So, another year, another COP, another final text gavelled and filed away.
The FT’s headline reads “Countries reach ‘historic’ COP28 deal to transition from fossil fuels“, while the BBC chose “COP28: Landmark summit takes direct aim at fossil fuels“. Was it historic? A landmark?
Yes – and no.
Yes, because – incredibly – this is the first COP where the final text has included (in Paragraph 28, sub para 28 (d) if you want to look up) the words “fossil fuels”, and they are preceded by the phrase “transitioning away from”. It’s not as if the world didn’t know that we had to move away from coal, oil and gas in order to stop global heating, but the rules of the COP (Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) says any final text must be agreed by consensus, and when there are nearly 200 parties to the conference, it’s not easy to get all of them to accept that there is indeed an elephant in the room. After nearly three decades of trying, we’ve finally done it. Yes, there’s a big bad elephant, and we don’t want it in the room! Isn’t it great?
The Alliance of Small Island States doesn’t think so. It turned out that its representatives weren’t even in the room when COP28 president (and CEO of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company) Sultan al-Jaber declared, “Hearing no objection, it is so decided”. Their post-gavel statement is clear on their dissatisfaction with the historic landmark that is Paragraph 28: “we are exceptionally concerned that this does not do what we need.”
Yes it says “transitioning away fossil fuels”, but as we say in the translation industry, it all depends on the context. And this is the context:
The Conference of the Parties … calls on Parties to contribute to the following global efforts, in a nationally determined manner, taking into account the Paris Agreement and their different national circumstances, pathways and approaches:
(a) Tripling renewable energy capacity globally and doubling the global average annual rate of energy efficiency improvements by 2030;
(b) Accelerating efforts towards the phase-down of unabated coal power;
(c) Accelerating efforts globally towards net zero emission energy systems, utilizing zero- and low-carbon fuels well before or by around mid-century;
(d) Transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade, so as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science;
(e) Accelerating zero- and low-emission technologies, including, inter alia, renewables, nuclear, abatement and removal technologies such as carbon capture and utilization and storage, particularly in hard-to-abate sectors, and low-carbon hydrogen production;
(f) Accelerating and substantially reducing non-carbon-dioxide emissions globally, including in particular methane emissions by 2030;
(g) Accelerating the reduction of emissions from road transport on a range of pathways, including through development of infrastructure and rapid deployment of zero- and low-emission vehicles;
(h) Phasing out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that do not address energy poverty or just transitions, as soon as possible;
On the spectrum of UN-speak, “calls on” is not a very strong language. It’s certainly not binding, just asking nicely and not even urging action. Sub paragraph (b) means it’s okay to continue using coal to generate electricity as long as you try harder to capture CO2 emissions from the power plant. In (d), the scope of the transition way from fossil fuels is limited to energy systems, so you can keep digging for coal, oil and gas for other uses, and you can’t hurry the transition because we want it to be orderly. Sub paragraph (e) endorses carbon capture and utilization and storage as a get out of jail card, where utilization often means enhanced oil recovery, i.e., injecting CO2 into depleted oil fields to push out extra oil. And (g) greenlights low-emission vehicles, so you can choose hybrid rather than battery electric or hydrogen if you like. It’s good that tripling of renewables and reducing of methane has a deadline of 2030 attached, but no such urgency around fossil fuels.
So it’s not surprising that small island nations, high-ambition coalition and climate activists are deeply unhappy with this text. They fought for a text mandating the phase out of fossil fuels but the final text has fallen far short. Many feel that the COP mechanism is faulty and needs reworking.
Perhaps they are right.
And yet, the final text isn’t just about what it says on the pages. It’s a signal to the world, businesses, investors, voters, us. And the signal this one sends is that the elephant in the room finally has a name, it’s call fossil fuels and it needs to go. What needs to happen now is that the world receives the signal and starts moving.