The UN climate summit in Dubai (COP28) had to close yesterday, December 12, a date reserved by the authorities of the Arab Emirates to commemorate the eighth anniversary of the Paris Agreement (2015) against climate change . But it was a bitter anniversary. Disagreements on the first draft of the Global Balance sheet – a key document of the meeting – presented on Monday by the presidency forced the negotiation to be extended beyond the scheduled deadline. Yesterday, it was not even known when the conference would end, which was extended into stoppage time under the syndrome of failure.
Yesterday it was announced that the president of the COP28, Sultan al-Jabir, was working on a new draft agreement, after the rejection achieved in the first attempt. The first document made public caused enormous consternation, as it does not respond even remotely to what the developed countries had considered. The proposal of a “progressive elimination” of fossil fuels is discarded. And, alternatively, it suggests that countries undertake “a reduction in both consumption and production of fossil fuels” to achieve the goal of net zero emissions by or around 2050.
The draft was harshly criticized by the EU, the United States, Australia, Canada, Chile and Norway, as well as South American countries. Germany’s delegate, Jennifer Morgan, said the talks had entered a “critical, critical phase”. The forecast is that the new agreement proposal will arrive in the morning after intense diplomatic contacts. If it has good acceptance, it would go to the plenary, but there may be another real litmus test, since the agreements of the Climate Change Convention require consensus; that is, complete unanimity.
The most widespread interpretation is that the first draft was weakened by pressure from Saudi Arabia and the oil countries, which reject a pact to the detriment of fossil energy. Its influence is perceptible in the phraseology of the document. Another proof is the constant references to legitimize CO2 capture and storage systems (which avoid emissions into the atmosphere); they are very limited implementation technologies, expensive and of questionable effectiveness, but which serve to justify the use of fossil energies.
The general director of the conference, Majid al Suwaidi, defended himself by saying that the first draft of the Global Balance was “a starting point” to know the red lines of each country and, therefore, to be able to write a new text that is more ambitious and balanced with the parties’ proposals to address climate change. The diplomat’s statement is surprising, since the starting positions were known and the red lines were very predictable. However, he admitted that there are those who want the progressive elimination of fossil fuels, while others want their progressive reduction, but the goal is to “reach a consensus” and avoid causing blockages in the process .
Meanwhile, Beijing has objected to the fact that the document notes that greenhouse gases must peak before 2025 (since, according to its planning, it would be around 2030 or a little earlier). Saudi Arabia has pressed for no reference to fossil fuels to be made in the agreement. However, the first known draft does refer to it, when it gives countries the option to “reduce both 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 would be about fossil fuels in the most important fossil fuel producing region. And this causes political tension”, he pointed out.
The summit has highlighted a strong division between two blocs: on the one hand, there is the resistance of the producing countries (of fossil fuels) and, on the other hand, a vast majority on the planet that expresses awareness of the emergency climatic “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 this cannot be done at the expense of everyone’s safety”, said Muhamad to Efe.
