Half a century ago, faced with the threat of nuclear catastrophe, the world came together and agreed the nonproliferation treaty. Andrew Simms and Peter Newell argue that we now need to take the same approach to fossil fuels.
How did government respond to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change conclusion in its special report on 1.5°C that only “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society” can deliver the globally agreed target for stopping climate breakdown? In the UK, fracking for fossil fuels was given the green light, plans were announced for a huge new road in the south-east, incentives for electric vehicles withered, the expansion of Heathrow airport is still going ahead and Gatwick airport is trying to expand too by bringing a backup runway into use. It’s like seeing a sign that says “Danger: vertical cliff drop” and pulling on your best running shoes to take a flying leap.
Something isn’t working. The head of the oil company Shell responded to the new climate science warning by clarifying that “Shell’s core business is, and will be for the foreseeable future, very much in oil and gas.” BP announced new North Sea oil projects. Immediate choices are being made with blank disregard for avoiding climate breakdown.
A line in the sand
Climate negotiations and national commitments are simply not moving fast enough to meet the older 2°C climate target, let alone 1.5°C. Global demand for coal, oil and gas are all continuing to grow, with fossil fuels accounting for 81% of energy use. Worryingly, the International Energy Agency projects total fossil fuel use rising for decades still to come, smashing all climate targets.
A new line in the sand is needed to underpin the existing climate agreement, to exert influence over the immediate choices of policymakers. At the very least, the science should mandate a moratorium in rich countries on any further expansion of the fossil fuel industry, or any infrastructure dependent on it.
An international moratorium could take the form of a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty. The threat of nuclear catastrophe provides a precedent for how, quickly, to stop a bad situation getting worse. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), agreed just over 50 years ago between 1965 and 1968, was a triumph of rapid diplomacy, at the height of cold war mistrust, and in the face of serious security concerns. It provides a promising precedent in terms of the speed with which the agreement was concluded, and broadly speaking, a useful model for a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty.