Fossil fuels and climate economics:the president of COP28 says false and wrong things

The weekly round-up on the climate crisis and data on carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

“Beyond imagination”, “Farcical”, “Lies”, “When you put Count Dracula in charge of the Blood Bank…”.The statements made public by COP28 President Sultan Al Jaber have sparked a wave of global disapproval Guardian and from Center for Climate Reporting last Sunday.

Two weeks ago during an online meeting, moderated by Mary Robinson, the former President of Ireland, now an important supporter of the ecological transition, Al Jaber - who, in addition to the United Nations Climate Conference underway in Dubai, is also head of Adnoc, the national oil company of the United Arab Emirates, and Masdar, the state renewable energy company – he stated [min.4] that there is no scientific evidence to demonstrate that phasing out fossil fuels is necessary to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, and that phasing out fossil fuels would not allow for a sustainable development unless you want to take the world back to caves.

Words that dramatically recall slogans advocated by those who have been sowing doubts about climate change for decades and trying to wear down and sabotage the ecological transition necessary to slow down global warming and prevent a series of chain effects from being triggered and overcome dangerous points of no return.

Activist climate scientists and human rights experts intervened, highlighting the gravity of the words of the Emirati oil executive and president of the Dubai Climate Conference. For Teresa Anderson, global manager for climate justice at ActionAid International, Al Jaber's statements are "detached from the reality" experienced by "hundreds of millions of people on the front lines of the climate catastrophe".

“It is incredibly worrying and surprising to hear the COP28 president defend the use of fossil fuels.It is undeniable that to limit global warming to 1.5°C we must all rapidly reduce carbon emissions and phase out the use of fossil fuels by 2035.The alternative is an unmanageable future for humanity,” he commented the prof.Sir.David King, chair of the Climate Crisis Advisory Group and former UK chief scientific advisor

Mohamed Adow, director of Power Shift Africa, he instead underlined how Al Jaber's comments demonstrate “how entrenched he is in the fossil fuel view and is clearly determined that this COP does nothing to harm the interests of the oil and gas industry”.

At the same time as Guardian And Center for Climate Research Al Jaber's claims were disclosed, a statement was released relationship, written by important climate scientists for Future Earth, Earth League and World Climate Research Programme, which goes in the exact opposite direction to what was supported by the president of COP28, giving a clear demonstration of the rift between the scientific community and the Emirati organization of the climate summit.According to the report, COP28 should “take unambiguous steps towards clear commitments for a managed phase-out of all fossil fuels”.

Climate scientist Michael Mann he asked the immediate resignation of Al Jaber or the boycott of COP28 by everyone.

Awarding the COP organization to the United Arab Emirates and the presidency to Sultan Al Jaber, “was it a terrible mistake or a clever ploy to allow the true colors of the fossil fuel industry to shine through the petrochemical haze of Dubai?” you ask the journalist of Guardian Daniel Carrington.

What the scientific studies say

In a hot comment, Joeri Rogelj, professor of climate science and policy at Imperial College London and one of the main authors of the IPCC reports (the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), he advised to the president of COP28, Al Jaber, to "ask around for the latest IPCC report", approved unanimously by 195 countries, including the United Arab Emirates.In the report, Rogelj explains, Al Jaber will be able to realize that all the ways to limit global warming to 1.5°C have the same thing in common:an elimination de facto of fossil fuels in the first half of the century.“Will all this bring the world back to the caves?Absolutely not, except to cool off during the next wave of scorching heat,” Rogelj quips.

In IPCC models that limit global warming to 1.5°C, explains Rogelj in a later thread on X, a decrease in carbon dioxide and methane emissions is expected, but at different levels:only CO2 reaches net zero and becomes negative.Given that fossil fuels are the largest source of CO2 emissions, the implications for coal, oil and gas are significant.According to IPCC forecasts, “global use of coal, oil and gas in 2050 will decline by approximately 95%, 60% and 45% compared to 2019”.

In summary, to respect the 1.5°C threshold, the contribution of fossil fuels will decrease steadily and decisively over the next decade and throughout the century, as shown by the graph attached in one of the tweets (in red the energy contribution of fossil fuels, clearly decreasing).

Looking at the energy contribution of fossil fuels in these pathways (red in Figure 3.8 from the IPCC) the diminishing role of fossil fuels is clear.
I referred to this evolution as a 'de facto phase out'.A *quantified* phase-down target would also do the job.(8) pic.twitter.com/UVN2WTrh1A

— Joeri Rogelj (@JoeriRogelj) December 4, 2023

The IPCC reports also talk about other paths that rely on large quantities of carbon capture and storage, but they are not conclusive because they fail to reduce emissions at a pace and scale that limits global warming to 1.5°C by a wide margin (more than a tenth of a degree).

