Citizens' Climate Lobby UK

Category: Decarbonisation

  • How to respond to spouters of ‘Net Zero stupid’

    The Citizens’ Climate Lobby is all about solutions. It’s about how society can make the changes needed, to avoid climate catastrophe, as rapidly and equitably as possible. Our starting point is that global warming is real, dangerous and caused by humans.

    This approach made a lot of sense until recently. There was broad political consensus that climate change was a serious issue and that the UK should aim to get its net emissions down to zero by 2050. Our politicians were proud to be world-leaders in this endeavour.

    Unfortunately, that has changed. We now have anti-science politicians in the UK, and elsewhere, who openly dispute the need for net-zero. Instead, they champion a cynical philosophy in which every country pursues its own, blinkered self-interest even though this is a proven route to a poorer world for everyone.

    As the impacts of climate change become ever more obvious, these short-sighted politicians will change their direction when it suits them to do so. But, in the meantime, when discussing CCL-UK policies we may find ourselves increasingly encountering push-back on whether greenhouse gas emission reductions are necessary at all.

    The problem is anti-net-zero soundbites that have been well crafted to sound plausible even though they disintegrate on closer inspection. Examples I’ve heard, recently, from senior politicians include “2050 is an arbitrary target” and “We can’t afford net-zero”.

    To counter these. I’ve set up a new website (netstupidzero.org) that takes these soundbites and explains, in simple terms, why they’re misleading. You may notice that the site name, itself, is a direct quote from the Reform Party’s Richard Tice who is, perhaps, the most prominent promoter, in the UK, of anti-science disinformation.

    In my website I’ve tried to use common-sense rather than go into detailed scientific explanations. My aim is just to make it easy for anyone to counter anti-net-zero propaganda whenever and wherever it’s used. I hope you find it illuminating and useful.

  • Citizens’ Climate Europe event on ‘How to make ETS2 work for your country’, aka Climate Income….

    Citizens’ Climate Europe event on ‘How to make ETS2 work for your country’, aka Climate Income….

    At the beginning of 2027, the European ETS2, which aims to successively eliminate 40% of EU greenhouse gas emissions through higher fuel prices, will be launched. This July the European Commission already firmly reminded member states (except Austria) to implement ETS2 in national law. At the same time, uncertainties about future prices are high and governments seem unprepared to react to this uncertainty and ensure public support for ETS2. Enough reasons for Citizens’ Climate Europe to bring together a range of perspectives on possible solutions in a hybrid event (in Brussels and online) on 16th October.

    We first heard from Michael Pahle, Head of Working Group “Climate & Energy” at @Potsdam Institut für Klimafolgenforschung, about ETS2 price evolution and the potential of rebates to cushion excessive increases. After a brief explanation on what sets prices, he showed scenarios (not predictions!) of prices ranging from EUR 71 to 261 per ton CO2 in 2030. He emphasised that in addition to price levels, volatility can be a concern. Stability mechanisms act with a delay, while higher prices for certificates would be passed on to consumers much faster. Together, this creates a case for rebates to citizens as a ‘social stability mechanism’ acting fast if prices increase ‘excessively’. Michael Pahle closed with recommended preparation for member states.

    I was the next speaker, taking a wider view on carbon pricing, quoting OECD’s and IPCC’s recommendations as well as the FASTER principles for effective carbon pricing. This set the scene for comparing existing carbon pricing schemes, at €50/t or more, through the lens of these principles. The F in FASTER stands for ‘Fair’, a key criterion for public support, leading to a discussion of possible implementations of Climate Income (also known as Climate Dividends, Klimabonus, Klimageld) highlighting tools and a possible policy workshop for policy makers.

