The world’s two biggest emitters — China and the US —  are in intensive talks to find language on fossil fuels that can bring the two-week climate summit to a successful close.

The controversial oil executive presiding over global climate talks in Dubai is stepping up efforts to get a deal to curb all fossil fuels for the first time. 

Sultan Al Jaber, president of the United Nations-backed COP28 summit, held a special meeting of ministers from nearly 200 countries, in a bid to break the deadlock over the future of oil and gas.

The issue has dominated the fortnight of talks hosted in the United Arab Emirates, after countries failed to reach an agreement at last year’s COP27 talks in Egypt. Al Jaber told reporters on Sunday that now the “time has come for us to shift gears” to deliver a timely and ambitious outcome for the summit, due to end Dec. 12.

Saudi Arabia’s Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman said this week that the kingdom won’t agree to a text that calls for the phase down of fossil fuels. The text must be agreed unanimously. Meanwhile OPEC’s top official urged member countries in a letter to reject any agreements that target fossil fuels.

But the world’s two biggest emitters — China and the US —  are in intensive talks to find language on fossil fuels that can bring the two-week climate summit to a successful close. The European Union and other countries are also pushing for language to see the phase out of fossil fuels, which will be key to keeping temperature rises at 1.5C.

“We need to find consensus and common ground on fossil fuels, including coal,” Al Jaber said. “We need to also come to terms with the sources of finance and support” for adaptation and a just transition.

Despite pushing for stronger fossil fuel language, Al Jaber declined to name specific oil producing nations that were holding up climate action. Worldwide carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels will rise 1.1% this year over 2022, to 36.8 billion metric tons, according to the Global Carbon Project, an international collaboration of scientists.

To try and break the deadlock, the COP president held a “majlis” — an Arabic convention — on Sunday. The session moved all ministers into one room to encourage them to talk openly about their positions and allow them to hash out their differences. A similar approach was used at the Paris talks in 2015, when the presidency hosted indaba sessions to sort out conflicting positions through constant dialog.

The meeting was designed to help inform a new negotiating text that is expected to be released overnight by the COP28 presidency, covering everything from the stocktake of progress on climate change to the first global goal on adaptation.

The argument over the future of fossil fuels is happening almost a decade after nearly 200 countries signed the Paris deal to limit global temperatures to well below 2 degrees, ideally to 1.5C, to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. However, the divisions over fossil fuels are spilling out into other tracks.

Arab nations and a group of developing countries had rejected an initial text on the global goal on adaptation earlier in the week, though that stalemate ended on Sunday, as groups expressed their will to negotiate.

But divisions still exist over this key part of the talks, which should set measurable targets on humanity’s attempt to adapt to a warming planet. China and other developing countries said they want to see more specific references to finance for adaptation throughout the text, while the US disagreed.

“We think we got considerable ways to go to get a decent outcome that will be lasting,” said Trigg Talley, special adviser to US special climate envoy John Kerry, during a meeting of negotiators on Sunday. “What we are doing is creating a framework for implementation over a long period of time that should be robust, clear and consistent.” 

For more information visit at https://happenrecently.com/zepto/?amp=1

 On September 5, a five-judge  constitution bench headed  by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud  reserved its  verdict  after hearing the petitioners, the  Center  and  the  J&K  government  for 16 days.  

 Over four years after Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) lost its special status following the abrogation of Article  370  and the state was  reorganized  into  two Union  Territories,  J&K and Ladakh, the Supreme Court  is expected to ruled  on  one batch  on  Monday.  petitions challenging the  legality  of the  Centre’s  decision.  

 On September 5, a five-judge  constitution bench headed  by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud  reserved its  verdict  after hearing the petitioners, the  Center  and  the  J&K  government  for 16 days. The  bench comprised  Justices S K Kaul, Sanjeev Khanna, B R Gavai and Surya Kant. Justice Kaul will retire on December 25 while the  remaining  three  judges will become  Chief  Justices  of India.  The court heard a  series  of 23  applications. Of these,  some  were filed before the August 5, 2019  amendments,  challenging  Article  35A of the Constitution  which allowed  J&K to  pass  special laws for its permanent residents. 

  Some of the  petitioners  who  began arguing  on August  2 argued  that Article 370 was  temporary  until  the erstwhile state  Constituent Assembly  took a decision, one way or the other. But  when  the Constituent  Assembly’s mandate  expired in 1957, the provision became permanent and could not be  changed through  any constitutional  procedure,  they said.  

 The petitioners contended that  no annexation agreement  was  signed between the Union of India and the then Maharaja of J&K but only  the  Instrument of Accession  (IoA)  and, therefore, there was no surrender of sovereignty. They argued that the IoA limited  Congress’s legislative  power  over  the state  to ensure  its subjects would have a greater say.  

 The petitioners contended that the manner in which the special status was  removed  by  the  Presidential  Order  dated August 5 and 6, 2019, while J&K was under  the President’s rule, violated  the Constitution. 

  Refuting  the  allegations,  the  Center  and the J&K  government asserted  that  proper procedure  was followed in  bringing in  the changes.  Contrary to  the  arguments of the petitioners as to  how  the National Assembly  could assume the role of the Constituent Assembly, the  Government stated that  the  word “Constituent Assembly”  in Article 370(3)  refers to  can be read  as  “Legislative Council”.  

 The  Center argued  that during  the President’s tenure,  the powers of the J&K Assembly  were  vested  in  the Parliament, which  in turn had legislative  powers  for the state.  They  called  the changes  to Article 370  “historic”  and said  they  had  “brought  unprecedented development, progress, security and stability to the region, which was often  lacking under  the old  regime of  Article  370”.  

 During the hearing, the  judges also questioned  the claim  that  the provision  would become  permanent and wondered why it was then  included  in Part XXI of the Constitution which  refers to  “temporary, transitional and  special”.

The  petitioners  include  IAS officer Shah Faesal and activist Shehla Rashid.  However, they  withdrew  before the hearing  began.

 For more  information,  visit at https://happenrecently.com/zepto/?amp=1