Q&A: Why defining the ‘phaseout’ of ‘unabated’ fossil fuels is so vital at COP28

The way forward for fossil fuels – and whether or not to comply with section them “down” or “out” – is shaping as much as be a key battle on the COP28 local weather talks in Dubai.

Whereas some events and teams want to see a deal on phasing out all fossil fuels, others solely need to limit “unabated” coal, oil and gasoline. Some are against each choices.

In the meantime, different formulations are rising, tying renewable enlargement to fossil gasoline “substitution”, including extra verbs corresponding to “accelerating”, adverbs corresponding to “quickly” or including timescales corresponding to “this decade”.

The battle over utilizing the phrase “unabated” fossil fuels, implicitly accompanied by its reverse – “abated” – raises the query of precisely what these phrases imply.

“Unabated” refers back to the burning of fossil fuels the place ensuing carbon dioxide (CO2) or different greenhouse gasoline emissions are launched immediately into the environment, including to international warming.

Conversely, “abated” refers back to the burning of coal, oil and gasoline mixed with the seize and everlasting storage of some proportion of the ensuing greenhouse gases. This proportion is a key element as there is no such thing as a agreed definition of what “abated” means.

Along with the battle over “unabated”, proof from the Intergovernmental Panel on Local weather Change (IPCC), the Worldwide Power Company (IEA) and others can be utilized to tell fossil-fuel discussions at COP28. Key conclusions from their work embrace:

• The continuing use of fossil fuels with carbon seize and storage (CCS) options in virtually all 1.5C pathways, however solely to a really restricted extent.
• Immediately, CCS barely exists and counting on a serious scale-up is taken into account “dangerous”. If CCS is restricted to believable ranges, then fossil gasoline use must fall even quicker.
• Whereas there may be disagreement over the distinction between “section down” and “section out”, the manufacturing and use of fossil fuels drops dramatically in all 1.5C pathways.

This Q&A explains the time period “unabated fossil fuels”, the science behind fossil-fuel phaseout and the positions of various international locations on what needs to be agreed in relation to fossil fuels at COP28.

What are ‘abated’ and ‘unabated’ fossil fuels?

The Glasgow local weather pact, agreed on the COP26 local weather talks in 2021, was the primary COP choice to say any fossil gasoline – particularly coal – and this reference was tied to the phrase “unabated”.

Nonetheless, this phrase was not outlined and there stays a degree of uncertainty round what the related time period “abated” truly means in observe. For instance, may a coal-fired energy plant seize 10% of the CO2 it produces and nonetheless argue its emissions had been abated?

Disagreement over fossil fuels and “unabated” sprung up once more on the COP27 local weather talks in 2022 and has continued ever since. (See: What has been agreed on fossil gasoline discount thus far?)

Chatting with Carbon Transient, Dr Alaa Al Khourdajie, a analysis fellow at Imperial School London, says these disagreements highlighted the must be “clear and crystal clear about what abated fossil fuels means”. Al Khourdajie says:

“Within the absence of such a transparent set of standards, any seize price – for instance, 50-60% – of carbon emissions may very well be casually thought of abated. This can’t be left ambiguous. Trying on the findings of the technical evaluation of the primary ‘international stocktake’ discussions, the time period unabated is used very closely within the findings.

“However there’s a lack of readability about what counts as unabated and what counts as abated, largely as a result of absence of such agreed definitions within the underlying literature on the time of these negotiations.”

The phrase “unabated” appeared, as soon as once more, within the IPCC’s sixth evaluation Working Group III report on learn how to deal with local weather change. The report concluded:

“In all eventualities [limiting warming in 2100 to below 1.5C], fossil gasoline use is vastly diminished and unabated coal use is totally phased out by 2050.”

(IPCC chair Prof Jim Skea repeated these strains to COP28 delegates, at a 4 December occasion.)

Furthermore, for the primary time, the 2022 IPCC report additionally included a definition of unabated and abated fossil fuels. This definition was added, by Al Khourdajie and different IPCC authors, as a footnote to the abstract for policymakers (SPM), after the phrase “unabated” was added to the abstract.

