As the world grapples with an unprecedented confluence of devastating floods, wildfires and droughts, the debate about how to address the escalating climate crisis is increasingly distorted by big-business interests peddling false remedies and promoting deceptive narratives.
The fossil fuel industry is a prime example. In a desperate effort to deflect attention from their historical responsibility for climate change, oil and gas companies have been touting various speculative technological fixes. The stark reality is that these companies are engaging in a stalling tactic meant to enable them to keep polluting.
Given the urgency of the threat posed by climate change, we must rally behind the only real solution: a rapid, equitable and complete phaseout of all fossil fuels. Coal, oil and gas are the primary drivers of climate breakdown, accounting for more than 75 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions and nearly 90 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions.
Illustration: Mountain People
Yet the harm caused by fossil fuels is not limited to climate change. Fossil fuels and petrochemicals such as plastics, fertilizers and pesticides poison our air, water and food, and perpetuate environmental injustices. Air and water pollution from fossil fuels leads to countless deaths and illnesses globally, and the plastic pollution crisis is visible proof of the industry’s detrimental impact.
That is why reducing emissions is not enough. Mitigating the multifaceted environmental crises we face requires tackling its root cause: fossil fuels. A complete phaseout of oil, gas and coal represents our greatest opportunity to minimize the catastrophic effects of global warming, limit the average temperature increase to no more than 1.5°C, and safeguard our planet for future generations.
To this end, a growing coalition of governments, civil-society organizations, indigenous communities and concerned citizens around the world is rallying behind the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty. Representing an actionable solution to the climate crisis, this proposed treaty would put us on a path toward a sustainable future by leaving no room for oil and gas companies to continue their reckless activities.
The fossil fuel industry will not go down without a fight. This is evident in its latest greenwashing and delay tactic: the suggestion that we could reduce emissions through technologies such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) and carbon capture and use. Yet CCS currently captures less than 0.1 percent of global emissions, has a decades-long history of overpromising and under-delivering, and is inefficient, costly, and does nothing to accelerate the shift away from fossil fuels. Moreover, carbon-removal technologies that rely on CCS, such as bioenergy with CCS (BECCS) and direct air capture, pose significant risks, come with great uncertainties, and could impede more effective near-term measures.
Those profiting from business as usual have other powerful weapons in their arsenal. A new diversionary tactic gaining traction — primarily in the US and among other major polluters — is solar geoengineering, also known as solar radiation modification (SRM). Advocates of this highly speculative and risky technofix believe that by spraying reflective particles into the stratosphere or by manipulating clouds to “dim the sun,” they could mask some of global warming’s worst effects, at least temporarily.
This approach, however, represents the ultimate false solution — a large Band-Aid with potentially disastrous consequences, including the potential to alter global precipitation patterns. There is one additional huge concern: while carbon lingers in the atmosphere for thousands of years, sun-dimming particles in the stratosphere would dissipate within a year or less, necessitating constant renewal. Discontinuing solar geoengineering could trigger a catastrophic “termination shock,” causing global temperatures to rise so fast that humans and ecosystems could not adapt. In other words, this method would require indefinite maintenance and global governance.
Despite its flaws and risks, SRM is already distracting policymakers from the urgent task of phasing out fossil fuels. With the US and the EU researching and discussing multilateral solar-geoengineering governance, a theoretical climate intervention strategy largely relegated to science fiction has emerged as a real and present danger to climate action and environmental justice.
The correct approach to this high-risk technology is to prevent its development and deployment, as more than 400 leading academics from 50 countries suggested when they called for an international non-use agreement on solar geoengineering last year. Policymakers must heed these warnings, reject SRM, and refrain from wasting precious time contemplating non-solutions.
Governments play a crucial role in the fight for a safer climate and a sustainable future on this planet. Over the coming weeks and months, political leaders will have a chance to demonstrate true climate leadership at key events such as the UN Climate Ambition Summit in New York on Sept. 20 and the UN Climate Change Conference (COP28) in Dubai later this year. They must seize these opportunities to take meaningful steps toward climate justice.
For starters, global leaders must follow the lead of countries like Vanuatu and Tuvalu — as well as numerous cities, health institutions, academics and civil-society organizations around the world — and commit to working toward a robust and clear fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty. By ensuring that no loopholes are left open for the industry to exploit, policymakers can prevent oil, gas and coal producers from postponing the inevitable decline of the fossil-fuel-based economy.
Moreover, governments must stop supporting the fossil-fuel economy through subsidies for CCS and carbon-removal technologies, which merely serve as cover for further industry expansion and potentially doom us to a toxic future. At the same time, political leaders must heed the call for an international agreement preventing the development and deployment of solar geoengineering and should refrain from normalizing this untested and dangerous technology as a viable climate policy option.
Most importantly, we can and must embark on a rapid and equitable transition away from fossil fuels. Our leaders owe it to all peoples and future generations to address today’s climate emergency with real solutions. Dangerous distractions that hinder meaningful action must be rejected. The world is burning and there is no time to waste on illusory remedies.
Lili Fuhr is director of the fossil economy program at the Center for International Environmental Law.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
As the new year dawns, Taiwan faces a range of external uncertainties that could impact the safety and prosperity of its people and reverberate in its politics. Here are a few key questions that could spill over into Taiwan in the year ahead. WILL THE AI BUBBLE POP? The global AI boom supported Taiwan’s significant economic expansion in 2025. Taiwan’s economy grew over 7 percent and set records for exports, imports, and trade surplus. There is a brewing debate among investors about whether the AI boom will carry forward into 2026. Skeptics warn that AI-led global equity markets are overvalued and overleveraged
RSS