefiting for a much longer period than that of already developed countries.
China and Russia oppose any mention of fossil fuels. And the same goes for Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil exporter, whose delegates “promote the use of carbon capture technologies in all angles of the negotiations,” says a European negotiator.
But even if countries agree to an exit from fossil fuels, that commitment will have little value without setting an ambitious timetable: “We can’t say ‘I’ll be sober in 2050, but I’ll have my last drink in 2049 or later,'” summarizes Alden Meyer, from the E3G think tank.
