Fossil fuels are still needed, but they must be drastically reduced

SULTAN Al Jaber, president of the United Nations Climate Conference (COP28) in Dubai, said this week that there was no scientific basis to phase out fossil fuels in order to avoid catastrophic global warming.

While the comment is technically correct, it also suffers from a deficit of nuance. Taken on its own, the comment might suggest that there is no need to sharply reduce the use of fossil fuels. That would be false.

Given climate deniers’ embrace of anti-science culture, it is understandable that Al Jaber’s critics have bristled at the slightest suggestion that climate action is not backed by science. But Al Jaber is correct; fossil fuels are expected to remain a significant energy source – around 30 per cent of primary energy supply in 2050 – in most scenarios that aim to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius by mid-century, as reported by the scientist-led Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

But there are important caveats.

The first is that the world is heterogeneous, and not all net-zero pathways are the same.

One major reason for fossil fuels remaining in the energy mix is that renewable alternatives have not been able to scale up quickly enough, and in many developing countries there are no easily available alternatives at the moment. Fossil fuels as a transition energy source – which means that they are an interim solution – are therefore necessary for some developing countries.

However, most of the developed world has no such excuse. For wealthy and resource-rich countries, a complete phase-out of fossil fuels is not only attainable but essential. Without the global north pulling its weight, it is not possible to achieve the six-tenths median reduction in fossil fuel dependence envisioned by most 1.5 deg C scenarios.

The other caveat is that many scenarios rely on carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) technology to be significantly more feasible than it currently is. A 2022 IPCC assessment found CCUS to be among the most expensive and the least impactful mitigation options available. Unless the fossil fuel industry – one of the strongest proponents of CCUS – can drastically improve the technology, current models could well be underestimating the need to reduce fossil fuel consumption.

The fact is that much more needs to be done to cut down on fossil fuels. In separate comments, Al Jaber – who heads the United Arab Emirates’ Abu Dhabi National Oil Company – has commended oil and gas majors for committing to reduce their emissions, but those goals need to be taken with a handful of salt. For instance, ExxonMobil has a set of 2030 targets to reduce only emissions that it generates from its operations and power consumption, but not the indirect emissions caused by end users burning the fossil fuels it generates. In the meantime, the company continues to increase production.

The private sector invariably chases profits. It is up to policymakers to ensure that the cost of emissions to the environment cannot be externalised.

Negotiators at COP28 are debating whether the world should aim to “phase out” or “phase down” fossil fuels. Neither option is perfect. Phasing out risks alienating countries that do not have better alternatives, while phasing down gives countries an excuse to be less ambitious.

Nuance may be what is required. Phase out if you can; if you can’t, phase down, but aim to eventually phase out.