Draft COP28 agreement makes no mention of fossil fuel elimination - warning that it is “on the brink of complete failure”

Recently CNN.co.jp reported the following:

ＣＯＰ２８合意草案、化石燃料廃止に言及せず　「完全な失敗の瀬戸際」と警告の声も

2023.12.12 Tue posted at 15:16 JST

ドバイ（ＣＮＮ） 気候問題の活動家らは、アラブ首長国連邦（ＵＡＥ） のドバイで開催されている国連気候変動枠組み条約締約国会議（ＣＯＰ２８）について、失敗の瀬戸際にあると警鐘を鳴らしている。各国による中核的合意の新草案に、化石燃料の段階的廃止への呼びかけが盛り込まれていないためだ。化石燃料の使用は、気候危機を促進する主因とされる。

当該の草案は１１日、予想より６時間以上遅れて発表された。化石燃料に関しては、廃止に向けた効力を弱める文言を使用している。そこには対策に反対する産油国への譲歩があるとみられる。

草案は各国に対し、地球温暖化ガスの排出削減に向けた措置を呼びかける。その上で石油、石炭、ガスの消費と生産の縮小がそうした措置に含まれる「可能性もある」としている。

しかし気候問題の専門家などの多くは、草案の言い回しが曖昧（あいまい）だと強く非難。「可能性もある」といった文言の使用に加え、具体的なスケジュールが欠如している点を問題視する。

ドバイでの協議に参加する１００カ国以上が化石燃料の段階的な廃止を明言することを支持しており、多くの国々が今後の協議で草案への反対を表明する公算が大きい。他方、サウジアラビアをはじめとする国々は、化石燃料に関するあらゆる言及を盛り込むことに反対してきた。このため草案の文言を一層無力化しようとする可能性がある。

仮に現行の草案が広範な支持を得られなければ、交渉国の間で再度の議論が必要になるかもしれない。

気候問題の活動家で米国の副大統領を務めたアル・ゴア氏は、Ｘ（旧ツイッター）への投稿で、ＣＯＰ２８について「今や完全な失敗の瀬戸際にある」と指摘。

「世界にとって是が非でも必要なのは、化石燃料の段階的な廃止を可能な限り迅速に実現することだ。しかしながら今回の腰の引けた草案は、まるでＯＰＥＣ（石油輸出国機構）が一字一句指示を出したかのように読める」「多くの人々の懸念を上回るひどい内容だ」と非難した。

ＯＰＥＣのガイス事務局長は先週、加盟国に向けて、化石燃料を標的にしたいかなる文言も「事前に拒絶」するよう求めていた。そこでは「化石燃料の廃止」を「政治的動機に基づく運動」と強調。「我が国民の繁栄と未来を危険にさらすものであり、受け入れるわけにいかない」としている。

ＣＯＰ２８を主導するＵＡＥのスルタン・アル・ジャベル議長は１１日、会議の場で「ここまで進展があったものの、まだやるべきことは多い」と発言。参加国に対し、化石燃料についての文言を含め、依然として合意すべき事項が残っていることを示唆した。

Translation

DUBAI (CNN) Climate activists were sounding the alarm that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP28), being held in Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE), was on the brink of failure. This was because the new draft core agreement among countries did not include a call to phase out fossil fuels. Fossil fuel use was cited as a major driver of the climate crisis.

The draft was announced on the 11th, more than six hours later than expected. Regarding fossil fuels, it used language that weakened the effect of eliminating fossil fuels. This appeared to be a concession to oil-producing countries that opposed eliminating fossil fuels.

The draft law called on countries to take measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It added that such measures "could" include reducing consumption and production of oil, coal and gas.

However, many climate experts and others strongly criticized the draft's vague wording. In addition to the use of phrases such as "possibly," and the lack of a concrete schedule was problematic.

More than 100 countries that participated in the Dubai talks supported a clear phase-out of fossil fuels, and many were likely to voice their opposition to the draft in future talks. Meanwhile, countries including Saudi Arabia opposed the inclusion of any reference to fossil fuels. For this reason, there was a possibility that they could try to further neutralize the wording of the draft.

If the current draft did not receive widespread support, renewed discussions might be necessary among the negotiating countries.

Al Gore, a climate activist and former vice president of the United States, said in a post on X (formerly Twitter) that COP28 was "now on the brink of complete failure."

He criticized that “What the world rightly or wrongly needs is to phase out fossil fuels as quickly as possible, but this modest draft is like reading out OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) instructions word for word”; "and the content is worse than the worries held many people."

Last week, OPEC Secretary-General Ghais called on member countries to "reject in advance" any language targeting fossil fuels. There, he emphasized that ``the abolition of fossil fuels'' was a ``politically motivated movement.'' He said, "We cannot accept this as it puts the prosperity and future of our people at risk."

UAE President Sultan Al Jaber, who was leading COP28, said at the conference on the 11th, ``Despite progress so far, there is still much work to be done.'' He suggested to participating countries that there was still much to agree on, including language on fossil fuels.

              So,  OPEC Secretary-General Ghais has warned member countries about using any language that targets at fossil fuels. The reason is that ``the abolition of fossil fuels'' is a ``politically motivated movement'‘; and that "We cannot accept this as it puts the prosperity and future of our people at risk." It seems to me that, in the eyes of oil producing countries, prosperity based on using fossil fuel has a higher priority than slowing down global warming. Politic is everywhere.