Geological storage of carbon dioxide consists of the injection of CO into deep geological formations or depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs.₂ liquid obtained from the capture of emissions from fossil fuel power plants and other large industrial plants.In this case, every new coal, oil and gas plant will have to incorporate technology that captures emissions before they can enter the atmosphere.

A recent study by the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment (SSEE) he estimated that a transition with Carbon Capture and Storage would cost 30 trillion dollars compared to one without.Furthermore, according to a'analysis by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, the history of this technology tells us that "it represents a significant financial and technical risk and could represent a transitional solution to be studied for those sectors where emissions are difficult to reduce (such as cement)".The research found in particular that:1) Failed projects are significantly superior to successful experiences;2) These experiences are concentrated in the natural gas processing sector to serve fossil fuels, resulting in the production of further emissions;3) Captured carbon has mostly been used for improved oil recovery, which is clearly not a climate solution.

In short, there are well-founded fears that “the CO₂ fossil that you intend to capture, will be poorly captured with more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere", explains Rogelj, who then concludes:

“Pursuing efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C in line with the decisions in Paris, Glasgow and Sharm El Sheikh implies a clear, decisive and direct decline in the role of fossil fuels in the global energy system.”

Also speaking on the issue were Michael Mann and the Belgian climatologist and former vice-president of the IPCC, Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, with a letter addressed to Sultan Al Jaber.

This my letter to the #COP28 President, written on behalf of the climate system itself with @MichaelEMann.There IS science behind the need for a fossil fuel phase out, dear Sultan Al Jaber.And you cannot negotiate with science! pic.twitter.com/KvcGDheiqJ

— Prof.Jean-Pascal van Ypersele (@Mastodon.World) (@JPvanYpersele) December 3, 2023

In the letter, written before Al Jaber's statements were made public, Mann and van Ypersele show the close correlation between the increase in CO concentration₂ and rising global temperatures [ed, by clicking on the image below it is possible to observe the trend of the animated spirals of CO₂ and temperatures that summarize the behavior of the climate system]

As the CO concentration increases₂, global temperatures also increase.The concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by 50% since coal, oil and gas began to be used on a massive scale, while more and more areas of the planet were subjected to deforestation.“As a result, global temperatures have increased by almost 1.2°C and will continue to increase as long as CO concentrations increase₂”, continue the two climate scientists.With the consequences that we know well by now:

“The 1.5°C target was adopted not because it was easy to achieve, but because of the severity of the damage we can avoid by staying within that warming threshold.If humanity wants to avoid exceeding the 1.5°C target, it must ensure that CO2 concentrations stop increasing by 2050 at the latest.This means reaching global zero CO2 emissions by 2050, together with a significant reduction in emissions of other greenhouse gases (methane, etc.)”.

Carbon capture and storage can be useful but only if there is permanent storage capacity it is safe and limited and if “it is not done in a depleted oil well to extract more oil, in a forest, or in a nature-based solution that will burn or be affected by climate change at the first opportunity,” Mann and van Ypersele conclude:

“What the climate system needs to maintain the 1.5°C target is not just an increase in renewable energy, but also the phasing out of fossil fuels, all of them, coal, oil and gas, as well as stopping of net deforestation by 2050.A very small fraction of the fossil fuels we use today could still be in use by then, provided their emissions are 100% captured and stored safely and permanently."

Because Al Jaber's words are not as naïve as they seem and must be taken seriously

After the revelations of Guardian and Center for Climate Reporting, Al Jaber organized a press conference in which he claimed his background as an economist and engineer and argued that he has repeatedly called for the phase-out of fossil fuels and that his efforts to support climate change have been ignored by the media.“I respect science in everything I do – said Al Jaber – and my statements have been misrepresented and taken out of the context in which they were uttered”.

But the words of the president of COP28 should not be too surprising because in reality they are less naïve than one might think.And they are difficult to misrepresent as he himself claims.

“He finally took off the mask,” commented former US vice president Al Gore.“It was only a matter of time before his absurd disguise to hide the most blatant conflict of interest in the history of climate negotiations was exposed.”

Al Jaber's statements are political and pursue a specific objective:delay as much as possible the elimination of fossil fuels and the ecological transition with their replacement with alternative energy solutions.How?First of all, focusing on the “phase down” (“gradual decrease”) rather than the “phase out” (“gradual elimination”) of fossil fuels.Climate scientists strongly support the second hypothesis to rapidly reduce oil and gas emissions, while Al Jaber and the fossil fuel industry keep the door open to the first.And then, shifting the balance of negotiations of the Climate Conference entirely towards financing the damage and losses caused by devastating extreme weather phenomena (which very often hit countries already heavily indebted) and onto adaptation actions (here actually we are far from an agreement:rich countries have made just $160 million in contributions to the Adaptation Fund – just half of this year's target – and there are fears that much of the funding has been drained from the loss and damage fund. ”).

