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
The US election result will significantly impact its foreign policy with global implications. As tensions escalate in the Taiwan Strait and conflicts elsewhere draw attention away from the western Pacific, Taiwan was closely monitoring the election, as many believe that whoever won would confront an increasingly assertive China, especially with speculation over a potential escalation in or around 2027. A second Donald Trump presidency naturally raises questions concerning the future of US policy toward China and Taiwan, with Trump displaying mixed signals as to his position on the cross-strait conflict. US foreign policy would also depend on Trump’s Cabinet and
The Taiwanese have proven to be resilient in the face of disasters and they have resisted continuing attempts to subordinate Taiwan to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Nonetheless, the Taiwanese can and should do more to become even more resilient and to be better prepared for resistance should the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) try to annex Taiwan. President William Lai (賴清德) argues that the Taiwanese should determine their own fate. This position continues the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) tradition of opposing the CCP’s annexation of Taiwan. Lai challenges the CCP’s narrative by stating that Taiwan is not subordinate to the
Republican candidate and former US president Donald Trump is to be the 47th president of the US after beating his Democratic rival, US Vice President Kamala Harris, in the election on Tuesday. Trump’s thumping victory — winning 295 Electoral College votes against Harris’ 226 as of press time last night, along with the Republicans winning control of the US Senate and possibly the House of Representatives — is a remarkable political comeback from his 2020 defeat to US President Joe Biden, and means Trump has a strong political mandate to implement his agenda. What does Trump’s victory mean for Taiwan, Asia, deterrence
The return of US president-elect Donald Trump to the White House has injected a new wave of anxiety across the Taiwan Strait. For Taiwan, an island whose very survival depends on the delicate and strategic support from the US, Trump’s election victory raises a cascade of questions and fears about what lies ahead. His approach to international relations — grounded in transactional and unpredictable policies — poses unique risks to Taiwan’s stability, economic prosperity and geopolitical standing. Trump’s first term left a complicated legacy in the region. On the one hand, his administration ramped up arms sales to Taiwan and sanctioned
RSS