No Fossil Fuel Phase-Out in COP28 Climate Deal
But perhaps the beginning of the end of era of fossil fuels?

Dubai, United Arab Emirates — "We have language on fossil fuel for the first time ever," declared COP28 President Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber as he graveled the deal reached for the Global Stocktake at U.N.'s annual climate change meeting to close a day late. Al Jaber is right. After more than 30 years of U.N. climate change negotiations since the Earth Summit in 1992, the words "fossil fuels" do appear for the first time in an officially adopted U.N. decision document. Previously, climate negotiations had focused solely on emissions without mentioning whence those emissions came.
Overnight wrangling among the 196 countries negotiating the Global Stocktake (GST) at COP28 yielded the shiny new outcome document. The new GST avoids the unfortunate earlier situation in which the initial GST text triggered OPEC and other oil and gas-producing countries with the incredibly hurtful words "phase-out." Instead, the new GST more gently calls upon countries to engage in such global efforts as "transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems."
Since the new GST was approved by consensus at COP28, this new phraseology was apparently able to mollify those negotiators and hordes of climate activists who fiercely decried the second GST draft. That misbegotten text in their view merely suggested that countries could choose from a list of measures aiming to address the problem of man-made climate change that included "reducing both consumption and production of fossil fuel."
At the closing session, U.N. climate chief Simon Stiell declared that COP28 "needed to signal a hard stop to humanity's core climate problem—fossil fuels and their planet-burning pollution. Whilst we didn't turn the page on the fossil fuel era in Dubai, this outcome is the beginning of the end."
The GST maintains the fond hope that keeping global average temperature 1.5 C below the preindustrial average (1850-1900) is still possible if humanity will just cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 43 percent by 2030 and 60 percent by 2035 relative to the 2019 level.
Besides calling for transitioning away from fossil fuels, the GST also highlights other pathways for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. These include tripling renewable energy capacity globally and doubling the global average annual rate of energy efficiency improvements by 2030; phasing down coal power generation; and, also for the first time in a U.N. climate decision document, accelerating zero- and low-emission technologies, including, wait for it, nuclear power. In another gesture toward energy and climate realism, the GST also "recognizes that transitional fuels can play a role in facilitating the energy transition." Translation: Reducing carbon dioxide emissions by switching from coal to natural gas is a big step in the right direction.
The GST also assumes that countries will take immediate action with respect to their greenhouse gas emissions but does further note that "this does not imply peaking in all countries" by 2030. Why? Because "peaking may be shaped by sustainable development, poverty eradication, needs and equity and be in line with different national circumstances." This simply recognizes the plain fact that lots of poor countries will need to use cheap fossil fuels to grow their economies and lift their citizens out of poverty.
The GST is meant to guide countries over the next two years as they revise and update in accord with their obligations under the Paris Climate Change Agreement their new nationally determined contributions (NDCs) to handling climate change. NDCs detail what each country plans and promises to do during the next five-year period (2025-2030). The new NDCs are supposed to align with the conclusions of the GST and are to be submitted to the U.N. climate before COP30 convenes in Brazil in 2025.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
More testing needed!
That is every bit as reasonable approach as ending fossil fuels. It's rather amazing that anyone is dumb enough to actually believe it, let alone millions, if not over a billion morons.
asd
End reliance on fossil fools such as Biden, Schumer, and Pelosi.
Not bad
But plenty more fossil fools to add to that list
Unlicensed nuclear accelerators should be restricted to the trunks of licensed pet elephants & genetically reconstructed wooly mammoths.
But perhaps the beginning of the end of era of fossil fuels?
Yeah, sure Ron. And once we build all the lab meat bioreactors that run on unicorn farts we'll be able to return all the ranch land back to nature so that massive herds of ungulates can methane fart away fixed carbon reserves to zero direct benefit to humanity.
You try to paint it as a win but it's the slow transition to claiming credit for the status quo that was pointed out by "opponents" back before Trump opted out of the Paris Accord. The slow-walk transition required to perpetuate the religion after successive "End is nigh!" predictions failed to materialize. You're like the comedic relief that suggests a retarded plan that couldn't possibly work achieve some mundane ends and when someone suggests and implements a mundane solution to the same ends says not just "Or we could go with your idea." but "It was my idea all along."
Except that the replacement “natural” ungulates will do the same.
Ron is a joke, much like Reason in general, who consistently display a profound lack of their titular quality. Ron doesn't know it though; he can't hear you over his years of spouting COVID vaccine propaganda. Sad thing is, Reason probably doesn't even get paid by pharma and "green" companies to push these narratives. They're the extra naive variant of the useful idiot class. I just read in Popular Mechanics that OMG climate change is causing increased turbulence in air travel! At least I see ads in their pages from "green" companies so they're not as dumb as Reason.
