The UAE consensus: a deal has been signed – but what kind of deal?
Fiona Harvey
As the deal goes through with stunning swiftness, Cop president Al Jaber has labelled it the “UAE consensus”, writes Fiona Harvey.
But is this a historic deal that will spell the eventual end of fossil fuels? Or will it be one more step on the road to hell?
In the world of climate talks, these two are not mutually exclusive. The text that was presented to delegates on Wednesday morning at Cop28 – and that was adopted a few minutes ago – enjoins countries for the first time to embark on a de facto phase out of fossil fuels. But it cannot require them to do so and it contains “a litany of loopholes”, according to the small island states that are most vulnerable to the impacts of the climate crisis, that will hamper the world from cutting greenhouse gas emissions drastically enough to limit global heating to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.
There are plenty of problems with this deal. Developing countries still need hundreds of billions more in finance, to help them make the transition away from coal, oil and gas. Developed countries and oil producers will not be forced to move as fast as climate science urges.
The US will get away lightly from this Cop, having pledged just over $20m in new finance for the poor world, and with its position as the world’s biggest oil and gas producer intact. China will continue to expand its coal production as well as renewable energy, and India’s coal industry will also have little to fear.
But this deal, imperfect as it is, faced colossal opposition from the world’s oil producing countries. Saudi Arabia tried to remove any reference to fossil fuels, then tried to insert references to carbon capture and storage, a technology it professes to love but strangely fails to invest in. Russia worked behind the scenes to scupper progress, and will do so far more next year when the Cop is held in Baku, Azerbaijan.
The general feeling, as the final plenary of Cop28 kicks off just 24 hours after its scheduled finish, is that this deal does represent significant progress for the countries that want to tackle the climate crisis. The world must take this signal as the end of the fossil fuel era – now, before the gates of hell close behind us.
Key events
Scientist: ‘Cop28 is the fossil fuel industry’s dream outcome because it looks like progress but it isn’t’
Damian Carrington
There was uproar in the first week of Cop28 when the Guardian revealed comments from Cop president Sultan Al Jaber saying there was “no science” that said a fossil fuel phase out was needed to keep global heating below 1.5C. Al Jaber, also CEO of the UAE’s state oil company, claimed his comments were misinterpreted.
Here’s what scientists are saying about the 198-nation deal brokered by Al Jaber, which calls for a “transition away” from fossil fuels.
Prof Johan Rockström, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany:
“No, the Cop28 agreement will not enable the world to hold the 1.5C limit, but yes, the result is a pivotal land-mark. This agreement delivers on making it clear to all financial institutions, businesses and societies that we are now finally – eight years behind the Paris schedule – at the true ‘beginning of the end’ of the fossil-fuel driven world economy. Yet the fossil-fuel statement remains too vague, with no hard and accountable boundaries for 2030, 2040 and 2050.”
Prof Mike Berners-Lee, Lancaster University said:
“Cop28 is the fossil fuel industry’s dream outcome, because it looks like progress, but it isn’t.”
Dr Ella Gilbert, at British Antarctic Survey:
“The Cop28 agreement finally puts into words what scientists have been saying for decades – that continued fossil fuel use must be eliminated to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. [The record hot year of] 2023 has given us a taste of what is to come and demonstrates how urgently we must act. While this eleventh-hour intervention is welcome, it will not be strong enough to avoid the worst impacts, including ice loss from the polar regions and devastating extreme events.”
Prof Martin Siegert, University of Exeter, UK:
“The science is perfectly clear. Cop28, by not making a clear declaration to STOP fossil fuel burning is a tragedy for the planet and our future. The world is heating faster and more powerfully than the COP response to deal with it.”
Dr Emma Lawrance, Imperial College London, UK said:
“The Cop negotiations are ultimately negotiating human health and wellbeing – mental and physical. However, unless developed countries lead the way in delivering emission cuts and the fair funding structures other countries need to act, the cost of inaction will be lives, and quality of life.”
Dr Leslie Mabon, Open University, UK:
“A lot of the blame for slow-walking these climate talks and watering down the final text will rightly be placed on the major oil-producing states. However, the outcome is also a wake-up call for wealthier and historically high-emitting nations. Countries like the UK, the US and those in the European Union need to walk the walk on climate change if they want to be seen as credible climate leaders globally. This means showing leadership by reducing our own production of and demand for fossil fuels.”
Prof Daniela Schmidt, University of Bristol:
“The time for talking is over. Delaying change further is indefensible. Pretending that reducing emissions by 2050 is enough ignores the dangerous, life-threatening consequences of our anthropogenic heating of the planet. There are still trillions in subsidies given every year to fossil fuel industries who make money for their shareholders ignoring the consequences. Why is that money not redirected to help communities adapt and change the way we live?”
Prof Gulcin Ozkan, King’s College London,UK:
“The final declaration falls short on many levels. First, it is vague with no timeframe, hence the process can potentially take a very long time. Second, there is no clear commitment regarding financial support to the less developed countries in their transition. Finally, and surprisingly, there is no mention of a net zero target for methane emissions.”
Dr Elena Cantarello, Bournemouth University, UK:
“It is hugely disappointing to see how a very small number of countries have been able to put short term national interests ahead of the future of people and nature, however, it was hugely positive to see the food system declaration, which for the first time will require countries to consider food in their national determined contributions.”
A delegate from the Children and Youth observers said the agreement had “written her obituary at the age of 16”. In a fiery joint speech, the two delegates criticised leaders for applauding the Global Stocktake despite its flaws. They also criticised the countries in the room for funding war while failing to spend enough on stopping climate change. “Not in our name. For shame.”
