The question of whether COP28’s final agreement includes a call to “phase out” or “phase out” fossil fuels is seen by many as the single most important indicator of success at the UN summit. Although the subject seems to be a simple scientific one, it is actually complex and extremely political.
The call to phase out fossil fuels sends the strongest possible signal to the world that the burning of coal, oil and gas must be reduced rapidly to have any hope of keeping global temperature rise below 1.5°C. That’s why some fossil fuel-heavy countries are so against it.
What is the difference between phasing out and phasing out fossil fuels?
A big problem is that both are undefined and therefore can be used by different people to mean different things. This is why the issue is so slippery and controversial. Generally speaking, phase out means reducing fossil fuel use radically to zero by 2050, or to a level so close to zero that it makes little difference. Phase out is a weaker term and indicates that burning fossil fuels should be made mandatory. a decline without specifying by how much or when.
What does science say?
The science is crystal clear: Burning fossil fuels is the biggest cause of the climate crisis; CO2 To have a chance of meeting the 1.5C target, emissions need to fall by almost half by 2030; Emissions must then fall to net zero by 2050. Science also finds that some CO2 is present.2 Emissions will be very difficult to stop, as is the case with some heavy industry and aviation, meaning technology will be needed to capture and bury these emissions or absorb CO2 from the air
There are many potential pathways to achieving net zero by 2050, and the key variable is the scale of carbon capture. Prof Johan Rockström, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, said: “I can’t see any other scientific communication other than that we need to phase out fossil fuels.”
What does “reduced” mean and why is it important?
“Reduced” means that some COs2 Emissions from burning fossil fuels are captured and stored, for example, by installing equipment in a gas-fired power plant. There is no official UN definition of how much of emissions must be captured to count as reduced. This term is important, as one of the options on the negotiating table is to agree to phase out only “unreduced” fossil fuels.
Why is the issue political?
The world is hurtling towards climate collapse: Global emissions are still rising, but the time remaining for a rapid decline to begin is extremely short. The strongest way to demonstrate the need for this reduction is to commit to phasing out fossil fuels.
A phased-out could lead to further delays and allow carbon capture to be used as a dangerous smokescreen; This suggests that significant levels of fossil fuel burning could be wiped out by technology in the future. According to Fatih Birol, President of the International Energy Agency, this is a “fantasy”. Carbon capture has not yet reached meaningful scale and will likely be much more expensive than clean energy technologies.
Science says most existing fossil fuel reserves should remain underground. However, the fossil fuel industry plans the opposite and is increasing production by twice the amount compatible with 1.5C. A political signal that fossil fuels will be phased out would help push countries and companies to end this expansion.
When the Paris agreement was signed in 2015, the UN’s climate chief, Christiana Figueres, openly supported the “stronger political signal” of phasing out: “If we want to go one step further in this Polis, then we cannot compromise on phasing out.”
Do words really matter?
Yes. The fact that it took 26 annual UN climate meetings to name a fossil fuel for the first time in the final agreement of the Polis summit shows that the 198 countries negotiating at the conference thought words were important. At Cop26 in Glasgow, leaders agreed to “phase out” coal.
Although the Paris agreement is not legally binding, it has led to the emergence of policies that will keep the global temperature increase below 3C, targets that will limit the increase to 2.5C, and promises that will mean below 2C. Before Paris, the world was heading towards an apocalyptic 4 degrees of global warming.
Who wants a phase-out and who doesn’t?
Vulnerable and developing countries are demanding a fossil fuel phase-out. Some rich countries, such as the EU and the US, have supported phasing out fossil fuels. Major business coalitions also support this option. Those opposing a phase-out include Russia, China and India. Saudi Arabia even appears to oppose phasing out fossil fuels.
What does the Cop28 president want?
As Sultan Al Jaber said, his mediator duty is to bring 198 countries to an agreement. But his credibility was undermined by revelations in the Guardian shortly before the summit that he had said: “There is no science to say that it will be the phasing out of fossil fuels that will achieve 1.5°C.” It means “to take the world back to the caves.” The United Arab Emirates’ state oil company, run by Al Jaber, is planning a major phase-in increase in oil and gas production.
However, Al Jaber strongly defended his views at an emergency press conference a day later, saying: “I have repeatedly said that the phasing out and phasing out of fossil fuels is inevitable. “This is actually very important.” He said his comments were misinterpreted and added: “If anything, judge us on what we deliver in the end [of Cop28].”