Will world leaders agree to phase out fossil fuels at COP28, this year’s U.N. climate summit in Dubai?

It depends, in part, on whether they believe it is wise, prudent, and scientifically necessary to do so.

This is why the fossil fuel industry needs to convince the public that phasing out fossil fuels is not wise, not prudent, and not scientifically necessary. And it’s why Sultan Al Jaber, the president of COP28 and CEO of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, recently said this:

“There is no science out there, or no scenario out there, that says that the phaseout of fossil fuel is what’s going to achieve 1.5C.”

In his remarks revealed earlier this week by The Guardian, Al Jaber not only attempted to discredit the idea that preserving a livable climate requires phasing out fossil fuels—he attempted to paint the idea as extremist.

He said he expected a “sober and mature conversation,” not an “alarmist” one, when former Ireland president Mary Robinson asked him during a panel discussion whether he would support a global effort to phase out fossil fuels. He appeared offended she even asked.

Al Jaber has attempted to walk back these comments amid uproar this week, claiming he believes “the phase down and the phaseout of fossil fuel is inevitable.” Even U.S. Climate Envoy John Kerry has shrugged off the comments, saying they probably “came out the wrong way.”

But whether he personally believes them or not, Al Jaber’s remarks represent a common tactic among fossil fuel industry representatives, one that we will continue to see at this COP and long after it.

So we thought it would be useful to try and put the question to rest once and for all, by asking five of the leading climatologists in the field: Is there really “no science” to support a phaseout of fossil fuels? Is calling for this truly “alarmist?”

Here’s what they said. Unlike Al Jaber, they provided receipts.

1. Don Wuebbles, University of Illinois

An emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the University of Illinois, Don Wuebbles has published more than 500 scientific papers related to climate change, air quality, and the stratospheric ozone layer.

Asked to respond to Al Jaber’s claim that “no science” supports a fossil fuel phaseout to achieve 1.5°C, Wuebbles replied: “Of course the statement is not true. There is extended discussion in variety of places that show we need to have rapid decreases in emissions from fossil fuels to achieve 1.5 degrees."

As evidence, Wuebbles cited the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report, which was authored by 234 authors across 66 countries and includes more than 14,000 scientific references.

That report makes it clear that fossil fuels must go. It states, among many other things:

• “Net zero CO2 energy systems entail: a substantial reduction in overall fossil fuel use, minimal use of unabated fossil fuels, and use of carbon capture and storage in the remaining fossil fuel systems; electricity systems that emit no net CO2; widespread electrification; alternative energy carriers in applications less amenable to electrification; energy conservation and efficiency; and greater integration across the energy system (high confidence).

Wuebbles also cited the IPCC’s 1.5C report, which contains more than 6,000 scientific references and was authored by 91 authors from 40 countries.

That report states, among other things, that all pathways to 1.5°C include decreases in fossil fuel energy from 2020 to 2050—but that the amount fossil fuels decrease depends on how much carbon removal is in place.

The report later adds: ”[Carbon dioxide removal] deployed at scale is unproven, and reliance on such technology is a major risk in the ability to limit warming to 1.5°C.”

Al Jaber has been heavily promoting carbon capture as a solution.

2. Andrew Dessler, Texas A&M University

Andrew Dessler has published more than 100 peer-reviewed papers and three academic textbooks on climate change and atmospheric physics, including the “Introduction to Modern Climate Change."

In comments to HEATED, Dessler took issue with Al Jaber’s claim that “no science” supports a fossil fuel phaseout.

“I would phrase it differently,” he said. “There is no scenario to limit warming to 1.5°C that does not include the rapid phase out of fossil fuels.”

In fact, Dessler added, achieving the 1.5°C target would require much more than phasing out fossil fuels; it would also require some sort of geoengineering, which includes the controversial practice of carbon dioxide removal.

“Phasing out fossil fuels won't do it by itself, because we have dithered too long,” he said. “But in combination with geoengineering, it could be achievable.”

3. Kate Marvel, Project Drawdown

Currently a senior climate scientist at Project Drawdown, Kate Marvel is a former research scientist at NASA and Columbia University, with 90 published peer-reviewed papers focused primarily on climate modeling.

In an e-mail, Marvel said Al Jaber’s claim that there is “no science” to support a fossil fuel phaseout was “balderdash.” She wrote:

This is balderdash. Here’s the paper on scenarios to limit radiative forcing to 1,9 W m-2 and hopefully warming to 1.5C:

Under all SSPs, 1.9 W m−2 scenarios show a clear shift away from unabated fossil fuels (that is, without CCS, Fig. 2c), and a phaseout of all fossil fuels. The marker implementations exhibit rapidly declining contributions of coal until 2040 (less than about 20% of its 2010 contribution in 2040), followed by a phaseout of oil until 2060 (Supplementary Figs. 14, 15).

I encourage him to read the paper, it’s very good!

Marvel added that Al Jaber’s comments can be difficult to directly debunk because science rarely “calls” for certain policy actions; more often, it lays out the sources of emissions, and the consequences. That science is then used to support political calls for action.

“Physical, biological, and social science establishes that fossil fuels are the primary source of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, generating pollution that kills millions, require much more resource extraction than even the most pessimistic clean energy scenarios, contribute to high energy costs and inflation, and help repressive regimes gain and stay in power,” she said.

“The question of whether these things are bad is not one that can be answered by science,” she added. “The choice to phase out fossil fuels is a moral one, not a scientific one. That doesn’t make the right answer any less clear.”

4. Kristina Dahl, Union of Concerned Scientists

With a PhD in paleoclimate from MIT, Kristina Dahl has published more than 50 peer-reviewed papers on climate change, sea level rise and extreme heat, among other topics. Her work at the Union of Concerned Scientists focuses on communicating climate science to general audiences.

Dahl told HEATED that Al Jaber’s remarks aren’t in line with the best available science, which supports the need for a fossil fuel phaseout.

“The science is unequivocal,” she said. “A fast, fair, and funded phaseout of all fossil fuels is critical to limiting climate harms, preventing further damage to people’s health and the environment, and ensuring the health and safety of current and future generations around the world.

Like Wuebbles, she also cited the IPCC’s AR6 report—specifically, figure 3.5, which “finds that carbon emissions over the lifetime of existing and currently planned fossil fuel infrastructure alone would push warming above the 1.5 degrees Celsius mark.”

She also pointed to figure SPM.8 in the IPCC report, which shows “enormous benefits” for sustainable development if governments phase out fossil fuels.

5. Michael Mann, University of Pennsylvania

A climatologist and geophysicist, Michael Mann has helped author nearly 500 peer-reviewed papers, and has written five books on the climate crisis. He wrote to HEATED:

There is rigorous science supporting the need for a rapid phaseout of fossil fuels to keep global temperatures below the 1.5C level of dangerous interference with the climate system. In fact, I just published on it a couple weeks ago.

It's a recent peer-reviewed review by me that summarizes the latest body of work on the “zero emissions commitment”, discussing precisely what sorts of emissions reductions are necessary to limit warming below 1.5C.

The emissions reductions necessary are primarily from fossil fuels.

Catch of the Day: It’s not often our request for non-furry friends is honored, so today is a pretty special day.

Meet Carlin.

Carlin often accompanies reader Devra on public speaking events, serving as official spokesturtle for pesticide-free lawn care and native plants.

Carlin has a shell deformation that prevents him from righting himself should he accidentally become rolled over on his back. Fortunately, Devra is always there to help.

Want to see your furry (or non-furry!) friend in HEATED? It might take a little while, but we WILL get to yours eventually! Just send a picture and some words to catchoftheday@heated.world.