analysis
The exit from coal, oil and gas is considered crucial in the fight against the climate crisis. There will probably still be no decision at the climate conference in Dubai. The talks start on Thursday.
At the UN climate conference in Dubai, which begins on Thursday, a decision will be made to phase out all fossil fuels. At least 20 countries have called for this, including countries in the south and six EU members – including France and Spain.
They belong to the so-called High Ambition Coalition, a group that wants more climate protection. Germany is actually one of them, but has not supported this demand. It is entirely scientifically justifiable. But how realistic is it for this to happen in Dubai?
Relics from the Carboniferous period
Coal, oil and gas – these are the relics of earlier geological eras. Carbon captured by forests, algae and animals since the Carboniferous Age. This process took around 300 million years and produced huge amounts of fuel.
If all the resources were burned, says Ottmar Edenhofer from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), around 10,600 gigatons of carbon dioxide would be released. Global emissions are 38 gigatons (Gt) per year. And just another 250 Gt of this can take us sustainably above the 1.5 degree warming limit, calculates Johan Rockström from the same institute.
No price for atmosphere
We will not run out of fossil fuels, we will not be allowed to run out of them. In this calculation, the scarce commodity is not the fuel, but the atmosphere and its limited ability to absorb CO2.
But the “consumption” of environmental assets like the atmosphere has no price in traditional economic models. That’s why the market won’t control anything here, at least not anywhere near in time. That is why there have been and are attempts at the UN climate conferences for years to directly or indirectly politically enshrine the phase-out of coal, oil and gas in an international agreement.
Fossil fuel subsidies at record levels
Two years ago, states declared at the climate conference that they wanted to at least abolish “inefficient subsidies for fossil fuels.” But according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), these subsidies rose to a new record value of seven trillion US dollars the following year.
The world spends significantly more on supporting coal, oil and gas than on, say, education. The 15 states in the exit coalition are now demanding a binding plan for the dismantling of these subsidies worldwide. But the G20 countries should start first.
Influence of the oil and gas lobby
Also in Glasgow in 2021, the final document at least mentioned the need to reduce the burning of coal (“Phasing Down Coal”). Last year in Sharm El-Sheikh, however, the problem was not even mentioned by name. Critics attribute this to the massive influence of the oil and gas lobby.
It will be no less at the COP28 climate conference in Dubai. The designated president of this conference, Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber, is head of the United Arab Emirates’ state oil company ADNOC. He actively addresses the issue of “exit” and tries to hammer in stakes.
A slow phase-out of fossil fuels by the middle of the century is conceivable, but the proposal contains the word “unabated”, which means “not defused”. In this context, this opens a back door: Coal, oil and gas could continue to be used if only the resulting greenhouse gas CO2 is captured and stored so that it does not enter the atmosphere. CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) or CDR (Carbon Dioxide Removal) are the technical terms for this process.
support from scientist
The 20 states that want an exit plan say that it can only play a small role and should in no way prevent an exit. They receive support from scientists such as the climate economist Edenhofer from PIK. CDR is necessary anyway, he argues, in order to ultimately neutralize the inevitable greenhouse gases in an industrial society, such as those produced as exhaust gases during production.
But the options for this are technically limited and also expensive. Even if we completely stop burning coal, oil and gas, it would cost between 0.3 and three percent of global gross domestic product. In a final text of the climate conference, the word “unabated” could end up being the excuse for many countries to simply carry on as before.
That would have dramatic consequences, according to the “Production Gap Report” from the UN environmental organization UNEP. The existing dismantling plans alone would make all climate goals invalid. And many want to promote even more.
For example, the British government of Conservative Rishi Sunak has just decided to issue additional licenses for oil and gas production every year. The environmentally conscious King Charles III. had to read this out in his “King’s Speech” at the beginning of November. And ADNOC, the company of the future conference leader of the climate negotiations, also wants to invest $150 billion in the coming years to expand its funding capacity.
End date hardly likely
The likelihood that there will be a timetable for phasing out fossil fuels or even an end date is low. Even Germany did not join the High Ambition Coalition’s demand this time because the language went beyond previously internationally agreed wording, a spokesman said.
However, this is also a hot potato in domestic politics, at least since Finance Minister Christian Lindner (FDP) once again questioned the coal phase-out in the West. The G20 were unable to agree on a decision on this matter at their meeting in July. This also shows how difficult the negotiations in Dubai will be.
At the international level, China is against new resolutions, and states such as Russia and Saudi Arabia no longer want to support the Glasgow 2021 term “phasing down” – i.e. reducing combustion.