COP 28: Is There Reason for Hope?

COP 28 begins this Thursday, November 30, in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. And the controversies are already numerous. This COP is taking place at the epicenter of global fossil fuel oil and gas extraction. Its president is the CEO of the national company responsible for oil and gas production. Added to this is the context of recent international geopolitical crises (the war in Ukraine, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict). In short, A disaster waiting to happen! But isn't that a simplistic and pointless accusation?

Controversies that obscure the essentials

The location? It is a good thing that the venue changes with each COP to address a climate crisis that is eminently international, and the United Arab Emirates is an influential regional power.

The president? Above all, he is a very high-ranking official in his country, a sign that the COP is being taken seriously.

As always, the latest COP is being touted as an extraordinary event that could change the fate of the entire planet. But Since the Paris Agreement in 2015, countries have already committed to limiting global warming to no more than 2°C^[1]. So, there won’t be any “big night” in about ten days; we need to act quickly and decisively every year from 2015 until the end of the century.

So yes, this COP is shining a spotlight on fossil fuel production, particularly oil and gas. And It must be acknowledged that, as of now, governments plan to produce 70% more fossil fuel energy by 2030 than under a 2°C scenario^[2].

Who is responsible?

First, It is worth noting that 80% of the world's fossil fuel reserves are held by state-owned companies^[3] (e.g., Saudi Aramco, Gazprom, Petrobras). The remainder is owned by publicly traded companies (e.g., TotalEnergies, Shell, China Shenhua Energy). Consequently, fossil fuel-producing countries, such as the United Arab Emirates, are—whether we like it or not—key players in paving the way toward global carbon neutrality.

Whether private or public, these companies generally do not commit to reducing their fossil fuel production. Let's take a closer look at publicly traded companies that are required to report on their energy transition strategies: the results are dismal. Only 1% of TotalEnergies' revenue comes from renewable energy and energy efficiency. It's even less for the other major oil companies^[4]. Westerners, represented by these supermajors, are certainly in no position to lecture others when it comes to fossil fuel production.

And then, To focus solely on production is to overlook the entire system that benefits from it downstream. Consumers of fossil fuels are just as responsible as producers. France has no oil^[5]but she has some ideas for how to use it. Make your choice from among the companies : manufacturers of internal-combustion-engine vehicles, gas boiler installers, and oil refiners. And things aren’t any better on the government’s side. Let’s remember that The French government was found in violation of its climate commitments. Westerners have no right to lecture others when it comes to fossil fuel consumption either.

Let's finish with the controversy surrounding the consulting firm McKinseybecause it speaks volumes about double standards the business world^[6]. On the one hand, a number of companies are developing a narrative on the energy transition by developing a few related activities. On the other hand, they continue to expand their traditional fossil fuel operations without limit. This double standard is harmful because it perpetuates the illusion of “both at the same time,” when in fact the goal is to increase one thing while decreasing another.

McKinsey is no exception to this rule with major clients such as ExxonMobil and Saudi Aramco. As part of COP 28, this firm is providing pro bono advice to the United Arab Emirates, and concludes that it would be possible to reduce oil consumption by only 50% by 2050 while complying with the Paris Agreement. At stake are thousands of billions of dollars in annual investments in oil and gas. How much intellectual rigor can we attribute to this firm? Western When the International Energy Agency (IEA) states that, in order to comply with the Paris Agreement, fossil fuels should virtually disappear by 2050?

Reasons for hope?

Let's keep in mind that it is the First Global Assessment since COP 21 in Paris, and which comes after two years of preparation. The goal is to assess progress and identify the actions needed to get on track with the Paris Agreement (in terms of mitigation, adaptation, and financing). All aspects of the climate issue are being scrutinized, with particular attention paid to taking into account the priorities of all countries so that so that everyone can raise their ambitions by 2025^[7].

It is clear that fossil fuel-producing countries have an economic interest in maintaining their revenue streams. Even so, the United Arab Emirates is taking its first (tentative) steps toward diversifying into low-carbon energy, following Norway’s example. More broadly, the impacts of climate change are being felt more and more strongly all over the world. Adaptation will be at the heart of the discussions.^[8]. No grand moment is expected, but a little help from the West—a major consumer of fossil fuels—would be welcome^[9].