    The final talk of the event was by Wolfgang Otter, Department Head Klimabonus at Austria’s Ministry of Climate Action, Environment, Energy, Mobility, Innovation and Technology, who took us behind the scenes of how a climate dividend, argued for by Michael Pahle and James Collis, got implemented in Austria under the name of Klimabonus. He outlined the main features, i.e., that everyone receives it, that amounts are regionally staggered taking into account increased costs for mobility in more rural areas, that since 2024 Klimabonus is taxed for high income households to increase fairness, and finally that Klimabonus is part of a larger group of measures. He emphasised the importance of simplicity, warning attendees of the trap of fake specificity and recreating social measures that already exist and that adding design complexity significantly impacts implementation cost and success. Finally, he outlined the surprisingly simple but logistically challenging process of paying Austrian citizens’ via bank transfers or vouchers sent by post. He closed his talk with giving us a behind the scenes insight into reactions by the public.

    These talks were followed by a lively Q&A, ranging from detailed questions about the Klimabonus in Austria to more general questions on social and regional staggering and supporting citizens in investing to decarbonise their lives.

    Taken together, the event provided a fascinating insight into the challenges the introduction of ETS2 will result in as well as possible ways to make carbon pricing not only effective, but also socially fair.

    Many attendees requested further follow-up and we are excited to understand the specific reasons and see if we are able to support further in the coming weeks and months.

    Presentations are available here: https://bit.ly/3BSlw5D

    For CC EU Linked In post https://www.linkedin.com/posts/citizens-climate-europe_carbonpricing-eugreendeal-economics-activity-7254430757660585984-BWYk/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop

  • Climate Income – How this powerful climate policy can address the cost of living crisis.

    Climate Income – How this powerful climate policy can address the cost of living crisis.

    The next UK government must address the cost of living crisis. It’s also clear from public data that the climate crisis is an ongoing concern for 75%. Now there is the opportunity to kill multiple birds with one stone. The latest developments in the EU Green Deal are contributing to international momentum on the subject of carbon pricing. If the UK wants a closer relationship with Europe, aligning on this key environmental policy offers a number of additional social and economic benefits.

    Carbon pricing, also known as carbon taxation, is overwhelmingly the fastest and most effective tool to cut greenhouse gas emissions. No one claims carbon pricing solves everything, other policies are needed, just that it’s the most important thing to do. Carbon pricing is a cornerstone of the EU Green Deal and improves the effectiveness of all other climate policies. The World Bank tracks international carbon pricing development both in terms of coverage and price level, i.e. how many emissions are covered and at what price.

    Currently the UK prices 40% of carbon via the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) which applies to large scale industry (and is almost invisible to consumers). The UK carbon price floor legislation adds strength and has been effective in dramatically reducing coal from UK electricity production. The EU is extending the ETS to Buildings and Road Transport (ETS2) with further expansion under discussion. The same approach in the UK would increase carbon pricing coverage to over 80% and have a direct impact on all households.

    Although most poor and middle income families use much less energy than the richest, it’s a higher proportion of their income. This form of taxation is inherently regressive, hurting the poor more than the rich. Climate Income, where the proceeds of the tax are given back equally to people, makes the vast majority of poor families and most middle income families better off. Making carbon tax popular and progressive in this way is well understood.

    The challenges for politicians in implementing Climate Income are that the public are wary that “tax” means they will likely be worse off, and industry is concerned about international trade competitiveness. The information on these first two issues has improved considerably, though there remains pressure from the fossil fuel lobby, which is still more powerful and better funded than the emerging green industry.

    The recent OECD report International Attitudes Toward Climate Policies surveyed 40,000 citizens from 20 countries. It found that people want to know that the policy works, is fair, and how it will affect them. The report showed that 5 minute videos can build public support, showing fairness by redistributing revenue equally protects poorer households. For the UK, confidence in public support for Climate Income is reinforced by the Scottish Climate Assembly with 77% support for this specific policy.

    Industry fears about “carbon leakage”, when trade and jobs are lost to companies in other countries with lower pollution costs, have often been highlighted as an economic risk. The EU has now taken on this issue directly with the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). It is prompting action in relation to carbon pricing from the US, China and India. Evidence from US industry implies that the UK not only has nothing to fear, but in fact has much to be gained. Energy intensive UK industry is highly competitive and is effectively leaving money on the table by not pricing international emissions.

