by Zain Jaffer
Twenty eight years after the first climate Conference of Parties (COP) in Berlin, Germany in April 1995, just before the end of the 28th COP (COP-28) in Dubai, UAE, the talks almost deadlocked on the wording of their communique. Since COP-28 was being held in Dubai, the presence of the fossil fuel friendly government officials and policy makers were significant.
At issue prior to the conclusion of COP28 was the inclusion of a phrase that would agree to phase out fossil fuels, mainly from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries [OPEC see https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/countries-push-for-cop28-deal-on-fossil-fuels-as-talks-spill-into-overtime/ar-AA1lpBqW]. Initially the OPEC delegates pushed hard against it, but in the final few hours the key wording of the controversial portion read as “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner … so as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science.”
The arguments have not really changed in almost three decades. The burning of fossil fuels extracted from the ground, whether coal, oil, or gas, releases greenhouse gases (GHG) that traps sunlight, and as the name implies, creates a greenhouse heating effect that causes global temperatures to rise and impact climate and weather patterns.
However, despite inroads of energy efficiency efforts and renewables into energy production and electric vehicles (EV) into national transport systems, the bulk of the world’s energy and transportation systems are still fueled by fossil fuels.
Plus the extraction, trade, and distribution of fossil fuels is a big global commercial activity, with countries like Saudi Arabia extracting most of their GDP from it, and companies like Shell and Exxon still being some of the largest companies in the world in terms of reach and revenue. Alternative non fossil fuel energy and distribution is still miniscule, albeit growing.
Then you have the Global South (the poor countries) who want to charge the developed countries like the Group of Seven (G7) that include the US, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, and Japan and other rich countries like the OPEC countries and Russia and China, to pay for their climate adaptation and mitigation needs.
Mitigation means helping these poor countries pay for expensive renewable energy systems like wind and solar, while adaptation means developing ways to counter the destructive impacts of climate change. Some examples of adaptation include climate resistant flood control, irrigation, salt resistant crop varieties, increased wind and rain capabilities for shelters, and the like.
The saying “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it” [See https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/11/30/salary/] is quite applicable in this situation. Obviously phasing out fossil fuels will impact the GDP and economies of fossil fuel producing countries and companies, and it is in their interests to delay any progress in this regard.
After 28 years of COP negotiations, with high profile delegates and politicians burning fossil fuels in private jets to go there, it is perhaps time to conclude that what we really need are technology breakthroughs that will make renewable and carbon free energy cheaper compared to fossil fuel energy, and not the charade of negotiations that look good on paper, but are hardly achieving anything significant.
###
