Right now in Dubai, pretty much every government in the world is debating what kind of energy we will all be using in just 25 years’ time, which will influence the climate we live in and the air we breathe.
A very early draft version of the final treaty released today moots a plan to “phase out fossil fuels” – but radically different ideas are on the table.
The text will morph as negotiators thrash it out over the next few weeks, and will fight right down to the wire.
Here are a few small, key words that are fuelling major tensions, and could shape what kind of world we live in.
Fossil fuels: to ‘phase out’, or ‘phase down’ – that is the question
Small, fragile economies that are already being battered by climate change want a “phase out of fossil fuels”.
This is the most ambitious option on the table, and the previous 27 COP summits have so far barely addressed a reduction on fossil fuels.
At COP26 in Glasgow, countries agreed to “phase down coal”, and at COP27 in Egypt last year about 80 countries lobbied to expand that to all fossil fuels, but were defeated.
“Phase out” may morph into “phase down”, which is regarded a softer version.
Environmentalists want a deadline including those phrases, so governments can be held accountable on their progress.
There are lots of other words in the mix that soften this phase out/phase down language.
‘Just’
Vulnerable nations in particular are pushing for a “just” phase out, in the interests of fairness.
“Climate justice” advocates the idea that developed countries like the UK, USA and Norway have already got rich from fossil fuels, and so ought to ditch them faster than developing nations like Nigeria or South Africa, which have less cash and fewer options for their economic development.
Unabated
The UK, US and the 27-strong EU bloc are among those lobbying for a phase out of “unabated” fossil fuels – providing much more wiggle room.
Unabated coal, oil or gas power is when these fossil fuels are burned without the technology to capture their emissions.
That is how virtually every power plant or emitting factory in the world runs at the moment, as the technology exists but has proved extremely difficult to get off the ground.
Campaigners call it a “fairytale solution”.
The scientific consensus assimilated by IPCC scientists, says that without abatement, limiting warming to agreed levels means by 2050, global coal use must fall 100%, oil by 60% and gas 70%, compared with 2019 levels.
These findings were signed off by all governments in the world.
Demand for all three is still rising, though peak demand is in sight by 2030. Residual emissions need “abating”, but this is supposed to be reserved only as a last resort, for industries like aviation that are as yet impossible to get off fossil fuels.
CCUS, CDR
These are technologies that “abate” emissions or suck them from the air.
CCUS stands for “carbon capture, usage and storage” and refers to a range of different equipments that prevent carbon dioxide from things like power plants or manufacturing facilities from reaching the atmosphere, by capturing it from the source.
It is then “used” in processes like injecting it back into oil wells to extract further oil, or “stored” underground in rock or empty gas fields, for example.
Carbon dioxide removals sucks the greenhouse gas from the atmosphere, as opposed to the source.
Major oil producers like Saudi Arabia lobby hard for these solutions, which in theory would allow them to continue producing at the same volumes for years to come.
Professor Johan Rockström, who runs Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and is a member of the Climate Crisis Advisory Group, said: “To be clear, CDR needs to be used as an additionality. It cannot be used as a way of moving slow on oil and gas.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
What is carbon capture?
Predominantly
The EU wants – as well as a phase out of “unabated” fossil fuels – an energy sector “predominantly free of
fossil fuels well ahead of 2050″.
Again, “predominantly” allows for some room to manoeuvre, so this word may pop up in different places in subsequent versions.
Those outside the world of COP may be raising their eyebrows to read that counties could spend hours fighting over a word like “predominantly”.
A sceptical interpretation of this is that it allows countries to get away with doing less – these sceptics might be right.
But it’s at least a testament to the fact these negotiations – flawed though the process is – matter; otherwise, countries wouldn’t fight so hard over them.
For example, if you’re from low-lying, island nation Palau, these decisions influence how quickly you lose swathes of your land underwater.
