Imagine if the Sackler family (owners of Purdue Pharma) were leading the World Health Organization’s conference on tackling the opioid crisis. Ludicrous, right? So what about a fossil fuel mogul leading the most prominent international conference on climate change mitigation?
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change began in 1994 and has provided the basis for international climate negotiations like the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. Sultan Al Jaber was president at the 28th Conference of the Par-ties (COP28) in Dubai this month and also happens to head the Abu Dhabi National Oil company. At the world’s largest annual meeting to discuss strategies for governments and businesses to mitigate climate change, it’s concerning.
Al Jaber’s thinly-veiled interests in safeguarding the oil industry’s profits were not-so-surprisingly revealed when he made comments during a meeting, Dec. 4, arguing that there is “no science” that provides evidence that a phase-out of fossil fuels is necessary for achieving the current international climate goal of capping average global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius. A phase-down indicates a reduction in the use of fossil fuels, while a phase-out would indicate a complete end to the use of fossil fuels. His claim directly contradicts findings in the International Energy Agency (IEA)’s 2023 Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario (NZE) and assertions by most leading climate scientists and analysts, who argue that a full phase-out of fossil fuels by midcentury would be required to meet the 1.5 degree goal. Al Jaber’s claims are not based on any evidence other than his financial interests. Worryingly, he’s also not an anomaly.
Officials associated with fossil fuel corporations comprise a large component of the delegates sent by countries to the UN’s COPs. At COP28, a record 2,400 fossil fuel representatives and lobbyists were accredited for the climate talks in Dubai, according to NPR. For context, 84,000 people attended in total. Having some fossil fuel representatives at these talks could be positive and foster cooperation between industry sectors in the clean energy transition, but these delegates need to attend with an open mind, a spirit of cooperation, and an acknowledgment of the truths about climate science. As it is, assertions like Al Jaber’s that science does not support a phase-out are not in this vein and promote misinformation. His rhetoric also echoes the larger issue of fossil fuel interests interfering with needed climate progress.
On Dec. 13, a COP28 deal signed by nearly 200 countries stated an agreement for nations to reduce the use of fossil fuels globally, signaling the eventual end of their use altogether. The deal, while progressive, still fell short of providing a clear timeline for a complete phase-out, and instead provided strategy options for countries to choose from to reduce emissions. While a phase-down is a step in the right direction, it is not enough.
The difference between a gradual phase-down and a clearly defined phase-out could be the difference between 1.5 degrees of global average warming hotter than pre-industrial levels and 2 or more degrees of warming, according to the IEA’s NZE. According to climate scientists, the higher end of the range of warming forecasts would see higher frequencies and intensities of extreme weather events involving heat, rain, and drought. Regions of the Arctic ice sheets might stand at 1.5 degrees but collapse at 2 degrees, causing sea level rise that would inundate some islands and damage coastal communities. “Tipping points” could be breached in the higher range of warming, which would involve earth systems crossing a threshold with irreversible events such as the collapse of the Amazon rainforest or the decomposition of biomass in the Arctic permafrost. All of these scenarios could result in a catastrophic spiraling of global temperatures into more dangerous territory and much more destruction and resource insecurity for people around the world, but they could be avoided with a quicker phase-out of the use of fossil fuels than is currently projected.
More than 100 countries including the US, EU, and many developing nations argued for a global phase-out at COP28, and guess who resisted these efforts throughout the conference, according to a Reuters investigation? Delegates from the 12 members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) such as the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, and Iraq. Ultimately, the agendas of these oil exporters, who have their profits in mind above all else, are dictating international agreements that will affect the living conditions of everyone on the planet in the foreseeable future. This is no time to be safeguarding the use of fossil fuels, as so many leading officials at COP28 have been. The UN and other nonprofit organizations should not tolerate clearly biased and disingenuous rhetoric from a so-called climate innovation leader such as Al Jaber, nor should they entertain notions that fossil fuels have a role in a future where some of the most disastrous potential climate change impacts are avoided. The debate of whether fossil fuels need to be phased out entirely by mid-century is, sadly, no longer a question of science but of politics. We should not provide platforms to those who deny scientific findings in the pursuit of individual greed. These people will endanger global livelihoods if they are not checked.