Dr Chris Bataille, adjunct analysis fellow on the Columbia College Heart on World Power Coverage and one of many different IPCC authors concerned within the footnote tells Carbon Transient:

“On the SPM approval session, a gaggle of events was very insistent on including the phrase ‘unabated’ in entrance of any language on fossil fuels – and that instantly created a necessity for a definition. A bunch of us [IPCC authors] had been involved to ensure it was outlined and so we needed to bounce in on the final minute to tug one thing collectively.”

The IPCC footnote explains that, as a way to depend as “abated”, no less than 90% of fossil-fuel emissions from energy crops needs to be captured and 50-80% of methane from power provide. It says:

“On this context, ‘unabated fossil fuels’ refers to fossil fuels produced and used with out interventions that considerably cut back the quantity of GHG emitted all through the life cycle; for instance, capturing 90% or extra CO2 from energy crops, or 50-80% of fugitive methane emissions from power provide.”

Nonetheless, this definition, as drafted, was nonetheless considerably unclear, Bataille tells Carbon Transient. He says the ultimate comma mixed with the phrase “or” implied that this was an alternative choice to the 90% seize at energy crops, whereas the intention had been for each necessities to use.

To be able to clear up this confusion, Al Khourdajie and Bataille printed a paper setting out their necessities, intimately, for fossil gasoline use to be thought of “abated”.

Al Khourdajie tells Carbon Transient:

“We clearly say that the time period needs to be reserved for the place the continued carbon emissions from utilizing fossil fuels are diminished 90-95% or extra; upstream fugitive methane emissions are lower than 0.5%, and approaching 0.2%, of equal pure gasoline manufacturing; and captured emissions are saved completely.”

Al Khourdajie notes that the imprecise definition of “abated” fossil gasoline provides a “false, if not harmful, sense of safety” that might result in insufficient coverage measures and funding selections.

But there are some “reputable makes use of” of the time period, Katrine Petersen, senior coverage advisor in thinktank E3G’s fossil gasoline transition workforce, tells Carbon Transient. She says:

“It’s vital to notice that there are reputable makes use of of ‘abatement’ necessities as a path to emissions reductions, too. Using the time period ‘unabated’ in respect to CO2_{discount traditionally stems from how some governments (such because the UK and Canada) used types of emissions efficiency requirements to rule out the development of recent coal energy crops with out CCS, after which to require current coal energy crops to both retrofit CCS to cut back emissions, or as a substitute retire, by sure dates – a regulatory method that, finally, led to no new coal crops being constructed and clear phase-out dates set, given the excessive prices and problem of CCS.} 

“This has been an efficient use of abatement requirements by policymakers and regulators to power motion from the coal energy business. However it required clear definitions and regulation somewhat than simply imprecise language.”

Even so, there are clear dangers to the inclusion of the time period “unabated”, says Dr Natalie Jones, coverage adviser at thinktank the Worldwide Institute for Sustainable Growth (IISD).

She tells Carbon Transient that these dangers are notably acute within the setting of the UN local weather talks:

“If the phrase ‘unabated’ is within the remaining COP28 textual content, will probably be a distraction from the fossil gasoline cuts wanted this decade to remain under 1.5C. It muddies the water and will imply events spend the following 5 years debating definitions.”

Again to prime

Do fossil fuels need to be phased out to remain under 1.5C?

Fossil fuels are the largest contributors to present international warming, making up the lion’s share of the cumulative historic emissions which have warmed the Earth by greater than 1.2C.

Furthermore, current fossil-fuel infrastructure, if used according to historic averages, can be enough to breach the carbon finances for 1.5C, in response to the IPCC. It says:

“Projected cumulative future CO2 emissions over the lifetime of current and at present deliberate fossil-fuel infrastructure with out extra abatement exceed the entire cumulative internet CO2 emissions in pathways that restrict warming to 1.5C (>50%) with no or restricted overshoot.”

Moreover, persevering with to construct new fossil-fuel infrastructure would “lock-in” additional emissions, the IPCC says with excessive confidence.

