Context: Climate experts and activists are concerned that if the phrase 'unabated fossil fuels' is mentioned in the COP28 meeting's final declaration, it would allow countries and companies to continue to burn fossil fuels. Here is a look at why it might happen.

What are ‘unabated’ fossil fuels?

• When it comes to fossil fuels, “unabated” means doing nothing to reduce the carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases that are released from the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas.

• Conversely, “abated” refers to the attempts to decrease the release of polluting substances to an acceptable level. However, there isn’t any clarity on what this level is and how to get there. Moreover, there is no international or agreed-upon definition of the two phrases.

• In the footnote of last year’s benchmark report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientific advisory body. It says unabated fossil fuels are those “without interventions that substantially reduce” greenhouse gas emissions.

Implications of Definitions

• A broad definition could lead to insignificant emission reductions, risking surpassing the critical 1.5C warming limit.

• A stricter definition could contribute to maintaining the possibility of the 1.5C target by imposing strict emission limits.

• The phrase is inextricably tied to Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies — a hotly debated subject between oil and gas producers, and climate experts. Here is a look at the issue.

Diverse Positions of Nations

• Nations are divided on the issue, with some calling for the complete phase-out of fossil fuel production and use.

• Fossil fuel-producing countries and those reliant on coal, like Saudi Arabia, Russia, the UAE, India, and China, prefer less specific language.

• The G7 and the U.S. advocate for phasing out unabated fossil fuels with support for carbon capture and storage (CCS).

• The EU aims for an energy sector predominantly free from fossil fuels by 2050, though “predominantly” lacks precision.

Seeking a Clear Definition

• A footnote in a 2023 IPCC report suggests that “abated” should mean a substantial reduction in emissions, like capturing 90% or more CO2 from power plants.

• Researchers propose that “abated” should be used only when emissions reductions are between 90-95%, and methane leaks are near zero.

• While Oil and gas-producing companies and countries see carbon capture as a key component in plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions, climate activists and experts suggest that its role is limited. 

• In July, the European Union and 17 nations including Germany, France, Chile, New Zealand and climate-vulnerable island states, in a statement, said carbon capture technologies are no substitute for a drastic cut in fossil fuels and they shouldn’t be overused.

The Urgency for Standards

• Scientists stress the need for clear standards, especially for new coal plants and industrial facilities, as they will likely operate beyond 2050.

• There’s a pressing need for these facilities to adopt the latest technologies to ensure they meet future emission standards.

How beneficial are carbon capture and storage technologies?

• In its report, Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said power and industrial plants that are equipped with modern CCS technologies capture around 90% of the CO2.

• However, a 2022 study by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) — a global think tank that examines issues related to energy markets, trends, and policies — found that most of the 13 flagship CCS projects worldwide that it analysed have either underperformed or failed entirely.

• Another analysis by Climate Analytics, a Germany-based climate science and policy institute, revealed that reliance on CCS could release an extra 86 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere between 2020 and 2050.

• “If carbon capture rates only reach 50% rather than 95%, and upstream methane emissions are not reduced to low levels, this would pump 86 billion tonnes of GHG (greenhouse gases) into the atmosphere – equivalent to more than double the global CO2 emissions in 2023,” the study said.

• It added that discussions around fossil fuels abatement are creating the false impression that CCS would help limit average global temperature below 1.5 degree Celsius even when there is an expansion of fossil fuel projects.

• “However, scenarios that achieve the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C limit in a sustainable manner show a near complete phase-out of fossil fuels by around 2050 with only a tiny amount of fossil CCS".

• CCS technologies are also very expensive. It’s cheaper to shut down a coal plant and replace it with some combination of wind, solar and batteries in comparison to attaching a carbon capture device to the plant.

Road Ahead

• There is a chance that the COP28 meeting’s final declaration might mention phase out or phase down of unabated fossil fuels. If this happens, many are concerned that it would allow countries and fossil fuel companies to continue to burn fossil fuels as long as they capture the emissions and store it underground.

• According to Claire Fyson, CEO of Climate Analytics, “The false promises of ‘abated’ fossil fuels risks climate finance being funnelled to fossil projects, particularly oil and gas, and will greenwash the ‘unabatable’ emissions from their final use, which account for 90% of fossil oil and gas emissions”.