The COP28 presidency has presented a draft agreement that drops references to the phaseout of fossil fuels, reports a frontpage Financial Times story. It says the latest draft document only sets out a range of actions that countries “could” take to cut emissions to net-zero by 2050. It says that “negotiators and ministers from countries around the world at the weekend accused Saudi Arabia of piling pressure on Sultan Al Jaber, COP28 president and head of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, to shift the focus of any agreement away from fossil fuels”. The draft text talks of “reducing both consumption and production of fossil fuels, in a just, orderly and equitable manner, so as to achieve net-zero by, before or around 2050, in keeping with the science”, the Guardian reports on its frontpage, under the headline: “COP28 draft climate deal criticised as ‘grossly insufficient’ and ‘incoherent’.” Crucially, however, this is framed as optional, the paper says, with the text calling on countries to “take actions that could include” reducing fossil fuels. It adds: “The text put forward by the summit presidency after 10 days of wrangling was received with concern and anger by many climate experts and politicians, though others welcomed elements of the draft including the first mention in a COP text of reducing fossil fuel production.” BBC News says the phrase “phase out” was included in a previous draft of the text, but has since been removed. It adds: “All 198 countries at the summit must agree or there is no deal.” Reuters reports that a coalition of more than 80 countries, including the EU, US and small island states, are pushing for the agreement to include language around a “phase out”. However it says they are coming up against “strong opposition”, led by Saudi Arabia. Bloomberg notes that if adopted, the text would be the first UN treaty “specifically calling for reduced use of all fossil fuels, including oil and gas”. It adds that COP president Sultan Al Jaber delayed the publication of the draft text by almost ten hours on Monday while he “sought compromise”. Axios notes that the text is not final, and says that “many countries are expected to vigorously oppose this draft during what is expected to be a long night in Dubai and a contentious day on Tuesday”. 

A spokesperson for Sultan Al Jaber, the Emirati oil executive who is leading the talks in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, said in a statement that the draft was “a huge step forward”, according to the New York Times. Elsewhere, Al Jazeera quotes Simon Stiell, executive secretary of the UNFCCC, who called for countries to “clear the unnecessary tactical blockades out of the way”. According to the outlet, Stiell said: “I urge negotiators to reject incrementalism. Each step back from the highest ambition will cost countless millions of lives.” The Washington Post quotes John Silk, minister of natural resources and commerce for the Marshall Islands saying: “The Republic of the Marshall Islands did not come here to sign our death warrant. We came to fight for 1.5C and for the only way to achieve that: a fossil fuel phase out.” The Times quotes Wopke Hoekstra, the EU’s climate commissioner, who said that the latest version was “disappointing” and “not adequate to addressing the problem” of climate change. According to the paper, he added: “Scientists are crystal clear about what is needed. And on the top of that list is phasing out fossil fuel.” Germany’s foreign minister Annalena Baerbock called key elements of the text “unacceptable”, according to the Independent. The Guardian adds: “The Australian climate change minister, Chris Bowen, has declared phasing out fossil fuels globally is central to Australia’s push to become a renewable energy superpower, and named Saudi Arabia as a block to agreement on the issue at the COP28 climate summit in Dubai.” Politico says: “The draft ‘really doesn’t meet the expectations of this COP in terms of the urgently needed transition to clean sources of energy and the phaseout of fossil fuels,’ US climate envoy John Kerry said during a fractious, closed-door meeting late Monday night and early Tuesday, which Politico listened to via an unsanctioned feed.” It adds that in the early hours of Tuesday morning, protesters stood outside chanting “this text is bullshit”. The Press Association reports that “Ireland’s environment minister Eamon Ryan, who is a lead EU negotiator on climate finance, has said the first draft text from the COP28 Presidency is unacceptable and that the EU could walk away from the talks if it is not improved”. Climate Home News quotes ex-US vice president Al Gore, who said “this obsequious draft reads as if Opec dictated it word for word”. The New Scientist, City AM, the Hill, BusinessGreen, Nikkei Asia, the i newspaper, the Wall Street Journal, the Hindu, Bangkok Post, Le Monde, and Forbes also cover the story.

Elsewhere, the Guardian carries a warning from Johan Rockström, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, that “even a phase-out of fossil fuels will not stave off climate breakdown unless we also protect the natural world”. 

China’s special envoy for climate change Xie Zhenhua says that China is talking with “every relevant party to find a solution acceptable to all and promote the success of COP28”, which he considered the “most difficult” climate conference in recent years, reports the state news agency Xinhua. The Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post, citing a report by Agence France-Presse, says that UN leaders on Monday “called for ‘maximum ambition and maximum flexibility’ to reach an agreement” at COP28, as oil producers “resisted historic calls for the world to wind down fossil fuels”. It adds that China “was also initially seen as hostile to a phase-out but has since been working to find a compromise”. The state-run newspaper China Daily reports that Xie says that “China supports the initiative by G20 countries to triple global renewable energy capacity by 2030”. [It does not mention that China did not sign up to a pledge launched at COP28 on tripling renewable energy and doubling energy efficiency.] Climate Home News says that China did not sign up to pledge because it “came in a package with anti-coal language and a more challenging target to double energy efficiency, with no quantified finance target to match”. Chinese energy outlet IN-EN.com reports that China released the ‘China Energy Transition Outlook 2023’ at COP28, which Xie described as “an example of cooperation between China, Denmark and the United States”. The report finds that coal will “change from a baseload power source to a flexible regulating power source”, while green hydrogen becomes a zero-carbon feedstock and fuel and carbon capture will be a “last resort” to achieve carbon neutrality, the outlet says. The South China Morning Post reports that China’s largest onshore wind-power facility, with a capacity of 3 gigawatts, started full-capacity operations in the northern Inner Mongolia autonomous region on Sunday. 

