DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — Nearly 200 nations sealed an agreement Wednesday urging countries to begin “transitioning away from fossil fuels” — a hard-fought deal that makes this the first-ever climate accord to address the primary driver of warming temperatures.

The result received a positive response and applause from the crowded main meeting room, a significant change from the previous two days of intense and continuous discussions between supporters of proactive measures for climate change and companies involved in fossil fuel production, such as Saudi Arabia. The negotiations also included objections from developing nations, stating that wealthy countries like the United States were not providing adequate support in transitioning to more sustainable energy sources.

This is the initial instance where any of the almost thirty years of yearly U.N. climate conferences has consented to verbiage clearly limiting the use of fossil fuels.

The summit’s president, Sultan al-Jaber, who is also the CEO of the United Arab Emirates’ government-owned oil company, stated that they have brought about a significant change that could alter our economies.

He warned, “The effectiveness of an agreement lies in its execution. Our actions define us, not our words.”

However, once the applause had subsided and the organizers had shifted their focus to other aspects, Anne Rasmussen from Samoa, representing a group of at-risk island nations, highlighted flaws she perceived in the agreement. She mentioned that they were not present in the room when the organizers quickly gaveled it to approval.

The statement made by Samoa was met with cheers and applause. The presidency expressed gratitude to Rasmussen for her remarks and proceeded with the event.

The agreement, resulting from the 14-day COP28 conference on climate change in Dubai, does not impose any requirements and allows each country to determine their own timeline for reducing their use of fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas, and coal. This leaves many additional decisions to be addressed at the upcoming climate summits in Azerbaijan next year and Brazil in 2025.

There is increasing evidence that countries are not reducing their emissions enough to prevent a surge in extreme weather events such as storms, floods, and wildfires. This is particularly concerning as last year saw record-breaking global temperatures.

The revised text, agreed upon in the early hours of Wednesday following lengthy discussions, requires countries to create strategies for phasing out the use of fossil fuels in their energy systems during this crucial decade. This transition should be carried out in a fair, organized, and fair manner, with the ultimate goal of reaching carbon neutrality by 2050, in alignment with scientific evidence.

In most climate agreements, the measures outlined are voluntary, making it simple for a populist European government or a potential second term for Trump to reject them.

However, according to Jake Schmidt, who is the senior strategic director of international climate at the Natural Resources Defense Council, this action serves as a clear indication that the global community is taking decisive steps towards phasing out the use of fossil fuels, promoting renewable energy and efficiency, and addressing deforestation and degradation. This also serves as a formal warning to the fossil fuel industry that their traditional business practices are becoming obsolete.

Canada’s climate minister, Steven Guilbeault, stated that the text has the potential to be a significant agreement as it tackles the effects of harmful and polluting energy sources and sets a course towards more secure and dependable forms of energy.

“The package may not be flawless, but then again, no U.N. text ever is,” he stated. “However, having spent over 20 years in this field, I can see a vision that we can all unite behind.”

Danish Climate Minister Dan Jørgensen expressed his optimism about the deal’s approval, stating that the European Union would be very pleased if it goes through.

However, certain activists conveyed their dissatisfaction with the agreement as they had hoped for it to go beyond its current state and include a definite deadline for nations to halt oil, natural gas, and coal production. Furthermore, some individuals argued that affluent countries like the United States are still unwilling to offer substantial international funding to aid developing nations in their transition.

Andreas Sieber from the climate advocacy organization 350.org expressed that while this text marks progress in our efforts to eliminate fossil fuels, it falls short of the groundbreaking decision we had anticipated.

Tom Evans, a policy adviser for the environmental think tank E3G, stated that while this text may prevent a catastrophe in Dubai, it does not address the larger issue of protecting the planet.

Although the updated phrasing was deemed as “better,” a coalition of 39 small island nations stated that it “lacks the necessary equilibrium” to enact significant changes that could protect their communities from being devastated by increasing sea levels and severe weather.

The language used in the text aimed to ease tensions surrounding key policy issues that had caused the two-week summit to come to a halt. This created a divide between those pushing for strong measures to address climate change and countries reliant on fossil fuel production, such as Saudi Arabia. This disagreement had the potential to undermine the efforts of nations like the United States and the European Union in their climate agendas.