Al Jaber immediately responded to their critique that the process had not been inclusive. “You are central to the prosperity of this world. That is why we have worked hard ensuring the inclusivity of everyone… and will continue to work very hard to ensure you have an effective role in this process.”
An underrated point from my colleague Damian Carrington here.
#COP28 My take: The #ClimateCrisis crisis is driven by fossil fuels, which the industry is phasing *UP*
Is “transition away” a strong enough signal to change that anytime soon? Not in my opinion
But the citing of fossil fuels is historic. It’s a tragedy it has taken 30 years
— Damian Carrington (@dpcarrington) December 13, 2023
The delegate from Ethiopia praised the agreement on the loss and damage fund but warned that it must remain “robust and responsive” to the needs of countries most affected by climate change.
The delegate added: “Let’s not just meet our targets. Let’s try to exceed them.”
Leading climate scientists at the University of Exeter have reacted to the agreement. Richard Betts said: “The global stocktake quotes lots of sound science highlighting the urgency of the situation we are in, and this is to be applauded. However, it’s worrying that the Dubai negotiations went ahead on the basis of a misunderstanding of how close we are now to reaching 1.5C global warming. The text gives observed warming as ‘about 1.1C’, but this is already out of date – the actual current global warming level is about 1.3C. While this is clearly not the main reason why the agreement falls short of what is needed, it may have contributed to a reduced sense of urgency.”
James Dyke said: “Cop28 needed to deliver an unambiguous statement about the rapid phase out of fossil fuels. That would represent a rupture from previous Cops and business as usual – which is what is needed now, given record-breaking global temperature and greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, that did not happen. While the agreement’s call for the need to transition away from fossil fuels is welcome, it has numerous caveats and loopholes that risks rendering it meaningless when it comes to our efforts to limit warming to well below 2C. That this deal has been hailed as a landmark is more a measure of previous failures than any step change when it comes to the increasingly urgent need to rapidly stop burning coal, oil and gas.”
Mike O’Sullivan said: “Cop is meant to be the vehicle for solutions, but all it seems to do is recognise problems that the rest of the world identified years ago. It’s obvious to most people that limiting global warming meant reduced fossil fuel use, but only now do our leaders say this.
“But so what? Where are the real global plans for the energy transition, without relying on fanciful tech solutions, with adequate support for poorer nations? Where is the global leadership to take the right action, not the selfish action? Across the globe, there are plans to expand fossil production – how does this fit with the text that’s just been agreed?
“It’s clear what we need: the wealthiest in society should pay for the transition.”
Raphaëlle Haywood said: “The final report from Cop28 is disappointing, but it does not change reality: we need to phase out fossil fuels now regardless of the words on the page. The era of fossil fuels is over.”
Damian Carrington
The UN environment chief, Inger Andersen, said: “The deal is not perfect, but one thing is clear: the world is no longer denying our harmful addiction to fossil fuels. Now we move beyond bargaining to action. This means real action on a rapid transition away from fossil fuels, especially for the G20. To have any hope of doing this in line with what the science demands of us, we must unleash far greater finance to support countries in a just, equitable and clean transition, which is especially important for developing nations that must leapfrog to low-carbon development. We have the solutions; we know what needs to be done. And action can no longer wait.”
The delegate from Nigeria said some of the outcomes could be “suffocating” for developing countries if they are not provided help to transition, such as money and technology. “The developed countries need to be more forthcoming in providing support to developing countries like Nigeria.”
Patrick Greenfield
The Guardian managed to grab a word with the UK climate minister, Graham Stuart, as he was leaving the Cop28 venue. He was on his way to the airport for a flight back to London. This was after he left Dubai yesterday to fly home for a vote on the government’s Rwanda policy, only to immediately return to the UAE.
When asked about the significance of the agreement, Stuart said it was historic.
“It’s the beginning of the end of the fossil fuel era. It’s the first time we got the world – including the major oil and gas producers – to sign up to a transition away from fossil fuels. We have to turn that into reality but it’s an exciting step forward. There are two big elements that have contributed to that. One is the science, which is just so hard to argue with now. The other is the voices of the frontline states, the Pacific states in particular. They have been able to change attitudes,” he said.
When asked about the demand from the developing world that rich countries go first in the energy transition and how that tallies with the UK government expanding oil and gas licences, Stuart said:
“Expanding what? The North Sea from an oil and gas basis is declining. It would be really good if the Guardian were to reflect the facts on the ground on that, it’s expected to halve over the next decade. It’s falling even faster than demand is falling,” he said.
The delegate from Palau praised the UAE presidency for its vision for a world without fossil fuels but also criticised “loopholes” in the text like carbon capture and the phrase “transition away” rather than “phase out”.
The delegate added: “Nevertheless, we need to set sail and course-correct quickly.”
Damian Carrington
Madeleine Diouf Sarr, chair of the Least Developed Countries Group, which has almost 50 member states, said: “This outcome reflects the very lowest possible ambition that we could accept rather than what we know, according to the best available science, is necessary to urgently address the climate crisis.
“Limiting warming to 1.5C is a matter of survival, and international cooperation remains key to ensuring it. Alignment with 1.5C not only requires countries to urgently reduce domestic emissions but also the delivery of significant climate finance so that we can continue our leadership in going well beyond our fair share of the global effort when it comes to reducing emissions
There is recognition in this text of the trillions of dollars needed to address climate change in our countries. Yet it fails to deliver a credible response to this challenge. Next year will be critical in deciding the new climate finance goal.”
“Today’s outcome [on the the Global Goal on Adaptation] is full of eloquent language but regrettably devoid of actionable commitments.”
The delegate from Ghana criticised the text for setting a timeline on fossil fuels but staying vague on the sources of other greenhouse gases – in particular, the expectations it would create for developing countries. “I don’t think there’s fairness there.”