“Unprecedented”, “historic”, “disappointing”, “insufficient”. Since the closing of COP28 in Dubai on December 13 (one day after the date initially planned), everyone has used their own adjective to characterize the agreement finalized after almost fifteen days of debate. HAS 20 minutes, we looked at the text adopted by consensus at the end of this 28th Conference of the Parties. And we started to panic about the complexity of the translation (the text is in English), even the imprecision or non-existence of certain terms used. “The COPs are made of compromises”, said a few weeks ago at 20 minutes, the former Minister of Ecology, Corinne Lepage. Of which act.
So, to try to better understand, we turned to a specialist in environmental and energy law: lawyer Arnaud Gossé. And we asked him to give us a “vocabulary review”.
“ Transition to (transitioning away) the exit from fossil fuels »
What the agreement says: In the text, the English term is used transitioning away, translated by certain NGOs and several media as “transition towards” the exit from fossil fuels. “This is the first time that all countries have converged on this point,” declared the Minister of Energy Transition, Agnès Pannier-Runacher, to AFP, just after the hammer blow given by Sultan al-Jaber to mark the end of the COP.
Explanations: “The expression transitioning away has, today, no definition in the legal sense of the term, even if we refer to the United Nations Framework Convention on climate change (UNFCCC) of 1992 or the Paris agreement, assures Arnaud Gossé. The word “transition” exists in French law but not in international law. As a result, everyone can put whatever they want behind it. We could, for example, think that it is a question of “engaging in a transition”. But it would then have been necessary to define a point A and a point B. This is not the case here. In the COP28 agreement, a definition of terms is clearly missing. »
“ Fossil fuels (fossil fuels) » vs. “ transition energies (transitional energies) »
What the agreement says: This is the first time that the term “fossil fuels” is written in black and white in the climate COP agreement. Mention is also made of three other types of energy: renewable energies (wind power, photovoltaics), carbon-free energies (nuclear and captured or stored fossil energies), and transition energies, of which no definition is not given. According to the text, they would make it possible to gradually get rid of fossil fuels.
Explanations: “The absence of a definition of the term “transition energies” poses, once again, a problem,” explains Arnaud Gossé. It is an expression that is very often used by players in the energy world and some oil companies to talk about natural gas. However, it is a fossil energy. Furthermore, in the agreement, it is never specified that transition energies would be limited to natural gas. We can therefore deduce that fossil fuels and transition energies designate the same thing, namely gas, oil and coal. The agreement is therefore ambivalent since it seems to move towards an exit from fossil fuels, but puts forward the possibility of using these same fossil fuels as transition energies. »
“A gradual reduction (down phase) coal-fired energy »
What the agreement says: Coal is directly mentioned here and covered by the agreement which aligns with previous commitments made at COP26 in Glasgow, two years earlier. It is therefore a question of continuing efforts to gradually reduce the production of electricity from coal which does not include the use of technologies to capture carbon emissions. It is the second most used fossil fuel in the world behind oil, and above all the most polluting.
Explanations: “Here too, there is no definition of the term down phase in international law, explains Arnaud Gossé. With phase out, which had been put on the table for a while, we could imagine an exit date, which would have made it possible to consider a definitive cessation of coal production. With down phase, we are simply talking about a reduction, which is moreover without an objective but with a simple notion of effort. States can therefore decide to reduce, without stopping their production. »
“Gradually remove (phase out) ineffective fossil fuel subsidies »
What the agreement says: If the term “phase out”, once considered in the section devoted to fossil fuels and coal, was finally deleted there because it was considered too restrictive by the Gulf countries in particular, it was retained later in the agreement . It is used to encourage States to gradually stop financing fossil fuel exploitation projects.
Explanations: “This term had already been used, notably in Glasgow, during COP26,” remembers Arnaud Gossé. Here, this expression does not oblige States to stop their subsidies but only to explain why they continue to do so. For this to be binding, it would have been necessary to indicate a date on which to stop this funding for good. And then let’s not forget that States remain sovereign. It’s repeated ad nauseam in this agreement. »
In short, for the lawyer, this agreement proudly presented by the president of COP28 as a “historic” step forward, would rather maintain a certain “climate confusionism”. “The very fact of practicing this vocabulary technique which allows everyone to read what they want to read is extremely negative for the fight against climate change,” he says. The absence of any mention of an exit date from fossil fuels and a precise indication of the measures to be taken by each country makes it a “Spanish inn” text, he believes.