In fact, there are two main axes on which we move in climate policies:climate change mitigation actions, through the gradual elimination of climate-changing gas emissions, and adaptation interventions to prevent the effects of the climate crisis, such as defenses against floods and early warning systems.

COP28 opened with an important agreement on the "loss and damage" fund but, as Mann and van Ypersele also explain in their letter addressed to Al Jaber, intervening only on this aspect does not solve the problem.Indeed, in the future, more money will be needed, at least as long as there is still room to intervene.

The two climate scientists write:

“Adaptation to climate change is essential to reduce the severity of impacts.It must happen and it must receive adequate funding.But adaptation has hard and soft limits, and would become extremely difficult and costly beyond 1.5°C warming, as demonstrated by the IPCC Special Report on 1.5°C Warming.

Already today we are seeing an increase in losses and damage, even with 1.2°C of warming.The discussion about loss and damage would not have become so difficult if the heating had been stopped earlier.

Keeping the 1.5°C target alive is essential to simply making adaptation possible.”

Adaptation is important.
Reducing methane is helpful.
But a phaseout of carbon dioxide emissions is critical.
Without an agreement to do so, #COP28 cannot be considered a success.

—Prof Michael E.Mann (@MichaelEMann) December 5, 2023

The main path is net zero emissions by 2050 and the most effective and rapid path is the gradual elimination of fossil fuels.“The climate system does not make politics.He doesn't play with words.It only understands the actual emission or absorption of greenhouse gas molecules,” Mann and van Ypersele conclude in their letter.“Net zero emissions means exactly what these words mean:not a single ton of CO2 can be emitted that is not 100% safely and permanently absorbed."

What's at stake at COP28

The decision between eliminating or phasing out fossil fuels could make or break the Dubai climate summit.

It is still too early to say whether Al Jaber's words have already ruined COP28 from the start.The signs, however, are not encouraging.The COP it opened with the revelation by an investigation of BBC News And Center for Climate Reporting that the UAE planned to use its role as organizer of the Climate Conference to strike “secret” oil and gas deals behind the scenes of the summit.Al Jaber rejected the revelations as “false, untrue, incorrect and inaccurate allegations”.

According to another investigation also conducted by Center for Climate Reporting, this time together with Channel 4 News, Saudi Arabia would have a plan to "artificially" increase oil consumption in African and Asian countries.In an undercover operation, journalists from the Center for Climate Reporting posed as oil investors and asked Saudi Energy Ministry officials whether the country planned to increase demand for oil in certain markets."Yes...it is one of the main objectives we are trying to achieve,” was the response of one of the officials.The Saudi government declined to comment on the investigation.

COP28, what happened to the climate crisis?

Furthermore, according to data collected by the coalition Kick Big Polluters Out, at COP28 they would have signed up 2,456 fossil industry lobbyists, four times more than at COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh in 2022 (For AP there would be over 1,300, three times as many as last year).It is the third most represented "nation" at the Conference, in a number significantly higher than the total number of delegates from the ten nations considered most vulnerable and exposed to the consequences of the climate crisis.

The global budget, the Global Stocktake, it will be the "glass house" that will clearly tell us what game the president of COP28, Al Jaber, will have played, and whether the climate will once again have been sacrificed in the name of the interests of the fossil fuel industries (and all the other figures, including institutional and political ones, who gravitate in their streams).

In the first draft of the Global Stocktake that is circulating there are different options ranging from a clear statement of “orderly and just phase-out of fossil fuels” to no mention at all, through the acceleration of “efforts to phase out fossil fuels not demolished” and the rapid reduction of “their use to achieve net zero CO2 emissions in energy systems by or around mid-century.”It is the proposal supported by fossil industries and oil-producing countries:the end of "unkilled fossil fuels" passes through the controversial carbon capture and storage technology mentioned above.

“I don't think we'll leave Dubai without clear language and clear direction on moving away from fossil fuels,” said David Waskow, director of the international climate initiative at the World Resources Institute."Absolutely not", he replied Saudi Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman when asked during a television interview whether his country would support an agreement that would reduce or phase out fossil fuels.“Too much emphasis is being placed on eliminating fossil fuels, oil and gas” and not enough on “managing the emissions associated with them,” he declared al Financial Times Exxonmobil CEO Darren Woods.

This, therefore, was the climate of the negotiations in Dubai, in the days in which the Global Carbon report said we are on track to burn more coal, oil and gas in 2023 than in 2022, hitting new records in global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production.

The stakes are clear.Who will prevail?The interests of the oil and gas sector or the indications of climate science and the needs of the planet and populations around the world?

Data on carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere

Preview image:UNclimatechange via Flickr