Midnight Marathon at COP28 as Island Nations Confront a ‘Death Sentence’
COP28 13/12/2023 •
The UN climate negotiations have gone into overtime – again.

Early this week, the 28th year of United Nations (UN) climate summits saw its hopes for a historic agreement to end the fossil fuel era dashed by industry interests resisting efforts to phase out their use.

The negotiations extended into overtime, familiar to COP proceedings, as diplomats from nearly 200 countries attempted to bridge the global divide on the future of fossil fuels and prevent the summit’s collapse.

The fight over the final agreement intensified when a draft was released by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) presidency on Monday. It removed language explicitly calling for a total “phase out” of oil, gas, and coal from the global energy mix.

The latest draft text, released on Wednesday after negotiations pressed on into the early hours of the morning, does not include a commitment to phase out or down fossil fuels. Scientists, environmentalists, and human rights advocates say phasing out fossil fuels is essential to maintaining the 1.5C warming cap set in the 2015 Paris Agreement.

Instead, the draft calls on nations to transition “away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly, and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade, so as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science.”

Other significant changes include removing a directive to phase out coal use “this decade” and limits on new coal production, allowing coal-dependent nations like China and India to continue their reliance on the highly polluting fuel.

Specific targets for reducing methane and other non-greenhouse gas emissions were removed. Recognition of the “need for deep, rapid and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in line with the 1.5C pathways” was added for the first time.

‘False solutions’

“It is clear that not everyone is ready to admit the truth of what’s needed,” said Tom Evans, policy advisor at climate change think tank E3G. “This text alone might help avoid disaster in Dubai but it does not avoid disaster for the planet.”

While the first draft drew widespread criticism, reactions to the new draft are mixed. The central change in language around fossil fuels is the shift from nations “should” transition away from fossil fuels to a text that “calls on” nations to do so — a minor but significant change in U.N. language.

Over 120 countries, 72% of nations at COP, have expressed direct support for an agreement that includes phasing out fossil fuels, according to an analysis by the Pacific Islands Climate Action Network and Oil Change International on Tuesday. This marks a significant increase from COP27 in Egypt, when 80 countries called for a phase-out limited to the electricity sector.

“Overall, we get a clear signal to phase out fossil fuels… It is not the most ambitious outcome we could have landed at this COP, given the momentum from over a hundred countries demanding strong language on this, but it’s a step forward,” said Amos Wemanya, senior advisor at Renewable Energy and Just Transitions. “But we still have a lot of false solutions in the text.”

 

The mood after the first draft agreement on Monday was summarized by former US Vice President Al Gore, who criticized the draft for reading “as if OPEC [the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries] dictated it word for word.”

“COP28 is now on the verge of complete failure. The world desperately needs to phase out fossil fuels as quickly as possible,” Gore said. “There are 24 hours left to show whose side the world is on: the side that wants to protect humanity’s future by kickstarting the orderly phase-out of fossil fuels or the side of the petrostates and the leaders of the oil and gas companies fueling the historic climate catastrophe.”

Although the draft falls short of the “phase out” demands from more than 120 nations, environmental groups, and scientists, it is the first COP agreement to directly address the need to move away from all fossil fuels. This represents a significant shift in focus for the UN climate negotiations, which did not explicitly mention any fossil fuels until COP26 in Glasgow, where coal was first included.

“For the first time in three decades of climate negotiations the words fossil fuels have ever made it into a COP  outcome,” said Mohamed Adow, Director of the energy and climate think tank Power Shift Africa. “We are finally naming the elephant in the room.”

While the diagnosis of the climate crisis is accurately represented in the draft agreement, scientists note the solutions and actions presented fall far short of the action required to address the scale of the crisis the text describes. 

“There seems to be a total disconnect between the diagnosis and the treatment,” said Jean Pascale van Ypersele, professor of Environmental Sciences at the UC Louvain and former vice chair of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  “The diagnosis is that of a potentially deadly cancer, due to abuse of fossil fuels,” said van Ypersele. “The prescribed treatment is a mixture of wishful thinking and magic.” 

The current draft agreement’s sole mention of “health” as a human right, without explicitly addressing key health issues like air pollution, has disappointed global health experts following the apparent momentum generated by the inaugural Health Day at the UN climate summit.

