OPEC members are lobbying against attempts to include language on the “phasing out” of fossil fuels in a COP28 climate agreement, underlining the struggle over whether the summit can, for the first time in 30 years, address the future of oil and gas.
Negotiators and observers at the annual UN climate talks, which are seeking to reach an agreement to tackle the worst impacts of climate change, said that several OPEC members appear to have heeded calls from the oil producers’ group to veto any agreement to phase out fossil fuels.
In a letter dated Wednesday 6th December, OPEC Secretary General Haitham Al Ghais called on members to reject language targeting fossil fuels, saying that “undue and disproportionate pressure against fossil fuels could reach a tipping point with irreversible consequences”.
Al Ghais declined to comment on the letter, but said that OPEC wanted to keep the focus of the talks on reducing emissions, rather than choosing energy sources.
“The world needs major investments in all energies, including hydrocarbons,” he said. “Energy transitions must be fair, equitable and inclusive.”
At least 80 countries are demanding an agreement for COP28, which calls for an eventual end to the use of fossil fuels, the main source of global warming emissions, to try to get on track to achieve the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
However, it is difficult to persuade countries that depend on oil and gas for revenue, many of which are promoting technologies such as carbon capture, which is expensive and has yet to be proven at scale.
Tina Stege, climate envoy for the Republic of the Marshall Islands – one of the places most affected by climate change – said that any backtracking on phasing out fossil fuels jeopardises the world’s prosperity.
“Nothing jeopardises the prosperity and future of all people on Earth, including all citizens of OPEC countries, more than fossil fuels,” said Stege, whose country chairs the High Ambition Coalition, a group of nations advocating more ambitious emissions targets and policies.
“That’s why the High Ambition Coalition is pushing for the phasing out of fossil fuels, which are at the root of this crisis. 1.5 is non-negotiable and that means the end of fossil fuels,” he said in a statement.
‘Critical phase’
After a week of technical talks, the negotiations now have a ministerial input before the end of the summit, scheduled for Tuesday 12 December – the last phase in which countries are struggling to reach a consensus on the wording of the fossil fuel text.
The latest version of the negotiating text includes a range of options – from agreeing to a “phasing out of fossil fuels according to the best available scientific data”, to phasing out “uninterrupted fossil fuels”, to not including any reference to them at all.
The German Secretary of State and Special Envoy for Climate Action, Jennifer Morgan, said that countries are now “entering the critical phase of the negotiations”.
“It is time for all countries to remember what is at stake and be prepared to send the signal the world needs at this critical moment in the global climate crisis. I am concerned that not everyone is participating constructively.”
Asked about OPEC’s letter, COP28 Director General Majid Al Suwaidi avoided the term “fossil fuels”, but said that the United Arab Emirates, as president of the summit, wants an agreement for the world to reach the 1.5 degree target.
“Our COP President has been very clear from day one that he wants to achieve an outcome that puts us clearly on the path to 1.5 degrees,” he told a press conference. “He clearly wants to see an outcome that is as ambitious as possible and we believe we will achieve it.”
The negotiators have a difficult task ahead of them.
Wael Aboulmagd, special representative of the Egyptian COP27 presidency, said that there are too many options in the text on fossil fuels, adding that there is also a stalemate in the negotiations on measures to help nations adapt to extreme weather and other impacts of climate change.
“We still have some serious problems with adaptation. We are still a long way behind in this regard.”
O.Económico
