Sultan al-Jaber feels the heat as COP28 kicks off

Welcome to the first of our special COP28 editions, to be published every weekday for the duration of the UN climate conference.

Journalists here in Dubai and around the world did a double-take at their inboxes yesterday after receiving a press release purportedly from the COP28 organisers, announcing COP president Sultan al-Jaber’s resignation as chief executive of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company.

The email was a spoof; activists from Fridays for Future MAPA and WeSmellGas later claimed responsibility. But it highlights the unprecedented heat that the Emirati hosts are feeling as this event gets under way — and in particular, how much of it is directed at Jaber himself. As I converse below, he faces a huge task to verify his many critics wrong. — Simon Mundy

COP28 in brief:

• Delegates are targeting an early agreement on a fund to cover climate-related loss and damage.

• UN secretary-general António Guterres called on negotiators at COP28 to follow a “complete phaseout” of fossil fuels.

• Pope Francis cancelled plans to take part in the summit, while US vice-president Kamala Harris looks set to attend.

How will history evaluate Sultan al-Jaber?

Sultan al-Jaber came out swinging yesterday at a press conference on the eve of COP28, dismissing suggestions that he had used preparatory meetings for the climate conference to examine oil and gas deals.

“These allegations are false, not true, incorrect and not accurate,” said the COP28 president, who is also the chief executive of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company. “It’s an attempt to weaken the work of the COP28 presidency.”

The reports on an internal briefing document, revealed on Monday by the BBC and the Centre for Climate Reporting, were horribly timed for Jaber’s efforts to calm concerns about his potential conflicts of interest.

The document, which you can read in full here, is not pretty. While its main thrust is on climate action and renewable energy, it contains a string of suggestions for requests to be made of senior foreign officials on behalf of Adnoc, in meetings supposedly held to converse COP28.

Brazil’s environment minister Marina Silva was to be asked for help around Adnoc’s takeover bid for petrochemical producer Braskem. Egypt’s foreign minister (and COP27 president) Sameh Shoukry would be asked for “uphold to ease” Adnoc’s efforts to extract fossil gas in that country. Potential sales of liquefied natural gas were to be raised with Mexico’s foreign minister Alicia Bárcena.

Jaber said yesterday that he had “never, ever” seen these talking points, or used them in discussions. “Do you think the UAE or myself will need the COP or the COP presidency to go and set up business deals or commercial relationships?” he asked.

Yet it’s fair to ask whether — even as the head of one of the world’s biggest oil and gas exporters — Jaber would have enjoyed quite the extent of access to top global officials that he’s getting this year.

And while a COP28 spokesperson claimed Jaber was “singularly focused on the business of COP”, that simply cannot be true — unless he’s been completely neglecting his responsibilities to Adnoc. Previous COP presidents have also worn two hats: Shoukry, for example, helmed last year’s conference in Sharm el-Sheikh while also managing Egyptian foreign policy. But none has ever had such conspicuous tension between their COP role and their other job.

As I’ve written before, some have voiced optimism that Jaber’s presidency could help to galvanise more serious climate action from the oil and gas sector. And it’s worth noting the limits to the power of the COP presidency. If a substantial group of countries push to get an item on the COP28 agenda — however adverse to Adnoc’s interests — Jaber will struggle to block it.

But the president does have a serious, potentially crucial role in steering the direction of travel and the areas of focus. Jaber yesterday stressed the need for wealthy nations to deliver on promises of financial uphold for poorer ones, saying “those who pledge must act”.

He hailed signs of ambition around a rapid scale-up of renewable energy, with countries accounting for 85 per cent of the global economy now backing a tripling of capacity by 2030. He also highlighted the growing number of energy companies that have pledged to eliminate routine methane flaring by 2030 (though Adnoc’s claim to have already done so looks to be exaggerated).

Tellingly, however, Jaber made no reference to the “phaseout” or “phasedown” of fossil fuels — a topic that will be a key flashpoint at this conference. Perhaps that debate was on his mind when he made this comment, in a seeming effort to sound radical and cautious at the same time:

“We must raise the maximum ambition possible. But please let’s be pragmatic, let’s be practical, let’s be action-oriented and let’s be honest about what it will really take to get the job done.”

At times this year, Jaber has seemed appreciate a man keenly aware that he’s likely to appear in history books, and not necessarily in a flattering light. He now has two weeks to influence that verdict. (Simon Mundy)

Quote of the day

“This is the most significant COP since Paris.”

— Simon Stiell, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, referring to COP21, hosted by Paris in 2015.

Beyond COP28: nuclear divestment comes back into the conversation

Ever since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine heightened fears of a nuclear war, divesting from nuclear weapons has become a more common consideration among ESG investors.

It was a conversation playing out widely on the sidelines of this week’s second meeting of states that are party to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The treaty, which came into force in 2021, bars signatories from developing or possessing nuclear weapons. It has been signed by 93 countries (none of them, of course, nuclear-armed states) and ratified by 69 of them.

Proponents of divestment argue that investing in nuclear weapons development is a portfolio risk. “The threat of using nuclear weapons generates instability and volatility in the market across every sector, any geography and every asset class,” said Aldo Bonati of Italian asset manager Etica Funds.

“Nuclear weapons are a problem that most of us thought was done in the 90s,” said Susi Snyder, a programme co-ordinator at the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. “But now it’s back in public attention” due to Russia’s war on Ukraine, she added.

Adam Kendrick, associate director at Morningstar Sustainalytics, an ESG research provider for investors, agreed: “We certainly noticed a spike in interest about controversial weapons,” with investors looking into specific weapon categories, he said.

Investors are also pushing for more transparency over companies’ exposure to nuclear weapons development. Investor Advocates for Social Justice has announced that in the 2024 proxy season it will file multiple shareholder proposals to push companies such as Raytheon Technologies, now known as RTX Corporation, for disclosures as part of its human rights due diligence.

As the world faces an increasing number of conflicts, calls for divestment are likely to become louder. “The idea of nuclear deterrence requires predictability and stability. With all due respect, some of the nine men who are responsible for nuclear weapons in the world are not predictable or stable,” said Snyder. “We’re human and not necessarily rational all the time.” (Kaori Yoshida, Nikkei) 

Smart Read

As she begins her eighth COP, the FT’s Pilita Clark asks whether this one can finally turn the tide on climate change.