2023-12-05 16:48:33
UAE officials leading the talks warn that it may be impractical to call for the complete death of fossil fuels – infuriating activists and vulnerable countries.
Deciding how to describe the shift away from coal, oil and gas — the main drivers of climate change — is one of the key political questions at this year’s talks known as COP28. The debate largely centers on the question of whether it is necessary to “eliminate” or “reduce” these fuels, whether the choice of word makes a practical difference, and whether nations should set deadlines for abandoning their energy sources. pollutants.
Some take the argument a step further: does elimination mean eliminating all fossil fuels, or just those whose pollution causes the planet to warm?
The European Union and an alliance of vulnerable countries have staked the success of the conference on an agreement to “phase out” fossil fuels, ending centuries of dependence on them.
But UAE conference officials warned that it may be diplomatically impractical to call for a complete end to the use of fossil fuels by the nearly 200 countries present – including major oil and gas producers. Some observers have warned that such a push could waste much-needed political capital in a fight over wording that may not actually compel nations to do anything different. What matters are the actions countries take outside the conference, they say.
Calls to phase out fossil fuels have put the UAE in a difficult situation – left to choose between going against its own interests and being seen as undermining the negotiations.
“Eliminate” or “Reduce”?
The pressure is on countries to leave COP28 with a roadmap of actions to put the world on a safer path. Current national policies condemn the planet to heat well beyond the limit agreed by all governments in Paris in 2015 – no more than 2 degrees Celsius and, if possible, less than 1.5 degrees. (The planet has already warmed by about 1.3 degrees.)
One option, calling for the phase-out of fossil fuels, would be a historic innovation. Climate negotiations have generally avoided mentioning the fuels that are primarily responsible for the problem. The first mention was only in 2021, when negotiations in Glasgow ended with an agreement to “phase out” coal.
The phase-out of fossil fuels indicates a shift away from coal, oil and gas until their use is eliminated. Other countries have suggested using the term “progressive reduction”, which they understand to mean a reduction in use, but not a complete end.
An official from Spain, the country that will head the EU negotiating team at this conference, described the inclusion of language on fossil fuels in the final COP decision as “the most important battle” but also the “most complicated aspect”.
The “phase-out” language was already expected to face strong opposition from economies dependent on fossil fuel production, such as Russia and Saudi Arabia – these countries typically obstruct and obfuscate climate negotiations, weakening commitments to a lower level. low. But it has also drawn criticism from China, the world’s biggest polluter of greenhouse gases and a key player in climate negotiations.
China’s climate envoy Xie Zhenhua said in September that “completely phasing out fossil energy is not realistic.” A submission to the UN that same month indicates China’s support for increasing the world’s share of non-fossil energy, while recognizing “the significant role of fossil fuels in ensuring security of energy supplies” – a major obstacle for Beijing as which seeks to satisfy growing energy demand.
For China, a safe transition away from fossil fuels means building the new before abandoning the old, said Li Shuo, director of the China Climate Center at the Asia Society Policy Institute.
“What we need at the COP may not necessarily be the perfect language, but we need language that can trigger the best possible national response,” Shuo said. “How do you create this language so that it speaks to national capitals? One way to do this is to ensure phase-in first and then phase-out.”
The special US-UK relationship
The United States and the United Kingdom – major greenhouse gas producers and traditional EU allies – have questioned whether the “phase out” formulation is worth the diplomatic effort.
US climate envoy John Kerry told reporters on the eve of the talks that he unequivocally supported “language calling for the phase-out of fossil fuels”. (In climate circles, “unabated” means pollution that is not captured and removed from the atmosphere.)
But a senior State Department official told reporters earlier this month not to make too much of the decision to call it a reduction or phase-out. And the US, the world’s largest oil and gas producer, does not consider it necessary to provide an expiration date for oil and gas as long as any final text makes clear that the world must achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.
The official suggested that more creative language might be needed to come up with something that all countries could agree on. A deal between the US and China in November showed a potentially different path. The two powers agreed to increase the deployment of renewable energy to “accelerate the replacement” of fossil fuels.
The UK formally supports the same broad “unwavering fossil fuel phase-out” language that the EU advocates. But its position at COP28 was called into question when the head of the country’s delegation, Energy Minister Graham Stuart, suggested to a parliamentary committee that it was not fixed on precise terminology.
“Our belief is that we must focus on phasing out, phasing out – whatever you do, as long as it translates into real action – of unabated fossil fuels,” Stuart told MPs less than a month before the summit.
Could carbon capture be the solution?
Another issue in the discussions is whether the agreement includes the “unwavering” caveat.
Major fossil fuel producers, including the United States, argue that continued use of fossil fuels is possible and necessary as long as carbon pollution is captured – or “cut.” But the term has received increasing attention and criticism because it lacks a precise definition and the carbon capture technology often associated with it remains expensive and largely unproven. Many scientists and vulnerable countries fear this will distract from the real work of reducing emissions and give countries cover to continue polluting.
But some officials and negotiators argue that what matters most is action, not precise wording. Others say that without a timetable, “phase-out” and “phase-down” ultimately amount to the same thing. Officials in some European countries have also indicated they want national climate plans to target all sectors of the economy – perhaps less attractive than a global deal on fossil fuels, but more concrete.
Even climate advocates note that nations routinely ignore the non-binding agreements they make in climate negotiations. The United Kingdom expended significant diplomatic effort to cement language calling for a phase-out of coal power when it hosted the 2021 talks in Glasgow, Scotland, said Kaveh Guilanpour, who led negotiating teams at the EU, UK climate talks United Kingdom and island nations. Weeks later, the UK government opened a coal mine. The world this year burned more coal than ever before.
#great #dilemma #COP #Eliminate #Gradually #reduce #fossil #fuels