A paradox has run through the COP28 meeting from start to finish: This is a global summit on addressing climate change, yet it is hosted in an oil nation with an oil baron in the president’s chair. But a meeting filled with contradictions is not necessarily a fruitless one.
The text of the final communique is still subject to last-minute bargaining. While nonbinding, it will represent a unanimously agreed-upon statement of purpose from the world’s nations, gathered in the United Arab Emirates.
Why We Wrote This
A climate summit hosted by an oil giant? For many attendees at COP28, that connection cast a shadow over the event. But it might instead lead to breakthroughs.
For now, climate activists are up in arms over the draft text’s lack of the word “phaseout” in reference to fossil fuels. Yet the draft text does go further than past COP communiques by mentioning fossil fuels at all.
The draft text calls for “reducing both consumption and production of fossil fuels, in a just, orderly and equitable manner so as to achieve net zero by, before, or around 2050, in keeping with the science.”
If anything, some climate activists say momentum here has been turbocharged by global scrutiny on a climate summit held in an oil-producing country following a year of record-high world temperatures and severe climate events.
“This has resulted in more pressure, more expectations, and more leverage for a fossil fuel phaseout,” says Caroline Brouillette, executive director of Climate Action Network Canada.
A paradox has run through the COP28 meeting from start to finish: This is a global summit on addressing climate change, yet it is hosted in an oil nation with an oil baron in the president’s chair. But a meeting filled with contrasts and contradictions is not necessarily a fruitless one.
The precise text of the final communique is still being hammered out in last-minute bargaining. While nonbinding, it will represent a unanimously agreed-upon statement of purpose from the world’s nations, gathered in the United Arab Emirates’ capital of Dubai.
For now, climate advocates are up in arms over the draft text’s lack of the word “phaseout” in reference to fossil fuels. Yet the draft text does go further than prior summits have gone in their final statements, by mentioning fossil fuels at all.
Why We Wrote This
A climate summit hosted by an oil giant? For many attendees at COP28, that connection cast a shadow over the event. But it might instead lead to breakthroughs.
The draft text proposed Monday by the UAE to be hammered out by parties calls for “reducing both consumption and production of fossil fuels, in a just, orderly, and equitable manner so as to achieve net zero by, before, or around 2050, in keeping with the science.”
That’s a sign of how far the goal posts have shifted in the discussion on fossil fuels.
The phaseout of all fossil fuels, once a demand by small island states and climate activists but seen as a nonstarter by many developed nations, has been accepted by many negotiating teams as an urgent, essential step, echoed by the United Nations and even the private sector.
If anything, some climate activists say the momentum has been turbocharged by global scrutiny on a climate summit held in an oil- and gas-producing country following a year of record high world temperatures and severe climate events.
The role of fossil fuel lobbyists “has rightfully created a lot of skepticism and scrutiny of the … process,” says Caroline Brouilette, executive director of Climate Action Network Canada. “On the other hand, we have never been collectively closer to seeing the phaseout of all fossil fuels included in a COP decision, which would be a historic first in 28 years.”
Rafiq Maqbool/AP
Since Day 1 of the conference on Nov. 30, pressure has been building on governments from delegates and publics to secure commitments on reducing fossil fuel use to avoid appearing to have “sold out” to lobbyists.
“This has resulted in more pressure, more expectations, and more leverage for a fossil fuel phaseout,” says Ms. Brouilette. With the competing pressures here, the result “may very well be a historic inflection point.”
Shifts from China to Latin America
Consensus has grown here in the past two weeks on the need for language calling for a phasing down or phasing out.
China has softened its stance and is seeking compromise with the United States.
Colombia, one of the 25 largest oil and gas producers, used the U.N.’s Conference of Parties, or COP, to declare it would stop production and threw its support behind a fossil fuels nonproliferation treaty, warning of a planet “omnicide.”
Brazil, another oil producer, voiced support for a phaseout and is attempting to bridge negotiating gaps between developing and developed countries as of Monday.
But if this meeting’s oil nation locale had helped to stoke ambition, it also laid the groundwork for opposition.
Momentum was gaining pace so quickly, the OPEC secretary-general issued a letter instructing members to “proactively reject any text or formula that targets energy, i.e. fossil fuels, rather than emissions” in the conference’s text.
Peter Dejong/AP
Saudi Arabia’s delegation, according to a negotiator present in the room, described initial draft language on fossil fuels over the weekend as “traumatizing.”
More than 2,000 oil lobbyists
The zigs and zags come at a COP where fossil fuel producers have been omnipresent, hosting events promoted by host country UAE that have overshadowed the talks themselves.
At times, even within the U.N.-designated blue zone, the climate conference resembled an oil and gas trade show.
It has been easy here to bump into an oil and gas executive or lobbyist; some 2,400 lobbyists are attending COP this year, four times the previous record at last year’s COP in Egypt.
The most controversial oil executive of them all has been Sultan al-Jaber, CEO of Emirati oil firm Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, whom the UAE designated as president of this COP, blurring the lines between fossil fuel companies and climate talks.
Country pavilions here showed off scale models of carbon-capture plants – seen by some activists as a false promise that continued burning of fossil fuels can be managed responsibly.
Negotiators were hunkered down late Monday, considering the draft text and trading their own texts as they had throughout the summit. Each careful phrasing can carry large ramifications.
One tug of war is over including a commitment to “phasing out” fossil fuels – a timeline for a worldwide end to the production and utilization of gas and oil – or “phasing down,” a reduction in fossil fuel production with no set timeline.
One alternative text called for the phasing out of “unabated fossil fuels,” or oil, gas, and coal whose production has not been offset by decarbonization or carbon capture technology. The “unabated” text has gained support from some oil and gas producers and the U.S.
But climate experts and activists say there is one major problem: There is no one definition of “abated.”
Peter Dejong/AP
Without that, “it will be the Wild West,” says David Tong, global industry campaign manager at Oil Change International, an advocacy group, on the sidelines of COP. “It is opening up an escape hatch for the oil and gas industry to come up with distractions such as carbon capture and storage or onsite offsetting to keep producing oil and gas.”
“Green” moment for fossil fuels?
Beyond the bargaining, however, oil and gas producers and energy researchers say this year’s COP has been a turning point in the industry’s adoption of climate-sustainable practices such as installing renewable energy and cutting methane emissions.
It has been a showcase on how oil and gas can be partners and allies in the green transition, not spoilers, they say.
The UAE and COP28 presidency unveiled several pledges by oil- and gas-producing nations and companies, hailing each as a “breakthrough.”
One such pledge is the so-called Oil and Gas Decarbonization Charter, launched at the conference last week by the UAE and Saudi Arabia.
Under the pact, 50 oil and gas companies representing 40% of the world’s oil production pledged to adopt net-zero business practices by 2050, end routine flaring by 2030, limit methane emissions, and invest in renewable energy.
Yet climate experts say these pledges only address operational emissions and not the carbon created by the burning of oil and gas by consumers – the vast bulk of oil and gas emissions.
The World Resources Institute said it was “encouraging that some national oil companies have set methane reduction targets for the first time.”
However, it warned in a statement that “the pledge doesn’t cover a drop of the fuel they sell, which accounts for up to 95% of the oil and gas industry’s contribution to the climate crisis. [It] is like a cigarette maker claiming no responsibility for the impact of their product once it leaves the factory door.”
