Hope is contagious and science is king: 10 big lessons on ending the fossil fuel era

Hope is contagious and science is king: 10 big lessons on ending the fossil fuel era

After a landmark climate meeting in Santa Marta, Colombia, where nearly 60 countries gathered to work out how to end the production and use of planet-heating fossil fuels, what have we learned?

The single most important thing to come from the first Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels conference, in Santa Marta, has been a change of mood. Whereas the UN’s annual climate summits, or Cops, can often feel stuck and frustrating, with countries circling the same topics without resolution, nearly every delegate in Colombia felt liberated.

“The mood here in Santa Marta is euphoric,” said Tzeporah Berman, the founder and chair of the fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty initiative. “After years stuck in endless debates about whether to phase out fossil fuels, finally we are focusing on the how. We are no longer fighting for recognition of the problem, but creating solutions. It’s like watching a dam break – all that pent-up experience, knowledge and passion suddenly flowing into concrete ways to phase out dirty fuels. The hope is contagious.”

In a world of climate denial and misinformation, Santa Marta was a shining example of science-led decision making. Hundreds of experts, academics and scientists inspired and informed the launch of three major initiatives on the energy transition.

It reminded many participants of an earlier, more enlightened age of global climate negotiations, which would always start with an update of the latest science. Over the years, however, oil-producing countries such as Saudi Arabia have vetoed or watered down UN science warnings, while introducing controversial solutions, including offsets and carbon capture and storage, that have been promoted by the petroleum industry as an excuse to continue expanding production. At Santa Marta, delegates called these “false solutions” and focused on the core of the problem: eliminating fossil fuels.

Climate activists have long argued the Cop process has been crippled by a focus almost solely on the demand side of the problem. The responsibility of emission cuts was dumped on to consumers, while oil, gas and coal companies were given free rein to ramp up production and profits. At Santa Marta, the balance was shifted back to the supply side. Some speakers said the majority of the world’s emissions, which continue to break records almost every year, were released by the drilling, processing and transportation of fossil fuels.

Rather than condemning petrostates, this was treated as an unhealthy dependency and ways were examined to break the pattern of addiction.

The urgent need to address the debt crisis was one of the clearest messages to emerge from Santa Marta. Many countries in the global south that want to invest in renewables are unable to do so because they spend a huge proportion of their foreign exchange earnings on high interest repayments and imports of fossil fuels.

Banks and bond markets provide low-interest loans to fossil fuel industries – most of which are based in wealthy nations – without accounting for the associated risks of climate instability and stranded assets. Many participants at Santa Marta said this showed an energy transition had to come with changes to the global financial architecture, as well as the redirection of government subsidies away from the petroleum industry and towards renewables and debt reduction.

There were few open disagreements among the “coalition of the willing” assembled at Santa Marta, but there are differences of opinion on how to achieve the desired end of a fossil-fuel-free society. The Colombian hosts set no guidelines on what, if any, legal framework should be adopted.

One longstanding proposal is for a new fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty, which would be modelled along the lines of human rights treaties and the international land mine treaty. But this is anathema to some countries, who argue that the world already has global climate agreements and just needs to put them into action.

There are also a confusing number of existing pacts and pledges, reflecting the complexity of shifting the global economy to a low-carbon footing and the desire of some countries to stamp their identity on projects they are funding. The danger is that, instead of working harmoniously together, nations could splinter into smaller groups.

One word that came up time and again was roadmap, or in other words, a clear plan for transitioning away from fossil fuels. One global roadmap will not be enough. Every country will need its own, and there are two key requirements: the destination, which should be a full phase-out of fossil fuels; and a timetable, because with global temperatures continuing to break records, time is fast running out.

Investor-state dispute settlement is a legal mechanism contained in many trade agreements, which allows companies and financiers to sue governments in secret tribunals for their policies. It has been used by fossil fuel companies to sue governments that resolved to reduce dependency on coal, oil or gas, or enacted measures boosting renewables: companies have demanded and, in at least $100bn worth of cases, received compensation for loss of earnings.

Climate activists, experts, and many developing countries want an end to ISDS, which they say is a serious legal and financial obstacle to a cleaner world.

If the world is to transition away from fossil fuels, there must be a new renewable energy economy to transition to. That will require the construction of billions of wind turbines, solar panels, electric vehicles and batteries. All of this requires components made of critical minerals – metals such as copper, cobalt, nickel and harder-to-get materials such as gallium, germanium and niobium.

Mining for some of these has resulted in horrific human rights abuses and despoliation of natural landscapes. Activists in Santa Marta raised concerns over the plight of workers and Indigenous people, and the need for proper regulations and a clean, fair transition for local communities.

Indigenous peoples protect the vast majority of the world’s remaining terrestrial carbon sinks and areas of biodiversity, but have long struggled to secure a seat on the top table of UN climate negotiations. At Santa Marta, for the first time, Indigenous representatives drew up their proposals in an autonomous debating space and participated in the high-level segments.

It did not satisfy everyone, but it gave leaders an opportunity to tell ministers directly that they needed to pay more heed to Indigenous knowledge, the protection of Indigenous rights and the importance of nature in the transition. “Our territories are fundamental to maintaining life on this planet. Where our rights are respected, nature is protected,” said Oswaldo Muca Castizo, the general coordinator of the Organization of Indigenous Peoples of the Colombian Amazon.