Another article in IN-EN.com says that in Dubai, UAE, Chinese companies are “assisting local petroleum companies in…constructing the first hydrogen refuelling station”, and that China ​​will cooperate with countries in the Middle East “in areas such as green hydrogen, green ammonia and green methanol”. The China Daily reports that “China and Arab countries have made progress in jointly promoting renewables”, according to an official with the national energy administration (NEA). Chinese business outlet Caixin interviews Parag Khanna, an expert in geopolitics, who believes a “more efficient marketplace” is needed to make China’s green technologies affordable for poorer countries. 

Elsewhere, IN-EN.com carries a commentary by Zhang Jianhua, the director of the NEA, who writes that China “is steadfastly committed to advancing high-level openness to the outside world and advocating the establishment of a global energy partnership”, and that it “adheres to the principles of extensive consultation, joint contribution and shared benefits”. Finally, the Conversation carries a commentary by Xu Yi-chong, professor of governance and public policy at Griffith University, who argues that “while the US and China cooperate at COP28, competition is not far away”. 

At least 166 “climate deniers and fossil fuel public relations professionals” attended COP28, according to new figures covered in the Guardian. The newspaper continues: “Corporate Accountability, a transparency watchdog, has found that UN organisers greenlighted access to groups that have obstructed fossil fuel regulations and other climate action, giving them the same or greater access to the international negotiations as Indigenous communities, human rights groups and climate justice organisations. Organisations and individuals invited by country-delegations also have access to closed-room negotiations from which civil society and grassroots groups are locked out.” The paper notes that some industry trade groups, thinktanks and public relations agencies with a track record in “climate denialism” have been coming to COPs for years. It adds that more than 2,400 industry-affiliated lobbyists registered at COP28. This is four times as many as in COP27 last year, it says. The Independent notes that more fossil fuel lobbyists attended than any single country delegation except the United Arab Emirates and Brazil. It adds that seven times more fossil fuel lobbyists attended than Indigenous people. Separately, the Press Association reports that fossil fuel companies invited to the COP28 climate talks are projected to produce more than 25bn barrels of oil this decade

In other COP news, Reuters reports that Licypriya Kangujam – a 12-year-old Indian climate justice activist – “burst on to the stage” at COP28 on Monday holding a sign that read: “End fossil fuels. Save our planet and our future.” The newswire says: “COP28 director-general ambassador Majid Al Suwaidi said he admired the enthusiasm of young people at COP28 and encouraged the audience to give Kangujam another round of applause.” The Independent reports that Kangujam was detained for half an hour afterwards. Separately, BBC News carries interviews with three mothers from different continents, who explain “how their love for their children has motivated them to take their arguments to the people in power”. Inside Climate News reports that climate activists from the US say “Biden’s policies, including record-level oil and gas development, will lead to continued degradation of Indigenous lands and water and keep other countries hooked on fossil fuels”. Elsewhere, the Washington Post says the “spectre” of a second Donald Trump term is looming over the talks, noting that he is likely to pull the US out of the Paris Agreement if elected. Elsewhere, Politico says that Republican lawmakers “insist they came to COP28 to promote their own Republican vision of climate action” and are “not eager to discuss Donald Trump”. In other news, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, the director general of the World Trade Organization, is quoted by the Guardian saying that governments must start to distinguish between the good subsidies they need to fight the climate crisis and the bad ones that are increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Elsewhere, the New York Times says: “Outside the negotiating rooms, COP28 is part trade fair, part lobbyist jamboree, part debate tournament.” And City AM calls COP the “new Davos”.

Occidental Petroleum has agreed to buy shale oil producer CrownRock in a $12bn deal, the Financial Times reports. According to the newspaper, the deal is “the latest in a series of transactions in the oil and gas sector as large energy companies seek to capitalise on their strong balance sheets and equity value to buy smaller rival assets”. It adds that CrownRock is “one of the most sought-after US private shale oil producers”. The New York Times says: “Based in Houston, Occidental is one of the biggest producers in the Permian Basin, the nation’s most prolific oil field straddling Texas and New Mexico. Occidental said that the acquisition of CrownRock, which is also in Houston, could allow it to increase its daily oil and gas production by roughly 14%.” The Guardian says the acquisition is the industry’s third substantial acquisition in as many months, noting that “in October ExxonMobil agreed to buy the shale group Pioneer Natural Resources for $59.5bn and Chevron announced plans to buy the oil producer Hess Corporation in a $53bn deal”. The Daily Telegraph says the deal will make Occidental the second-largest oil producer in the Permian Basin, behind ExxonMobil. It adds that Occidental is backed by Warren Buffett. Reuters and Bloomberg also cover the news. In related comment, Bloomberg columnist Javier Blas calls the acquisition “risky”, saying it “leaves investors exposed to OPEC”.

