EXPERT REACTION: Final COP28 agreement signed, committing to 'transition away from fossil fuels'

The agreement legitimates the expansion of Carbon Capture and Storage technologies (CCS), alongside promising commitments to halting and reversing forest degradation and signalling the urgent need to reduce fossil fuel use. The inclusion of CCS is a win for many lobbyists, many linked to the fossil fuel industries and startups, who attended COP28 and are anxious to roll out a suite of largely untested technologies that include subsurface or seabed injection and burial of CO2.

But CCS is a delaying tactic for deeper cuts in emissions, also offering the fossil fuel sector decades-long security, and with the possibility of a new 'captured carbon' market emerging. CCS is not fully operational at scale, treating a millionth of current CO2 emissions. It has failed to deliver in Chevron’s Gorgon gas facility in Western Australia and several other pilot initiatives. It provides little hope to vulnerable communities and environments.

The wording of the final Agreement is not as clear as the draft released earlier in the week (see my comment on Scimex), but the overall conclusion is that the fossil fuel era is ending and not expanding.

A major achievement of the agreement is the dismissal of Saudi Arabia’s attempt to show that carbon capture and storage (CCS) can enable fossil fuels to expand. This is recognition that science has shown that CCS technology has failed to solve the fundamental problem of fossil fuel production that even if CO2 is captured at source of production it cannot be collected and stored from billions of users.

At production points like Gorgon in WA there are huge issues that remain and it is far from being commercial. It was revealed at this conference that Saudi Arabia does not invest in CCS, rather it has been a front for not having to change production of fossil fuels into perpetuity. All oil and gas producers must now be subject to misleading advertising if they ever use CCS in their strategic assessment documentation of new fossil fuel production.

In Australia we must now reject the North West Shelf Project Extension to produce more LNG beyond 2070. The NWS growth projection is based entirely on CCS – all credibility around this reliance on CCS must now be rejected or agencies and governments will be showing their ignorance of this globally accepted fact.

The beginning of the end of the fossil fuel era is long overdue. We have known for decades that every molecule of carbon dioxide we release into the atmosphere will warm our planet for centuries to come. The scientific evidence is clear – in order to stabilise the climate, we must stop burning fossil fuels.

The call to transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems is important and a positive step. But it will not be enough to keep the goal of the Paris agreement alive – to stay well below 2°C of warming we must transition away from fossil fuels in all sectors, not just energy.

Just days ago it looked as though COP28 was not going to deliver at all. While this agreement is flawed, it is a step on the path to full decarbonisation.

Our chances of staying below 1.5°C of warming are dwindling, but rapid and ambitious action can still make this goal a reality. The choice is ours, and the time to act is now.

While the final COP28 communique marks progress in the right direction, it does not convey the sense of urgency nor the scale of cuts required to instil confidence that the world is on track to avoid dangerous climate change. There is a recognition of the scale of cuts required but no solid commitment to meet them in the timeframe dictated by the science. A “phase out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies” is welcome but by when and what is meant by “inefficient”? Such qualifications, caveats and weasel words leave open loopholes that mean the world is lagging behind its Paris agreement commitments. An absolute guarantee to move away from fossil fuels entirely is ultimately what is required but sadly missing from the final agreement.

While there are positive steps in the agreement they are too late and too vague to make change at the speed the planet requires. Importantly, COP28 recognised climate change is effectively a fossil fuel driven crisis, and it is a relief to have this long-known truth finally acknowledged. That genie will not go back into the bottle.

We are already, well before 1.5 degrees, seeing major impacts of climate change. In the frozen regions, melting of Greenland is adding 250 billion tonnes of freshwater per year into the oceans, driving up sea levels around our coastlines. Mountain glaciers are retreating, threatening water supplies for 2 billion people. Antarctic ice is melting and disrupting global ocean circulation.

Because of what we have learned since the Earth’s frozen regions since the Paris Agreement, we now know that 2 degrees is not safe for these regions. For these regions, and hence for the planet, 1.5 degrees is not merely preferable it is the only option. To do that, we must phase out fossil fuel use as quickly as possible.

As with every COP since Paris in 2015, we have seen progress towards the stabilisation of the global climate, but not enough to hold global heating to 1.5 degrees. This is perhaps inevitable in a consensus-based procedure which includes major producers of coal, oil and gas.

The most important positive steps are a stronger commitment to phasing down coal, the explicit inclusion of oil and the agreement on forest protection.

The inclusion of references to carbon capture storage (CCS) is regrettable, but probably not very harmful. CCS is not economically feasible as a method of abating emissions from extracting coal, oil and gas, or as a retrofit to coal-fired power stations.

