COP 28 Fossil fuel final deal flawed: climate scientist Michael Mann
Consensus on phasing out fossil fuel use is history. This is the first time in the 28-year history of the United Nations Conference of Parties ‘Cop-28’ that the member countries have agreed on this. Many world leaders have called this achievement a ‘milestone’. But many climate scientists are not entirely satisfied.
About 200 countries have signed the final agreement to phase out fossil fuels. However, top oil-producing countries, including Saudi Arabia have been opposing such an agreement. Fossil fuels are largely blamed for global warming.
Michael Mann, a climate scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, believes that there is ambiguity in the agreement on the end of the use of fossil fuels. The agreement does not specify how many countries must reduce their consumption of these fuels by a certain time.
In the words of Michael Mann, “The deal is like making a promise to your doctor—you’ll stop eating donuts after you’re diagnosed with diabetes.” The deficit in the agreement to reduce the use of fossil fuels is catastrophic.
Michael Mann has called for reforms to COP’s rules. Giving an example, he said, that in the face of obstacles from oil-producing countries like Saudi Arabia, the majority should be allowed to make decisions to protect the climate.
Apart from this, it should also be seen that people involved in the oil business cannot preside over COP conferences in the future.
Sultan Al-Jaber presided over this year’s climate conference held in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. He is the head of the country’s national oil company. For this reason, many environmentalists were skeptical about his positive role in this conference.
Kevin Anderson, professor of energy and climate change at the University of Manchester, also saw flaws in the final deal.
He said, “There is no such thing in the agreement, but even if carbon emissions start to decrease from 2024, we will have to reduce the global consumption of fossil fuels to zero by 2040.”
The deceitful language used in the agreement to end the use of this fuel by 2050 should not be listened to.
