top of page
helenhall5
Jan 117 min read

COP28 and the Raging Energy Transition Debate Between Phase-Out/ Phase-Down of Fossil Fuel

Dr Chinenye Nriezedi-Anejionu, Senior Lecturer NLS https://www.ntu.ac.uk/staff-profiles/law/chinenye-nri-ezedi



The just concluded 28th annual United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28) is arguably one of the most dramatic COP conferences in the last decade. This conference held in December 2023 was hosted by the United Arab Emirates (UAE), one of the leading oil-producing countries in the world. The choice of one of the world's top 10 fossil fuel producers to host such an event poised to curtail emission from fossil fuel came to many observers as a surprise to say the least. Events leading up to the conference was trailed by a controversial leak that the host country was planning to use the opportunity that would be provided by the COP28 climate talks to strike oil and gas deals. The irony of this was not lost to experts and the public. The essence of the COP28 was to mitigate long-term global temperature rise by 1.5°C, and crucial to this was drastic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of which fossil fuel is a major contribution.


One insight that could be gleaned early on from the leak was the antithetical disposition of the host country towards expected cuts in fossil fuel production. It eventually came to the fore that the UAE were not the only country leaning towards this stance. Other oil and gas producing states backtracked on their commitments to drastic fossil fuel production cuts. This essentially gave rise to two opposing views on how best to cut emission. Although, all the countries at COP 28 largely agree that there was need to mitigate climate impacts via fossil energy reduction, the means through which this goal can be achieved is the dividing factor. Whereas, most western countries argued for a Phase-out approach, oil producing countries whose livelihoods heavily relies on proceeds from oil and gas sale leaned towards a Phase-down approach.


The key focus of the COP28 includes fast-tracking the move to clean energy sources, to "slash" greenhouse gas emissions before 2030, delivering money for climate action from richer to poorer countries, and working on a new deal for developing nations.


The COP28 conference was expected to have arrived at a decision regarding climatic change mitigation policies across the world which would have been a landmark pronouncement that has never been achieved from the three decades of U.N. climate summits. However, the conference ended up being divided over the debate on the correct language to use in addressing the impact of fossil fuel on climate emission. On the face of it, the divide seems to be a minor semantic squabble, until one burrows into the underlying factors surrounding the matter. At the core of this is the fear of oil producing countries over the impact of the drastic cut on fossil fuel production on their revenues. Developed states are also fearful that continued production of fossil fuels at the current level will heavily impact them. Hence, while non-fossil fuel producers want the phrase ‘phase-out’ in the draft agreement, major fossil fuel producing countries belonging to OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) disagree and would rather prefer a ‘phase-down’ clause in the document. Hence, the conference ended up as a showdown between OPEC and non-OPEC countries. To buttress its position, OPEC urged members to reject any COP28 agreement that “targets” fossil fuels.


The ‘phase-down’ Argument

The core argument of the phase-down approach is that more time is required to transition into a non-fossil fuel era. The oil-producing countries believe that drastic cut in fossil fuel production will leave a huge vacuum in the energy sector, without any adequate alternative in place. They also argued that there was no scientific evidence backing the suggestion that the phasing out of fossil fuels would reduce global warming to the targeted 1.5C. Sultan Al Jaber, the COP28 President was quoted as saying that there was "no science" to suggest phasing out fossil fuels will help limit global warming to 1.5C.


"A phase-out of fossil fuel, in my view, is inevitable, it is essential but we need to be real, serious and pragmatic about it." "Please help me, show me the roadmap for a phase-out of fossil fuel that will allow for sustainable socioeconomic development, unless you want to take the world back into caves." He added that while a phasedown is “inevitable”, it can only happen when the world has added a sufficient amount of renewable energy capacity. “You can’t unplug the world from the current energy system before you build the new energy system,” he says. “It’s a transition: transitions don’t happen overnight, transition takes time.”


