The northern hemisphere summer this year has brought a series of record-breaking natural disasters.
The list — which includes intense flooding in China and western Europe, heat waves and drought in North America, extreme drought in Africa, and wildfires in the sub-arctic and southern Europe — is long, growing and global.
This is the beginning of climate chaos and it delivers a stark message: We can no longer rely on historical patterns to inform predictions of future natural disasters.
Notably, the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) more clearly attributes extreme weather events to human influence on the climate, pointing out that fossil fuels have caused 86 percent of carbon dioxide emissions in the past decade.
For decades, a small number of extremely rich and powerful private and state-owned firms have profited greatly from selling these fuels while deceiving the public and influencing governments to forestall political action to tackle climate change. Big Oil’s strategies to preserve its business model for as long as possible are well documented. Facebook ads promoting their “climate friendliness” and “green gas” were viewed 431 million times last year alone.
Such corporate deceit is especially problematic for nations in the Global South, which are striving to improve their economic security and risk locking themselves into dirty infrastructure assets that will become stranded. In fact, every region has high renewable energy potential. International collaboration and support, particularly finance from the Global North, is essential to realizing it.
The lack of an international mechanism directly addressing fossil fuels means that the industry has continued to expand significantly, even since the 2015 Paris climate agreement was signed. The UN’s Production Gap Report says that planned fossil fuel production in 2030 is currently 120 percent greater than would be allowed under a 1.5?C carbon budget.
Implementing these plans would threaten to trigger runaway climate change, but their backers seem to be getting away with it, clearly showing that political leaders have turned a blind eye to this most obvious driver of climate chaos. Even so-called climate champions such as Canada, the UK, the US and Norway are approving new fossil fuel projects, while sounding the climate alarm in step with the IPCC.
While focusing on minimizing emissions might have been a sensible approach in the early 1990s, it is clearly not enough today. We also need a complementary mechanism explicitly geared toward constraining the supply of fossil fuels.
Emerging initiatives such as the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance can serve as forums that establish a new norm of climate leadership, and create political space to advance discussions among first movers and vulnerable nations, but as political momentum grows, a pathway for establishing an international legal instrument needs to be worked out. One tool that is gaining global support and would help to put us on a meaningful path toward a livable climate is a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty.
Such a treaty would emulate existing international agreements that aim to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons, landmines, ozone depletion and other security risks, and it would be based on the three pillars of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
On the first pillar of a future treaty — non-proliferation — the world has made significant progress in the past few months. The International Energy Agency said that any new fossil fuel development would conflict with the Paris agreement’s goals, G7 members agreed to stop financing new coal projects and many jurisdictions banned all new fossil fuel permits.
The second pillar is a feasible phaseout. Most climate scientists agree that we need to wind down existing stockpiles of fossil fuels and production. Even without any new coal, oil or gas projects, the world would produce 35 percent more oil and 69 percent more coal by 2030 than is consistent with a 1.5?C pathway.
Third, a new treaty should help to enable a just transition away from fossil fuels through a process of international cooperation that has equity at its core. Wealthy fossil-fuel-producing economies would lead the way, and share the benefits and burdens of the transition with poorer nations, workers and affected communities. This should include the provision of financial resources to enable policymakers to implement and sustain necessary climate policies.
Hundreds of organizations representing thousands of individuals have joined the call for a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty. Earlier this year, the Dalai Lama and 100 other Nobel laureates called for an end to fossil fuel expansion, while more than 2,000 academics and scientists have signaled their support in an open letter.
We will have to live in a world in which extreme climate events become more intense and frequent, but the first rule of getting out of a hole is to stop digging, and that requires not succumbing to the power and influence of the fossil fuel lobby and its political allies.
Finding viable solutions for managing the decline of the fossil fuel industry is now more critical than ever.
A fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty offers a vision and path for what true international climate leadership and cooperation could look like.
Tasneem Essop, executive director of Climate Action Network International, is a steering committee member for the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative. Lili Fuhr, head of the International Environmental Policy Division of the Heinrich Boll Foundation, is a steering committee member for the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative and a founding board member of the Climate Justice Fund.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing