The UN climate conference, COP28, was certainly not a breakthrough. But the Dubai decision makes it clear where we are headed, says climate expert Frauke Röser: “It is the beginning of the end for coal, oil and gas.” Even the oil-producing countries have now understood “that they are sitting on a product that will probably no longer be in such high demand in the future.”
ntv.de: Does COP28 really “de facto mark the end of the fossil age,” as Federal Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said? Or is that optimism?
Frauke Röser is an expert in climate policy and a founding member of the NewClimate Institute. She has attended every climate conference since 2011. She didn’t go to Dubai. “I didn’t want to be part of the greenwashing,” she says.
(Photo: private)
Frauke Röser: Annalena Baerbock is a diplomat, so people talk differently about the results of such a conference. Of course, it is good that all fossil energies are mentioned in a final declaration for the first time, including oil and gas in addition to coal. The final declaration does not contain a commitment to an exit, but only to a move away from fossil fuels. But it is clear where we are headed: it is the beginning of the end for coal, oil and gas. Given the climate policy situation, the only question is whether this will happen quickly enough. It is of no use to us if the COP decides to move away from coal, oil and gas, but the practical implementation is postponed into the distant future.
The Emirati conference president Sultan al-Jaber presented a rather unambitious draft for the final declaration on Monday evening. Was this a trick to make the actual final statement look better?
It seemed a bit like it was a negotiation tactic like at the bazaar: the seller’s first offer is so bad that in the end you’re happy if you only have to pay half. However, I would question whether this is a good deal.
What is the point of a climate conference calling on the world’s countries to turn away from fossil fuels – when everyone knows that the oil and gas producing countries have no interest in this and the energy transition in the industrialized countries is proceeding far too slowly?
The decision with the explicit reference to the transition away from fossil fuels is now part of the framework of international climate policy. This is a foundation to work with. There were many states at the COP that would have liked a clearer final text, including the European Union. All of these states can now move forward. If the 130 countries that have called for a stronger resolution now implement the move away from fossil fuels, then the global economy will move there too.
Is that what happens?
Only partially, for example in the expansion of renewable energies. But moving away from coal, oil and gas also means that there must be no new investments in fossil energy infrastructure. Germany hasn’t necessarily been one of the pioneers in recent times.
Because of the construction of the LNG terminals?
Yes, the investments in the LNG terminals of this magnitude are certainly not compatible with the Paris Agreement and the 1.5 degree target.
Many climate conferences bring successes on detailed issues. Was there something like that in Dubai too?
This success was announced at the beginning of the conference: the agreement on the “Loss and Damage Fund” for losses and damage caused by climate change. Vulnerable states and developing countries have been calling for such a fund for years. The fact that it now exists is a success. Even if it is currently insufficiently equipped, this is an important step and a signal to the countries most affected.
The final declaration clearly states that the states are emitting far too much CO2 to achieve their self-imposed target of 1.5 degrees. Doesn’t that devalue the whole process?
I was very critical of this COP, among other things because the presidency had a dual role: the COP chairman Sultan Ahmed al-Jaber is not only the technology minister of the United Arab Emirates, but also the head of the state oil company. It was clear from the start that this was a problem. In addition, all decisions at climate conferences must be made unanimously, so the result is always the lowest common denominator. It is still an important forum.
What do you think of the climate club that Chancellor Olaf Scholz initiated? Is this a good addition to the climate conferences, perhaps even an alternative?
Definitely not an alternative, because this club only represents a portion of the global states. In principle, forums in which states and people talk and work together constructively should always be viewed positively. When it comes to the climate club, we still have to see how it will be designed and what will happen there – that has been a bit vague so far.
An appeal from the oil cartel OPEC to its members caused quite a stir during the conference. How do you classify this process?
Positive: The letter shows that the climate conference is being taken seriously and that it is given importance. It is hardly surprising that the OPEC countries have no increased interest in mining their own market. And it shouldn’t actually happen that so many fossil lobbyists influence the climate conference. That’s why I would have liked this COP to be used as an opportunity to see how the process can be reformed: it is enough if negotiators and civil society observers take part. Access for private sector actors, especially lobbyists, should be blocked.
Does the OPEC letter show that the oil states are afraid or that they are still very influential?
Both, although fear is perhaps a bit exaggerated. But there is certainly a certain nervousness in the oil states. They know they are sitting on a product that is unlikely to be in high demand in the future. This means they must also transform their own economies. They want to postpone this process for as long as possible.
The next COP will take place in Azerbaijan.
That’s not exactly ideal. Last year it was a gas-producing country, this year an oil state and next year a gas country again, especially in a difficult geopolitical sphere of influence.
Azerbaijan is allied with Russia and has just waged war against its neighbor Armenia.
But apparently this couldn’t be prevented because of the United Nations’ regional proportional representation. Nevertheless, it would be good if at least the size of the conference was designed so that it does not become a conference for the oil and gas industry.
The final text of COP28 expressly allows CCS to achieve climate neutrality, i.e. the capture and storage of carbon dioxide. The head of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Otmar Edenhofer, also advocates CCS. Rightly so?
CCS will probably be unavoidable. But it’s also a bit of an illusory solution. The fact that CCS is available to the extent suggested in Dubai is simply not the case. CCS is expensive and still not ready for the market. Therefore, this technology should be reserved for emissions for which there are no other solutions. This particularly affects industrial processes for which we will have to use this very special and largely untested technology. CCS is not a solution for restructuring the energy system.
The conference was unable to agree on a framework for international emissions trading. Would that be a goal for the next COP?
I think the topic of CO2 trading is overrated. All countries must reduce their emissions to zero. This reduces the scope for such markets. Especially since the frameworks for these systems to work are so complex that one asks oneself: why?
Hubertus Volmer spoke to Frauke Röser