Citizens up and down the UK are heading to the polls on July 4 – and though it has yet to feature as a campaign priority for the major parties, climate policy is a clear dividing line between the two main parties: the Conservatives and Labour.  

While the Conservatives have diluted existing climate policies and pushed ahead with more oil and gas extraction in the North Sea, Labour have said they will halt new licensing in the North Sea and set up a new entity, GB Energy, to scale up clean generation and drive down bills.  

Given this dividing line, the upcoming election is set to see a clash between the forces of climate obstructionism – those organisations, individuals and media outlets that seek to delay, derail or discredit climate policy – and those that advocate for it.  

Right-wing pushback on EU’s green laws misjudges rural views

But climate obstructionism is not a new phenomenon within the UK. Ever since climate change was put on the agenda of UK politics by then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in a UN speech in 1989, there has been an orchestrated attempt to weaken and dilute measures to address global heating.  

The approach and strategies adopted by climate sceptic groups such as the Global Warming Policy Foundation and the Institute of Economic Affairs and key allies in the right-wing media, such as the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph, have shifted from disputing the science of climate change to exaggerating the economic costs of climate action and downplaying the benefits. 

Influencing public perceptions 

Our research shows that climate obstructionism in the UK is highly dynamic and constantly adapting to a rapidly changing policy environment by seeking to shape public perceptions of the feasibility and desirability of climate policies.   

Those working to increase policy ambition on climate change must confront climate obstructionism in the run-up to the UK general election and beyond it. Ahead of July 4, this is what to watch out for.  

With our colleagues Dr Ruth McKie of De Montfort University and Dr James Painter of the Reuters Institute at the University of Oxford, we identified the main channels through which climate obstructionism operates in the UK and the organisations that maintain it for a recent publication for the Climate Change Social Science Network (CSSN).  

Climate obstructionism is ever-present across the UK media. Traditional media outlets, like the Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail, have persistently opposed climate policy, providing platforms for individuals with direct links to fossil fuel firms or organised sceptic groups like the Global Warming Policy Foundation (now rebranded as Net Zero Watch) and giving voice to politicians who are part of the Net Zero Scrutiny Group.  

Climate, development and nature: three urgent priorities for next UK government

More recently these outlets have peddled misinformation around key green technologies, such as wind and solar farms, heat pumps and electric vehicles, while demonising the campaigns of climate activists and seeking to discredit their supporters. Newer media outlets, such as GB News, often give a platform to climate deniers or airtime to misinformation and then share clips across social media.  

As July 4 draws closer, these outlets will scrutinise the main parties’ climate policies. We can anticipate that Labour’s policies will be painted as a threat to national security, jobs and to households already facing a cost-of-living crisis.  

Some Conservatives and the Reform Party will be given an opportunity to dispute the urgency and necessity of climate policy, in particular net zero emissions, given the latter has called for a national referendum about whether to abandon the goal altogether. More often than not, these lines of attack of prospective policies will reflect obstructionist talking points, which overstate the costs of climate action, while ignoring the costs of inaction, and downplay the UK’s role in the climate crisis relative to other countries such as China.  

Fossil fuel lobbying 

Climate obstructionism in the UK is also maintained through the political power of the fossil fuel industry which makes recurring threats of job losses or to move its investments elsewhere to avoid stronger policy. These often land with politicians due to the perceived centrality of these companies to growth and prosperity.  

Party donations – from fossil fuel firms or those who benefit from their expansion – to individual politicians or political parties are pivotal for providing access and a say in determining the shape and scope of policy. In 2022, the Conservatives received £3.5 million in donations from those with direct links to fossil fuel production while Labour has also accepted donations from large polluters. Tightening the regulations around party donations, and making them more transparent, could help curtail climate obstructionism.  

Climate obstructionism is also advanced through institutional channels. There are a myriad of opportunities for fossil fuel interests to gain access or shape policy outcomes in the UK. All Party Parliamentary Groups (APPGs) are effective fora for obstructionist actors to lobby politicians and shape policy – often without breaking any rules.  

Access is also secured through an ever-revolving door between industry and government and the use of secondments. Since 2011, an estimated 127 former oil and gas employees have gone into top government roles. The next government could introduce ‘cool off’ periods for those leaving government and seeking to enter it from industry to address this issue. 

