Unexpected progress

COP28 agrees to 'transition away' from fossil fuels

Much concern had been raised about the hosting of the 28th iteration of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP28) by the United Arab Emirates. The president of COP28, Sultan al-Jaber, is also chairman of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, and this led to many worrying that the defence of fossil-fuel consumption would play a larger role than it should at this COP. But the eventual COP28 declaration, adopted a day late after hard negotiations, took something of a step forward. While it did not meet the demands of small island states, backed by the United States, Japan, the United Kingdom, and Australia, to “phase out” or “phase down” all fossil fuels, it eventually did “call on” countries to “transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner” while also “accelerating action in this critical decade”. This is more forceful language than looked likely earlier in the week, when some countries — in particular Saudi Arabia — seemed determined to block any language about fossil fuels. But the prospect of COP28 ending without a draft decision — because some negotiators refused to sign a proposal without a mention of fossil fuels — eventually forced a compromise.

Nevertheless, two elements of the COP28 final draft will be of interest to fossil-fuel companies and exporters. First, the “transition away” wording is limited to fossil fuels in the energy sector, whereas the plans for many large petrochemicals companies focus on the liquids-to-chemicals pipeline. Saudi Arabia’s Aramco, for example, which produced 11.5 million barrels of crude oil a day in 2022, expects that by 2030, 4 million barrels a day will be set aside for chemicals production. Second, the final draft includes a specific reference to “transition fuels” playing a role. This is clearly about natural gas, which emits around 70 per cent of the carbon that refined petroleum does, and 50 per cent of what anthracite coal does.

The exact position of the Government of India at these negotiations can be inferred only from the outcomes. It is worth noting that the final text watered down the language related to coal power. It called for an acceleration of the phase-down of coal, whereas earlier the text had suggested “rapidly phasing down coal and limitations on permitting new” coal-power plants. This change is likely in response to concerns raised by Indian negotiators in particular, who rightfully continue to focus at multilateral climate forums on protecting the domestic coal sector. Notably, India did not sign on conventions on nuclear power and on climate and health, but decision-makers in New Delhi may like to review this position. That said, India and China did allow the final text to directly link the fossil-fuel transition to an aim to “achieve net zero in 2050 in keeping with the science”, which is decades earlier than domestic targets. Two other notable concessions included permitting a reference to global methane emission being “substantially reduced” by 2030, which, given its link to animal husbandry, is politically sensitive in India; and the agreement that even developing countries should be encouraged, in their next round of targets next year, to come up with “ambitious, economy-wide emissions reduction targets”, covering all sectors and gases. This is a shift away from a narrow focus on carbon dioxide and the energy sector. The eventual language will not satisfy everyone, but is nevertheless a step forward. The end of fossil fuels has not previously been part of a global consensus, and so COP28 was more effective than most expected.