A few sincere words, spoken by a single person – the president of the Dubai climate conference, Sultan Ahmed al Yaber – in the heat of a debate have served to summarize the gap that separates the positions in the summit negotiations, where at less two sides are guessed. And one is represented by the countries linked to oil and gas. The COP28 president stated that “there is no science” to support the need for a phase-out of fossil fuels as a requirement to limit global warming to 1.5°C.
Al Yaber made the comments in response, and in a bad mood, to questions from the former president of Ireland, Mary Robinson, during a live debate on November 21, although they did not emerge until yesterday. The president of the climate summit is also the CEO of the state oil company of the United Arab Emirates, which for many shows a conflict of interest.
Al Yaber responded thus to Robinson's vehement request that, as a director of the oil company, he contribute to eliminating fuels: “In no way do I join any alarmist debate. “There is no science, nor any scenario, that says that the progressive elimination of fossil fuels is what will allow us to reach (the goal of) 1.5 ° C,” he responded.
“Show me the roadmap for an exit from fossil energies that is compatible with socioeconomic development, without returning the world to the age of caves,” he added. Al Yaber maintains a speech that consists of saying, every time he speaks, that the reduction of fossil energy is “inevitable”, but that first it is necessary to build the energy system of tomorrow without dispensing with fossils.
His words contradict the position of the UN Secretary General, António Guterres, and for some border on “climate denial.” “The science is clear: the 1.5°C limit is only possible if we finally stop burning all fossil fuels. Do not reduce, do not decrease. Phased elimination, with a clear timetable,” Guterres said on Friday.
Bill Hare, director of Climate Analytics, called Al Yaber's words “revealing and worrying. “Sending us back to the caves is the oldest of the fossil fuel industry's metaphors: it borders on climate denial.”
More than 100 countries in Africa, Europe, the Pacific and the Caribbean support a phase-out of fossil fuels; But everything indicates, given the position of magnate Al Yaber, that the final agreement of the conference should use softer language, closer to the idea of a “gradual reduction” of fossil fuels. The US supports a phase-out and others, including Russia, Saudi Arabia and China, reject the call. Both options are on the table, as are other proposals to mention only coal or say nothing about fossil fuels. And it also remains to be determined how the possible agreement opens the door to technologies that capture and store CO2, which would legitimize the use of fossil fuels for longer.
The debate over a phase-out or reduction of fossil energy threatens to last the entire conference. Many see here a Byzantine semantic issue, since both terms do not have agreed definitions. But they do group sides that symbolize greater or lesser climate ambition. At the summit, the initiative of 118 governments that have committed to tripling the world's renewable energy capacity by 2030 was made public. Al Yaber also launched its plan to reduce methane emissions in the oil and gas sector, supported by 50 producers; but Guterres replied that “it falls far short of what is required.” They clashed again.