    Whatever the UK’s desired trading relationship with Europe, there are proven examples of Climate Income. Canada and the UK today have similar trading structures with the EU. Canada introduced The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act in 2019 rebating 90% to households. Expert consensus is growing that this is the best solution for Canada. Switzerland is in the European Free Trade Agreement and outside the EU. In addition to an aligned EU ETS, as the UK has, Switzerland prices domestic fuel at €120 with 67% returned to households. Austria is in the EU, in the Customs Union and the Euro Zone. Specifically in preparation for the ETS2 Austria introduced KlimaBonus (Climate Bonus) returning 100% to households.

    Being outside the EU may have advantages, EU member states have concerns about legislative complexity and price volatility. Especially when simpler alternatives like a national carbon price are encouraged by Sweden and considered in Germany, where civic society is demanding the government deliver the manifesto promise for KlimaGeld (Climate Money). The UK carbon price floor legislation has the potential to provide harmonised and less volatile pricing than either the ETS or ETS2. Predictability is very helpful to the longer term planning and certainty needs of industry highlighted in the FASTER principles for successful carbon pricing.

    Climate Income is a zero cost policy that addresses two of the top concerns of the public. With the prevailing international winds blowing in support, it does more to reduce emissions than anything else. It’s good for international trade, the economy and jobs. Most households are better off. And it’s endorsed through the biggest statement by economists ever, including every living Nobel Laureate Economist. Time to act on the advice of experts.

    N.B. This article argues for a similar policy advocated by the Young Liberal Democrats described as “A Progressive Carbon Tax” in their Policy Book from 2021. There is an updated European Young Liberal (LYMEC) policy “6.11 The Adoption of C02 Taxes and Tariffs by the EU” in their 2024 Policy Book that shows further support.

    Article published in the Green Liberal Democrat Website and Challenge magazine, May 2024.

    I am the Chair at Citizens’ Climate Europe and a Member of the EU Climate Change Expert Group for ETS2 Implementation. (Front left in photograph of Citizens’ Climate Europe members from CCL members from France, Germany, Belgium, Sweden, Finland, Poland, UK, Portugal and the Netherlands).

  • When they say we need fossil fuels…Citizens’ Climate International Laser Talk, November 2023

    When they say we need fossil fuels…….The primary driver of inflation around the world is fossil fuels.  Economies are addicted to fossil fuels at every level: mobility, energy production, agriculture and goods production. When the prices of oil and gas go up, every other price tends to go up. Actually, high fossil fuel prices are historically inseparable from inflation and economic crises. Mark Zandi, chief economist at credit rating agency Moody’s, said in an article for Vox that “every recession since World War II has been preceded by a jump in oil prices”. And there is a term for it: fossilflation.

    Factors driving fossil fuel prices are many, and diverse. Most of the time, though, these come directly from producing countries, which raise and lower production, thus flooding or drying up the market. This is often used as a political tool, driving millions of people into despair. Here is just a sample of the many ways of how fossilflation happens:

    1. The market-rigging actions of the OPEC Plus cartel (including Russia);
    2. Profiteering on energy supply disruptions due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine;
    3. Climate damages (a.k.a. climateflation) Extreme weather, climate and water-related events caused almost $1.5 trillion of economic losses in the decade to 2019, up from $184 billion in the 1970s, according to a World Meteorological Organization (WMO) report.
    4. Embedded energy costs across all classes of consumer products and business services;
    5. Food system effects including embedded fossil fuel costs and climate damage;
    6. Embedded climate risk and liability costs;
    7. Sovereign debt stresses driven by fossil fuels, including:
      a. Public spending and sovereign debt burdens resulting from disaster response;
      b. Direct spending on disaster response;
      c. Extremely high, punishing interest rates linked to that spending compelled by actions a country did not initiate or decide;
      d. All-time record fossil fuel subsidies ($7 trillion), linked to rigged fossil fuel price spikes;
      e. Public spending to compensate consumers for unaffordable price shocks linked to higher embedded energy costs.

