COP28 – The final blow to oil and gas?

One of the biggest wins at COP28 was the commitment to transition away from fossil fuels – but who really is behind this language and why does it matter?

This Op-Ed is the first in a two-part series written by Soomin Han, who attended COP this year as a youth advisor to the CEO for the Global Centre of Adaptation. 

At COP28 this year, no one could ignore the elephant in the room: fossil fuels.

Held in oil-rich Dubai, the global climate change conference COP28 was controversial from the start. It therefore wasn’t surprising to find, waiting for the delegates, an army of more than 2400 lobbyists from the oil and gas industry, quadruple the number from the previous year. And while those interests tried to keep any mention of fossil fuels out of the final agreement, an alliance of small island states, Indigenous representatives, and civil society managed a victory of sorts, getting a commitment to "transitioning away" from fossil fuels into the text. 

But it was only a small victory, and short of the "phase-out" language that was hoped for. The difference is a small one, but, as we shall see, it matters.

A spotlight at this year’s COP28 was the first ever Global Stocktake, which seeks to assess the world’s progress on climate action since the 2015 Paris Agreement and press for further action. The heart of the Stocktake negotiations were the inclusion of the language fossil fuel phase out. 

While a “phase-out” refers to countries’ strong commitments to take tangible steps decreasing carbon emissions towards a definite end of fossil fuel use, a much weaker “transition away” refers to the same verbal commitments made even before the signing of the Paris Agreement. The same commitments that governments have failed to adhere to. Therefore, a phase-out would indicate a clear increase in ambition and global agreement that the end of fossil fuel use is critical to staying below the 1.5°C.

Another factor this year at COP28 threatened to undermine action on fossil fuels — the  record number of fossil fuel lobbyists in attendance. Why does that matter, and should they – or should they not – be part of the conversation? 

To put the record number of lobbyists into perspective, if they all made up a country, they would be the third largest delegation, behind only the COP28 host country, UAE, and  Brazil.

The exponential jump in fossil fuel lobbyist delegates shows just how important COPs have become in determining the future of climate action and the power of attendance in influencing decisions. But the future is clear: parties agreed to transition away from fossil fuels, marking the beginning of the end of the fossil fuel era. 

Fossil fuel companies are pouring money into huge lobbyist delegations, cozying up to governments to get their COP badges, all under the false pretense that they have proven and reliable solutions to the climate crisis. For example, Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), in a frantic attempt to steer negotiations away from fossil fuels, urged its members and allies in a leaked letter to reject any mention of fossil fuels in the text negotiations. 

What’s more, for every Indigenous representative at COP there were seven fossil fuel lobbyists. Indigenous peoples comprise less than 5% of the world’s population yet protect 80% of the Earth’s remaining biodiversity. You do not need to be a mathematician to know that something isn’t adding up here.   

Indigenous peoples, small island states, and civil society mobilized to call for a strong stance on fossil fuel phase-out — and 130 of the 198 countries answered. Momentum grew every day of COP, notably with Colombia who announced its endorsement of a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, a coalition calling for an end to new fossil fuel developments, phase out of existing production, and development of equitable transition plans. 

Despite this momentum, the influence of the fossil fuel industry and lobbyists was still deeply felt, and ultimately led to the weaker language on fossil fuels in the final agreement. Responding to a previous draft of the text that did not explicitly mention a fossil fuel phase out, Cedric Shuster, the Samoan chair of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), reflected “we will not sign our own death certificate. We cannot sign on to a text that does not have strong commitments on phasing out fossil fuels.” 

It seems rather ironic that when the gavel was struck and the decision to transition away from fossil fuels was adopted, small island states — which are disproportionately impacted by climate change — were not in the room. Although this is the first time fossil fuels, the root cause of climate change, were cited in the text, stronger language of a phase-out is what is needed for a  fast, fair, full, funded, and feminist transition.  

The final text’s inclusion of “transition away” from fossil fuels might seem synonymous with a “phase-out of fossil fuels”, but there is a world of difference. This difference will cost the lives of those at the frontlines of the climate crisis. Where do we place our collective value as a global community? Is business as usual for an industry that is the very source of the problem worth sacrificing the lives, homes, culture, and wellbeing of people and communities?

Spoiler: the answer is unequivocally, no. 

The 2022 recognition by the UN General Assembly that a “clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is a human right” shows that a phase out of fossil fuels is necessary not only for climate action, but also to guarantee the human rights of everyone. The global temperature has already risen by 1.2°C above the pre-industrial average. Even with the full implementation of all parties’ written commitments and plans of action made under the Paris Agreement, the world is on course to reach a 2.9°C increase this century – and the devastating impacts of climate change remind us of what is at stake if we fail to keep warming below 1.5°C. To stay within this limit, greenhouse gas emissions must fall by 42%, with a fossil fuel phase-out a key piece of the puzzle. 

COP28 President, Sultan Al Jaber, promised to deliver a historic win. But the inclusion of language on fossil fuels was led by Indigenous peoples, small island states, and civil society organizations who have been mobilizing, sharing the lived realities of the climate crisis, and advocating for systemic change. It matters who is at the decision-making table, who is heard, and who is able to influence negotiations. 

The agreement simply does not go far enough. While those who mobilized were able to advocate to include some language on fossil fuels, what the world really needs is a fuller commitment to phase out fossil fuels. We need action on climate change now more than ever, so we cannot let oil and gas lobbyists continue to undermine our progress by persuading countries to commit to weak language. 

After all, this is what negotiations are about – a fight over word choice, its potential interpretations, and urgency, ambition, commitment over what is at stake. COPs and negotiations are not simply an excuse for pomp and circumstance and patting each other on the back. These words directly impact the lives and livelihoods of people and communities made most vulnerable by the climate crisis. 

We cannot let COP29 be a cop-out on climate action. Governments and decision-makers must be held accountable to raise ambition, create space, and fund solutions that centre people and communities who are disproportionately impacted by the climate crisis, so that we can all live in a more equitable, just, and climate-resilient world.

Soomin is a student at the Max Bell School of Public Policy with a background in climate policy and holds a Bachelor of Environmental Studies from the University of Manitoba. With experiences working on Parliament Hill, UN Climate Change, and various environmental non-profits, she currently works as a Program Lead at Youth Climate Lab and serves as a Youth Advisor to the CEO of the Global Centre on Adaptation.