Why the phrase ‘Phase-Out’ caused so many issues at the just concluded COP28

At COP 27, in Egypt, negotiations among countries failed to reach a final agreement on phasing down the use of fossil fuels, oil, and unabated coal. The Conference however explicitly emphasized the need for a global fossil fuel phase-out as part of the package to be delivered at COP28. COP 28 was held from 30th November to 12th December 2023. For the first time, the conference recognized the need to transition away from fossil fuels. However, issues arose regarding the pace of this transition should occur.

The term ‘phase-out’ was excluded from the final draft agreement. ‘Phase out’ refers to the gradual reduction and eventual elimination of something, in this case, the use of fossil fuels. While many countries recognize the need to transition to cleaner energy sources to combat climate change, there are disagreements on the pace and scale of this transition. Some agree that the transition should be sudden and total while some believe that a gradual transition would be less disastrous to their country’s economy.

Instead of ‘phase out’, the Global Stocktake (GST) – the final draft agreement of the conference - contained the following text

‘…transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just orderly and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade, so as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science’.

The issue here is that many countries and scientists alike have argued that the removal of the term ‘phase out’ is hazardous to the environment and climate as the climate is damaged and needs urgent actions not just a mere ‘transition’. They believe it is just a means devised by oil-producing nations to ensure that they continue making money from oil.

Some countries, particularly those heavily reliant on fossil fuel industries, are resistant to the rapid phase-out of these fuels due to concerns about economic impacts and job losses. They argue that a sudden shift away from fossil fuels could lead to economic disruption and social unrest. These countries prefer a more gradual transition that allows for the development of alternative energy sources and the retraining of workers in the fossil fuel sector.

On the other hand, many other countries, especially those already experiencing the severe effects of climate change, are pushing for an accelerated phase-out of fossil fuels. They argue that the urgency of the climate crisis demands immediate and drastic action, even if it means short-term economic challenges. These countries believe that the long-term benefits of transitioning to sustainable energy sources outweigh the immediate costs.

Regardless of the heated debate on the correct term to be used, the negotiations during the conference made significant progress. As I have mentioned earlier, the conference for the first time called for a transition away from the use of fossil fuels. Also, it was agreed that investments in renewable energy would be tripled, and a loss and damage fund was established to help vulnerable countries adapt to and mitigate the impacts of climate change.

As much as countries have agreed on the global stage, it is left for us as individuals to do our part to help restore our climate.