The Climate Change and Fossil Fuels (CLIFF) Project funded by the European Research Council Advanced Grant to Prof. Joyeeta Gupta (project number 101020082) examined the equitable options for leaving fossil fuel underground (LFFU) and the role of large investors, fossil fuel companies and the low- and middle-income countries with large fossil fuel reserves. The conference presented the results of the project in collaboration with the Centre for Sustainable Development Studies of the University of Amsterdam and discussed these with key stakeholders and scholars. During the breaks, the Virtual Reality and Interactive Atlas counter were available for participants, who could also enjoy a poster display and a ‘wall’ of 44 policy briefs.
The Conference was held on 24-26 November at the University of Amsterdam and was attended in total by approximately 400 people (see Annex 1). Professor Isa Baud was the Chair of the first two days, and Associate Professor Anke Wonneberger chaired the last day. The Conference Agenda is in Annex 2.
With the US withdrawing from the Paris Agreement for the second time, attacking Venezuela for its oil to promote US ‘energy security’, reducing funding from climate scientists, backtracking on its UN Commitments, and calling for diminishing the role of multilateralism in a proposed world of regional politics, the world’s foremost superpower is undermining the global work on climate change. CLIFF sees this as a short-term challenge that does not undermine the seriousness of the climate problem or the need for multilateralism to address this problem.
Against this sobering background, the conference reached the following conclusions:
- There are many narratives that keep fossil fuel alive – overshoot politics, net zero, energy security, “not my mandate”, climate justice is normative, no one wants to sacrifice, focus on the carbon footprint of people, leapfrogging hampers development, fossil fuel is profitable, petrostates are powerful, phasing out fossil fuel is neo-colonial and will not happen and so on. Potential counter narratives include down with overshoot politics, true zero, energy trilemma does not exist, it is everybody’s mandate as a citizen, climate justice is a necessary condition, satisfice or embrace sacrifice, focus on the scope 3 of companies, leapfrogging emancipates countries, fossil fuel profits will be undermined by having to pay blood money to address the social cost of carbon, electrostates are powerful, phasing out fossil fuel is decolonial and will happen suddenly. Climate change will become an existential risk for capitalism requiring a rapid transition; pre-empting the delay can enhance action. It is critical to identify the science-based and empirically sound counter narratives and to share these counter narratives with professional and social movements and others to create a messaging that undermines the power of the fossil fuel empire and heralds a new era of peace, environmental security and human wellbeing. Real change requires appealing to rational and emotional side of people. Using satire as a tool can be helpful in this.
- We live in an era of cumulative climate injustices hidden behind the neutralized language (e.g. market mechanisms, net zero, overshoot); this has culminated in crossing the proposed just boundary of 1ºC and we are at the brink of crossing the legally binding and safe boundary of 1.5ºC. Without a just approach nationally and internationally which helps everyone (not just the rich) participate in the energy (food and resource) transformation, it will be impossible to address the climate change problem – and then everyone suffers. A just approach requires addressing the driving causes of climate change, adopting boundaries to define a carbon budget, ensuring that some of the budget is reserved for meeting basic needs and equitably sharing the rest; liability for those who cause harm to others and a just transition for labour in the to-be-obsolete sectors; and equitable sharing of responsibilities.
- Focusing on phasing out fossil fuel is essential to addressing climate change; however, linking this to other issues (e.g. agriculture, chemical industry) is critical to create the mass movement needed for systemic change; moreover, linking the climate issue with other environmental issues (e.g. biodiversity) and international secretariats and linking this to other issues (e.g. debt, trade) outside the climate COPs is necessary; undermining the pillars that support the fossil fuel industry is critical (e.g. advertising).
- Multilateralism is under attack; it is not dead. The climate COPs may be slow but nevertheless very powerful as they are trying to change the system. They need all the support they can get as strategic interdependence is critical for our collective survival.
- Science and knowledge are not enough; scientific institutions are themselves locked-into fossil fuel dependency; Science also faces the threat of rising mis and disinformation; techno-optimists are less likely to change their behaviour. This can only be countered by working on all fronts at the same time; fighting misinformation and disinformation; undermining techno-optimism; challenging scientific institutions; and participating in social movements for change.
- Fossil fuel businesses are very rich and powerful, often beyond public scrutiny (e.g. National Oil Companies). However, they are no longer needed for energy security; the energy security framing is promoted by fossil fuel business itself. Human wellbeing and security are promoted better through a different system of much lower energy demand and supply from socially and ecologically sustainable renewable energy. The trilemma no longer exists, except to denialists.
- Fossil fuel businesses are finding new opportunities in the rising war and AI industry. This requires promoting both peace and sustainable AI to reduce these future opportunities.
- Fossil fuel businesses and businesses using fossil fuel need to be held responsible for their scope 3 emissions; one court has recognized this – it is time to make this idea a strong social movement.
- States that continue to use fossil fuel may be committing an internationally wrongful action; and should cease to cause significant harm to others.
- Investors in fossil fuel – pension funds, philanthropies, banks and others – by continuing to finance fossil fuels and failing to take strong action, are taking major long-term risks with the resources of the public. Pressure on these actors directly and indirectly through regulation and litigation is critical.
- Developing country importers of fossil fuel can find that investing in renewables and a different development paradigm reduces their long-term dependence on fuel markets, enhances their energy security and reduces the claims on their foreign exchange reserves. Developing country exporters could learn from the cautionary tale of Botswana whose diamonds are less needed now that lab-grown chemical diamonds are available that it may be smarter to invest in renewables rather than in converting stranded resources into potentially stranded assets.
- The interactive atlas of the fossil fuel empire shows where its strengths but also its weaknesses lie. For example, global fossil fuel reserves such as coal are concentrated in a small number of countries, making them pivotal to the global energy transition.
- The stranded asset index shows that the “Global South will bear most of the risks of stranded assets, should they follow the business-as-usual development model”.