Cop28 explainer: The fossil fuel impasse

There are two camps now evident at the climate talks in Dubai, and it all comes down to fossil fuels. There is a yawning gap between the two that has to be bridged in coming hours if there is to be a deal of substance at Cop28.

The “decision text” is expected to form the key outcome of this fortnight of fraught talks on the future of global climate action.

Differences surfaced on Monday when lead negotiator Sultan Al Jaber issued his proposed text having listened to all parties – ie the 193 states present.

The opposers:

Former presidential candidate Peter Casey to contest European Parliament elections

---

Catastrophic decline of wild Irish salmon is another of the slow scandals of Irish life

---

Hot school meals: A close look at the ingredients list is not pretty. This is industrial food

---

Flooding on the Ennis-Limerick rail line is getting more serious. So what is the plan?

---

In the first camp are those who say there is no unambiguous commitment to timely phasing out of fossil fuels – the single biggest cause of global warming – and it doesn’t send the clear signals needed to avert the climate crisis.

They believe the text suggested is “a set of actions is merely a pick-your-own menu” and certainly doesn’t not adhere to the science which indicates phase-out is required to have a chance of containing global temperature rise to within 1.5 degrees. For climate campaigners there is little to suggest it would deliver “fast, fair, full and funded phase-out”.

What’s more, they believe it lacks transparency, reinforcing financial commitments and detail on implementation.

Countries within their ranks are the EU; climate-vulnerable states especially in the Global South including small island states of the Pacific who described it as “a death certificate”. Somewhat surprisingly, there too are the US, Australia, Canada, the UK and Japan – as they are some of the world’s largest oil-producing states.

[ Cop28: Australia, US and UK say they won’t sign draft agreement as opposition to UAE proposal hardens ]

[ Bar at Cop28 is so low Ireland’s climate story is seen as enviable ]

Those in favour, or reluctantly so:

In the other camp and some of the world’s other large petrostates, including large oil and gas producers with a record of constantly stalling progress at Cops over many years. In that regard their leader is Saudi Arabia. Some other countries believe there is the basis for an agreement based on this text.

What does the draft text state?

The text avoids highly contentious calls for a “phase out” or “phase down” of fossil fuels, which have been the focus of deep disagreement among parties.

But instead of requiring fossil fuel producers to cut their output, it frames such reductions as optional, by calling on countries to “take actions that could include” reducing fossil fuels.

If the language on fossil fuels survives an expected onslaught from the negotiators of big oil-producing countries, it would mark the first time that countries were being asked under the UN framework convention on climate change to reduce their fossil fuel production.

[ ‘It was a robust conversation’: Mary Robinson on her ‘testy’ exchange with Cop28 president Sultan Al-Jaber ]

Is there anything of substance in what’s proposed?

The document calls for “reducing both consumption and production of fossil fuels”. That’s significant because if adopted, it would be the first mention in a cop text of reducing fossil fuel production. It wasn’t even mentioned in the landmark Paris Agreement of 2015.

The text tackles the issue of fossil fuel production head on, rather than referring to the emissions from fossil fuels. Saudi Arabia has been trying throughout the conference to insist on the term fossil fuel emissions, in place of fossil fuel production, in an effort to leave room for use of carbon capture and storage (CCS).

The text also avoids the term “unabated”, which some countries wanted to insert, which also refers to use of CCS. The head of the International Energy Agency, Fatih Birol, describes use of CCS to allow oil companies to carry on producing as a “fantasy” and an “illusion”.

The language includes a reference to scientific advice, which many countries are likely to take as a reference to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the body of the world’s leading climate scientists, which has concluded that there can be only a very small role for fossil fuels in 2050, if the world is to meet net zero emissions and limit global heating to 1.5 degrees above preindustrial levels.

Fossil fuel reductions “in keeping with the science” would therefore have to be drastic in the next two and a half decades. – Additional reporting Guardian

• Sign up for push alerts and have the best news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone
• Find The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date
• Our In The News podcast is now published daily – Find the latest episode here