A new report from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) finds that one-quarter of the world’s freshwater fish are at risk of extinction, the New York Times reports. The paper continues: “The update included evaluations of 1,640 species of freshwater fish that had never been assessed before, bringing the total to 14,898. That met the threshold of 80% of known species in the group, the point at which the IUCN considers a group of species to be comprehensively assessed.” Reuters says the report is the IUCN’s first exhaustive analysis of freshwater fish. It adds: “One of the main threats is the havoc climate change is wreaking on water cycles, such as falling water levels and rising sea levels causing seawater to move up rivers, according to the IUCN, which compiles the list several times a year.” The Guardian adds: “Nearly a fifth of all threatened freshwater species are affected by climate change, from impacts such as falling water levels, shifting seasons and seawater moving up rivers. Of the assessed species, 3,086 out of 14,898 were at risk of vanishing.” The Associated Press and the Mirror also cover the story.

Prof Michael Mann, the director of the centre for science, sustainability and the media at the University of Pennsylvania, has penned an opinion piece with Susan Joy Hassol, the director of non-profit Climate Communication, in the Los Angeles Times. They call COP28 “a shameless exercise in the fight against climate change”, highlighting the “disturbing” actions of the host country, the UAE. They add: “Almost as if to invite derision, the UN has made another petro-state, Azerbaijan, the host for next year’s summit.” However, they argue that we “can’t afford to abandon the entire COP process” and call for a “substantial overhaul of the COP rules and processes”. They continue: “Given the enormous conflict of interest, oil industry executives should not be allowed to heavily influence, much less preside over, the summit. The weak COP sauce of  ‘name and shame’ – publicly exposing and condemning those standing in the way of climate action – is failing, because the bad actors appear to have no shame. There must be financial penalties, such as tariffs or even embargoes, for countries like Saudi Arabia that seek to thwart the global effort to phase out fossil fuels by locking in oil dependency in emerging economies in Africa and Asia. And the COP rules should be changed to allow for a super majority of, say, 75% of nations to approve a decision, rather than the current consensus rules that allow even one holdout to veto any agreement.”

In other COP-related comment, Bloomberg opinion writer David Fickling says that “climate talks always fail, but they are failing better”. He says: “If you think the draft language is weak, it’s worth considering how far the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has come. It wasn’t until the Glasgow climate pact two years ago that fossil fuels were even mentioned in a summit agreement.” An editorial in the Indian Express says that dropping the phrase “fossil fuel phase out” from the final COP28 text would be a “big climbdown”, adding that “another vaguely worded declaration will raise serious questions about the UNFCCC’s relevance”. The Lex column in the Financial Times discusses carbon pricing. The piece notes that most countries do not have emissions pricing systems or carbon taxes, meaning that many companies set their own. However, it says that these “vary widely”, adding: “Lex’s calculations have shown that if the European steel and cement sector had to pay to pollute at rates set by the EU’s emissions trading scheme, it could wipe out half their annual ebitda [profits].” The piece concludes that “ministers waffling at COP summits would do better to create a cross-border trading scheme to provide those magic numbers”. Elsewhere, in the Daily Telegraph, climate sceptic Charles Moore complains that agreements made at COP are “killing the Falklands oil bonanza”. 

In other comment, Alex Pigot, a researcher from University College London’s centre for biodiversity and environment research, outlines his research in the Conversation. He warns that “if warming approaches 2C, a trickle of extinctions will become a flood”. Separately, Matt Burke – a research fellow from the University of Oxford – writes in the Conversation that climate change could make it harder for many countries to repay their debts. Taiwo Afolabi, director at the centre for socially engaged theatre at the University of Regina, discusses “the role of art in climate change issues” in the Conversation. And Chris Armstrong – an author and professor of political theory at the University of Southampton – writes in the Guardian that “megayachts’ are environmentally indefensible” and should be banned. 

Warming temperatures could provide a short-term boost to carbon storage in some humid subtropical forests in China, new research finds. The scientists conducted a field “ecosystem-level warming experiment” in a subtropical forest in southern China, by translocating mesocosms (ecosystem composed of soils and plants) across 600m elevation gradients with temperature gradients of 2.1C and measuring levels of carbon storage across the gradients. The research finds that, compared with the control, the ecosystem carbon stock decreased by 3.8% under the first year of 2.1C warming; but increased by 13.4% by the sixth year of 2.1C warming. The authors say: “The increased ecosystem carbon stock by the sixth year of warming was mainly attributed to a combination of sustained increased plant carbon stock due to the maintenance of a high plant growth rate and unchanged soil carbon stock.”