The oil-producing countries also opine that effort should be channelled towards curtailing emissions rather than fossil fuels. This line of argument is based on the position that modern carbon capture technologies could help in mitigating emissions. The World Economic Forum’s Fostering Effective Energy Transition 2023 Report posited that carbon capture can help tackle emissions from power plants and industrial facilities that use fossil fuels. The carbon capture technology is a set of techniques that are being developed to remove carbon pollution from the air and to capture what is being produced from power plants and other polluting facilities, then storing it or reusing it. Although many scientists have expressed concern that carbon capture is expensive, unproven at scale, and a distraction from policies to cut fossil fuel use, many oil-producing countries have hinged their pollution “abatement” argument on this technology. Furthermore, although the G7 agreed to accelerate a phase-out of fossil fuels earlier this year, it included the word “unabated” in this promise, implying that the deal would only target fossil fuel use without carbon capture technology. It is based on these entrenched positions that the OPEC Secretary-General urged members to reject any deal targeting fossil fuels rather than emissions.


This position is also supported by many African countries whose economic mainstay is the fossil fuel production. Transitioning into a non-fossil fuel production era is a herculean task for struggling countries that would require substantial support by developed countries. This view was also voiced out by the Ugandan Energy Minister. According to her, although Uganda already has a plan to roll out renewable energy towards going green, such a huge transition would require the profits (about $47 billion) earned/reckoned from the country’s fossil fuel reserves. She further expressed concerns that the worth of those reserves would be lessened if the world agrees to phase it out. Thus, for this reason, phasing out is completely out for Uganda.


She is not alone. Many developing countries believe that rich countries should step up and help with the necessary finance for transitioning, because they got rich by burning fossil fuels and they created the climate crisis in the process. The director of Power Shift Africa argued that “the text [in the COP28 draft agreement should] also include important recognition of fairness in regard to developing countries.”


Developing countries have also argued that due to the complexities surrounding this, countries with fewer means should be given more time to shift to clean energy, while richer ones should move faster. Also that a compromise must also include increasing financial and technological support for developing nations to build the necessary infrastructure. Other countries including India and China chose to endorse popular call for boosting renewable energy, rather than backing fossil fuel phaseout at COP28.


The ‘Phase-Out’ Argument

A counter argument to the ‘phase-down’ argument is the phase-out argument which aims at complete phasing out of fossil fuel production across the world. This line of argument is backed by many developed countries including the US, UK, EU, and some of the Island nations which are the most vulnerable to climate change, and climate campaigners.


The argument for the phasing out of fossil fuel came to the fore after COP26 Summit held at Glasgow, Scotland in 2021. The summit had called on countries to “accelerate the development, deployment and dissemination of technologies, and the adoption of policies, to transition towards low-emission energy systems, including by rapidly scaling up the deployment of clean power generation and energy efficiency measures…while providing targeted support to the poorest and most vulnerable in line with national circumstances and recognizing the need for support towards a just transition”.


Latching on this many countries and campaigners began to call for the phase out of fossil fuels. There has also been debate about whether the phase-out should apply to all fossil (coal, oil, and gas), or only "unabated" fossil fuels. The UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres called on world leaders to cut emissions to help "save" the planet. He posits that: "The 1.5°C limit is only possible if we ultimately stop burning all fossil fuels. Not reduce. Not abate."


Proponents of this position hoped to use the COP28 to press home their demand for drastic reduction of fossil fuel production towards its ultimate eradication across the globe. About 80 countries demanded for a COP28 agreement that calls for an eventual end to the use of fossil fuels.


Phase-out campaigners argue that the world is in danger if such drastic measures are not immediately taken. “We need to take transformative action in the next decade to completely phase out fossil fuel production and transition our economy to 100% renewable energy,” Greenpeace says.


However, a report (Synthesis Report of its Sixth Assessment Report) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published earlier this year suggested that to have a reasonable chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C by the end of the century, the use of fossil fuel will need to be drastically reduced but not necessarily phased out.

 

The Compromise Deal

At the end of the summit a compromise was reached between the parties and the countries agreed to “transition-away” from fossil fuels. The UN’s climate body (UNFCCC) published the draft text of the deal after the parties agreed to the wording of the text. The phase-down proponents appeared satisfied with the deal which does not contain the phase-out. COP28 president called the deal historic because according to him: “We have language on fossil fuels in our final agreement for the first time ever”.

 

 Further Reading





World Economic Forum, Fostering Effective Energy Transition 2023 Report, p 27










133 views0 comments

Comments

bottom of page