Search

In IPCC pathways limiting warming to 1.5˚C, global coal power generation declines rapidly, due to its emissions intensity and substitutability. However, at the national level, we find that in countries highly dependent on coal generation - China, India and South Africa - this translates to a decline twice as fast as achieved historically for any power technology in any country, relative to system size. To explore a more societally feasible balance of mitigation, we constrain an integrated assessment model to the Powering Past Coal Alliance’s differentiated pace of phaseout, by 2030 in OECD/EU and 2050 elsewhere. We find that limiting warming to 1.5˚C then requires CO2 emissions reductions in the Global North to be roughly 50% faster than if this socio-political reality is neglected. This additional mitigation is focused in Europe and the USA, in transport and industry, and implies faster decline in global oil and gas production.

Carbon emissions—and hence fossil fuel combustion—must decline rapidly if warming is to be held below 1.5 or 2 °C. Yet fossil fuels are so deeply entrenched in the broader economy that a rapid transition poses the challenge of significant transitional disruption. Fossil fuels must be phased out even as access to energy services for basic needs and for economic development expands, particularly in developing countries. Nations, communities, and workers that are economically dependent on fossil fuel extraction will need to find a new foundation for livelihoods and revenue. These challenges are surmountable. In principle, societies could undertake a decarbonization transition in which they anticipate the transitional disruption, and cooperate and contribute fairly to minimize and alleviate it. Indeed, if societies do not work to avoid that disruption, a decarbonization transition may not be possible at all. Too many people may conclude they will suffer undue hardship, and thus undermine the political consensus required to undertake an ambitious transition. The principles and framework laid out here are offered as a contribution to understanding the nature of the potential impacts of a transition, principles for equitably sharing the costs of avoiding them, and guidance for prioritizing which fossil resources can still be extracted.

This paper examines the past, present and possible futures of OPEC’s engagement with the issue of climate change. OPEC’s early identification of climate change within the frame of its existing battles with consuming countries led it to adopt an approach of confrontation. This paper argues that OPEC thereby both deprived itself of an opportunity to influence the shape of climate solutions and damaged its reputation for solidarity with other developing countries. Today, with significant technological, political and scientific momentum for a transition away from fossil fuels, OPEC members face serious risks that may only be mitigated by urgently transitioning their economies away from dependence on oil. Given the challenges of such a move, international support would be highly beneficial– support that will not be forthcoming unless OPEC sheds its negative reputation by taking meaningful action. This paper explores alternative approaches to climate change, focusing on oil supply, through which OPEC could act on climate while addressing some of its strategic concerns.

Equity issues have long been debated within international climate politics, focused on fairly distributing reductions in territorial emissions and fossil fuel consumption. There is a growing recognition among scholars and policymakers that curbing fossil fuel supply (as well as demand) can be a valuable part of the climate policy toolbox; this raises the question of where and how the tool should be applied. This paper explores how to equitably manage the social dimensions of a rapid transition away from fossil fuel extraction. Fossil fuel extraction leads to benefits for some people (such as extraction workers) and harms for others (such as pollution-affected communities). A transition must respect and uphold the rights of both groups, while also staying within climate limits, as climate impacts will fall most heavily on the world’s poor. This paper begins by reviewing how extraction affects economies and communities and the different transitional challenges they face. Based on that review, it then examines three common equity approaches – economic efficiency, meeting development needs, and effort-sharing. Drawing lessons from the strengths and weaknesses of these approaches, the paper proposes five principles as a basis for equitably curbing fossil fuel extraction within climate limits: (1) Phase out global extraction at pace consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C; (2) Enable a just transition for workers and communities; (3) Curb extraction consistent with environmental justice; (4) Reduce extraction fastest where doing so will have the least social costs; (5) Share transition costs fairly, according to ability to bear those costs. Key policy insights:Fossil fuel extraction is unlikely to be a viable path to development because the Paris Agreement goals require most fossil fuel use to be ended within a generation;Extraction should be phased out fastest in diversified, wealthier economies that can better absorb the transitional impacts;Governments of extracting countries should enact ambitious industrial policy to diversify their economies, alongside economic and employment policies to enable a just transition;The costs of a just transition should be borne by those most able to bear it: poorer countries can reasonably demand financial support. Fossil fuel extraction is unlikely to be a viable path to development because the Paris Agreement goals require most fossil fuel use to be ended within a generation; Extraction should be phased out fastest in diversified, wealthier economies that can better absorb the transitional impacts; Governments of extracting countries should enact ambitious industrial policy to diversify their economies, alongside economic and employment policies to enable a just transition; The costs of a just transition should be borne by those most able to bear it: poorer countries can reasonably demand financial support.

The article Whose carbon is burnable? Equity considerations in the allocation of a “right to extract,” written by Sivan Kartha, Simon Caney, Navroz K. Dubash, and Greg Muttitt, was originally published electronically on the publisher’s internet portal (currently SpringerLink) on 24 May 2018.

An international campaign was waged questioning the benefits of BP's Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline in an effort to avoid a “zone of sacrifice” there. This article is an offshoot of that effort and explains the contemporary struggle over the pipeline project. The authors describe the project's background and evaluate the actual and potential impacts of the project in which they consider eight areas. They also assess BP's capacity to confront resistance to the pipeline.