Nations at a Climate Summit agree to move away from fossil fuels

Toward Zero-Centimeter Global Warming: The Case for Rethinking Fossil Fuel Abundances in the 21st Century

The goal of the Paris Agreement is to prevent two degrees of warming, which would prevent temperatures from rising above 1.5 degrees Celsius. Staying below that lower threshold requires slashing greenhouse gas emissions down to net zero as soon as possible. You cannot get rid of all the greenhouse gas emissions without also abandoning fossil fuels.

This creates wiggle room that many leaders around the world — and particularly those representing countries that rely on fossil fuels to power their economies — are keen to exploit.

Al Jaber, who is chief executive of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, is but one example. The United States under President Joe Biden is one of them. Yet it supports calls to get rid of fossil fuels, while taking record amounts of oil out of the ground. India, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, is expanding renewable energy. But the nation — which has an ambition to represent the interests of poor countries — is also continuing to build coal-burning power plants, which supplied nearly three-quarters of its electricity last year.

Wealthy countries need to lead the way. This means not only slashing emissions and driving down the costs of clean-energy technologies, but also providing financial aid to help the poorest countries do their part. Yet world leaders have failed to come up with enough funds.

Crucially, more than 120 countries pledged to triple the world’s renewable-energy generation capacity by 2030. This commitment would provide a large step forward, in part because it focuses on near-term action rather than long-term hope.

It’s not certain, if countries follow through on the agreement. Scientists say that nations will need to slash their greenhouse gas emissions by roughly 43 percent this decade if they hope to limit total global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, compared to previous levels. Beyond that level, scientists say, humans will struggle to adapt to rising sea levels, wildfires, extreme storms and drought.

The new deal can not obligate any country to take action. Many politicians, environmentalists and business leaders hoped it would send a message to investors and policymakers that it is the beginning of the end of fossil fuels. Each nation is supposed to submit a detailed plan for how it will curb greenhouse gas emissions over the next two years. Wednesday’s agreement is meant to guide those plans.

“Through the night and the early hours of the morning we worked collectively for consensus,” said Mr. Al Jaber on Wednesday morning before a room full of applauding negotiators. I will roll up my sleeves. There is a basis to make change happen.

Climate Vulnerabilities and Clean Energy in the 21st Century: A Preliminary Report from the CIO and Environment Working Group on Clean Energy

There’s a lot of science underpinning these kinds of negotiations. The world, on average, is about 1.2 degrees Celsius hotter than it was before the industrial revolution. That may not seem like much but it is enough to cause more devastating hurricanes and fires while suck the water out of places that need it the most.

What would have been a historic deal to tackle a planetary crisis slipped out of reach at the eleventh hour. Climate-vulnerable countries along with environmental advocates scored some important wins with clean energy, despite the fact that some of the world’s oil and gas-rich countries did not participate in the negotiations.