Phasing out of All Fossil Fuels is Necessary— but Perhaps Unfeasible

China and the United States alone are responsible for over 45% of global emissions. This photograph titled “Industry” overlooks a US coal power plant in February of 2015, a year where the world released a record breaking 47 billion metric tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Photo by Dr. Matthias Ripp.

The Paris Agreement, adopted by 196 countries at the COP21 meeting in 2015, attempts to prevent average global temperatures from rising above two degrees Celsius and to achieve a climate neutral world by 2050. The agreement calls upon governments to spearhead economic and social transformation, and to revise implementation efforts every five years to meet the two goals. So far, efforts to increase the prevalence of zero carbon solutions have advanced with some success. But scientists and climate activists are championing for more action. Countries with “net zero” pledges are insufficient and enable greenwashing, giving the false impression that a government’s climate policies are more effective than they truly are.

A complete phase out of fossil fuels may be the sole way to prevent dangerous climate impacts from global warming and long-term shifts in weather patterns. From an economic standpoint, if climate policies are not enacted, climate change could end up costing the United States over 500 billion dollars annually in damages over deadly air pollution and water pollution among other setbacks. While some efforts have been made to create a plan for a phase out, countries and global bodies have yet to act in unison to enforce climate priorities.

The recent COP27 summit failed to explicitly address the goal of ending fossil fuel consumption, and instead called for “a phase out of inefficient fossil fuels subsidies.” To date, there has been no clear and precise definition of “inefficient” fossil fuel subsidies, leaving this issue to be easily manipulated and undermined. Every year, the United States spends over $20 billion to subsidize fossil fuels, despite being an active participant in the COP27’s call for a phase out. Fossil fuel subsidies lower the cost of energy production by providing massive tax breaks and government resources such as land and water at below market price to fossil fuel companies, meaning that renewables, which receive a third of the subsidies fossil fuels do, are left at a disadvantage in the energy market. 

The lack of a shared and internationally endorsed definition of what constitutes an “inefficient” fossil fuel subsidy creates a barrier to phasing out this climate-change inducing substance. Many countries have interpreted the term on their own record: Italy, Peru, and the UK’s Climate Change Committee consider all fossil fuel subsidies to be inefficient while Germany excludes industry support measures and Mexico favors tax exemptions when in support of consumption. These countries reason that removing all subsidies would limit their industry competitiveness in the global market. The International Energy Agency and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has also stated that in order for the world to reach the global climate targets determined by the Paris Climate Agreement, the exploration of oil, gas, or coal developments must come to a halt, given that our current existing fossil fuel projects are already more than what can be withstood. Without a phase out, things will only progress further. While there is now significantly more discussion around a phase out of fossil fuels, a solid plan has yet to materialize. 

However, there is one plan that addresses a complete phase out and has recently gained momentum. The Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty (FFNP) works to eliminate the threat of climate change by transitionally eliminating fossil fuels and replacing them with renewable energy. The FFNP first made headway in 2015 when South Pacific Islander leaders put together the original program known as the Suva Declaration on Climate Change, which sought to prohibit the expansion of fossil fuel extraction industries. Now, the proposal has expanded to the global stage, gaining international traction, and has been signed by over 200 environmental organizations including the WHO. 

The plan stands on three pillars: non-proliferation, fairness, and a peaceful transition. The non-proliferation element hopes to prevent further exploration and production of coal, oil and gas. In order to transition fairly, the Global Commission on Fossil fuels will continue to regulate the content of the treaty and recommend any changes, maintaining a balance between countries and ensuring an equitable transition for all participants. A peaceful transition is a necessity for a total phase out of fossil fuels to both fund the change and ensure the results are maximized. Moreover, it would require countries involved in the FFNP treaty to complete a phase out slowly by decreasing fossil fuel production by at least 6% per year. 

Currently, the FFNP is endorsed by the European Parliament, island nations in the South Pacific, World Health Organization, the Vatican, and thirteen cities in Canada, among others. However, the endorsements only imply support, not a commitment to action. The U.S. government alone supports the fossil fuel industry supplying various subsidies and positioning several tax code provisions that compensate domestic fossil fuel production. With the economic support from the government, the fossil fuel industry has no incentive to stop producing at such a high rate. Furthermore, without any legitimate movement or headway being made, the move towards a fossil fuel phase out will not occur.

While the majority of the scientific community argue that an international agreement limiting carbon emissions would yield beneficial results, 49% of conservatives insist there are advantages to fossil fuels when compared to renewable energy, and that the current system should remain the same or expand. With the active war in Ukraine, the current global energy crisis is at an all time high. A rapid transition to renewables and phase out of fossil fuels could hurt the global economy, which is already facing economic hardship. In addition to financial concerns, the timing of a phase out is another issue as a complete phase out will not be a quick and easy transition. The economist Jean Pisani-Ferry argues that further research must be done to determine if too quick a transition would create an adverse supply shock, which is when an event causes a sudden surge in production costs and by association, massive global inflation. 

The modern infrastructure for renewables is not yet ready to meet global demands, as investments made in the electrical grid need to increase by 50-70% by 2030 in order to increase the capacity and accommodate mismatches between supply and demand. As energy demand soared in November 2021, insufficient supply led to skyrocketing prices, which is only a small illustration of what could occur on a global scale. Without the additional funding, the grid cannot support the additional energy reserves needed to support an increase in energy usage, and the push for renewables may quickly fail. 

What has become clear is that while necessary, a complete phase out of fossil fuels may be impossible at this time, as the lack of international action implies global unwillingness to cooperate and move forward with a proper phase out plan. With the fossil fuel industry contributing heavily to the global economic sphere, our global fossil fuel addiction may be too hard to quit, as countries remain unwilling to give up their most prized possession in favor of saving the climate. 

Carol Davis is a staff writer at CPR and a first year at Barnard College. She is a native New Yorker who made the strenuous move from the East Side to the West Side, and is currently undecided on her major.