UN chief calls on governments to ban fossil fuel ads

As the urgency of addressing the climate crisis becomes starker with each passing week, and the need to move rapidly away from fossil fuels becomes ever clearer, those that benefit from maintaining the status quo will step up their obstructionism.  

Delivering a just transition to a net zero economy not only requires citizens to be able to engage in an informed manner with proposals to address the climate crisis, it also requires that the democratic process is not compromised by those interests that want to prolong dependence on the fossil fuels driving the climate crisis.  

Whichever party wins on July 4, they will have a critical role to play in ensuring the UK does its fair share in addressing the climate crisis within a closing window to deliver effective action. We cannot afford to allow climate obstructionists to jeopardise this vital opportunity to change path and raise ambition. 

The post UK general election: Watch out for climate obstructionism   appeared first on Climate Home News.

In recent weeks, record drought has pushed the Amazon river to its lowest level in over a century affecting nearly half a million people and causing severe damage to ecosystems including the death of more than 100 river dolphins from high water temperatures.

The big elephant in the room in is fossil fuels, the main driver of these climate impacts, which are responsible for over 90% of carbon dioxide emissions.

The expansion of fossil fuels also threatens millions of vulnerable people and tropical forests across the three basins.

Climate diplomats pay tribute to Pete Betts, EU negotiator who helped land Paris Agreement

Data from Earth Insight says that planned oil and gas blocks overlap with roughly 65 million hectares in the Amazon – an area the size of France. In the Congo, the figure is even bigger, 72 million and in Southeast Asia its 35 million.

The combination of exploiting fossil fuels and other industry activities driving deforestation with rising global temperatures could cause these ecosystems in these basins to collapse.

Breaching these tipping points could see these lush ecosystems transition into dry and degraded savannas unable to support biodiversity and releasing vast amounts of carbon dioxide.

But there is hope. Remarkably, Ecuador became the first country last August to hold a referendum where voters overwhelmingly backed limiting oil exploitation in the mega-diverse Yasuní National Park.

Small islands struggle to get help from UN’s flagship climate fund

Despite facing the brunt of the climate emergency and having less responsibility for causing it, countries in the Global South appear to be leading the charge to confront it.

The Colombian government, which has been pushing for an end to oil development in the Amazon, has announced that it would not approve new oil and gas exploration projects and joined the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, and the  Powering Past Coal Alliance.

Antigua and Barbuda and Timor-Leste recently joined a growing number of governments, cities and other actors pushing for the negotiation of a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty.

This type of leadership required to end fossil fuel expansion, equitably phase out existing production and foster international cooperation to accelerate a transition is critical.

World Bank controversy sends loss and damage talks into overtime

Meanwhile, the UK, USA, Canada, Australia and Norway are responsible for half of the planned expansion from new oil and gas fields through 2050, despite their special responsibility and capacity to act given their historical contribution to global heating. BP, Shell and ExxonMobil have also recently scaled back their efforts to back renewable energy.

These developments ignore the warnings from the  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientists and the International Energy Agency, which say there can be no new oil and gas fields approved or new coal-fired power stations to limit warming to 1.5°C.

Rich countries and corporations need to lead the transition away from fossil fuel projects at home and work with countries in the Global South to equitably phase down fossil fuels and finance renewable energy alternatives.

China’s Belt and Road gets ‘green’ reboot and spending boost

International cooperation is required to establish a moratorium on all industrial activity in primary and priority forests in these areas until 2050 to protect critical ecosystems and while setting up adequate financing mechanisms like debt relief, payments for environmental services and redirecting subsidies to support countries to shift away from extractive industries.

The Global North must support developing countries with the transition. In Colombia, if national policymakers do not respond proactively to the global energy transition, the country could face lost economic output of more than USD 88 billion (or 27% of 2019 GDP) between now and 2050 in a world that de-carbonises in line with the Paris Agreement.

This is not only about reducing emissions but also supporting countries in the Global South with a just and orderly energy transition and managing the fiscal risks and restructuring of economies dependent on fossil fuels.

Polish election result improves prospects for EU climate ambition

Led by the richest countries, public subsidies to fossil fuels, which reached a record of US$7 trillion last year, must be drastically reduced and redirected to supporting renewable energy, reducing deforestation and boosting climate resilience in poorer countries.

