The current UN climate conference in Dubai calls to mind a prominent aide from Trump’s first administration. Kellyanne Conway, fending off criticism of her boss’s fumbling response to the COVID-19 pandemic’s ravages, adopted lecture mode with reporters. I remember her defending Trump’s approach, telling them this was COVID-19, for God’s sake, so of course he and his expert team knew how to handle it! In other words, the coterie of brains could tap into the experience of managing the other 18 COVIDs that KC knew had come before – unlike those pesky, ignorant reporters. Yup.
This year’s climate conference in Dubai is called COP28 for the reason Conway erroneously cited in defending Trump. It really is the 28th time the COP (Conference Of Parties) has convened. Each time, eternal optimists hope that countries will put aside their differences and come to agreement on meaningful change that can get the world on the path to meeting and solving the climate crisis. And each year, those hopes are ultimately dashed, and business as usual proceeds apace. And that business-as-usual approach has the world on the path to at least a 2.5 degrees Celsius rise by the year 2100. Just for perspective, many of the young students I face every day will live to see that twisted planet. I say ‘twisted’ in contemplation of how warped the global climate will be, when we consider what we have wrought with a ’mere’ 1.2°C rise so far.
The key question for anyone who cares about all this is – will this year’s conference be any different from past efforts? That is, will the concluding agreement – due in two days but possibly delayed – lead to meaningful cuts in planet-heating greenhouse gas emissions and a timely transition away from fossil fuels? As the conference began, things did not look so promising. After all, the meeting’s president, Sultan al-Jaber, is the United Arab Emirates’ environment minister, but he is also the CEO of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC). He has led significant implementation of renewable energy in his country, but also apparently is using the conference as a platform for closing more oil production deals. He has denied the allegations, as you would expect. But we must admit that this convocation of movers and shakers would be a tough temptation for an ambitious oilman to resist.
After the complicated start, there have been some positive results – but they are complicated as well. First, more than 50 oil companies have agreed to major cuts in methane emissions, and global agriculture companies have joined the pledge. When it comes to the oil companies, these are changes – like eliminating the process of flaring off excess methane during production – that should have happened years ago. There has also been movement on establishment and paying into a ‘loss and damage fund.’ This would involve the world’s wealthy nations compensating poorer countries for the damage caused by the climate crisis. This seems the epitome of fairness –after all, developing countries have done so little to cause the climate crisis as the rich countries built their wealth on exploiting planet-warping fossil fuels. On the other hand, the idea for this fund is not new, and past contributions by wealthy countries are a small percentage of previous pledges.
I recognize this is a rapidly developing news story as I write, so it is difficult to be up to the moment (I am writing at midafternoon on Sunday 12/10), and also difficult making any sort of prediction as to how this will turn out. But I can comment on what trusted observers on the scene have noted.
A remarkable situation ‘on the scene’ is the proliferation of representatives of the fossil fuel industry. As Julia Simon reported on NPR, the entire conference is 2.5 times larger than last year’s gathering. The expansion of participation might be a sign of overall growing concern about the gravity of the climate emergency. One can only hope. But the expansion of oil and coal participation is remarkable. There are four times as many participants this year as last. What’s with all this lobbying?! You would think this was the US Congress or something! According to analysis by the Kick Big Polluters Out coalition, some 2,400 representatives of fossil fuel companies are at the conference. How could all this influence peddling not affect the ultimate outcome of the conference?
All that lobbying and pressure concerns climate scientists, who insist that research and observations of climatic changes mandate a rapid phaseout of fossil fuels. And in fact, the major debate right now is whether participants agree on an imperative to ‘phase out’ burning fossil fuels, or merely to ‘phase down’ their use.
NPR’s Simon explains, in the process quoting Max Boycoff – a University of Colorado climate science professor and attendee of seven of these climate conferences:
“Phasing out means moving away from oil, gas and coal to cleaner energy like solar and wind plus batteries — and sometimes hydropower and nuclear. Phasing down would leave a longer future for planet-heating energy sources.
Boykoff, who was a contributing author for the most recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, notes that the science says a ‘phase out’ of fossil fuels is necessary and urgent. The oil industry is arguing for a slower ‘phase down’ of fossil fuels, delaying the transition to cleaner energy. ‘This is a big battle,’ Boykoff says.”
This very language debate was what watered down the final agreement at last year’s COP27.
Let’s get back to the vast expansion of fossil fuel interests’ participation and influence in the COP process. What’s up with that?
Writing for the Energy Mix Weekender, Mitchell Beer offers a hopeful note. Qualified, but hopeful nonetheless. He suggests that fossil fuel interests – the corporations as well as the largest petrostates, led by Saudi Arabia, see the end of fossil fuel growth coming, and will fight desperately to delay the drawdown in their use as long as possible.
According to Beer, the Saudis are pursuing a strategy that would make the Heartland Institute and ExxonMobil proud: denying proven scientific fact and real-world results, while promoting ‘magical-thinking solutions’ that theoretically could allow for their ‘business as usual’ to continue indefinitely:
“In a sure sign of desperation, Saudi Arabia is also pushing the bizarrely evidence-free line that renewable energies like wind and solar carry the same environmental footprint as the fossil fuels that have caused the lion’s share of human-generated global heating. The ‘pitch from the world’s biggest oil player’ coincides with the kingdom’s ‘broader arguments that expensive, largely unproven methods of removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and oceans are an essential part of the strategy for countering climate change,’ Politico writes.