The step towards transitioning away from fossil fuels should have been an obvious and already accomplished endeavour. It is unsurprising that in a city lacking renewable energy, this transition faced challenges.

There is compelling evidence supporting the imperative of phasing out fossil fuels as the foremost solution to combat climate change. While carbon capture and natural-based solutions can complement this effort, they should not divert attention from our primary goal.

Without defined targets and ambitious aspirations, our ability to effectively confront this existential challenge depends on our commitment to taking substantial action.

The outcomes of COP28 in Dubai are two steps forward, one step back. There’s positive momentum on finally naming fossil fuels as the key driver of greenhouse gas emissions and calling on countries to contribute to a global effort transitioning away from these sources in energy systems. But there’s also many loopholes and major gaps remaining on adaptation actions and finance for supporting developing countries. Overall, the greatest legacy of this COP may prove to be the signals it provides to investors and the private sector that the fossil fuel era is ending and clean energy investment is the way of the future.

COP28’s establishment of a fund to assist with the costs of climate change-related loss and damage is a welcome development. However, its inability to state the obvious clearly – that fossil fuels are the central source of these impacts and their use must end urgently – indicates how occluded the UNFCCC negotiations have become, and how peripheral they currently are as a force for urgent change.

This is the first time that a COP decision calls for the decline of not only coal but also oil and gas. The fact that it was struck in the Gulf region, and presided over by an oil executive, makes it more powerful.
 
The decision allows for a continued role for fossil fuels towards net zero, is vague in many ways, and leaves plenty of wriggle room for any country. Nevertheless it is important progress, on an issue where huge economic interests clash.   

Complete fossil fuel phase-out, mooted in an earlier COP draft that was dismissed, would put the world energy system on a completely different footing and profoundly change trade and export revenue patterns. That in turn is inconceivable and unacceptable to many large fossil fuel producing countries. Entire states are built on oil and gas revenue or rely on it heavily for government income. 

Reflecting developing country concerns, the COP decision text says that the transition away from fossil fuels is to be done 'in a just, orderly and equitable manner', and 'taking into account different national circumstances, pathways and approaches'. This leaves plenty of room for any nation to diverge from the overall goal. Still, the emphasis on equity is crucial in a deeply inequitable world.  

Fundamentally, governments are unwilling to force changes that are against their national economic interests. Instead they seek an economic upside in the transition. The Australia government’s emphasis on economic opportunity in the transition to a clean energy system, through zero emissions exports, illustrates this neatly.

Understandably, most of the critical commentary on the final COP28 decision has focused on the compromise text on fossil fuels. The last-minute amendments provided a modest improvement but remain disappointing and predictable given the strong opposition to a fossil fuel phase down by the petrostates. What is more interesting, and potentially productive, are the surprises. The first is that ‘just transition’ was mentioned no less than eight times in the text. For example, the parties acknowledged that just transition strategies ‘support more robust and equitable mitigation outcomes’. The parties are also urged to communicate or revise, by the next COP, their long-term mitigation strategies ‘towards just transitions to net zero emissions’.

“The second is that climate minister Chris Bowen demonstrated solidarity with Australia’s Pacific neighbours in calling for a fossil fuel phase-out. Bowen’s support for the Pacific will certainly help the Labor government in its bid to host COP31 in 2026. However, it also means that domestic climate and energy politics are set to become more interesting, given Australia’s status as a major fossil fuel exporter.

While it looks sensible to say the move away from fossil fuels should be just and orderly, that will be used as an excuse for moving more slowly than the science demands. The impacts of climate change are certainly not just or orderly; in fact, they are manifestly unjust, with those who have done little to cause the problems suffering most seriously. The extreme events are imposing disorderly burdens on the poorest communities. It was good to see the Australian government among those objecting to the earlier inadequate draft resolution, in line with the welcome commitments to decarbonising our energy use. But our response will be judged harshly by our Pacific neighbours if we continue to allow irresponsible expansion of fossil fuel exports. This is a global problem. We cannot excuse our contribution by saying the coal and gas is being burned in other countries.

The real test of the COP28 agreement will be its effect on the value of fossil fuel corporations. Stock prices for major oil companies have more than doubled over the last three years, reflecting the confidence of investors in a bright future for oil. Since the COP28 agreement was gavelled through there has been no loss of investor confidence in the future of oil and gas. ExxonMobil's share price rose a little. In a sign of the real meaning of the agreement in Dubai, OPEC's Secretary-General congratulated the COP28 President for the 'positive outcome'. If OPEC is happy, that's ominous for the future of the world.