    There is one solution: move away from fossil fuels. We need to do it fast, and we need to do it fairly. That is why at COP 28, Citizens’ Climate International is linking arms with many organisations and calling for a fossil fuel phaseout.

    By breaking free of coal, oil and gas, and replacing them with renewable energy sources, we will protect our planet and our economy.

    Summary

    The primary driver of inflation around the world is fossil fuels. In fact there is a term for it: fossilflation. There is a simple solution: move away from fossil fuels. We need to do it fast, and we need to do it fairly.

    That is why at COP 28, Citizens’ Climate International is linking arms with many organisations and calling for a fossil fuel phaseout. By breaking free of coal, oil and gas, and replacing them by renewable energy sources, we will protect our planet and our economy.

  • Citizen Climate International’s summary of the truth about fossil fuel subsidies and the fossil fuel industry’s decades long disinformation campaign!

    Citizen Climate International’s summary of the truth about fossil fuel subsidies and the fossil fuel industry’s decades long disinformation campaign!

    The IMF, Carbon Pricing and Explicit and Implicit Fossil Fuels Subsidies

    Here are two terms that anyone who wants to preserve a stable climate needs to know: explicit fossil fuel subsidies and implicit fossil fuel subsidies.

    Explicit fossil fuel subsidies from governments directly reduce the price of fossil fuels, thus making it attractive to investors and consumers to buy. Implicit fossil fuel subsidies are the costs taxpayers and insurance are paying for the air pollution and climate impacts experienced because of dirty fossil fuels.

    On August 24, 2023, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) released a report. The conclusion of this report was that subsidies for oil, coal, and natural gas cost the equivalent of 7.1%  of global gross domestic product.

    Explicit subsidies have more than doubled since 2020 but are still only 18% of the total subsidy amount, while nearly 60% is due to implicit subsidies.

    Here is a hopeful conclusion from the report: “Full fossil fuel price reform would reduce global carbon dioxide emissions to an estimated 43 percent below baseline levels in 2030 (in line with keeping global warming to 1.5-2C), while raising revenues worth 3.6 % of global GDP and preventing 1.6 million local air pollution deaths per year.”

    Making polluters pay (a.k.a carbon pricing) offers us the exact tool needed to ensure this price reform. In fact, the IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva at the Paris Summit in June said, “Our analysis shows that without a carbon price, there is no chance that we will meet the 1.5 degrees Celsius target by 2030. We will miss it.”

    Our only home, Earth, has just passed through the hottest three months on record. With the fires, floods, horrendous storms, cryosphere melting and the threats to the Gulf Stream, it is obvious that the impacts of climate change are no longer just a concern for future generations, but are a very real threat at our doorstep. We must listen to the experts and cooperate to enact or strengthen our essential climate policies such as carbon pricing going forward. Happily there are 70 carbon pricing initiatives world wide and the African Summit issued a unanimous call for world leaders to support global price on carbon pollution on September 6, 2023.

    IMF Subsidies Report August 2023

    The Fossil Fuel Industry Funded Climate Disinformation for Decades

    Even to this day, there are individuals who deny or downplay the link between the burning of fossil fuels and the impacts that pollution has on our climate and health. How did this happen?

    Key players in the fossil fuel industry knew decades ago that burning coal, oil, and methane gas to warm our homes, power our cars, and generate electricity was warming the planet. Instead of acting on the knowledge, they began financing a massive disinformation campaign. Now, as a consequence, youth are having to fight for their inalienable right to have a safe and liveable future.

    Happily, when you inform people that the fossil fuel industry funded a climate disinformation campaign for decades, people are more likely to believe you when you present solutions.

    Suggested readings:

  • Fiddling while Rhodes burns, we can remind politicians there is a fair and just way to decarbonise….

    Fiddling while Rhodes burns, we can remind politicians there is a fair and just way to decarbonise….

