Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, an expert lawyer in environmental law, chaired the UN climate conference (COP20) held in Peru (2014) and is one of the people who best knows these negotiating processes. Today he is Leader of the Climate and Energy Global Practice of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF)
The debate on the phasing out of fossil fuels or their reduction has erupted like never before at a climate summit. What assessment do you make?
The reality is that this debate on the exit from fossil fuels already has a few years of history, because we must remember that at COP26 in Glasgow, in Scotland, there was a wish from the Presidency of the conference that seemed like it could lead to success for that a phrase about the “phase out” be agreed upon. And we must remember that in the last two minutes of the session the representative of India raised his hand and said: "we must change the term 'exit' to 'reduce'." And that weakened the Glasgow text. The same thing was repeated at COP27 in Egypt. Therefore we come to this COP28 with the expectation that there will now be a strong political declaration, but that it is undoubtable. Because we are in a moment in which the phrase has to be clear: get out of fossil fuels
How do you see the negotiation?
In this negotiation process there are different positions. And the negotiating text that came out on Friday at 3:30 pm Gulf time presents five options on this point alone. The first is an orderly exit from fossil fuels. A second option, I think reasonable, is to get out of fossil fuels based on what science suggests and in particular the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The third talks about getting out of 'undepleted' fossil fuels [without reducing emissions, except for CO2 capture and storage technologies] and another that says "reduce" [coal]. When there are so many options, what it is reflecting is that consensus has not yet been able to be built. We knew that this was going to be the most contentious point of this COP. But let's see what the presidency's ability to generate consensus is.
Do you see a positive atmosphere?
What I can point out is that today, on the second day of the second week [yesterday Saturday], the atmosphere seems positive. In the first week an agreement was reached on the loss and damage mechanism which was quickly adopted for negotiation. And there are also many actors, many sectors and many initiatives that I believe create a positive atmosphere at this conference, but let's be clear in this conference, every day counts. The good atmosphere can also be lost in a single day.
But there is little left, on Tuesday it must close
I was president of the Lima COP and I know that the last two days are the ones that count the most. Sometimes there can be a crisis in the last two days - and there is a lot of appeal to the capacity of the presidency to, based on the trust and political capital it may have, achieve the expected consensus.
Would the concept of 'reducing' fossil fuels be enough?
It is insufficient. For several reasons: first, because what is proposed from science is a way out; second, because climate conferences must be understood as gradual processes; each COP builds on the previous one; Therefore, “reducing” or using the term ‘unabated’ would be repeating the phrase from the Egypt and Glasgow agreements. Now we need progress. And third, because I think we are not realizing that we are very close to the middle of the decisive decade. If a clear decision is not made about the exit of fossil fuels, at the end of the decade we will have exceeded the safe temperature threshold, set out in the goal of 1.5ºC, and clarity is needed. And fourth because this is a political process that must send signals to the economy. And this is the only way for the signal to be clear and forceful so that the economy then corresponds to this definition.
An agreement giving the possibility of excluding fuels and carbon capture and storage systems from this exit would also be insufficient.
When one thinks about carbon capture and deposit mechanisms, we are talking first of all about a very expensive technology, which does not have the capacity to retain more than 10% of the carbon and which we should also leave for sectors that are difficult to 'abate' [ to reduce emissions], such as cement or steel or even agriculture, but not fossil fuels. What we need is a technological change in the fossil fuel industry.
So...?
We need a gradual exit while at the same time tripling renewable energy installations and doubling energy efficiency by the end of the decade. The hidden detail in the agreement is sought, but these technologies can only contribute 10% (reduction). Some say these technologies should only work for coal. It is insufficient. Some play with the word “reduce”; others, with “go out; others play with the term that it should only refer to subsidies. It is a very long discussion. The only thing I could say is this is not a whimsical discussion. As I pointed out, the economy needs a clear signal from international politics.
In your opinion, where is the main obstacle? Is it Arabia, Russia, China...? Where do the resistances come from?
On several fronts. Obviously there are countries more dependent on oil activity as a source of income; There are countries more dependent on the extraction and also others on the use of coal as an energy source. There are countries that estimate that a very strict exit text from fossil fuels could limit their development projections.
Mexico has said it...
Yes, even, at some point, the president of Mexico raises a position of this type. Therefore, in this debate, which is multilateral, countries also come with their own concerns; I wouldn't point to one in particular. I would point to the sum of factors that make it very difficult. And also some developing countries, even the least developed, middle-income ones, say: 'they are asking me for renewable energy, but I need financing to do it.' This debate also has to do with financial conditions, conditions for building capabilities, technology transfer...
This great debate has hidden or cast a bit of a shadow over other issues. I am referring to financing for developing nations….
Let's be clear. Regarding financing, there are several issues. The first thing is that the commitment of the Paris Agreement, which has been postponed for too long, be fulfilled. I am referring to the $100 billion annually from 2020 to 2025 [public and private resources to finance emissions reduction and climate change adaptation measures]. That has been achieved although late. But we are in 2023 obviously we knew that this money is insufficient. We know that the energy transition is 3.3 trillion dollars. Therefore, what is being discussed at this COP, although this should not be decided here, is what is called the new quantitative collective goal of climate finance.
What is it?
The goal set in the Paris Agreement was a goal until 2020 and 2025. And starting in 2025 we must have a clearer, more ambitious goal defined. Furthermore, many parties say that we have to set the conditions so that this delay does not occur again. But when we talk about climate finance it is also the agreement on the fund for losses and damages. That has been agreed and this was the good news of the first day, which will operate under the World Bank. But under certain conditions
Because?
Because if a middle-income country were to submit to the usual rules of the World Bank, they could only access that money via loan, and then under these conditions the World Bank has been told that these other countries may also have losses and damages that require compensated. The World Bank has been designated to host the fund but for only four years and then in the fourth year it will be verified. And financing for adaptation is also discussed, and current financing is absolutely insufficient. Many countries say that we are forgetting about adaptation. And the drafts are indicating that it is time to be concrete in what is called the reform of multilateral banking. We are talking about many aspects of the financial discussion that is part of this debate,
