by The question of whether the final agreement from Cop28 includes a call to “phase out” or “phase down” fossil fuels is considered by many to be the single most important indicator of success at the UN summit. It may seem like a simple scientific question but in fact it is complex and highly political.
A call to phase out fossil fuels sends out the strongest signal yet to the world that it must rapidly reduce coal, oil and gas if we are to hope to keep global temperature rise below 1.5C. And that is why some fossil-heavy countries are against it.
What is the difference between phasing out and phasing out fossil fuels?
A major problem is that neither is defined and therefore different people can use them to mean different things. This is why the issue is so slippery and controversial. In general, phase-out is assumed to mean a radical reduction in fossil fuel burning down to zero, or as close to zero as makes much difference, by 2050. Phase-down is a weaker term, indicating that fossil fuel must to burn decrease without specifying how much or when.
What does the science say?
The science is crystal clear: fossil fuel burning is the main cause of the climate crisis; CO2 emissions must fall by almost half by 2030 to have a fair chance of meeting the 1.5C target; emissions must then drop to net zero by 2050. Science also finds that some CO2 it will be very difficult to stop emissions, for example from some heavy industries and aviation, which means that technology will be needed to capture and bury those emissions, or to absorb CO.2 from the air.
There are many possible paths to net zero by 2050, the key variable being the scale of carbon capture. Professor Johan Rockström, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, said: “Scientifically I don’t see any other communication than that we need to phase out fossil fuels.”
What does “reduction” mean and why is this important?
“Stop” means some of the COs2 emissions from burning fossil fuels are captured and stored, for example by fitting equipment to a gas-fired power station. The UN has no official definition of what percentage of emissions must be captured to count as reduced emissions. The term is important, as one option on the negotiating table is to agree to a “non-depleting” phase-out of fossil fuels.
Why is the question political?
The world is headed for climate failure: global emissions are still rising and the time left to start a rapid decline is extremely short. The strongest way to demonstrate the need for that drop is to agree to phase out fossil fuels.
A phase-down could enable further delays and carbon capture could be used as a dangerous smokescreen, by suggesting that the technology could significantly reduce future levels of fossil fuel burning. That is “fantasy”, according to Fatih Birol, head of the International Energy Agency. Carbon capture has so far failed to achieve any meaningful scale and is likely to be significantly more expensive than clean energy technologies.
Science says that most existing fossil fuel reserves must stay in the ground. But the fossil fuel industry is planning the opposite, expanding production twice as much as is compatible with 1.5C. A political signal to phase out fossil fuels will help push countries and companies to end that expansion.
Christiana Figueres, UN climate chief when the Paris agreement was reached in 2015, clearly supports the “stronger political signal” of phasing out: “If we want a step forward in this Cop, it is not possible let us gradually reach a compromise.”
Do words really matter?
Yes. The fact that it took 26 annual climate meetings of the United Nations to name a fossil fuel for the first time in the final agreement of the Cop summit shows that the 198 countries negotiating at the conference think words matter. At Cop26 in Glasgow, leaders agreed that coal would be “phased down”.
The Paris agreement is not legally binding but contains policies that will keep global temperature rise below 3C, targets that would limit the rise to 2.5C and commitments that would mean below 2C. Before Paris, the world was facing an apocalyptic 4C of global warming.
Who wants to graduate and who doesn’t?
Fragile and developing countries are demanding a gradual phase-out of fossil fuels. Some rich countries, such as those in the EU and the US, have supported the phase-out of fossil fuels. Major business alliances also support this option. Those opposed to a phase-out include Russia, China and India. Saudi Arabia appears to be opposed to even phasing out fossil fuels.
What does the president of Cop28 want?
As Sultan Al Jaber said, his role as a mediator is to bring the 198 countries to an agreement. But his credibility was undermined by revelations in the Guardian that he had said, shortly before the summit, that “there is no science out there that says the phase-out of fossil fuels is what will achieve 1.5C” and an end according to together. it would mean “taking the world back into its caves”. The state oil company of the United Arab Emirates, run by Al Jaber, is planning a major step-up of oil and gas production.
However, Al Jaber strongly defended his comments at an emergency press conference a day later, saying: “I have repeatedly said the phase-out and phase-out of fossil fuel is inevitable. In fact, it is essential.” He said his comments had been misunderstood and added: “If anything, we judge what we do at the end [of Cop28].”
