In a significant turn of events at the ongoing climate talks in Dubai, expectations for a complete ‘phase out’ of fossil fuels have been dashed as the phrase has been edited out from the latest draft, publicly released late in the evening. Despite this, the revised draft introduces stronger language against coal, urging countries to “rapidly phase down unabated coal.” Notably, major coal consumers and developing countries like India, Indonesia, and China might find this recommendation objectionable.
Observers closely following the COP negotiations emphasize that the inclusion of any reference to the necessity of eliminating fossil fuels in the last text, expected on the late 12th of December, would mark a significant step forward. Such a move would bring about parity between coal, oil, and gas and underscore the imperative need to eliminate them to have a chance at keeping the global temperature increase below 1.5°C by the end of the century.
The term ‘unabated coal’ specifically points to the burning of coal without implementing measures such as carbon capture and storage, which prevents carbon dioxide produced in thermal plants from escaping into the atmosphere.
Addressing fossil fuels, the revised text now calls on countries to “…be reducing both consumption and production of fossil fuels, in a just, orderly, and equitable manner, aiming for net zero by, before, or around 2050 in accordance with scientific recommendations.” ‘Net zero’ refers to achieving a balance between the amount of greenhouse gases produced and removed from the atmosphere.
Fossil fuel burning accounts for nearly 80% of greenhouse gas emissions, with coal contributing about 40%, while oil and gas collectively make up the rest. The best chance at limiting global temperature increases to below 1.5°C by the end of the century is by cutting emissions to 43% of 2019 levels by 2030. However, despite promises and pledges to enhance renewable energy infrastructure, global efforts to reduce fossil fuel use remain insufficient. Notably, none of the 28 COPs held so far have resolved to actively abate fossil fuel use. COP-26 in Glasgow marked the first mention of a ‘phase-down’ of coal use, though the absence of specific numbers and targets has led to considerable resistance, diminishing its impact as a meaningful deadline.
vague language
In a surprising development, the latest Global Stock take text on fossil fuels has taken a notable step backward compared to its predecessors, drawing concerns from environmental advocates and experts. The explicit language on phasing out fossil fuels has been omitted, replaced by a more ambiguous commitment to ‘reduce both consumption and production’ by the year 2050. Climate Action Network International’s Head of Global Political Strategy, Harjeet Singh, views this as a clear indication of the fossil fuel industry’s influential lobbying power, steering global policies towards an extended reliance on fossil fuels.
While the text maintains a call to triple installed renewable capacity and double energy efficiency by 2030, it no longer specifies that this should be achieved by “displacing fossil fuel energy.” This modification has raised questions about the evolving stance on renewable energy within the global context.
Critics point out the influence of the conference venue, situated in a petro-state, on the wording of the text. Mohamed Adow, Director of Powershift Africa, notes, “On fossil fuels, this text lays the ground for change. It’s good to recognize this is the first COP where the word fossil fuels is actually included in the draft decision.” Adon suggests that the text represents a compromise between countries like Saudi Arabia, resistant to any mention of fossils, and progressive nations advocating for an outright fossil fuel phase-out. He sees it as a middle ground using creative language to indicate the direction of change.
Turning to elements related to adaptation and the Global Goal on Adaptation, experts find the text “fairly balanced and progressive.” Dr. Anand Patwardhan, a climate policy researcher at the University of Maryland, acknowledges good coverage of adaptation and means of implementation. However, he notes the absence of specific references to historical responsibility, the carbon budget, and equitable burden-sharing in addressing the substantial costs of adaptation, which run into trillions of dollars.
As the COP discussions unfold, the text’s nuanced language and shifts in emphasis continue to shape the global response to climate change, leaving both advocates and critics scrutinizing the evolving landscape of environmental policies.
