JUST over a year ago, climate activists were breathing a sigh of relief at news that a planned new oilfield in the North Sea, Cambo, was to be shelved after investor Shell pulled out. At the time, 麻豆传媒 speculated this might 鈥渕ark the end of new oil and gas extraction in the region鈥�.
If only. Last month, the UK government confirmed that it will press ahead with new rounds of licensing for oil and gas. A decision is also pending on an oilfield called Rosebank, the largest undeveloped resource in the North Sea.
Advertisement
On the surface this looks absurd. How does the continued extraction of fossil fuels fit with the UK鈥檚 net-zero commitment, let alone the UN鈥檚 Paris Agreement on climate change? What sense does it make to invest in a source of energy that is already outcompeted by renewables?
Drill deeper, however, and the real reason comes to light. It is still absurd, but perhaps slightly less so. With Rosebank, the UK is simply living up to its legal obligations. Yes, you read that right. The UK is legally bound to let Rosebank be sucked dry of oil, assuming the investors decide they want to do that.
That is because the UK is a signatory to a little-known entity called the , which came into force in 1998 to help the countries of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe integrate into global energy markets. One of its provisions is that corporations can sue national governments for loss of profit if the government doesn鈥檛 make good on its promises.
The UK government issued a licence for Rosebank in 2001. If the project jumps through the final regulatory hoops only to be denied by a ministerial veto, its current licensees could sue for compensation. Some existing claims in other countries .
This seems like yet more proof that the fossil fuel industry has the planet over a barrel. But there is an alternative waiting in the wings. It is called the and the campaign behind it aims to get the world to sign up to a deal to halt the development of all new oil, gas and coal fields. The proposed treaty is the of and , who both work on energy transition at the University of Sussex in Brighton, UK. They came up with it in 2018 over a few drinks. But it wasn鈥檛 one of those beer-fuelled ideas that crumbles under the light of day.
Peter Newell and Andrew Simms first came up with the idea for the treaty over a few drinks
In fact, it has gained for such a radical proposal. It is by thousands of scientists and NGOs, the European Parliament, the World Health Organization and more than 70 city governments. In 2022, was the first nation state to endorse the treaty. It was soon joined by , and last month .
As the new treaty鈥檚 star rises, the old one鈥檚 fades. Russia and Norway signed the Energy Charter Treaty, but didn鈥檛 ratify it. Italy pulled out in 2016 over environmental concerns. France, Germany and Poland have the treaty of their intent to withdraw, while Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland and Slovenia have said they plan to do so.
The proposed treaty has history on its side, says Julia Steinberger at the University of Lausanne, Switzerland, a lead author on the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.
鈥淭he fossil fuel industry itself can鈥檛 be trusted,鈥� she says. 鈥淲e know that in a very simple way: because they still exist. knew already since 50 years that the emissions from their product caused climate change.鈥� Instead of investing in alternatives, she says, the industry spread disinformation and doubled down.
鈥淭he only way that we can sensibly prevent climate cataclysm from worsening is to move our politicians and governments to openly confront this industry by endorsing and passing the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty,鈥� she says.
Good luck with that. According to Simms, the standard politician鈥檚 response is 鈥渨e鈥檝e got the Paris Agreement, why do we need that?鈥� The answer, he says, is that the Paris Agreement doesn鈥檛 mention fossil fuels. They are also a taboo subject at climate talks. Yet they are the single most important contributor to global warming. Hence the need for an explicit mechanism to bury them.
The exact wording of the treaty, the path forward and how it would be policed are all still unclear. Time is also not on our side. But as Newell and Simms point out, their inspiration, the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, took only three years to negotiate. It didn鈥檛 entirely stop nuclear proliferation, but it arguably reduced the risk of nuclear annihilation, at least until now. Fossil fuels will also surely fry us unless we find a way to keep them where they belong: underground.
Graham Lawton is a staff writer at 麻豆传媒 and author of Mustn鈥檛 Grumble: The surprising science of everyday ailments. You can follow him @grahamlawton
Graham鈥檚 week
What I鈥檓 reading
An old favourite, the Jeeves and Wooster stories by P. G. Wodehouse
What I鈥檓 watching
Beef on Netflix
What I鈥檓 working on
I have a new cat, he needs some work鈥�
