The fossil fuel industry has tried to re-frame the greenhouse gas (GHG) issue as one of emissions. The industry is arguing that, if GHGs (e.g. COs and methane) could be sequestered or removed, we could continue to burn fossil fuels. And, while there are budding technologies, they are largely unproven and very small scale. The industry is using the term “unabated” to refer to burning of fossil fuels from which the GHGs have not been sequestered or removed.
On December 6th, Haitham Al-Ghais, secretary general of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC, in case you weren’t alive in the 1970s, when that acronym dominated life in the US), sent a letter to the 23 countries in OPEC Plus. (Here is a breakdown.) That letter directed participating countries to “reject any text or formula that targets energy i.e. fossil fuels rather than emissions.”
The directive is powerful because the COP rules require unanimous endorsement of any agreement. Any one of the 198 participating nations can frustrate an agreement. On the other hand, as Mohamed Adow, Director of Power Shift Africa, pointed out, the directive shows “fossil fuel interests are starting to realize that the writing is on the wall for dirty energy.” That’s also confirmed by the participation at COP28 of between 1,300 and 2,400 fossil fuel lobbyists.
Interestingly, the quick work on the loss and damage fund at the beginning of COP28 served to largely remove one of the two elephants in the room. That means that all attention has been focused on the other elephant: fossil fuels. The OPEC directive means that a spotlight has been focused on that elephant. These last two days of COP28 are the highest-pressure, with nations’ representatives working through the night to negotiate a fossil fuel agreement that can be acceptable to economics, politics, and cultures around the globe.
Former Vice President Al Gore is working for a different solution to the potential stalemate: changing the COP rules so that a supermajority of 75% of participating countries would achieve implementation, rather than unanimous consent. Because that would defeat the concept of a global agreement, however, that is likely to be more disruptive than helpful, if it could pass at all.