Over the past few days we have read, heard, and seen a lot about the UN Climate Change Conference in Dubai - COP 28 for short, and the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) by its full name.

Oil-rich Dubai, of all places, was the host, but that is probably no more surprising than a FIFA World Cup in Qatar or Olympic Games in Russia. Who actually makes decisions like these? Or does this just have to be attributed to the premise that if we only wanted to negotiate with people on approximately the same wavelength, the list of possible partners would be very short indeed?

But that is neither the only nor the essential question. The following is worthy of serious discussion: more than 100 countries around the world spoke out in favour of a passage in the final declaration which, in plain English, would have stated "We want to phase out fossil fuels by year X". Among those in favour of this formulation were the ocean states of Kiribati and Tuvalu. Both are located near New Zealand and their continued existence is at risk if global warming and rising sea levels continue as before. The majority of those who are charting the course for our world in the coming decades were either not present, or only chimed in with vague formulations: China (because of coal), Russia and the Middle East (crude oil and gas) and the US (nuclear fusion instead of shale gas fracking).

Related: Washington announces plans for USD 7 bn hydrogen network

You could hear the indignation pouring out of the media when it was initially reported that the final declaration did not include a clear passage "in favour of climate protection". But what did we expect? That Saudi Arabia will part with its oil wealth - the only pillar of its economy - within a few years? Or Russia, Venezuela? That would be a bit like telling German car manufacturers that they will soon have to stop doing business entirely because no more cars will be allowed to roll regardless of whether they run on electricity from a nuclear power plant or on fuel from a petrol station. 

Now the declaration does state "a move away from fossil fuels is necessary," which is likely to be about as successful as Icarus's legendary flight attempt. As there is no provision for controls and penalties, who should carry out the former and who should endure the latter? Is the COP 28 declaration another toothless tiger in the end?

Related: Low-carbon group cuts ties with World Economic Forum

Perhaps not: because the movement is not entirely without consequences in the world. It is no coincidence that the tradition-steeped World Economic Forum in Davos is facing stiff headwinds because the COP packs a much bigger punch - at least at the moment. Above all, COP president Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber - part-time industry minister of the United Arab Emirates and head of the state-owned oil company Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (Adnoc) - knows what time has come - and despite his background, he is no further distant from an exit from the world of fossil fuels than some others.

It has been rumoured for years that he believes the phase-out of oil and gas is unnecessary. Maybe that is the case. But it is no coincidence that his company is endeavouring to invest as much as possible of the money earned from oil in greener technologies, for example with the planned acquisitions of Braskem and Covestro. After all, it cannot escape the economic upheaval that is taking place in many countries of end users if its oil wells are really supposed to continue to bubble to the very last drop. And that could be the tooth of this tiger, much more so than a soft final declaration.

Sven Arnold

Deputy Editor-in-Chief, Kunststoff Information