The Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty
The climate crisis is a global emergency but we are not taking drastic action. Is there a way to change this?
After the COVID-19 pandemic, you may have thought that we would have grasped the concept of an emergency. Within months, governments managed to form task forces and find crisis budgets to fund urgent action to a profound threat to human health and society. Private companies were utilised to provide technology and logistical support to vaccine roll out and hospital supplies. In short, there was a huge problem and we did something about it. Granted, action was not perfectly timed or planned but it did happen.
So why is climate action still stalled by avoidance and the belief that we can have a snail-paced transition to a green society in order to give our economies a chance to slowly adapt? Government action hasn’t grasped the urgency needed to drastically change the way we live in our societies.
So what kind of action is needed?
The climate crisis presents such an existential threat to humanity and the planet that some leading scientists and thinkers have called for fossil fuels to be treated on the same level of danger as nuclear weapons.
By this, I mean that there are now calls for a binding mechanism to limit fossil fuel production with the ultimate goal of completely phasing them out. The fact that this should be binding is key. This is very similar to the approach taken in the 20th century to limit nuclear weapons production and ultimately ‘disarm’ such a destructive tool.
The campaign for the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty began in 2015 with leaders from the Pacific calling for a binding international mechanism for the phasing out of fossil fuels. The Paris Agreement doesn’t specifically mention fossil fuels nor the need to halt their production.
The Suva Declaration On Climate Change, which came from the 2015 Pacific Islands Development Forum Third Annual Summit called for:
“a new global dialogue on the implementation of an international moratorium on the development and expansion of fossil fuel extracting industries, particularly the construction of new coal mines, as an urgent step towards decarbonising the global economy.”
Since 2015, this idea has particularly been taken on by developing countries. Developed countries, which cause the most environmental damage, have been less forthcoming although non-governmental actors have encouraged this campaign.
What can we learn from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons?
When considering the effectiveness of the potential Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, we can also look directly at the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, often abbreviated as NPT.
NPT came into force in 1970 and aimed to prevent increasing development of nuclear weapons and to ultimately work towards complete nuclear disarmament. It also promoted the ability for countries to peacefully cooperate through non-weaponised uses of nuclear energy such as for energy.
At this point, you may have a very valid thought: nuclear weapons still exist. NPT hasn’t been completely successful at full disarmament but it has provided an international mechanism which, alongside other mechanisms, has made countries far more accountable for their nuclear programmes. Arguably, a similarly imperfect outcome for the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty would still have a vital positive impact on the current climate trajectory.
Furthermore, the NPT was highly victorious in another area. In a time of emotional fever over a potential nuclear apocalypse, it created an international discourse which led to collective action. Is this not exactly what we need now, as climate anxiety is growing exponentially and no one can guarantee what the world will look like in the coming decades? We are facing an apocalypse of society as we know it.
It is often very important to look at the language being used in political conversations and campaigns. The campaign for the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty uses language to make their case, clearly stating:
Fossil fuels are weapons of mass destruction.
Nuclear weaponry is often said to stoke the existing vast power imbalances globally and regionally, increasing tensions and the potential for conflict. Similarly, fossil fuels are arguably linked to neo-colonial geopolitical structures and relations. If a similar society-wide dialogue can be fostered around fossil fuel non-proliferation as was achieved around nuclear disarmament, the treaty is far more likely to be successful.
The alarming tensions between the US and Soviet Union were key in the drive to the NPT as the world realised it would not survive the fall out. The world is now in a similar position. We are already experiencing terrifying temperature changes and natural disasters. Climate destruction and collapse is upon us. The need for drastic action may lead to a similar global agreement on fossil fuel use.
So could this really work?
Of course, it is impossible to entirely know how effective an idea would be but the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty is certainly a strong prospect for ensuring climate action. That said, there are significant hurdles. First and foremost is the need for the most powerful, developed countries to get on board. This falls into the same trap as most climate action: big emitters like the US are reluctant to act and lose their economic advantage. Countries often like to make promises but shy away from binding treaties.
However, the bright side of this is that countries will be happier to support such a treaty if others are on board. It’s like a domino effect: getting the first one to move is often the hardest.
Furthermore, as I mentioned, we have the right climate for action. Faced with global insecurity and multifaceted crises as we have never known, the demand for climate action from the public has never been higher.
If you would like to read more about the campaign for the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty or support the initiative, you can read more here.