The main issue discussed at the summit centered around whether the agreement should include a gradual decrease in the production of fossil fuels, or completely eliminate them as requested by environmental organizations and representatives from vulnerable island nations. Neither option was accepted by major fossil fuel producing countries like Saudi Arabia, and also faced opposition from blocs such as China, India, and developing African nations.

On Monday, the UAE’s efforts to overcome the divide in a draft resulted in outbursts of anger and blame from island nations, who deemed it a “death sentence” for their vulnerable countries. This action also prompted disapproval from European and American parties.

The initial proposal for Monday’s draft called for nations to pledge to decrease the use and production of fossil fuels, without specifying a timeline for implementation. It also stated the objective of achieving net zero emissions by, before, or around the year 2050.

The revised version of the text emphasizes a crucial section by explicitly urging nations to implement a series of measures to decrease greenhouse gas emissions. The initial draft faced backlash from numerous countries and nations due to its suggestions that countries “might” take action, giving the impression of passivity and choice.

The review links these actions to the necessity for significant, immediate, and ongoing decreases in greenhouse gas emissions that align with the 1.5 °C trajectory. This refers to a target in the 2015 Paris climate accord which aimed to limit the increase in worldwide temperatures to below 1.5 degrees Celsius since the start of industrialization.

The most recent update also upholds two important goals in order to reach 1.5 degrees: increasing renewable energy capacity by three times and doubling energy efficiency by 2030.

The statement mentioned that the transition away from fossil fuels should take into consideration “varied national situations.” The preliminary version also acknowledges that “transitional fuels can aid in the energy shift while maintaining energy stability.” These acknowledgments address the concerns of developing countries, who may face challenges in swiftly transitioning away from fossil fuels due to economic and energy poverty concerns.

As a result, certain parts of the text were made less harsh. Regarding coal, the text called on countries to “increase their efforts to reduce the use of unfiltered coal power,” which is a change from the previous recommendation to restrict the construction of new coal-fired plants. This wording is similar to a pact made at climate negotiations in Glasgow, Scotland two years ago, but does not progress beyond that.

The last message fulfilled an important demand from developing countries by emphasizing the need to increase financial support for their transition to cleaner energy systems. It highlighted the significance of providing more grants, concessional loans, and non-debt tools to facilitate the switch to clean energy.

The concept of providing financial support without interest and with lower-than-market rates is considered crucial in preventing developing countries from accumulating more debt and attracting investment to areas that are typically overlooked by the private sector. The text acknowledges that having enough room in the budget allows for taking action on climate issues.

The agreement for Wednesday was made public following the conference, which commenced on November 30 and exceeded its scheduled closing time of Tuesday.

The lack of progress on fossil fuels stood in stark contrast to the initial days of COP28, where al-Jaber celebrated a number of significant deals aimed at demonstrating the UAE’s ability to take action for the environment, despite being a wealthy oil-producing nation in the Persian Gulf. These declarations involved commitments from multiple countries to provide substantial financial aid to nations affected by climate disasters.

Environmental organizations once again raised concerns about the UAE’s decision to appoint al-Jaber, the CEO of their state-owned oil company, as the leader of the summit. U.S. special climate envoy John Kerry, a strong advocate for al-Jaber, praised his selection and expressed optimism that he could persuade the fossil fuel industry to participate in negotiations.

However, even Kerry expressed disapproval of the draft released on Monday, stating in a private meeting that it does not meet the COP’s expectations for a swift transition to clean energy sources and the elimination of fossil fuels.

On Tuesday evening, environmental activists made a strong statement that they do not see any potential for a compromise with the use of fossil fuels, despite the conclusion of the summit.

“What is our demand? The phasing out process!” They shouted while participating in a loud protest in the designated protest area on the summit campus. Meanwhile, delegates nearby said their goodbyes and took farewell photos. “If our demand is not met? We will shut it down!”

Europeans and islanders have joined the discussions in hopes of reaching an agreement to gradually eliminate the use of fossil fuels, although there is only moderate support from the United States. However, there has been strong resistance from countries such as Saudi Arabia that heavily rely on oil exports, and also from many developing nations who view fossil fuel extraction as a means to lift their citizens out of poverty.

Majid Al Suwaidi, the director-general of COP28, stated on Tuesday that the parties must now outline their plans for implementation. He also mentioned that the language calling for a reduction in fossil fuels has been deemed ineffective after a year of consideration.

Some individuals advocate for “phase out,” while others prefer “phase down.” There are also those who suggest alternative approaches. The goal is to reach a consensus among all parties.