“The difference for people’s health of phasing out only ‘unabated’ fossil fuels, versus a full fossil fuel phase-out is night and day,” said Dr Jeni Miller, Executive Director of the Global Climate and Health Alliance. “Currently 99% of the world’s population breathes unhealthy air, with five million people per year dying prematurely due to the air pollution produced by the use of fossil fuels.”

“COP28’s only sane pathway – one that will protect people’s health – is an agreement that sets in motion the orderly and just phase out of all fossil fuels”, said Miller. 

‘We didn’t come here to sign our death sentence’ 

During a closed-door meeting at COP28 on Tuesday, as reported by The Guardian, sharp divisions emerged over the future of fossil fuels, highlighting the deep rifts that could derail an agreement crucial for the planet’s future.

Australia, representing a coalition of major fossil fuel consumers and producers including Canada, Chile, Norway, the European Union (EU), and the US, advocated for a decisive move away from these energy sources. The EU and US separately pressed for a firmer stance on fossil fuels in the final agreement.

“Overall it is clearly insufficient and not adequate to addressing the problem we’re here to address,” said EU climate commissioner Woepke Hoekstra. 

The US State Department demanded that the wording on fossil fuels be “substantially strengthened”.

Small island nations, facing immediate threats from sea level rise, see any agreement lacking a robust commitment to fossil fuel phase-out as a potential “death sentence”.

Joseph Sikulu, a climate activist from the Pacific island of Tonga, broke into tears at a press conference on Tuesday when asked about the stakes of the agreement for his and other island nations. 

“We didn’t come here to sign our death sentences and the text in its current state is that,” said Sikulu. “We know that our negotiators are in there, holding the line and they’re still fighting.” 

“In Paris, we fought for our lives for 1.5C and slowly we see it going away from our grasp every year,” added Sikulu. “[Negotiations] have now just become words.” 

John Silk, Minister of Natural Resources and Commerce for the Marshall Islands, echoed the desperate plea of small island states for their continued existence.

“We will not go silently to our watery graves,” said Silk. “We will not accept an outcome that will lead to the devastation for our country.” 

Finance disputes significant for developing nations

The debate over financing climate adaptation and green energy transitions in developing countries, which have not benefited from centuries of fossil fuel development, is as central to the final text disagreements as the phase-out language. Many developing nations view the phase-out demands from wealthy countries without accompanying funding as unfair, arguing that it fails to recognize their limited role in historical emissions.

“Rich countries say they want a global phase-out of fossil fuels, but they are refusing to fund it,” said Adow. “There is simply not enough in the current text for African countries to believe there will be finance to help them leapfrog dirty energy nor adapt to climate impacts.”

India also highlighted the omission of historical cumulative colonial emissions as a crucial oversight of the draft agreement, a criticism echoed by environmental groups and experts, who have singled out industrialized nations like the U.S., Canada, and Norway for their historical emissions and ongoing oil production expansion.

Governments Plan Massive Expansion of Fossil Fuel Production Despite Climate Crisis, UN Warns

“Many reports have clearly shown that these same countries, as they come here and pretend to be climate champions and talk about limiting temperature rise and talk about ending fossil fuels, have signed and continue to sign licenses for expansion and production of fossil fuels,” Meena Raman, of the Third World Network and a veteran of the COP process, said in reference to recent reports by the UN Environment Programme and Oil Change International. 

Governments and industry continue to expand fossil fuel production, with governments worldwide on track to produce fossil fuels at a rate 110% higher than the 1.5°C target by 2030. The top 20 oil and gas companies, meanwhile, are projected to emit 173% above the 1.5°C limit in 2040.

Raman also pointed out the draft’s failure to address the means of implementation which would allow developing countries to invest in green energy. These include can areas such as finance, technology, and capacity building, crucial for developing nations to phase out fossil fuels. 

Despite a day-one victory at COP28 to operationalize the Loss and Damage Fund, which aims to deliver financial assistance from developed nations to vulnerable countries coping with the escalating effects of climate change, the fund remains largely empty.

Demands for increased climate finance in the COP agreement, especially from the US, face domestic political hurdles, with a Republican-led Congress unwilling to allocate such funds. This standoff affects not just climate-related financing but also other areas of greater political consensus in the US, such as military aid to Ukraine.