Based on industry figures, those methods may have successfully captured 0.05% of global carbon emissions since 1959, and the actual total is likely less than 0.01%, according to a chart posted on LinkedIn by climate analyst Ketan Joshi. That’s because industry boosters only ever talk about the theoretical capacity of the carbon capture and storage (CCS) facilities that companies have managed to bring online, never the actual performance of a technology that isn’t nearly ready for prime time.”
Beer also sums up the focal point of discussions that will lead to some sort of agreement at the close of the conference. His analysis illustrates why I characterize his commentary as ‘qualified hope’:
“So right now, if the next few days go very well, this year’s final COP declaration could call for a phaseout or phasedown of oil, gas, and coal, as well as a tripling of global renewable energy capacity and doubling of energy efficiency activity by 2030. But there’s also a ‘no text’ option for each of these essential, cornerstone climate policies. If the COP fails to pronounce itself, that will mean perpetual bad actors like Saudi Arabia managed to block consensus on measures that the majority of countries want, and every citizen of Earth needs right now.
Still, at the glacial pace of COP negotiations, it’s an amazing advance that delegates are even having this conversation, with just three days left before the COP goes into overtime (and they almost always do).
For the oil and gas lobby, this is way too close for comfort.”
We will all just have to stay tuned to see what sort of oily sausage emerges from this tortuous process. In fact, I am staying tuned right now. Chico Harlan and Timothy Puko just posted an article on the Washington Post site. Its title and subtitle get right down to what has to be decided if the conference is to have the impact it needs: “Banning fossil fuels is now a make-or-break issue at climate talks; Many countries want a rapid phaseout of oil, gas and coal, but major powers — notably Saudi Arabia — are strongly resisting.”
As described by the Post’s Harlan and Puko, here is why what emerges from COP28 is crucial to the future of a livable climate:
“Many climate experts say a long-range target for a fossil fuel phasedown — say, mid-century — won’t be as meaningful as a pledge to wean off dirty fuel more quickly. Climate science shows that the next several years are crucial. One recent projection showed that the world has seven years remaining at current emissions before it might heat beyond the 1.5-degree threshold written into the Paris agreement. Carbon capture technology will not be constructed quickly enough to lead to meaningful emissions reductions during that time frame.
Experts who follow negotiations and who support a phasedown hope that the major economies can find common ground and then work on Saudi Arabia, which might feel precariously isolated. But even getting to that point would require China’s support, something it hasn’t offered at previous COPs. China and the United States struck a note of optimism several weeks before the climate summit, when they agreed to ramp up renewable energy “so as to accelerate the substitution for coal, oil and gas generation.”
As we await the final results from COP28, to determine whether the parties genuinely got down to business instead of kicking the ‘business as usual’ can further down the stormy, flooded road, a little dark levity is in order. Writing for the Guardian, Alan Evans and Oliver Milman posted a piece describing how certain billionaires are promoting ‘sustainable yachting.’ I kid thee not. The Polish company Sunreef Yachts held an event at Dubai touting their solar powered mega-yachts. Their purpose? To greenwash the overall impact of their vessels, whose emissions and carbon footprints are by their own admission ‘scary’:
“Several Sunreef yachts contain a solar ‘skin’ that can generate power, stored by batteries. Some can run on hydrogen fuel cells, too. However, the company also sells extremely large vessels that contain private spas, gyms, outdoor cinemas and space for jet skis, powered by tanks holding up to 5,200 gallons of fuel.”
That single tank would last my Ford Fiesta 182,000 miles. Or 36 years, at which time I would have outlived the recently departed Norman Lear. Only a dingbat would believe that even possible.
It’s a safe bet the billionaire owner of that mega-yacht would have to refill that tank much sooner, solar skin or no solar skin.
My other reason for sharing that same Guardian piece by Evans and Milman is that it serves as a fitting closer this week. They report that during COP28, the Climate Action Network (CAN) is presenting a ‘fossil of the day’ award, to culminate in a ‘colossal fossil’ prize at the conference’s closing:
“The first to receive this dubious honour was New Zealand, whose new government plans to expand oil and gas exploration. Next up was Brazil, for its decision as the conference opened to align itself with OPEC, and for the country’s planned oil expansion.
Other laureates include the US, the world’s biggest polluter, which CAN criticized for weakening the language of official texts, and the Canadian province of Alberta, whose premier, Danielle Smith, used to work as a fossil fuel lobbyist and who the group accuse of attempting to sabotage negotiations.
The ‘colossal fossil’ award, for the biggest villain at the talks, will be presented next week, where the US will be hoping not to defend its crown.”
Colossal 2023? My money is on Saudi Arabia, but a repeat laureate is not out of the question. “USA! USA!”
Shaming prodigious polluters and pignorant promoters of dubious would-be solutions to the climate emergency is one thing. But the colossal shame would be if leaders emerge from COP28 with an agreement that rubber-stamps oily business as usual for yet another year.
I hope you will stay tuned with me.
Michael Murphy
Saint Paul Minnesota
Research and editing support by Kathryn Bartee