    Both Labour and Conservative politicians have been spooked by the narrow by-election win in Uxbridge which has been squarely attributed to campaigning on the proposed extension of the Ulez scheme. Few commentators pointed out that Manchester, Bristol, Birmingham and Bradford received a combined £230m in Government funding for their scrappage schemes, but London and the South East have received none.

    Press coverage has rightly pointed out that people should not be made poorer by ill thought out schemes which could be said to put the cart before the horse. There are politicians in both parties who are calling for unpopular policies to be dropped or postponed but neither party is denying the need to reach net zero.

    Sam Hall, director of the Conservative Environment Network, told The Observer that …“Environmental policies are an electoral asset when they are fair, affordable, and deliver for people and their communities. I’d warn Conservatives against listening to calls to ditch environmental commitments following the Uxbridge result. Insulating people’s homes, building more renewables, and attracting investment into new clean industries are popular, bill-cutting and job-creating.” 

    A blog he wrote for CEN points out that…The Conservatives secured a victory against the odds by focusing the campaign on ULEZ expansion. They effectively pulled off a protest vote against an unpopular mayor instead of the usual dynamic of voters protesting the government. This strategy won’t work at a general election, when the party will be asking for a fifth term in government. Senior Conservatives must resist calls to ditch conservative environmental policies. (Over 150 MPs and Peers have signed up to the CEN).

    What the by-election shows is that policies which create financial hardship won’t work and in fact will be as counter productive as the tax imposed in France which led to the Gilet Jaunes revolt. Climate Income along with grants or loans based on future carbon dividend payments would go a long way to achieving the decarbonisation of the economy without penalising most people (as outlined in our report published last October). 

    Whilst not asking directly for Climate Income the Times editorial today puts the case for a Carbon Tax…..The message from policymakers must be that mitigating climate change can best be tackled through the continual innovations that are characteristic of market economies. And that doing so, using the price mechanism to encourage new technologies, is practical. It is widely understood that a carbon tax would be highly effective in persuading consumers and businesses to switch their energy consumption and behaviour. This would need to apply to carbon consumption and not only production, lest richer countries merely outsource their production to poorer economies. Revenues from a carbon tax could be used to subsidise renewable sources of energy and thereby encourage their wide adoption.

    Update 25/7/23

    Today Lord Deben (outgoing Chair of the CCC) has asked that parties build a cross party consensus on tackling climate change and getting to net zero, based on the recommendation of Chris Skidmore’s UK Net Zero Review. ….“If I were leader of the Labour party at this moment, I know exactly what I’d do,” said Deben. “I would say to the current government: ‘Here is Mr Skidmore’s report, he is a Conservative ex-minister, he was asked to do this report to show how best to deliver net zero by Liz Truss. Now we will accept, if you put it forward, we will do the following basic things [acting on the report’s recommendations]. We will do that. We won’t oppose it. You put them forward, we’ll back it.’” ………..There are those who don’t really take onboard the urgency of climate change, and they are in all political parties.”

    Let’s remind our politicians that there is not only no justification for dropping commitments to net zero while Rhodes burns and people die, but also no need!

     Tomorrow’s national meeting will be dedicated to this action

  • What makes people support climate policy – especially CLIMATE INCOME ? Answer – a 5 minute video!

    What makes people support climate policy – especially CLIMATE INCOME ? Answer – a 5 minute video!

    A recent report discussed research on attitudes towards climate change and solutions which included Climate Income. The research covered 40,000 respondents from 20 countries representing 72% of global CO2 emissions. The results show climate policy support hinges on three key beliefs:

    • effectiveness – does it work ?
    • inequality – is it fair ?
    • household self-interest – will we be better off ?

    Good News:

    Over 80% of people agree that climate change is important and that their country should take measures to fight climate change.

    Bad News:

    Informing people about the impacts of climate change, with climate impact videos, has little effect…..(to quote a much loved TV character ‘We’re doomed’!)

