climate change energy

The fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty

“Today we face an immense confrontation between fossil capital and human life. And we must choose a side. Any human being knows that we must choose life.” 

That was Colombian president Gustavo Petro at COP28, announcing that his country would be endorsing the idea of a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty. They were the 12th country to join, and over a hundred cities and regions are committed. It’s the kind of statement I’d love to hear from a British Prime Minister, instead of green-lighting new investment rounds in the North Sea.

A Non-Proliferation Treaty is one of several ideas for cooperating internationally on the end of fossil fuels. As the name suggests, at this point it’s about not expanding, like the nuclear weapons treaty that inspired it.

Introduced in 2022 by Vanuatu, many of the signatories so far have been small island states. The idea also has the support of the European Parliament, the WHO and a wide range of organisations.

It’s an idea to watch. It’s modelled on an existing treaty, and it draws an explicit parallel between the urgency of nuclear weapons and fossil fuels – both technologies that endanger life and need to be taken seriously. It targets expansion, leaving room for transition. And it targets the real problem directly: fossil fuels. As we know, it took decades before the UN climate talks finally mentioned the main issue.

On the other hand, did the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty really work? It never progressed to the next stage of disarmament, meaning the treaty has kind of served to protect an elite club of nuclear powers. They get to keep their own weapons while wagging a finger at anyone who wants to join them at the table. Some countries never ratified it. Others have been found in breach of its terms. I think it would be unfair to say it was a failure, and we can’t compare our world to an alternative history where it never happened. But does it present an inspiring model for restraining fossil fuels? I’m not sure.

At this point however, I’d support any initiative that seeks common ground around what one might think is pretty basic: can we all agree to stop making it worse?

4 comments

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.