The term “unabated” is often associated with fossil fuels. Including in the documents on the table at the Cop28 negotiations in Dubai. What does it mean exactly?
"Unabated". A good part of the negotiations currently under way at the twenty-eighth United Nations Climate Change Conference, Cop28 in Dubai, revolves around this English word. A term that is becoming crucial for the fate of the Planet. But what does it mean, precisely? And why can it be so important?
In the second draft final decision of Cop28, there are numerous possible options with reference to fossil fuels. As is well known, science has long explained that, in order to limit the rise in average global temperature to a maximum of 1.5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century, relative to pre-industrial levels, we must stop burning existing reserves of coal, oil and gas as soon as possible. And leave underground everything that has not already been extracted.
The negotiations, from this point of view, are particularly difficult. First and foremost because numerous governments still depend heavily on fossil fuels for their energy generation plants, for transport, for the operation of heavy industries, and for residential heating systems. Furthermore, enormous economic interests are at stake: this is demonstrated by the imposing presence of lobbyists from the sector at Cop28 in Dubai.
It is precisely for this reason that some delegations from coal- or oil-producing countries insist on the possibility of accepting a fossil fuel phase-out plan only on the condition that it be limited to "unabated" sources. These encompass all those infrastructures that use coal, oil and gas but lack CO2 capture systems. In other words, those power plants or industries that have not installed devices enabling the recovery of the carbon dioxide produced before it is dispersed into the Earth's atmosphere, thereby fuelling the greenhouse effect.
Thus, the text features the phrases unabated fossil fuels, meaning fossil fuels without such systems, as well as unabated coal power, with specific reference to coal-fired power plants. The problem, however, according to experts, is linked precisely to the first word: there is, in fact, no single definition of what it means. "For terms like 'unabated'," Lisa Fischer, an analyst at think tank E3G, has confirmed, "we don't have clear meanings available at the moment.
We know that, in English, "abated" generally refers to emissions capture systems designed to prevent them from being dispersed. A helpful reference is a footnote in the latest report published by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Ipcc), which defines "unabated" fossil fuels as "those not subjected to measures that allow for a considerable reduction in greenhouse gas emissions." If, however, the Ipcc's intention is certainly to treat the adverb "considerably" as stringent, it is easy to imagine that such a definition could instead be "interpreted" by many to their own advantage.
The risk, in short, is that this term serves the interests of those who wish to water down global climate action. And this is true even if one were to consider "abated" those power plants paired with carbon capture and storage (CCS) facilities: a technology still considered to be in its infancy, yet one that is championed by the fossil fuel industry and by coal-, oil- and gas-producing nations, as it could guarantee them the continuation of their businesses.
The reality is that the Ipcc itself has stressed that CCS can represent only a very small part of the effort needed to meet climate targets. The ecological transition, and in particular the energy transition, therefore remains indispensable. Moreover, in 2022 there were only 35 plants worldwide for CO2 capture and storage. Through them it was possible to absorb only 45 million tonnes of CO2, according to data reported by the International Energy Agency. Bearing in mind that, as admitted by Sultan al-Jaber himself, president of Cop28, in order to remain below the 1.5-degree threshold, global emissions would need to be reduced by 22 billion tonnes over the next seven years.
For this reason, CO2 capture systems — whether carried out at the point of emission or after the fact — remain, to all intents and purposes, an illusion today. "And a diversionary tactic," Fischer concludes bluntly. Not least because climate action objectively requires a rapid acceleration. Certainly not decisions that are weakened, open to interpretation, or diluted over time.