Equally, the IEA has stated there may be no area for the event of recent, unabated coal-fired energy stations or “long-lead time” oil and gasoline developments, if warming is to remain under 1.5C.

These findings are backed by a “massive consensus”, throughout all printed research, that creating new oil and gasoline reserves is “incompatible” with staying under 1.5C.

On the combination degree, the IEA’s 1.5C pathway sees dramatic reductions in unabated fossil gasoline use, with solely a really small position for abated fossil fuels. That is illustrated within the determine under, which reveals that unabated fossil gasoline use falls 88% by 2050 and abated fossil fuels stay minimal.

This is only one pathway to staying under 1.5C. The IPCC seems at a wider vary of pathways and confirms that reaching net-zero CO2 emissions to cease international warming would entail “substantial” cuts in fossil gasoline use, with solely “minimal” unabated use remaining and a few CCS. It says:

“Web-zero CO2 power programs entail: a considerable discount in general fossil gasoline use, minimal use of unabated fossil fuels, and use of CCS within the remaining fossil gasoline system.”

The IPCC checked out a spread of various methods to maintain warming under 1.5C and used “illustrative mitigation pathways” (IMPs) to point out how these approaches are related – and the way they differ.

The second row within the determine under reveals 4 IMPs that restrict warming in 2100 to 1.5C, from left to proper IMP-Neg, IMP-Ren, IMP-LD and IMP-SP. These refer to pathways relying closely on destructive emissions (IMP-Neg), renewable power (IMP-Ren), low power demand (IMP-LD) or “shifting growth pathways” (IMP-SP).

Word that solely the ultimate three IMPs keep under 1.5C with no- or restricted “overshoot”, whereas IMP-Neg sees 1.5C quickly breached.

Fossil gasoline use (purple) doesn’t attain zero by 2050 in any of those pathways. As such, it’s technically appropriate to say that fossil fuels can nonetheless be utilized in 2050, in pathways respecting 1.5C.

Nonetheless, as with the IEA’s 1.5C pathway, fossil gasoline use general drops very dramatically in all circumstances. For COP28, the query is learn how to describe this dramatic discount in fossil gasoline use, which is clearly wanted to remain under 1.5C.

There’s disagreement over whether or not a “section out” refers to a trajectory that reaches zero or whether or not it merely refers to a really substantial discount.

Some favor the time period “section down” for that reason, whereas others really feel this suggests a weaker discount than a “section out”. As well as, “section down” may imply solely a very small minimize.

Moreover, neither of those phrases cowl outlined intervals of time, until time bounds corresponding to “this decade” or “properly earlier than 2050” are explicitly added.

Whatever the terminology, the quantity of fossil fuels nonetheless within the system by 2050 may be very small, even when together with abated fossil fuels as within the determine under. Moreover, fossil gasoline use reaches zero – or near zero – within the second half of the century in no- or low-overshoot pathways.

Solely within the IMP-Neg pathway (leftmost chart within the determine above), the place emissions overshoot 1.5C earlier than returning under that degree by 2100, is there a bigger position for fossil fuels by mid-century.

Right here, the continued use of fossil fuels is principally mixed with CCS, proven by the gray wedge on the highest of the stack within the determine under. (Unabated fossil fuels are proven in darkish yellow.)

Notably, within the pathways that keep under 1.5C with no- or minimal overshoot, the usage of fossil fuels mixed with CCS is nearly non-existent. The place CCS is used, it’s mixed as a substitute with the usage of bioenergy (BECCS) or the direct air seize of CO2 from the environment (DACCS).

Along with noting the minimal position of CCS in 1.5C pathways, it’s price including that, so far, the know-how has did not scale as much as vital ranges.

In accordance with the IEA, there are actually greater than 40 business seize services in operation globally, with a complete annual “seize capability” of greater than 45m tonnes of CO2 (MtCO2).

This capability could be in contrast with annual international CO2 emissions which are almost 1,000 instances bigger, at an estimated 37bn tonnes of CO2 (GtCO2) in 2023. Put one other method, CCS services at present seize one tenth of 1 p.c of world CO2 emissions.

