Climate solutions are debatable, but science is inescapable

While science provides a framework for understanding the world, deciding how to shape policy based on that guidance is a matter of interpretation. As climate negotiations grind on at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Dubai, a controversial statement from COP28 President Sultan bin Ahmed Al Jaber is a reminder of the limitations of science, echoing a lesson we learned during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Last weekend, the Guardian surfaced comments Al Jaber made at an online event in November. "There is no science out there, or no scenario out there, that says that the phase-out of fossil fuel is what's going to achieve 1.5C," he said. "Show me the roadmap for a phase-out of fossil fuel that will allow for sustainable socio-economic development, unless you want to take the world back into caves."

The ensuing media storm clearly hit a personal note, prompting Al Jaber to defend his comments this week. "Science has been central to my own career progress," he said at a press conference. "I respect the science in everything I do." He also insisted that he's repeated "over and over that the phase down and phase out of fossil fuels is inevitable."

I'm one of many commentators critical of this COP being led by an oil company CEO. But I have more of a problem with the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company's plan to pump 5 million barrels of crude per day by 2027, up from 3 million barrels today, than Al Jaber's comments — which are, after all, technically true. 

Jim Skea, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, clarified that in scenarios compatible with limiting warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial temperatures, fossil fuel use is greatly reduced — though not eliminated — while unabated coal use is completely phased out by 2050.

The contrasting reactions from two well-respected climate scientists to Al Jaber's comments highlight how much room for interpretation there is. 

"It's depressing to see the climate establishment reacting so furiously to a perfectly accurate statement by the COP28 President," said Myles Allen, professor of geosystem sciences at the University of Oxford. "To limit warming even close to 1.5C, we must both scale down the use of fossil fuels and scale up safe and permanent carbon dioxide disposal. It's simply not true that to stop global warming we have to stop using fossil fuels. What we have to do is stop dumping the carbon dioxide they generate into the atmosphere."

Meanwhile, Joeri Rogelj, professor of climate science and policy at Imperial College London, said: "The COP President believes there is no science showing that fossil fuels must be phased out to meet 1.5C. I strongly recommend him asking around for the latest IPCC report. That report, approved unanimously by 195 countries including the UAE, shows a variety of ways to limit warming to 1.5C - all of which indicate a de facto phase-out of fossil fuels in the first half of the century."

Science rarely, if ever, provides us with a single, definitive pathway. The IPCC reports explore a broad range of scenarios compatible with keeping warming below 1.5C, from ones reliant on renewables to what would happen if we relied on reduced energy demand. To follow this science to a specific outcome – halting climate change – requires policy decisions that balance the available scientific evidence with other factors such as health considerations, economic impacts, costs, potential solutions and moral duties. 

As my colleague Faye Flam wrote in 2022, we learned this during the pandemic when "follow the science" became a slogan to defend Covid policies. But science never "told" us to lock down or make vaccines mandatory. Science gave us data on how many people were dying and how effective vaccines were, which then fed into decisions by policymakers. 

Climate experts, from Al Gore to Al Jaber, will interpret the data and information we have based on differing priorities and risk appetite. While some scientists and policymakers are very confident in carbon capture and storage's future, for example, others point to the fact that CCS still only apprehends 0.1% of carbon emissions, even though the technology has existed for decades. As I've learnt during my time at COP, people's thoughts on the fossil-fuel phase-out and what a "just" transition entails greatly depends on their individual national circumstances. It's why negotiations are so tricky.

And although Al Jaber is right, his comments lack the crucial context that while fossil fuels will still be used in 2050 and even 2100, our reliance on them will shrink to a fraction of today's dependence. The IPCC also states that future CO2 emissions of existing and planned fossil-fuel infrastructure without additional abatement exceed the total emissions allowed in pathways that limit warming to 1.5C with no or limited overshoot. Translation:  There's no room for fossil-fuel expansion.

While science rarely dictates a conclusive strategy, the climate emergency is relentlessly indicating a single direction of travel. The world urgently needs a deep and immediate reduction in fossil-fuel use — and no more expansion.

Lara Williams is a social media editor for Bloomberg Opinion. She covers climate issues. @lararhiannonw

Disclaimer: This article first appeared on Bloomberg, and is published by special syndication arrangement.