    Good News:

    Addressing these concerns, with more positive climate policy videos, can substantially increase the support for climate policies. In particular, for carbon tax with transfers (Climate Income), policy support grew more than double any other policy type. Showing just the policy video, support increases on average by ~10%. In Europe that varies between 8% in France to 15% extra support in Italy. Showing both videos raised the average support across European countries by over 14%.

    It is interesting to note that, even before the video viewing, the concept of a carbon tax with the proceeds returned to household garnered wide support in high income European countries. Among those who expressed an opinion support for the policy ranged an average of 54% to 71%.

    We tested the video in Brussels with NGOs who have their own priorities for revenue and thus are often the most resistant to citizen rebates. It prompted interest and one particular quote:

    “Now I see why the citizen dividend is needed !”

    I heartily recommend sharing these videos with NGOs, public, etc, I suspect legislators will also be interested.

    The report on the survey

    The UK climate policy video

    In short: 5 minute videos can persuade most people to support Climate Income because it offers a solution to climate change rather than just making people feel either helpless or guilty.

    • Exposure to information on solutions is persuasive.
    • Additional exposure to information on climate impact helps, but only marginally.

  • Woodhouse Colliery decision makes no sense – climate and economy will lose

    I have just sent a quick email to my MP about the decision to approve Woodhouse Colliery. He, thanks to the efforts of our local CCL group, understands and supports the case for Climate Income but I would have written even if I was not campaignong for Climate Income. The decision makes no sense even under ours and Europe’s current carbon pricing system (ETS).

    I am perturbed that the Woodhouse colliery has been approved, ostensibly to prevent the need to import coking coal, yet….There are only two potential customers for this coal in the UK: Tata Steel and British Steel. Yet Chris McDonald, chief executive of the Materials Processing Institute, said earlier this year: “British Steel have said they cannot use the coal from this mine because the sulphur levels are too high. Tata Steel have said if the coal were available, then they may or may not use a small amount. There isn’t anyone in the steel industry who’s calling for the mine.” 

    This retrograde step delays the industrial changes needed to move away from fossil fuels and will decrease our future competitiveness. We will also lose the credibility and leadership we gained at COP26 with the Powering Past Coal Alliance. As the future for steel is acknowledged to be smelting using green hydrogen and electrolysis for recycling steel we would do better to invest in green hydrogen. According to the LGA Cumbria could have 6,000 new jobs by 2030 with the right investments in green infrastructure, with 600 in Copeland.

    BEIS has had a 250 million Clean Steel fund since 2019 and an Industrial Energy Transformation Fund, lets use it to get ahead of the game and future proof our industry. Germany and Sweden are already piloting the technology, we will fast lose any competitive edge if we stick to this outdated technology the industry doesn’t want. With a sensible carbon pricing mechanism like Climate Income the price of coal coking of steel would also soon lose any competitive advantage, and it may even do so under ETS. The decision could be called Luddite, or at least extremely short sighted!

    I think we need to show our MPs that the decision was foolhardy to say the least. Send them an email or maybe a Christmas card to show that bad decisions on energy and industrial strategy will always come home to roost!

  • How many more institutions and politicians, let alone protesters, have to say we need to keep fossil fuels in the ground?

    How many more institutions and politicians, let alone protesters, have to say we need to keep fossil fuels in the ground?

    On October 25th the Lancet published its annual Countdown on Health and Climate Change report in which it stated that world governments are “putting the health of all people alive today and future generations at risk” by locking in dependence on fossil fuels.

    On the same day a Unicef report warned that funding has to be increased to protect children and vulnerable communities from worsening heatwaves; a day later the United Nations reported that current NDCs will lead to 2.5C warming and that only 24 out of 193 nations had updated their plans as asked at COP26. The UN Secretary General, in an interview with the BBC stated that countries should not invest in more fossil fuels…. 

    This is the defining issue of our time, nobody has the right to sacrifice international action on climate change for any reason.……..We need to tell the truth. The truth is that the impact of climate change on a number of countries in the world, especially hotspots, is already devastating”.The most stupid thing is to bet on what has led us to this disaster.