The IEA says that momentum behind the know-how has been rising for the reason that begin of 2018, with greater than 50 new seize services introduced since January 2022.

These may very well be working by 2030 and capturing round 125MtCO2 per 12 months. Nonetheless, solely round 20 tasks below growth have taken a remaining funding choice, the IEA notes.

Even with this development in momentum, the pipeline of present tasks quantities to solely round a 3rd of the extent wanted below the IEA’s 1.5C pathway in 2030.

For that reason – in addition to conflicts with different sustainable growth priorities – counting on the numerous scaling up of CCS know-how can be a “dangerous” approach to respect the 1.5C restrict.

(As well as, a new examine from the College of Oxford launched throughout COP28, finds {that a} high-CCS pathway to 1.5C would include a cumulative $30tn in extra prices by 2050, in contrast with a low-CCS different that depends on quicker reductions in fossil gasoline use.)

every of the fossil fuels in flip, in pathways assessed by the IPCC as staying under 1.5C with no- or low-overshoot, there are vital declines in coal use throughout the board.

Within the 1.5C pathway in the course of the vary thought of by the IPCC (the median pathway), coal, oil and gasoline decline by 95%, 60% and 45% by 2050, respectively, in contrast with 2019 ranges.

These median figures conceal a wider vary for oil and gasoline. Alternatively, the vary will get considerably smaller – and steeper – if pathways are constrained to most believable ranges of CCS. On this case, oil and gasoline see declines of 70% and 84% by 2050, respectively.

Furthermore, some international locations argue the concentrate on coal is inequitable, given it tends for use extra closely in creating international locations.

If the tempo of coal reductions is eased in these locations, then the usage of oil and gasoline – that are extra vital in developed international locations – would want to fall extra steeply.

Again to prime

What has been agreed on fossil gasoline discount thus far?

As already famous, COP26 noticed the primary COP choice that explicitly referred to as out the necessity to deal with fossil fuels, with settlement on a “section down of unabated coal”.

The textual content within the remaining settlement at COP26 calls upon events to: 

“Speed up the event, deployment and dissemination of applied sciences, and the adoption of insurance policies, to transition in the direction of low-emission power programs, together with by quickly scaling up the deployment of unpolluted energy era and power effectivity measures, together with accelerating efforts in the direction of the phasedown of unabated coal energy and phase-out of inefficient fossil gasoline subsidies, whereas offering focused help to the poorest and most susceptible according to nationwide circumstances and recognizing the necessity for help in the direction of a simply transition.”

This language was hard-won, with earlier textual content on the summit having referred to as for efforts to “speed up the phasing out of coal”. This brief wording was finally tempered with extra language and, within the remaining moments of the summit, the phrase “section out” was modified to “section down”.

At COP27, events took up the battle over fossil-fuel language as soon as once more, with India calling for settlement to section down all fossil fuels, with a gaggle of 80 international locations calling for a section out.

Catherine Abreu, government director of NGO Vacation spot Zero, instructed Carbon Transient on the time:

“Events requested for it fairly constantly. An increasing number of events [joined the call] with each session. Their ask for all fossil fuels to be included within the textual content was ignored each time…The presidency selected to not put these phrases into the drafts.”

Regardless of international locations’ efforts, the Egyptian presidency refused to incorporate fossil-fuel language in any of the draft negotiating texts all through the two-week summit, leaving many events disillusioned.

As a substitute, the assembly merely restated the language that had been agreed in Glasgow at COP26 – with even this reiteration having been unsure at instances.

The dialog over chopping fossil gasoline use has continued all through 2023.

In April, the G7 group of main economies held its assembly on local weather, power and setting in Sapporo, Japan. It agreed textual content utilizing barely stronger language than that of earlier COPs. 

For instance, the group emphasised their dedication to “speed up the phase-out of unabated fossil fuels in order to realize net-zero in power programs by 2050 on the newest”. 

