Javier Blas je v Bloombergu lepo razložil, kako brati sklepe maratonske podnebne konference COP28 v Dubaju. Vse je stvar interepretacije. “Zelenaši” se lahko veselijo sklepov v zaključni deklaraciji, ki govorijo o zavezi k “prehodu stran” od fosilnih goriv z namenom doseganja neto ničelnih izpustov do 2050.

Naftna industrija pa je vesela zaradi treh razlogov. Prvič, da ji je uspelo besedilo deklaracije ustrezno spremeniti tako, da ne govori več o “postopnem odpravljanju” (“phasing out”) fosilnih goriv, ampak o “prehodu stran” (“transitioning away”) od fosilnih goriv. Drugič, ker to pomeni, da je treba delati na strani zmanjšanja povpraševanja po fosilnih goriv (čemur se bo prilagajala njihova ponudba), ne pa na zmanjševanju ponudbe (črpanju nafte in plina). In tretjič, ker so fosilna goriva ostala kot “tranzicijsko gorivo” v prehodu k neto ničelnim izpustom, kar v praksi pomeni, da bodo države, ki bodo zapirale elektrarne na premog, lahko namesto tega uporabljale zemeljski plin (bodisi kot neposredni nadomestek ali za proizvodnjo nadomestne elektrike, ko veter in sonce “spita” in za regulacijo elektroenergetskih sistemov). Pri čemer zmagovalke niso samo arabske države in Rusija, pač pa predvsem ZDA in Avstralija kot največji proizvajalki utekočinjenega zemeljskega plina, ZDA pa tudi nafte.

In ja tudi, pristaši jedrske energije so lahko veseli, ker je bila spet dodana k brezogljičnim virom (in bo torej lahko deležna subvencij v enaki meri kot OVE).

Torej vsi so lahko srečni in zadovoljni. Spremenilo pa se v bistveni meri ne bo nič.

___________

The final wording repeats language already agreed at COP26 in Glasgow in 2021, rather than going beyond, as previous drafts did. An earlier version for COP28 called for “rapidly phasing down” coal — language that diplomats see as stronger than the final “accelerating.” The initial draft also contained an important clause to put “limitations on permitting new” coal-fired power stations. That wording didn’t make into the final communique due to pressure from India and other emerging nations. (A note on implementation: Since COP26 two years ago, global coal demand has increased. Agreeing to “phase down” and actually “phasing down” are very different.)

“…transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade, so as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science…”

This, sub-paragraph D, is the headline-grabbing statement of the summit. It marks the first time that a climate document explicitly calls the world to move away from fossil fuels. Those who say COP28 marks the beginning of the end for oil, gas and coal, base their assertion on that phrasing. But those who speak about loopholes also refer to the very same wording. The truth is somewhere in between.

First, the communique talks about “transitioning away” rather than “phasing down” or “phasing out” fossil fuels. The latter is the wording that climate campaigners pushed for. Two days ago, an earlier draft used a different formula, talking about “reducing both consumption and production” of fossil fuels. The final wording is a concession to Saudi Arabia and other OPEC+ nations because it puts the onus on the demand side, rather than on production.

Rather than shutting down oil wells, as “phasing out” would suggest, by using the wording “transitioning away” the UN is effectively calling on countries to first reduce demand. It may sound like splitting hairs, but it’s an important distinction. That’s why Saudi officials emerged from the COP28 summit smiling. In future gatherings, they can argue that they will keep pumping oil until there are signs that transition is under way. For now, oil demand keeps increasing.

There’s another victory for oil-producing nations: The transition needs to be achieved in an “orderly” fashion — a nod to the need to keep oil prices stable. To achieve such progress, oil producers argue that there’s a need for continued investments in new oil fields. And by oil producers, don’t think just about the Saudis. The US is today the world’s largest oil producer, accounting for 20% of global output. In Dubai, John Kerry, the American climate envoy, fought against fossil fuels, but at home, the fossil fuel industry is booming, with the support of the White House.

“… accelerating zero- and low-emission technologies, including, inter alia, renewables, nuclear, abatement and removal technologies such as carbon capture and utilization and storage, particularly in hard-to-abate sectors, and low-carbon hydrogen production…”

This is another victory for oil producers — and above all, for Big Oil companies like Exxon Mobil Corp., which are betting heavily on carbon sequestration. The UN effectively has given its blessing to a technology still in its infancy, and one that many critics say won’t be able to take away enough carbon dioxide to make a difference. The wording is also slightly weaker than earlier drafts at COP28, which emphasized that those technologies were a means to transition away from fossil fuels. The emphasis was omitted from the final declaration.

“… recognizes that transitional fuels can play a role in facilitating the energy transition while ensuring energy security…”

Perhaps the biggest loophole of the communiqué — and the source of much frustration among campaigners. First, what on Earth is a “transitional fuel?” Searching for an answer in the document is a fruitless task. And that’s deliberate, so every delegation can claim whatever they prefer. For some, transitional fuels are green hydrogen and uranium; for others, transitional fuels includes some fossil fuels — just don’t say it out loud. To me, it opens an enormous backdoor to support the use of natural gas for years, if not decades, to come. So perhaps COP28 marked the sunset of the fossil-fuel era, only to herald the dawn of the “transitional fuel” era — in the form of transitional gas.

Who’s behind that sub paragraph? Many emerging countries, including China and India, believe they can only ditch coal if they have access to natural gas. But they aren’t alone. Japan has the same view, and the wording, particularly the emphasis on “energy security,” is similar to what I’ve heard from Tokyo for several months already. And don’t forget who are two of the world’s top-three largest producers of liquefied natural gas — the US and Australia. Little happens in global climate diplomacy without the nod from Washington and Canberra.

Vir: Bloomberg