‘The future is renewable’: How a huge gamble sealed COP28 deal
The signs were pointing to a lukewarm COP28. Instead it turned out to be full of surprises – but is the final deal on fossil fuels just a ruse?
Not long before the crucial final meeting of Cop28 climate summit, a seemingly chance meeting took place in the heavily guarded VIP lounge next to the main conference hall in Dubai. John Kerry, the US climate envoy, and Sultan Al Jaber, the Cop28 president, exchanged warm greetings with Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman Al Saud, the energy minister of
Saudi Arabia.
It was only a brief encounter, but it sealed a crucial understanding. Saudi Arabia, the blocker for 30 years of attempts to include fossil fuels in international climate agreements, was not going to stand in the way of this one. Just 24 hours earlier, according to insiders, Al Jaber faced fierce pressure from the Saudi delegation to water down the text. Now, for the first time, the archetypal petrostate would allow a global commitment to be made to “transition away” from fossil fuels.
Minutes later, Al Jaber strode onto the stage where more than 190 countries awaited him. A short announcement, and it was done: the 28th conference of the parties under the UN framework convention on climate change had achieved something no other climate meeting had. Amid applause and relief, the world’s governments had finally agreed to call on countries to begin “transitioning 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”.
A deal that satisfied Saudi Arabia, the US and the United Arab Emirates, was not going to please everyone, of course. Indigenous people and climate justice groups said it was unfair and inequitable. Climate scientists acknowledged that the call to transition away from fossil fuels was historic, but said the deal was too weak to enable the world to keep global heating below the 1.5C Paris limit. The statement was vague, scientists said, without targets or dates for emissions cuts, allowing a far greater role for carbon capture than is feasible and backing gas as a “transition fuel”, when most gas reserves must remain in the ground.
The Alliance of Small Island States, countries that face inundation at more than 1.5C, lambasted a “litany of loopholes” in the text. It did not try to prevent the outcome, but Anne Rasmussen, of Samoa, speaking for the group minutes after the gavel landed on the deal, registered its clear feeling that the agreement did not go far enough: “We have made an incremental advancement over business as usual when what we really needed is an exponential step-change in our actions and support.”
Achim Steiner, the head of the UN development programme, said: “Some are understandably frustrated that the agreed language could have been stronger. But it remains the most unequivocal signal to date that the world is moving beyond the fossil-fuel era.”
The final deal also included a $700m (£549m) commitment to “operationalise” a new loss and damage fund, for the rescue and rehabilitation of poor and vulnerable countries stricken by climate disaster. But this was the only real move on climate finance – the money needed for poor countries both to shift to a low-carbon economy and adapt to the impacts of the climate crisis. Poor countries were particularly aggrieved that a promised focus on adaptation fell short.
Harjeet Singh, the director of strategy for Climate Action Network International, said: “Developing countries, still dependent on fossil fuels for energy, income and jobs, are left without robust guarantees for adequate
financial support in their urgent and equitable transition to renewable energy. The final outcomes fall disappointingly short of compelling wealthy nations to fulfil their financial responsibilities, obligations amounting to hundreds of billions.”
Committing to these resolutions on fossil fuels will have an impact, however, said Jennifer Morgan, Germany’s climate envoy. “Now the signals are clear,” she said. “If you’re an investor, the future is renewable. Fossil fuels are stranded assets.”
This is an imperfect deal, and a fragile one, and until the final moments there was no guarantee that it would be reached. In the packed hall, relief and loud applause greeted the final statement. Simon Stiell, the UN climate chief, hugged the visibly exhausted but beaming Al Jaber on stage. A giant gamble had paid off.
The signs did not augur well before summit
Holding a climate summit in one of the world’s biggest oil and gas producing countries might have sounded like the punchline of sick joke. The world is failing to control the climate crisis; fossil fuel companies have enjoyed a record bonanza after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine; and the chances of limiting global heating to the relatively safe limit of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels are now all but extinct.
Temperatures this year have been the hottest on record, yet this is likely to be one of the coolest years of the rest of this century. Annual greenhouse gas emissions last year reached their highest ever level. António Guterres, the UN
secretary-general, warned: “Humanity has opened the gates of hell.”
The UAE, who hosted the summit, is adding to the problem. It has the sixth largest oil and gas reserves in the world, and its stateowned oil company, Adnoc is embarking on a massive $150bn expansion.
Al Jaber is chief executive of Adnoc. When his appointment as Cop president was announced, in January, campaigners cried foul. Greta Thunberg called it “completely ridiculous”. Tasneem Essop, the executive director of Climate Action Network International, said: “If he does not step down as CEO, it will be tantamount to a full-scale capture of the UN climate talks by a petrostate national oil company and its associated fossil fuel lobbyists.”
The Adnoc boss felt no such qualms. As a businessperson, Al Jaber argued, he was well-placed to bring a can-do mindset to talks that have been characterised by grinding delays and disappointments. If Cops were going to address the causes of the climate crisis, they needed the oil industry at the table.
It may seem incredible that negotiations about climate breakdown should not tackle head-on the issue of fossil fuels, which are its major cause.
In 2021, for the first time, the dirtiest fossil fuel, coal, was mentioned in the text of the final deal, at Cop26 in Glasgow. That triumph was short-lived. At Cop27, in Sharm El Sheikh last year, more than 80 countries formed a loose coalition that pushed for a full phase-out of all fossil fuels. They failed abysmally.
Al Jaber was also markedly ambivalent about the goal of limiting temperature rises to 1.5C. For vulnerable countries, this goal is the core of the Cop. But as late as this May, interviewed in Abu Dhabi on the question of whether the world could stay within the 1.5 goal, he said: “I’m not in a position to answer that, honestly speaking. I would be misleading you. What I’m saying is that I and the next [Cop] president and the one after him should stay laser focused and give it our best possible shot.”
This all added up to an impression that Al Jaber, under his confident and sometimes bombastic public persona, would deliver a lukewarm Cop. Christiana Figueres, the former UN climate chief who oversaw the 2015 Paris summit, publicly rebuked him in May for his “very dangerous” stance.
“He’s trying to dance on two dancefloors at the same time. He is trying to say, look, those of us who are producers of fossil fuels will be responsible for our emissions through enhanced carbon capture and storage. And we, or the Cop presidency, will also support the zero carbon alternatives,” she said.