Bangladesh, representing the 46 Least Developed Countries, expressed disappointment with the draft’s lack of a commitment to keeping global warming below 1.5C, labelling the text as weak and contradictory.

Cuba, on behalf of the G77+China group of 135 nations, argued in the meeting that the draft inadequately recognizes the primary responsibility of affluent countries in climate action and their obligation to support less wealthy nations.

China objected to including a 2025 global carbon emissions peak target in the agreement, citing the longer historical emissions of developed countries.

OPEC arrives at the party 

The complex geopolitics of oil-producing nations, especially Saudi Arabia’s role as the de facto leader of OPEC, are complicating COP28 talks. Reports from Dubai indicate that UAE’s COP28 President Sultan al-Jaber is under substantial pressure from Saudi Arabia to exclude any references to fossil fuels in the agreement. This stance is shared by other OPEC and OPEC+ members, including Iran, Iraq, and Russia. 

Al Jaber has so far resisted complying with these demands, stating on Tuesday “We must remain focused on our primary goal of keeping the 1.5C target within reach”.

Saudi pressure to eliminate any mention of fossil fuels from the final agreement follows a letter from OPEC Secretary-General Haitham Al Ghais that was leaked to The Guardian on Friday. The letter urged OPEC members to “proactively reject any text or formula that targets energy, i.e. fossil fuels, rather than emissions”.

Ghais stressed the urgent need to counter what he described as politically motivated campaigns threatening the prosperity of OPEC nations that would put “our people’s prosperity and future at risk.” 

Dan Marks, an energy security expert at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), explained to the Guardian that major oil producers, including Saudi Arabia, are cautious about policies aimed at reducing fossil fuel supply, due to significant national interests.

Saudi Arabia, holding nearly 300 billion barrels of oil, accounts for about one-fifth of the global oil reserves. As the unofficial leader of OPEC, which represents close to 80% of the world’s oil reserves, the kingdom plays a pivotal role in global oil dynamics.

“They have interests they need to protect,” said Marks, adding that proposals for phasing out fossil fuels could trigger instability in these oil-rich nations. 

Earlier in the year, OPEC criticized projections by the International Energy Agency (IEA) suggesting a peak in demand for fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas before 2030 as “overly hazardous” and “unworkable”. The oil cartel has also accused the IEA of “unjustly vilifying the [oil and gas] industry as being behind the climate crisis” as well as setting out a roadmap for the global energy system that will cause “energy chaos on a potentially unprecedented scale”.

“Clearly, there is an emerging proactive fossil coalition,” a senior EU negotiator close to the negotiations told the Financial Times after the new draft was released. “In the past, we had more silent resistance and now it seems more conscious and more focused and more co-ordinated.”

Negotiators in Dubai now face the daunting task of crafting a consensus-driven agreement that avoids outright rejection by any party. Veteran observers speculate that in the face of a potential deadlock, no agreement might be preferable. Countries desiring a robust deal are trapped between accepting a diluted agreement or none at all.

“It seems more or less impossible now to get a wording that clearly calls for the ‘phase out’ goal, as demanded by the small islands and the EU,” said Michael Jacobs, a COP veteran and professor of political economy at Sheffield University. “The OPEC states won’t agree to it, and the UAE (a member of OPEC) won’t insist on it from the chair.”

Jacobs pointed out that the summit’s most significant achievement, the establishment of the loss and damage fund, was already secured on the first day. “Even if the COP negotiations were to collapse now, this milestone wouldn’t be reversed,” he said.

“What would be lost are – sorry, but this is true – various forms of words which are not binding and won’t materially affect any countries’ immediate behaviour.” 

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who made a return trip to Dubai for the final stage of the talks earlier this week, underscored the urgency of the situation. 

“We need an ambitious outcome that demonstrates decisive climate action and a credible plan to keep the 1.5°C warming limit alive,” said Guterres. “[We must] protect those on the frontlines of the climate crisis.” 

Image Credits: Simon Evans.

Combat the infodemic in health information and support health policy reporting from the global South. Our growing network of journalists in Africa, Asia, Geneva and New York connect the dots between regional realities and the big global debates, with evidence-based, open access news and analysis. To make a personal or organisational contribution click here on PayPal.