The former UK prime minister, Gordon Brown, is calling for a US$25 billion global windfall levy on fossil fuel profits paid by the richest petrostates including Norway and the Gulf states, a mere 3% of the export earnings of these major producers.

At the UN climate talks (COP28) next month in Dubai, all countries must support a global commitment and specific dates to phase-out fossil fuels.

Rich countries should honour their pledges in 2021 to end international public finance for fossil fuels which continues to run into the billions of dollars.

Equally, the world’s 60 largest banks, which have poured $5.5 trillion into the fossil fuel industry since 2015 must align their financing with the 1.5°C limit.

The Global North and its corporations need to step up. Crucially, there is a brighter future possible as staying below 1.5°C would save the global economy US$12 trillion by 2050 and would create double the amount of jobs as would be lost in the fossil fuel industry.

While unlikely leaders in the Global South are taking the baton, the Global North is dithering with dire consequences for us all.

Guy Edwards is a PhD student at Sussex University, a former senior consultant at the Inter-American Development Bank and co-author of A Fragmented Continent: Latin America and the Global Politics of Climate Change.

Peter Newell is Professor of International Relations at the University of Sussex, co-founder and research director of the Rapid Transition Alliance and author of Power Shift: The Global Political Economy of Energy Transitions.

The post Saving the Three Basins means stopping fossil fuel expansion appeared first on Climate Home News.

We need a new approach which puts front and centre the increasingly obvious need to fairly leave the majority of fossil fuel reserves in the ground.

The science couldn’t be clearer. In a special report last year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) advised carbon emissions must be cut 45% by 2030 to hold global temperature rise below 1.5C.

At the time of writing, however, global demand for coal, oil and gas are all growing, with fossil fuels accounting for 81% of energy use. The International Energy Agency projects that total fossil fuel use will rise for decades to come.

Analysis by think-tank Carbon Tracker suggests that even to keep warming below 2C, 80% of coal, oil and gas reserves are now unburnable. What to do?

Four countries have declared climate emergencies, yet give billions to fossil fuels

In a paper in Climate Policy, we make the case for a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty (NPT). Taking its cue from the non-proliferation treaty for nuclear weapons concluded after just three years in 1968, a fossil fuel version could have three pillars.

These parallel those of the nuclear NPT: non-proliferation (an agreement not to exploit new reserves), disarmament (the managed decline of existing fossil fuel infrastructure) and peaceful use (the financing of low carbon alternatives through a global transition fund).

A process towards this end could start with an assessment of existing reserves, as well as agreement on the principles for the sequencing of production phase-down targets across countries and fuel types, with the aim of aligning fossil fuel use with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5C warming threshold.

Commitments to phase out fossil fuels in the form of national targets and timetables could be sequenced reflecting countries current emissions, historical contributions and capacity to transition to alternative energy sources.

The means are already available to undertake a global mapping and assessment of those fossil fuel reserves which, if burned, would carry us across the 1.5C warming line. We also have the tools to monitor and verify commitments to leave them in the ground. A global inventory of supply-side actions that countries commit themselves to could be established, while negotiations proceed in order to build up momentum.

Climate news straight to your inbox? Sign up here

These are actions which national governments could list as part of their climate commitments under the Paris Agreement to raise the level of ambition.

The basis of political support for such a treaty lies in countries vulnerable to the effects of climate change, as well as among those countries already taking supply-side actions that want to multilateralise such efforts to avoid free-riding by others, and a whole host of businesses, cities, civil society organisations and others that have committed to divesting from fossil fuels and resisting new fossil fuel investments. Key NGOs, civil society leaders and politicians such as former UK climate and energy minister Ed Davey have already expressed support for the idea.

Political momentum is building behind the idea of supply-side climate policy. At the national level, there have been bold moves by governments to leave fossil fuels in the ground including recent moratoria on new oil exploration and production announced in 2017 and 2018 by a number of countries such as New Zealand, France and Belize, as well as Costa Rica, which has a moratorium on oil exploration in place that has been extended to 2021.

A new global fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty could provide a transparent and fair means to stop climate breakdown.

Peter Newell is professor of international relations and Andrew Simms is a research associate at the University of Sussex

The post Why we need a non-proliferation treaty for fossil fuels appeared first on Climate Home News.