The Power of a Few Words: Influencing the Global Climate Summit

The most challenging topic dominating the global climate summit in Dubai is the role of fossil fuels in our increasingly warm future. As delegates hammer out the details of key agreements at COP28, the central question remains whether countries will commit to phasing out, scaling down, or maintaining current levels of oil, gas, and coal usage.

The distinction between phase-out and phase-down may seem insignificant, but the fate of the world in preventing catastrophic climate change may depend on it.

Although specific definitions are elusive, a phase-out typically entails completely ceasing the burning of oil, gas, and coal at some point and reducing planet-heating pollution to zero.

A phase-down, however, leaves the door open for countries to continue burning fossil fuels.

CNN

As climate chaos accelerates, which countries are polluting the most?

According to Joeri Rogelj, a climate professor at Imperial College London, the term "implies a level of ambition that is less clear, and also less ambitious, than a phase-out," in relation to fossil fuel burning. This has led to heightened tensions around the terms, particularly following comments by COP28 President Sultan Al Jaber claiming there was "no science" saying a phase-out of fossil fuels is necessary to restrict global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

He clarified to reporters on Monday that his comments were misunderstood, and emphasized that a transition away from fossil fuels was both "inevitable" and "essential." However, his remarks still caused a stir at the summit.

Over 100 countries have advocated for the phase-out, and on Wednesday, numerous scientists signed an open letter affirming that "the connection between climate science and the necessity of phasing out fossil fuels is clear and undeniable."

If the agreement opts for a phase down, will it be even more challenging to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius?

"Yes, in isolation," Rogelj acknowledged, "but the specifics and context are important and it's not a simple decision." For instance, a document that supports a gradual reduction of all fossil fuels by 2050, along with clear objectives for reducing coal, oil, and gas, could have a highly positive impact, he explained.

The details will be crucial, and even if a more ambitious phase down terminology is agreed upon, there is another important factor to consider: "unabated."

For instance, both the EU and the US have advocated for a phase-out of "unabated fossil fuels." This would entail putting an end to burning oil, gas, or coal without capturing the pollution that contributes to global warming before it is released into the atmosphere.

AUSTIN, TEXAS - JULY 11: Andrea Washington refreshing herself with water in the Hungry Hill neighborhood on July 11, 2023 in Austin, Texas. Unprecedented temperatures persist as extended heatwaves sweep across the Southwest of the country. (Photo by Brandon Bell/Getty Images)

Brandon Bell/Getty Images

2023 will officially be the hottest year on record, scientists report

Abatement, also known as carbon capture and removal, encompasses a range of techniques designed to eliminate carbon pollution from the atmosphere and capture emissions from power plants and other sources of pollution for storage or reuse. Many scientists worry that carbon capture is expensive, unproven on a large scale, and serves as a distraction from efforts to reduce the use of fossil fuels.

The global delay in reducing emissions has led scientific organizations like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to conclude that a limited amount of carbon capture will be necessary. Certain sectors, such as agriculture and aviation, may require this technology, as achieving zero emissions in the near future seems unlikely, according to Pierre Friedlingstein, a climate professor at the University of Exeter in the UK.

How much would need to be used and how effective it needs to be is the question at hand. For instance, if a fossil fuel plant were to capture 51% of its emissions, would that be considered abatement? "The word is meaningless without clear quality standards," stated Lisa Fischer, a program lead at climate think tank E3G.

The final agreement for the summit is anticipated to be reached by December 12, and there is a strong emphasis from experts on the need for precise language, considering the high stakes involved.