All of it is a joke. Everybody knows it. The West is using less coal and oil.... at least before NS2 blew up... but it makes no difference. Growth in China and India far exceed those reductions... by multiples. Climate change cultists and the we are running out of resources crowd are beyond delusional. The world is using more oil, coal, and gas at increasing rates. Evenif the ElWedt quits using fossil fuels entirely the East will goggle it all up and feed it into their thriving economies based on Cheap energy.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?time=1867..latest&country=CHN~OWID_EUR~USA
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/primary-energy-cons?tab=chart&country=CHN~OWID_EUR~USA~IND
At some point in the future other technologies will become cheaper than petroleum, and people will naturally transition to the less-expensive substitutes.
After that, what happens to the oil left underground? We've already extracted all the stuff that's easy to get. My guess is that the infrastructure will go the way of Venezuela, and once it falls apart there will be no petroleum at all.
At some point in the future other technologies will become cheaper than petroleum, and people will naturally transition to the less-expensive substitutes.
Not likely. The basic rules of market economics suggests that fossil fuels will become cheaper if people transition away from them. Ie, the more abundant and less valuable they are, the lower the price. I believe Mrs. Megan McArdle even... "lamented" that fact of economics. So for the "less expensive substitutes" to magically become and stay "less expensive" they will have to be increasingly abundant and efficient-- the proper use of the term efficient, not the Environmentalist's definition of "efficient".
Oil will become more expensive as it becomes more difficult to get to, meanwhile substitute technologies will become less expensive as they mature. At some point those prices will converge, and that's when people will voluntarily shift.
Maybe. The technology to extract such sources gets cheaper as well as time goes on. Sources of oil and gas that were prohibitively expensive in the past (think 1960s/1970s) are now more extractable than before. Fifty years ago, we couldn't easily process the tar sands in Alberta. Today, it's a huge source of oil. There are also sources that may be untapped as we just haven't explored in those areas.
Yes, none of it stands still. Oil IS more difficult to get to on an absolute scale, but we've created remarkable ways of drilling it and extracting it. In 1998, the price of oil was $21 a barrel and by every metric, it was 'more difficult to get to' than it was in 1940.
Everything you say is true. I'm not arguing against any of that. I totally agree. And it furthers my point. As we reach oil that was 'more difficult to get to' with 1940s technology, it costs more to get it. Not only that, but without huge investments it's unreachable.
Hydrocarbons have a HUGE energy to weight advantage. That's for sure. But I still think a day will come when something else is more financially prudent. When that comes, crude will be but a memory.
We can also make our own hydrocarbons. When synthesizing oil becomes cheaper than finding it in the wild, then that's what people will do. And it will happen as the wild stuff becomes harder to find and more expensive to reach.
My opinion is that this will happen anyway. Doesn't matter who which team gets to press government's thumb on the scale. That will only delay the inevitable.
It won't be possible to "synthesize" hydrocarbons without a source of energy to be stored in the chemical bonds of its molecules. And if we had such a source of energy, using it indirectly by first storing it the chemical bonds of hydrocarbons and then releasing it by burning the stuff might not be smartest or most efficient way to use it.
Hey ML, JA, Dlam, RM and the rest, what do you guys think?
Petroleum (and gas) is still very useful for lots of other things besides fuel, albeit in much smaller quantities. I don't think the industry will die out completely. I also have some doubts about the practicality of replacing all transportation fuels with something non-petroleum.
One day, your car might have an unlicensed nuclear accelerator in its trunk. I'll check with Dan Akroyd.
Same could be said of whale oil.
At some point in the future other technologies will become cheaper than petroleum, and people will naturally transition to the less-expensive substitutes.
I think it's the same thing but the other way round. Fossil fuels will need to become more expensive. Hopefully because the value of them unextracted and left in the ground can become monetized. So it is fossil fuels for the purposes of combustion that becomes expensive. I can conceive of ways to do that via blockchain but there's too many scammers and grifters in that space.
Once those fuels-for-combustion become expensive, then fuel efficiency and renewable alternatives will find a place in a market pricing and technology system. Won't happen in the US and won't happen with the generation in charge now. But sometime.
I think it’s the same thing but the other way round. Fossil fuels will need to become more expensive.
It's relative. Solar used to be expensive and pointless. Now it's much cheaper and actually produces electricity!
Fossil fuels don't need to become more expensive if solar or something else becomes cheaper.
What you're talking about is putting government's thumb on the scale. I'm saying what you want will happen anyway. Just not as fast as you would like.
