The room erupted in applause. The risk of a resounding failure had been overcome. In extremis, having already passed the deadline scheduled for the closing of the climate conference (COP28) in Dubai, its president, Sultan al Yaber, managed to convince the plenary session – where almost 200 states were represented – of his proposed agreement on the Balance Global, the document that reviews the achievements (and shortcomings) of the Paris Agreement.
“We have come a long way together in a short time. We have worked very hard to ensure a better future for our people and our planet. We should be proud of our historic achievements,” said a smiling Al Yaber. The countries had agreed to undertake the “transition away” from fossil fuels.
The presidency of the conference managed to carry out its plan early on Wednesday after the summit looked into the abyss and he himself seemed to be on the ropes after the fierce criticism received from voices from the EU and the United States in his first draft.
In the approved text, for the first time, nations are invited to “undertake a transition away from fossil fuels.” It does not include either the most forceful expression “gradual abandonment” of fossil energy – as more than 100 countries had demanded – nor the weakened “reduce”. Gulf diplomacy pulled a fetish word out of its hat: transition. Thus, the world takes its first legal step to leave behind fossil fuels, the burning of which is dangerously warming the planet.
Specifically, it refers to “a transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems in a fair, orderly and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade.” And to achieve this, an emissions reduction path must be followed that leads to a net balance of zero greenhouse gas emissions in 2050 following the dictates of climate science.
In the first draft it only alluded to a “reduction in the production and consumption of fossil fuels”, which raised angry reactions from some countries, although there was no suggestion of leaving the dialogue table.
The expression “transition away from fossil fuels” is, in any case, the highest level of commitment that has been reached so far in an agreement of the Climate Change Convention.
It is the first time in three decades of climate summits that nations are setting this horizon to postpone oil, gas and coal, fuels that currently represent around 80% of the world’s energy. Scientists highlight that all these fossil energies are, by far, the main causes of greenhouse gas emissions that drive climate change.
The document “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 zero net emissions by 2050.
And, for this reason, the signatory countries of the Paris Agreement (197) are asked to, along these lines, contribute to these global efforts in a manner defined at the national level and taking into account the Paris Agreement as well as the particular circumstances.
And thus 8 actions that can be undertaken are collected. Among them, tripling renewable energy capacity, turning to nuclear energy or accelerating efforts to progressively reduce the use of coal-based energy lacking mitigation systems (without CO2 capture and storage technologies).
The agreement is largely a menu in which countries can choose their own path by showing the different paths that will allow us to maintain the 1.5ºC objective according to the characteristics of each nation.
This review of the Paris Agreement breathes new life into this treaty, despite the gap between the goals set and the achievements. And in any case it will force nations to present new contributions (climate action plans at the end of next year).
This entire great debate reinforces the signs and indications that fossil fuels must be replaced by clean energy, and the year 2050 is set as the horizon to achieve a net zero emissions balance by that date. However, it will be the markets and national policies that pave that path.
But it will necessarily be a tortuous path. Well, the Global Balance seems to arise from the desire to please everyone, to the point that there is a recognition that fossil fuels “can play a role in facilitating the energy transition” while guaranteeing the security of that supply. In fact, the agreement includes the language used by the gas sector, which has always considered (for decades) that this is a “transition” fuel. However, the science is clear: the gas contains methane, which has a powerful greenhouse effect.
The pact was received with varying opinions, although it received the best evaluations from the EU, which on Tuesday saw its expectations disappointed with the first draft agreement. “It is good news that we have a multilateral agreement to accelerate emissions reductions towards net zero by 2050, with urgent measures in this critical decade. This includes an agreement by all parties to abandon fossil fuels,” said European Commission President Von der Leyen. The Spanish Minister for the Ecological Transition, Teresa Ribera, praised the agreement, highlighting that “more than 30 years have had to pass,” since the Rio summit, to “focus on a world beyond fossil fuels.”
But it was the Minister of the Environment of Colombia, Susana Muhamad, one of the most heard voices at this conference, who highlighted two positive elements of the pact: first, the discussion took place in the “heart” of oil production and, in Second place “it was led by someone who could talk to those countries and those sectors.”
On the other hand, Mohamed Adow, director of the Power Shift Africa think tank, based in Nairobi, pointed out some shortcomings, such as the lack of new funds to help poor nations adapt. “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.” The group of small island states, threatened by rising seas, also considered the agreement insufficient.