    Also on the 25th Alok Sharma asked our government to ‘explain and demonstrate’ how new oil and gas development can align with the Net Zero target. The short answer is it can’t and it needn’t if investment in fossil fuels were to go to renewables and insulation projects instead. Meanwhile it was reported that BEIS data shows “that with existing and near-fully planned policies, the UK is projected to emit nearly double the amount of pollution as it should do under its 2030s goals”.

    There are signs that the government’s environmental policy may be taking steps in the right direction with the appointment of Therese Coffey as Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Rishi Sunak declaring that the moratorium on fracking will be retained.

    Climate Income of course would send the clear message that it pays to decarbonise whilst protecting households from rising fossil fuel costs during the transition.

    With change in the air now may be as good a time as any to write to your MP and, if you haven’t already done so, submit a response to the Net Zero Consultation. Thanks to all the members who have done so already, it does make a difference!

  • Members of the European Parliament called for a European Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty today.

    Members of the European Parliament called for a European Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty today.

    In an amendment to the European Parliament Resolution on COP27  today EU members of Parliamentarians Call for a Fossil Fuel Free Future asked European states to work on developing a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty. They are calling for European states to:

     End expansion of new fossil fuels projects

     Phase out current production in line with 1.5ºC

      Enable a global just transition for every worker, community & country.

    and:

    “phase out fossil fuels as soon as possible”

    “halt all new investments in fossil fuel extraction”

    “end fossil fuel subsidies”

    Parliamentarians Call for a Fossil Free Future is a global network of close to 500 legislators from every continent (including the UK) who have called for “new international commitments and treaties, complementing the Paris Agreement, to address the urgency of a swift and just transition away from fossil fuel energy”

    Marie Toussaint, French Member of the European Parliament said….

    “It was absolutely crucial, ahead of the COP27, to remind European leaders that they cannot use the ongoing energy crisis as an excuse to deepen our dependency on fossil fuels. The call made today by the European Parliament to adopt a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty and phase out all direct and indirect fossil fuel subsidies by 2025 must now be heard by the European Commission and Member States. The EU must also acknowledge its climate debt, and the fact it has been a major polluter, responsible for greenhouse gas emissions over centuries. We have to find ways, within this non proliferation treaty, to ensure justice at global level for those who won’t earn the money they could through fossil fuel extraction.”

    Risa Honiveros, Senator of the Philippines and initiator of the Parliamentarians’ Call for a Fossil Fuel Free Future , stated…

    “In recent months, parliamentarians on every continent have called for new international commitments and treaties to address the urgency of a swift and just transition away from fossil fuel energy. It is great to see this gaining momentum with the proposed Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty which has now been called for by the President of Vanuatu, the President of Timor-Leste, the Vatican and now the European Parliament.”

    The main European Parliament resolution on COP27 also stated that it …

    Welcomes the fact that several EU trading partners have introduced carbon trading or other carbon pricing mechanisms and invites the Commission to further promote this and similar policies on the global scale; looks forward to a speedy agreement with the Council on the proposal for a socially just EU carbon border adjustment mechanism that includes an effective carbon leakage mechanism and to its effect of pushing a global carbon price, which will contribute to reducing global carbon emissions and to the achievement of the Paris Agreement goals;

    It also acknowledged the need for Loss and Damage finance….

    Welcomes the fact that the Glasgow Climate Pact underlines the importance of adaptation and the need to scale up action to enhance adaptive capacity, strengthen resilience and reduce vulnerability to climate change; notes in this regard that 47 countries submitted Adaptation Communications or National Adaptation Plans in the last year, and expects other countries to submit their Communications in line with the Paris Agreement; welcomes the creation of a new Glasgow Dialogue on Loss and Damage which should focus on funding arrangements to avert, minimise and address loss and damage associated with the adverse impacts of climate change;

    Citizens’ Climate International has welcomed the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty initiative which was launched on September 2020 and has been working with them since 2021.