I don't know what you even mean by 'putting government's thumb on the scale'. Private ownership of land in particular (and resources are, economically, a function of land) only occurs with 'government's thumb on the scale'. The biggest baddest lion doesn't have ownership of land or an oil well. Merely possession until it is taken.
'Government's thumb' has ALWAYS been on the scale. It was a govt (of now dead people) that 140+ years ago granted ownership title of some bit of land (to some now dead people) under which there is an oil resource (which may or may not have been discovered/resourced/reserved out by now dead people).
Are you saying that today's govt (of living people) must be obligated and subordinated to support unchanged all the decisions/obligations/arrangements/etc of now-dead-people? To keep the govt thumb in the same place and same angle/tilt as the govt thumb was then? To reward one group of beneficiaries/heirs of dead people (now living) at the expense of others now living (or in future)?
Because that certainly violates Thomas Jefferson's dictum - I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, ‘that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living’ that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by any individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, and reverts to the society..
Now I understand that Jefferson was a commie. Plus he's dead so maybe it is better to ignore unpleasant ideas from dead people. In favor of ideas from dead people that support the status quo. Like, for example, whatever was done back then that has led to the problem we have now must NOT be changed because the same people/things that led to the problem we have are the ONLY way to solve that problem or any other problem going forward.
Fossil fuels will need to become more expensive.
Will that be some that just happens, or must it be forced?
I already said - Hopefully because the value of them unextracted and left in the ground can become monetized.
Can there ever be a monetary value for fossil fuels that are left in the ground, discovered but unburnt, for the benefit of future generations to use as they may need.
I no longer care about the bogus conservative 'libertarian' argument that govt maintaining a status quo is not force but govt changing something is force.
"I no longer care about the bogus conservative ‘libertarian’ argument that govt maintaining a status quo is not force but govt changing something is force."
I don't give a shit about any of your strawmen, chicken little.
" Solar used to be expensive and pointless. Now it’s much cheaper and" still pointless. Electricity that is not produced when needed is pointless.
Or, maybe oil is a product of some yet discovered deep ocean/geological process where carbon rich seawater is compressed and heated creating oil.
The dead dinosaur theory is over 100 years old. It survives because not only the oil industry by the ecomentalists thrive on the scarcity argument. Just because the Russians developed the abiotic theory doesn't mean it has to be wrong.
The dead dinosaur theory persists because the biotic theory is the only theory that explains 100% of all deposits and that has served to find 100% of all deposits. Abiotic (or naturally occurring Fischer-Tropsch process) theory was neither original (see Fischer-Tropsch) nor has it ever been productive of anything.
Your assumptions are wrong. It's not that people use more expensive methods to extract oil, it's that extracting difficult to extract oil has gotten much cheaper. Otherwise the US couldn't compete with the Saudis, where oil is still extracted using the old methods.
Translation: Reducing carbon dioxide emissions by switching from coal to natural gas is a big step in the right direction.
It's a step, sure. I feel like this was something the greenies advocated for back in the 90s, and then their politics moved on and they said that natural gas was evil because "fracking" sounds like a disgusting thing to do.
Is it really progress if we're re-adopting positions from 30 years ago?
It would be easy to assume the “experts” don’t know what they are doing.
So India and China are building them in mass to retire them in a year or two? Or convert them to NG? Sure.
En masse
Since none of the participants in the conference intends to abide by any agreement reached, there can be no take-aways from any reports or deals. Everyone at the conference was simply hoping that someone else would actually shoot himself in the foot economically and reduce the level of competition. This is all for show and to hoax the yokels or give them something to march in protest over so they can get their rocks off in righteous anger.
It's a bunch of people going to a wealthy locale to have a lavish getaway while they all argue over what language to put into their virtue signal. And once they've all sufficiently signaled their virtue, there's an orgy of communal back-patting and everyone tells everyone else what a good person they all are. Then they go back to drinking tequila out of a hooker's naval.
I dunno. I think many believe. Plus I expect most are politicians. How many really understand the consequences? Renewables are now cheaper than FF per the MSM. Or how many just view this like a typical project - get started on a low ball estimate and keep going as real costs mount. Then there are the greenies who used to be marxists…
I dunno. I think many believe
But to the extent it requires them to make substantive changes to their own behavior, such as NOT taking private jets to get an air-conditioned room where they can stay and enjoy the luxury of their host city? Their beliefs are utterly hollow. It's always a problem for someone else, while they do minor things like compost their food leftovers for their gardens, or purchase a government-subsidized Tesla, to signal their virtue and affirm their faith in The Religion.
It's all utter nonsense. And it's self-congratulatory even if they really believe it because they feel obliged to prove what a good person they are, despite all their wealth. It's value-less.
