Negotiators feverishly searched on Tuesday at COP28, the climate summit in Dubai, for suitable formulations on fossil fuels, financing and other points of contention in order to successfully conclude the conference. The talks were derailed on Monday afternoon after chairman Sultan Al-Jaber presented a provisional final text to the parties. Criticism of the text – the second draft version, which differed greatly from the first – ranged from “downright disappointing” to “unacceptable”. Small island states spoke of “a death sentence.”
The summit is now well into injury time and the discussions, which continued for a large part of Monday night, did not seem to lead to a satisfactory result on Tuesday evening. The chairman said he wanted to continue talking until 3 a.m. local time (midnight in the Netherlands). A new final text would then be drawn up based on the results.
It is mainly the EU and Saudi Arabia that are diametrically opposed to each other. The EU demands an ambitious text on the end of the fossil age. The Saudis, who did not show themselves all day on Tuesday, do not even want to talk about one phase downreducing the use of oil and gas.
Resistance from oil countries
Europe is mainly supported by the small island states and a number of rich countries. The US takes a dual position: it wants to show ambition, but at the same time it is the largest oil producer in the world. Saudi Arabia has oil countries such as Iraq, Iran and Russia as supporters. And China and India also oppose too strong a rejection of fossil fuels.
While Al-Jaber initially said he regarded the draft text presented on Monday as more or less the final word, Majid Al-Suwaidi, the director general of the conference, came up with a completely different story on Tuesday morning. The concept had always been intended “to spark conversations.”
According to Al-Suwaidi, the reactions had shown the “red lines” of the countries. Now it was time to use that information to “do something that has never been done before.” Al-Suwaidi said the text must absolutely refer to fossil fuels. “If we succeed, it would be historic.”
The problem is not so much the use of the words themselves. The draft text already mentioned “reducing both consumption and production of fossil fuels”. The EU was particularly critical of the fact that the text is part of a ‘menu of options’ from which countries can draw as they please – or not.
Financing
Phasing out fossil fuels is not the only topic that is still under discussion. Also about financing vulnerable countries that have to adapt to the consequences of climate change, and even about Loss and Damagethe compensation fund on which an agreement had already been reached on day one of the summit, is still a matter of disagreement.
The texts on both topics are vague. For example, reference is made to ‘the importance of a global goal in the field of adaptation’, but nothing is said about what that goal should be. It also states that there are great concerns about the lack of climate financing. But how this should be resolved remains unclear. However, there is a paragraph explaining that the estimated costs of adjustment are “ten to eighteen times higher” than what is available from international public financing flows.
The compensation fund is also meager, with around $800 million in promised financing. According to scientists, tens of billions are already needed every year. Moreover, it has not been agreed who is entitled to payment from the fund and on the basis of which criteria.
MEP Mohammed Chahim (PvdA), who left for Dubai fairly optimistically, is very disappointed with the latest developments. “You realize together that much more needs to be done and that there is little time left,” he says. “And yet it is not possible to include in the text that we must get rid of fossil fuels.”
According to Chahim, such a referral is essential. This should open the way to negotiations during COP29, next year’s climate summit in Azerbaijan, about how and when the end of fossil fuels will actually be achieved.
Reading list