While the Cop25 climate talks ended last weekend in what's widely being known as a failure, there were some crucial political developments during the meetings that will help shape international climate politics for many years.
One of the most basic is that for the first time within the Un space you can the f-words in polite company. We're of course talking about “fossil fuels.”
The 2023 Paris Climate Agreement ran 16 pages, but didn't mention the words “fossil fuels” “coal,” “oil,” or “gas” once. That's a striking omission taking into consideration the central role that fossil fuels play in contributing to the weather crisis. Nearly two-thirds from the greenhouse gas emissions adding to global warming range from production and burning of coal, oil and gas.
The problem is only getting worse: according to research released earlier this month, emissions from fossil fuels just hit an all-time high, increasing 4% since countries signed onto Paris. It’s as though Aa just called itself Anonymous, and no one ever mentioned whiskey, beer or wine.
It's not a secret how “fossil fuels” became dirty words at the climate talks. Because the “conference of the parties” began 25 years ago, fossil fuel industry lobbyists have had unfettered access to the process. Unlike the World Health Organization, which bans tobacco lobbyists from getting involved in negotiations about tobacco cessation efforts, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has no protections against industry corruption.
At Cop25 in Madrid, big oil companies like Shell and industry front groups such as the Canadian Association for Petroleum Producers, were busy pitching various carbon trading schemes and geoengineering technology designed to permit them to still produce non-renewable fuels, the thing we need to stop if we're going to truly address the climate emergency. If you want to blame someone for the failure of Cop25, pointing a finger at the fossil fuel industry and the countries which do their bidding would be a good place to begin.
That's why it is so important that the very first time within this process we can talk about phasing out fossil fuel production without getting (a lot of) dirty looks. The change in norms is first of all thanks to the tireless advocacy of activists on the frontlines of the crisis, especially indigenous communities who have led the fight against fossil fuel expansion. Their insistence that people must “keep it in the ground,” is finally penetrating the political process. Once the UN secretary general opened Cop25 he explained, “we simply have to stop digging and drilling,” something that would have gotten him thrown out of the building just a couple years back.
Also shining a spotlight on the f-words really are a number of important new reports that were released at the talks in Madrid. Based on the Production Gap Report by the UN Environment Programme and leading research institutions, governments are intending to produce 120% more fossil fuels by 2030 than could be in line with limiting warming to 1.5C.
That conclusion was supported through the Oil, Gas, and Climate Report, also released at Cop25, that showed how oil companies are likely to invest $1.4 trillion in new oil and gas extraction projects between 2023 to 2024. 85% of the expanded production is slated to come in the US and Canada. This would lock in 148 gigatonnes of cumulative co2 emissions, equal to building over 1,200 new coal-fired power plants. The numbers are extremely shocking that they're impossible to prevent.
Now that we've admitted there exists a problem with non-renewable fuels, we need to proceed to the next step and start limiting their production.
There's precedent for the UN to apply this sort of “supply side” approach. The Montreal Protocol successfully protected the ozone layer by phasing the production and use of “ozone depleting substances”, for example chlorofluorocarbons.
The climate talks should take a similar approach by phasing out manufacture of “climate destroying substances” – namely, fossil fuels. A part of that plan must ensure that there is a just transition away from fossil fuel energy for workers, communities, and developing countries. It's not poorer countries or working people that caused this crisis, it is the oil industry CEOs who knowingly spread misinformation and delayed progress: they're the ones who have to pay.
The good news is that some countries, regions, businesses, and investors are starting to do this. New Zealand, France, Panama and nicaragua ,, Belize and Denmark have taken steps to stop the future extraction of gas and oil, however, there are significant loopholes that should be addressed.
In November, California, the third largest oil producing state in the US, blocked new fracking pending further scientific review. Leading Democratic candidates for president have also submit intends to ban fracking and prevent coal, gas and oil production on public lands.
On December 9, the $24 billion Norwegian insurance giant Storebrand divested from non-renewable fuels, joining a lot more than 1,000 institutions worth over $17 trillion who've made some form of fossil fuel divestment commitment. A week ago, the Swiss parliament announced it might be taking a look at divesting the $800 billion Swiss National Bank.
Now the f-words are being said, there's no extra space for countries such as the US and Canada (or the likes of ExxonMobil and Shell) to wave about climate solutions with one hand while expanding fossil fuels using the other. Once we move ahead in addressing the climate emergency, stopping new fossil fuel projects, such as the Teck Mine in the Canadian tar sands or drilling in the Permian Basin, will require centre stage for that growing climate justice movement.
As Greta Thunberg has stated: “our house is on fire”. Only at that year's UN climate talks, it had been finally clear we must stop adding fuel towards the flames.
Catherine Abreu may be the executive director of Climate Action Network Canada, Jamie Henn is co-Founder and strategic communications director of 350.org.