Total agreement. If they were True Believers(tm) then even the most idiotic of them would realize if a jet with 100 people on it is bad a jet with 5 people on it is worse. At least they'd fly commercial. The fact that they don't, and the lameness of their excuses, proves you right.
the Twilight Zone where the crooks get a bunch of gold then freeze themselves in a cave then emerge from the cave 100 years later to find gold is no longer valuable in exchange is apt for these chuckleheads.
The tell on the fate of the COP 28 phase-out demands came several days ago with the confirmation of Baku as the venue for Cop 29.
Oilier than the Emirates, Azerbaijan rivals Borat's depiction of Kazakhstan: in its glory days it hosted tiger shoots with oil canals and open lakes of petroleum in the background.
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2023/12/its-official.html
That poster made me choke on my coffee. LOL
Ok, that is funny.
My wife watches The Amazing Race. I tolerate it in the name of Happy Wife Happy Life. There was an episode in Azerbijan where they had to scrape crude oil off hairy Arabs who would soak in warm crude oil for its health benefits....
The fist twelve reactions are of course EEEEWWWW!!!! Followed by realizing that I have ZERO gay in me. But yeah, those nuttbars soak their bodies in the crude oil. Blech.
But yeah, those nuttbars soak their bodies in the crude oil. Blech.
It's natural.
Stuff your fake website up your ass.
The Climate Wars colophon reads as follows:
Having known Sin at Hiroshima Science was bound to run into Advertising sooner or later
Featured Post
"COAL IS NOW AN ESSENTIAL COMPONENT OF OUR ZERO CARBON FUTURE" The Right Hon. Malcolm Turnbull Prime Minister of Australia ...
The Climate Wars curates climate change news, both good and bad, and scientific & cultural atrocities perpetrated by climate deniers and activists , social entrepreneurs, propagandists , UN functionaries K Street lobbyists and cranks of all persuasions
Stuff your fake web site up your ass and then fuck off and die.
One day in the future, the meaning of "We, The People" will dawn on the dead of brain and we'll return to common sense. I'm hoping that day is sooner than later.
"... declared COP28 President Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber as he graveled the deal reached..."
For some reason, I believe he GAVELED, not graveled, but hey, words don't really matter in today's journalism. No need to proofread or grammar/spell check.
Have you tried the comment edit feature lately? Maybe they can’t save their edits either.
I've had people tell me that couldn't care less means the same as could care less because languages evolve. Seems to me English is evolving into grunting and pointing.
Neither of which passes through the keyboard well.
Cement production is very energy intensive (Portland cement). I've seen estimates that it accounts for 8% of all carbon emissions.
https://www.dezeen.com/2022/06/07/prometheus-biocomposite-cement-blocks/#
This is the kind of thing we are going to need for that.
There are some major facilities that are already in place that were put in place for the biofuels industry several years ago, which are at this point dormant but available,"
That’s funny.
This is the slimy pile of lefty shit who defends murder of the unarmed in order to prevent, well, just about anything he doesn't like:
JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”
Fuck off and die, scumbag.
Don't ever count on the people making these new 'rules for thee', abide by them, themselves. They will eat steak. You will eat bugs. In 2030 and beyond, they will continue to fly via private jet. You will, at best, bicycle yourself to Costco.
Governmentd have no god damned business deciding for us what fuel we get to use!! 4uck them and 4uck Reason.
I believe that we'll eventually get all of our power from a combination of nuclear and geothermal, with petroleum being replaced as a transport fuel source with hydrogen.
This will come about as the costs of these alternatives fall below the cost of petroleum. It will NOT be brought about by commie retards gluing themselves to roads and throwing paint at precious works of art, or due to tax-dependent hypocrites flying around the world on private jets and scolding us about our "carbon footprint".
-jcr
We know they want to reduce the population to 500 million I don't understand why they don't just let climate change do it.
Don't "phase-out" and "transition away from" pretty much mean the same thing?
The GST maintains the fond hope that keeping global average temperature 1.5 C below the preindustrial average
Bailey can’t even get the propaganda right.
At least we didn't waste any money and the debt is very manageable.
CLIMATE
Biden budget includes $24 billion for conservation and protecting communities from climate disasters
Treasury warns budget deficit up 13% compared to this time last year, debt reaching $34 trillion
"The growth in spending continues to outpace the growth in tax collections. This is why our national debit is heading toward $34 trillion. It cannot go on forever without serious economic consequences," says the leader of the Tax Foundation.
I mean,what if the country were run by a goddam fool, lazy as hell, with a godawful stupid idiotic VP
Now that would be a problem