The 29th Conference of the Parties for Climate Change, commonly known as COP29, ended with outrage and dismay—emotions demonstrated by developing nations after developed ones agreed to raise annual climate finance but nowhere near what was asked for. But there was outrage among climate activists, too. Because, once again, the world refused to commit to a phaseout of hydrocarbons.
Apparently, it’s Saudi Arabia’s fault.
“The Arab Group will not accept any text that targets specific sectors, including fossil fuels,” Saudi Arabia’s representative at COP29, Albara Tawfiq, said as quoted by Bloomberg. The publication then went on to note that this was a step back for the kingdom from last year’s commitment to an oil and gas phaseout as agreed at the previous edition of the COP. But here’s the thing. Nobody agreed to a phaseout of oil and gas at COP28. What they agreed to, after much negotiations, was a move away from oil and gas, which, while similar in sound and meaning, is not the same thing.
Saudi Arabia, in other words, has maintained its stance on the transition and its key energy industry by refusing to make commitments that would kill this industry and, quite likely, its economy. It wasn’t the only one, either. No major producer with the exception of the United States and the UK would commit to a phaseout of the fuels that fuel the world—including the host country of COP29, Azerbaijan. Indeed, the president of Azerbaijan shocked many with a speech in which he referred to oil and gas as “a gift from God” and proceeded to say that nations rich in hydrocarbons should not be blamed for having and using these resources.
One could say that this speech said it all in the early days of the summit, but the final deal highlighted the impossibility of what climate activists and transition-ambitious governments see as the only way of ensuring a livable future for humankind despite growing skepticism. Negotiators at COP29 were supposed to agree on annual funding for developing nations, which cannot afford to go it alone on the transition. That funding was to be tied to oil, gas, and coal phaseout commitments. Yet the final agreed amount was about a quarter of what developing nations had pushed for.
The amount of annual funding for transition activities, including the phaseout of hydrocarbons, was initially pegged at $1.3 trillion. This is undoubtedly a significant sum of money that had to come from somewhere, and most of it was supposed to come from the wealthiest economies in the world. Yet during the course of the negotiations, those wealthiest economies only managed to agree to $300 billion annually by 2035, after what Bloomberg described as “at times openly hostile negotiations.” The parties also agreed to “unleash” $1.3 trillion in climate finance on the world, but the how, the when, and the rest of the details remain shrouded in mystery for now. And nobody committed to a phaseout of oil and gas—because of the Saudis, according to people who Bloomberg talked to.
The Saudis, these people told the publication, had become masters of tactics aimed at removing the phaseout from the agenda altogether. One way of doing this, the Bloomberg sources related, was to make it look like the COP29 was all about the climate deal—which, indeed, everyone seemed to agree that it was. This was the goal of the summit: to agree on funding the transition. But, according to Bloomberg and its sources, this wasn’t the ultimate goal, which was to agree to phase out oil and gas.
The Saudis were busy elsewhere as well, if the Bloomberg sources are to be believed. At the G20 meeting that coincided with the COP29, they were also allegedly pushing their anti-phaseout agenda, and they did it successfully. The G20 ended as yet another conference that did not produce a commitment for the phaseout of oil and gas—thanks to Saudi efforts, per Bloomberg sources.
Blame games are part of international politics, and they will in all likelihood continue as negotiators start their preparations for next year’s COP. This does not change the reality of world energy, however, and the fact that evidence of the failure of transition policies to enhance energy security and affordability is mounting. One needs to look no further than Germany and the UK to see it.
This is why developing nations insist on over a trillion in help for joining the transition wagon. This is why they would not touch their hydrocarbon power generation capacity unless they see transition money in the bank. Because the transition away from oil, gas, and coal is extremely expensive and has already prompted a cost of living crisis in some of the formerly wealthiest countries in the world—those same countries that are supposed to cough up $300 billion annually for the poorer countries. Blaming it all on Saudi Arabia seems more of a way to mask the inherent impossibilities of any comprehensive transition away from hydrocarbons than anything else.
Source: By Irina Slav from Oilprice.com