The G7 chief’s communiqué reaffirmed a dedication from the earlier 12 months’s assembly to realize a “absolutely or predominantly decarbonised energy sector by 2035”.

This contains taking “concrete and well timed steps” in the direction of the aim to “phase-out home unabated coal energy era”. It additionally recognised the necessity to finish the development of recent unabated coal-fired energy crops, whereas working with different nations to help them to do the identical. 

The G7 settlement added that the member nations ended new direct authorities help for unabated worldwide thermal coal energy era by the top of 2021, in addition to public help for the worldwide unabated fossil gasoline power sector in 2022, besides in restricted circumstances. 

In September, the bigger G20 bloc agreed to again international efforts to triple renewable power capability by 2030, however failed to search out agreed language on fossil fuels.

Following tense negotiations, the group of the world’s largest economies lastly secured an settlement at a gathering held in New Delhi, India. The primary negotiator Amitabh Kant dubbed the settlement the “most bold doc on local weather motion” at a press convention. 

But the language close to fossil fuels remained according to what was agreed at COP26 in Glasgow and COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh.

Reiterating the COP wording, the ultimate G20 settlement referred to as for a transition in the direction of low-emission power programs, together with “accelerating efforts in the direction of phasedown of unabated coal energy”. 

Furthermore, neither the G7 nor the G20 included a definition of “unabated” and “abated” fossil fuels.

Lastly, in mid-November, the US and China – generally known as the G2 – launched their joint “Sunnylands assertion” on local weather change, which additionally backed a tripling of renewable power, however contained solely indirect references to chopping the usage of fossil fuels.

Moderately than speaking of phasing fossil fuels down or out, the English-language model says the 2 international locations will ramp up renewables “in order to…substitut[e]” for fossil fuels. It says they:

“[I]ntend to sufficiently speed up renewable power deployment of their respective economies by way of 2030 from 2020 ranges in order to speed up the substitution for coal, oil and gasoline era [in the power sector], and thereby anticipate post-peaking significant absolute energy sector emissions discount, on this crucial decade of the 2020s.”

The assertion additionally commits the pair to no less than 5 “large-scale” CCS cooperation tasks for business and power, in every nation by 2030.

BBC Information quoted Bernice Lee, distinguished fellow at Chatham Home, as saying that it had doubtless “confirmed to be too tough to search out the type of language that works for each” on fossil fuels.

Again to prime

Who desires what on fossil fuels at COP28?

Within the run-up to COP28, key divisions remained on the method to phasing out or down unabated or abated fossil fuels. 

The Excessive Ambition Coalition (HAC) is among the solely blocs to actively help the phasing out of all fossil fuels, each abated and unabated. In a September assertion the bloc stated:

“Abatement applied sciences have a job to play in lowering emissions, however that position within the decarbonisation of power programs is minimal. We can not use it to green-light fossil gasoline enlargement.”

It then made a direct name to phase-out fossil gasoline manufacturing and use inside its submission to the worldwide stocktake on the finish of October. This submission stated:

“Fossil fuels are on the root of this disaster. We should work collectively to develop a complete international clear power entry method to speed up the transition away from fossil fuels.”

Apart from Colombia, not one of the HAC members are fossil-fuel producers of be aware.

After “fractious” inner negotiations over its place, the EU referred to as for a phase-out of “unabated” fossil fuels – and an power system “predominantly freed from fossil fuels properly forward of 2050”.

Crucially, the bloc’s agreed place additionally “underlines” limitations on the usage of CCS. It says that “emission abatement applied sciences which don’t considerably hurt the setting, exist at restricted scale and are for use to cut back emissions primarily from laborious to abate sectors”.

Moreover, it provides that “removing applied sciences [such as BECCS and DACCS] are to contribute to international destructive emissions…[and] shouldn’t be used to delay local weather motion in sectors the place possible, efficient and cost-efficient mitigation alternate options can be found”.

Talking in July, then-EU local weather chief Frans Timmermans listed the phase-out of unabated fossil fuels as a key aim for the bloc, along with tripling renewables rollout by 2030 and doubling the speed of power effectivity enhancements. 

