The Cop28 summit, a critical juncture in the global effort to combat climate change, has witnessed a sharp division of opinions over a draft deal proposed to cut global fossil fuel production. The text, presented by the summit presidency after 10 days of intense negotiations, is drawing both praise and condemnation, with critics labeling it as “grossly insufficient” and “incoherent.”
Released on Monday evening, the draft attempts to address the pressing issue of reducing fossil fuel production. However, the absence of a clear mandate for a complete phase-out of fossil fuels has led to frustration among many delegates. Cedric Schuster, chair of the Alliance of Small Island States, declared, “We will not sign our death certificate. We cannot sign on to text that does not have strong commitments on phasing out fossil fuels.”
The draft text calls for “reducing both consumption and production of fossil fuels in a just, orderly, and equitable manner, so as to achieve net zero by, before, or around 2050, in keeping with the science.” While some welcomed the inclusion of reducing fossil fuel production in a Cop text for the first time, others criticized the document for avoiding the more contentious terms, such as “phase-out” or “phase-down.”
Eamon Ryan, Ireland’s environment minister, expressed discontent with the optional nature of the proposed reductions, stating that the inclusion of the word “could” undermines the effectiveness of the text. He suggested that the European Union might consider walking out of the talks if the text is not improved to reflect greater ambition and broader inclusivity.
The draft is expected to be a key outcome of the Cop28 summit, concluding on Tuesday morning in the United Arab Emirates. Negotiators are now tasked with refining the wording, with the hope that it will mark a historic moment where countries are urged, under the UN framework, to reduce their fossil fuel production.
Mary Robinson, chair of the Elders group, expressed disappointment with the text, describing it as “grossly insufficient.” Concerns have also been raised that oil-producing nations, particularly Saudi Arabia, may attempt to weaken the text further in the final hours of the talks.
The direct focus on fossil fuel production, as opposed to emissions, has been a point of contention. Saudi Arabia has consistently advocated for the term “fossil fuel emissions” to allow flexibility for carbon capture and storage (CCS). The absence of the term “unabated” raises questions about the effectiveness of CCS in addressing the climate crisis.
Critics argue that the draft, despite referencing scientific advice, fails to provide the clear signals needed to avert the climate crisis. David Waskow at the World Resources Institute emphasized that the proposed actions constitute a “pick-your-own menu” rather than a comprehensive strategy.
While some campaigners welcomed the text as laying the groundwork for transformational change, others deemed it an “incoherent and dangerous list of weak measures.” The ongoing negotiations will determine the final form of the agreement, and the world watches to see whether it will be a turning point in addressing the urgent challenges of climate change. As the fate of the Cop28 summit hangs in the balance, global attention remains focused on the decisions made in these critical final hours.
