Extended Climate Summit in Dubai: Escalating Fossil Fuel Debate Further Divides
International negotiators at the COP28 climate summit brace for extended and intense negotiations as the deadline looms, highlighting growing frustration over fossil fuels' impact on climate change
International negotiators at the COP28 climate summit in Dubai are gearing up for a challenging day of negotiations, expected to continue past the set deadline, as there are still significant disagreements on the issue of phasing out fossil fuels.
The United Arab Emirates COP28 presidency had set an ambitious deadline to reach a deal on a series of agreements, which expired on the official last day of the summit, Tuesday. COP28 President Sultan Al Jaber had urged for the package to be completed by 11 a.m. local time (2 a.m. ET).
Negotiators continued to hold bilateral and group meetings in an attempt to bridge the significant gap after the centerpiece agreement draft published on Monday omitted references to phasing out fossil fuels, a language that had been included in previous versions. The diluted draft now urges countries to reduce planet-heating pollution and provides a list of potential actions for countries to consider, including reducing the consumption and production of oil, coal, and gas.
Climate advocates and the more ambitious countries at the talks were outraged by the draft, with former US Vice President Al Gore issuing a warning on X Monday that the summit "is now on the verge of complete failure."
"The world desperately needs to phase out fossil fuels as quickly as possible, but this obsequious draft reads as if OPEC dictated it word for word," Gore said, adding, "It is even worse than many had feared."
OPEC's secretary-general, Haitham Al Ghais, urged members and allies to actively oppose any language that singled out fossil fuels instead of emissions last week.
Concerns about the oil industry's impact on the conference have been ongoing since the appointment of Al Jaber, who heads the UAE's state-owned Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, to lead the summit. A recent analysis revealed that the fossil fuel industry was granted unprecedented access to the conference.
The annual climate talks often run over schedule, but this year's negotiations have been especially tense. Some countries are indicating that they may not agree to the current draft. There is a possibility that a new draft will be presented later on Tuesday.
According to various Australian media reports, Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen stated that the Umbrella Group, comprised of countries such as Australia, the US, UK, Canada, and Norway, is not willing to sign the current draft in its current form.
The UK has not confirmed that position to CNN, however, a government spokesperson stated on Monday that the country's stance was evident, "there must be a phase out of unabated fossil fuels to meet our climate goals."
People walk through the COP28 U.N. Climate Summit, Monday, Dec. 4, 2023, in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
Peter Dejong/AP
The climate summit draft has sparked anger among advocates by removing the mention of phasing out fossil fuels, bringing it to the brink of complete failure. "The UK is committed to working with all parties and will persist in advocating for an ambitious outcome at COP28 to ensure we can still reach the 1.5-degree goal," the spokesperson stated.
Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait all opposed the inclusion of a phase-out of fossil fuels in the text, as stated by Catherine Abreu, founder and executive director of Destination Zero. The EU delegation, along with its allies in the High Ambition Coalition, met to discuss their next steps. Additionally, EU leaders Wopke Hoekstra and Teresa Ribera held talks with UN Secretary General António Guterres and representatives from all 27 member states.
"We must preserve the goal of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees. This is what science requires and our children deserve," Hoekstra stated during his appearance on X, accompanied by a photograph of his meeting with the High Ambition Coalition.
Climate experts and observers have criticized the latest draft for its ambiguous language and absence of specific timelines.
Rachel Cleetus, the policy director and lead economist for the Climate and Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, criticized the draft for its heavy use of "could," making the listed actions optional for nations. She also pointed out the lack of meaningful timelines and various loopholes.