Timmermans additionally highlighted the limitation on CCS, saying: 

“You will need to have a exact understanding of the position of ‘abated fossils’ in a net-zero financial system. These must be residual and solely in hard-to-abate sectors. And the sector carries the burden of proof in demonstrating that is achievable and proposing credible funding methods in carbon-abating applied sciences”.

The stances of different key international locations and teams could be seen on Carbon Transient’s Who Needs What grid. 

The US can be supporting the phase-out of “unabated” fossil fuels. A assertion launched by the White Home earlier this 12 months argued that the US must “speed up the phase-out of unabated fossil fuels”.

US local weather envoy John Kerry backed the usage of “abated” fossil fuels, however challenged the oil business to show the efficacy of CCS in an interview with the Related Press earlier this 12 months. He stated:

“In the event you’re capable of abate the emissions, seize it. However we don’t have that at-scale but. And we will’t sit right here and simply fake we’re going to robotically have one thing we don’t have in the present day. As a result of we’d not. It won’t work.”

In the meantime, China’s local weather envoy Xie Zhenhua stated the phase-out of fossil fuels is “not reasonable”, throughout a speech in Beijing in September.

In accordance with a translation from the Heart for China and Globalization, Xie stated “utterly eliminating fossil power will not be reasonable”. 

Going into COP28, sources instructed Reuters that India would proceed to withstand these pushing for a deadline on the phasedown of fossil fuels. As a substitute, it will favour shifting focus to lowering general carbon emissions by way of “abatement and mitigation applied sciences”, the newswire stated. 

COP28 host nation the United Arab Emirates (UAE) – a serious and increasing fossil gasoline producer – has shifted its stance on fossil fuels as 2023 has progressed.

In Could, a speech given by COP28 president Sultan Al Jaber stated: “We have to be laser-focused on phasing out fossil gasoline emissions, whereas phasing up viable, reasonably priced zero-carbon alternate options.”

This was broadly interpreted as help for CCS and, with its concentrate on “fossil gasoline emissions”, a deflection from phasing out fossil fuels themselves – a sentiment that drew widespread criticism.

Subsequently, Al Jaber began describing the “phasedown” of fossil fuels as “inevitable” and “important”, following an interview with the Guardian. 

A pre-summit be aware issued by the UAE in October requires a world “working in the direction of an power system freed from unabated fossil fuels by mid-century, with coal being a precedence”.

The early draft texts at COP28 reveals international locations are contemplating calling for an “orderly and simply” section out of fossil fuels, however whether or not “unabated” will likely be included nonetheless stays unclear.

As of 5 December, there are three choices formally on the desk. These are

• “An orderly and simply section out of fossil fuels”;
• “Accelerating efforts in the direction of phasing out unabated fossil fuels and to quickly lowering their use in order to realize net-zero CO2 in power programs by or round mid-century”;
• The third choice can be to not point out a fossil gasoline section out (or down) in any respect.

For many international locations, COP28 is not going to be seen as successful if it fails to comply with language on phasing out all fossil fuels. Whether or not that is attainable – and whether or not such language will find yourself being certified with “unabated” – or another type of phrases – stays to be seen.

Sturdy definitions of abatement may ship an vital sign at COP28, says Petersen, however may even have real-world implications in driving emissions reductions.

Worldwide definitions of abatement may very well be translated into regulatory requirements at nationwide degree, she provides, serving to international locations to achieve Paris-aligned emissions discount ranges. 

Al Khourdajie says: 

“Each [abated and unabated] are actually used extra prominently in worldwide negotiations than ever earlier than. The hope is for the outcomes of the upcoming COP28 to carry readability to each phrases.”

Nonetheless, he provides that worldwide negotiations needs to be discussing deeper decarbonisation in developed international locations and efforts to help local weather motion in creating nations, together with monetary and technological switch in addition to funds for loss and injury. He provides:

“That is the area that discussions in worldwide negotiations ought to occupy, somewhat than nuances round abated and unabated fossil fuels, vital as they’re.”

Again to prime