COP28 More of a Fizz Rather than a Bang

Logo for COP 28 UAE event featuring a circular design with intricate yellow patterns on a green background, symbolizing sustainability and environmental themes, displayed over a dark brick wall texture.

With just 2 days of negotiations left at the COP28 summit, it is clear that world leaders are not entering into the summit with the same sweeping mandated as seen in Paris in 2015. In fact, it is becoming increasingly clearer that the Paris 1.5-degree target is unlikely, never mind strengthening the resolve on these targets.

Despite this year, 2023, already being declared the warmest on record by November, and having six record breaking months and two record breaking seasons, world leaders as squabbling over texts which will have little to no impact on emissions or targets.

With the head of this year’s COP, Sultan Al Jaber, the head of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) in the position many thought would create a conflict of interest, he is indeed between a rock and a hard place. With over 80 countries, many at the forefront of climate change pushing for an end to the use of fossil fuels, a topic every previous COP has been careful to avoid, the Sultan is now being lobbied from both sides, with OPEC now pressuring members and the chair to reject any deal which targets fossil fuels directly.

Reuters, who broke the news shared a letter from December 6th sent by OPEC Secretary-General Haitham al-Ghais “It seems that the undue and disproportionate pressure against fossil fuels may reach a tipping point with irreversible consequences, as the draft decision still contains options on fossil fuels phase out … I avail of this opportunity to respectfully urge all esteemed OPEC Member Countries and Non-OPEC Countries participating in the CoC and their distinguished delegations in the COP 28 negotiations to proactively reject any text or formula that targets energy i.e. fossil fuels rather than emissions”.

The Sultan is therefore walking a very fine line, as evident by his calling of the majlis, elders conference, on Sunday. In there, the main focus was two pronged, one the aforementioned fossil fuels phase out or abatement, and the second on financing.

Climate adaptation funds is not a new concept, it was raised pre-the-Paris agreement, and every year since. However, despite UN reports released in November, Adaptation Gap Report 2023, showing 2021 funding fell 15% year on year to a cumulative $24.6bn, but more than $200 – 350bn is needed, and 2023 is likely to only be around the $100bn mark. The idea of now increasing the burden on fossil fuels emissions to be phased out and not abated will leave many countries, especially in the African continent behind. As emerging and expensive technologies, which will allow other countries to continue producing, will not be available to them.

I once again argue, with politicians and special interests lobbying, the value of the COP is diminishing. Energy policy should not be in the hands of those who are worrying about re-election in 1, 2 or 4 years but those who understand the science, industries and financing of the projects required to make the change. We cannot just turn off coal, the Eraring “closure” has shown us that in bright bold lights (or blackouts), so there has to be balance. But that cannot be done by those who are not in that world or influenced by only one side of an argument.

However, with Azerbaijan the COP29 hosts, a country with at least 7bn barrels of commercial oil, and 1.3 trillion cubic meters of natural gas and one of the world’s largest gas fields I am sure will fly the flag for phase out of fossil fuels and strong targets for all nations attending.

With Statements due in the next 48 hours, I may be proven incorrect, and the Sultan is absolutely making the right noises, “I want everyone to come prepared with solutions … I want everyone to come ready to be flexible and to accept compromise. I told everyone not to come with any prepared statements, and no prescribed positions. I really want everyone to rise above self-interests and to start thinking of the common good.” But as always, the proof is in the packages which come out of the talks and with only two days to go and no consensus the clock is absolutely counting down.

Threats to Gas Supply Deal

Aerial view of an LNG tanker docked at a coastal industrial facility with distinctive spherical storage tanks and infrastructure for natural gas.

Chris Bowen, the Energy and Climate Change minister, announced a plan to address looming supply issues for east coast homes and businesses by securing commitment from two big gas exporters (APLNG and Senex) to divert 300 petajoules of gas into the east coast domestic market by 2023. This amount is equivalent to about half of the annual East Coast domestic market demand or two years’ worth of industrial usage.

However, this new deal is already under threat from the Greens, who plan to challenge the government’s industry code of conduct in parliament. Should the coalition support the Greens’ motion, the deal could fall through, increasing the risk of gas supply shortages in the future.

The deal gives exemptions to APLNG and Senex from the $12/GJ price cap under the code of conduct. Chris Bowen stated that “This supply is critical for households, industry and gas power generation as the Bass Strait fields deplete”.

The gas price cap was introduced by the government last year, which triggered a freeze in new supply investments. After negotiations, the government revised the code of conduct, allowing exemptions for gas developers who committed to selling into the domestic market. Bowen has criticised the Greens for potentially disrupting the deal, highlighting the critical role gas will play in the energy transition and for grid reliability.

In related news, Australia’s annual climate change statement projects emissions to be 42% below 2005 levels by 2030, slightly below Labor’s election commitment of 43%.

Additionally, Chris Bowen has declined to specify the potential financial impact on taxpayers from the newly expanded Capacity Investment Scheme. The scheme involves the Australian government underwriting 32GW of new power generation through two auctions per year.

While industry experts anticipate this could cost billions annually, Bowen stated, “It is quite standard budget treatment to say we will not indicate our pricing expectations as we’re about to enter an auction”. He assured that the government’s strategy aims to maximise taxpayer benefits and maintain competitive bidding.

The scheme does not intend to “subsidising negative pricing”. Instead, it requires project proponents to state their minimum required profit and a maximum price point for sharing profits with the government. The government will retain control over bid acceptance and the total amount of gigawatts allocated.

Australia’s Nuclear Power Debate Intensifies

Australia’s longstanding nuclear power ban, established in 1998, is under scrutiny. Coalition senators are making a strong case for its overturn, warning of impending higher power prices for households and businesses if nuclear energy isn’t adopted.

Queensland senator Matt Canavan recently faced opposition from a Labor-majority Senate committee while pushing to abolish the ban. Still, Coalition senators remain insistent. They state that the primary goal isn’t immediate construction but rather allowing regulators to evaluate nuclear proposals.

Interestingly, the opposition suggests integrating small modular nuclear reactors near retired coal power stations, ensuring a seamless grid connection. However, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Energy Minister Chris Bowen have dismissed this, countering the Coalition’s nuclear agenda.

The Senate Environment Committee, influenced by Labor and the Greens, sides with the Prime Minister. Their arguments are threefold:

  1. Nuclear power’s high costs compared to readily available renewable resources.
  2. The untested nature of next-gen SMR technology.
  3. The long timeline of nuclear adoption, which will likely miss the 2030 goal of 82% renewables.

Public sentiment is another hurdle. The committee suggests that Australians largely oppose nuclear plants and their associated waste in their localities.

However, Coalition senators spotlight Australia’s recent commitment to nuclear submarines through the AUKUS partnership, questioning the perceived inconsistency: If nuclear reactors are marine-safe, why not on land?

To officially challenge the ban, changes would be required in two significant acts from 1998 and 1999. As the debate rages on, Australia’s energy future hangs in the balance, highlighting the complex intersections of policy, technology, and public sentiment.