Think tanks, civil society caution that ‘fossil fuels’ mention in GST is riddled with loopholes

For the first time after three decades of climate negotiations, the draft of the Global Stocktake (GST) released on December 13, 2023 in Dubai makes a direct mention of fossil fuels. 

The latest text adopted at the 28th Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP28) emphasises the need to transition away “from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly, and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade, to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science”.

Sunita Narain, director-general of the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), said: “The inclusion of fossil fuels in the GST is an important starting point for the world to now discuss the road ahead, which must be based on funding and fairness.”

Linda Kalcher, executive director of Strategic Perspectives, a European think-tank, said, “For the first time, the United Nations climate talks have addressed the need to stop burning fossil fuels. COP28 marks the beginning of the end of the fossil fuel era.” 

Kalcher cautioned in her statement that this deal is still heavy with loopholes, lacks timelines and fails to provide the support that the majority of the world’s people are going to need to finance the rapid transition that is now required.

The GST compromises on ambition by leaving open the role of “transitional fuels” for energy security, which is a reference to natural gas — a loophole that oil- and gas-producing nations can easily exploit to expand production and use. In fact, the GST singles out coal as a fuel, and makes no mention of oil and gas at all, a press release by CSE stated.

“This, when countries like the United States have been ramping up LNG exports to record levels, and EU is building new LNG import terminals, despite the IEA’s warning of peaking of fossil fuel demand. These investments risk carbon lock-in till mid-century and beyond,” CSE researchers added.

Previously, at COP26, the outcome mentioned just one fossil fuel by referring to the phase-down of unabated coal power, a watered-down version of the required ‘phase-out’ certain countries have been batting for. It was carried forward unchanged at COP27 and COP28.

The new text calls on the parties to triple renewable energy by 2030 and double energy efficiency. It also recognises that the costs of renewables are falling fast.

COP28 President Sultan Al Jaber called it the “UAE consensus”.

In response to the last GST draft text at COP28, Chiara Liguori, Oxfam's Senior Climate Change Policy Advisor, said: “Instead of committing to a full phase-out of all fossil fuels, it only vaguely calls on states to phase down coal and reduce use and production of fossil fuels. Any commitments to actually pay for the transition toward renewables for lower-income countries are notable by their absence.”

“Right now, people are dying because of catastrophic climate breakdown in the Horn of Africa and around the world. We need far more action now to prevent further massive loss of life,” Liguori said. 

“To find a resolution, rich countries with high historical responsibility for the climate crisis, like the United Kingdom, should commit to phase out fossil fuels faster and provide adequate finance and support to lower-income countries to transition to renewable energy," Ligouri added.

Much to the ire of scientists, civil society and activists, the text also encourages removal technologies such as carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS), particularly in hard-to-abate sectors.

A recent study by Oxford University’s Smith School of Enterprise and Environment warned that a high-carbon capture and storage pathway to decarbonisation to potentially mitigate half of today’s emissions in the oil and gas industry will cost an additional $30 trillion by 2050, compared to a low-carbon capture and storage pathway pathway.

Besides high cost, CCUS has not been proven to reduce emissions. A carbon capture and storage retrofit on a coal plant in Texas only reduced carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions by 10.8 per cent over 20 years, a 2019 study found. Much of this is owing to an energy penalty, which refers to emissions unaccounted for during the operation of the technology.

Richard Black, the Oxford study’s author had said on microblogging platfgorm X (formerly Twitter): “Governments must abandon claims that blanket CCS rollout is a sensible way to deliver Net Zero and the Paris Agreement goals. It isn’t: Renewable energy, efficiency, and clean electrification can do the job with much greater feasibility, lower sustainability risks and lower cost.”

CCUS is just a loophole for the oil and gas industry to maintain the status quo, indicated Harjeet Singh, head of global political strategy at Climate Action Network International.

“After decades of evasion, COP28 finally cast a glaring spotlight on the real culprits of the climate crisis: Fossil fuels. A long-overdue direction to move away from coal, oil, and gas has been set. Yet, the resolution is marred by loopholes that offer the fossil fuel industry numerous escape routes, relying on unproven, unsafe technologies,” he added.

An analysis by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) found that 475 lobbyists belonged to companies directly involved with CCUS projects at COP28.

Lili Fuhr, director of the fossil economy programme at CIEL, said in her statement, “Just a year ago at COP27, carbon capture and storage was merely a loophole, unnoticed by most. At COP28, the question of ‘to abate or not to abate’ took center stage, with carbon capture and storage offered up as a technological savior. But under public scrutiny, the fossil fuel industry’s favorite pretext was stripped bare, exposing the abysmal track record of carbon capture technologies and the climate-wrecking reality of ‘abated’ fossil fuels like ‘clean’ hydrogen, ‘blue’ ammonia, or ‘low carbon’ gas.”

Subscribe to Daily Newsletter :

SUPPORT US

We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.