Having proven that the world has enough fossil fuel projects to meet demand until 2050, researchers say a global norm against new projects—similar to the taboo against nuclear testing—would help phase down fossil fuels and achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement.
In a policy paper for the journal Science, authors from University College London and the Winnipeg-based International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) build the case for such a norm in three steps.
• They assess existing stocks against projected demand to show that no new fossil fuels are needed in a 1.5°C world, providing a rigorous, scientific basis for a call to stop new fossil projects.
• They explain how it is economically, politically, and legally easier to prevent new fossil fuel projects than to shut down existing ones or phase them out. For one thing, firms will lobby more actively to protect projects into which they’ve already sunk investments, they write. The public is more likely to tolerate an existing project, while politicians will have an easier time enacting stringent regulations on new ones, and investors might attempt legal action to prevent losses from new regulations.
“The first two claims together justify a third, normative claim: that new fossil fuel projects ought not be permitted,” they write.
“The No New Fossil norm derived from this finding provides a clear policy demand against which we can judge misalignment with the Paris agreement target,” IISD policy advisor and study co-author Olivier Bois von Kursk told The Energy Mix. It “builds on the analysis of political, social, and economic barriers to the energy transition, showing it is significantly harder to close existing fields than to prevent new ones from being built”
However, “this does not mean that closing existing fields before the end of their economic lifetime won’t also be necessary to limit warming to 1.5°C,” he added. “No new fossil fuel is a necessary step to meet the Paris goals, but it is not sufficient.”
The study says a new “social-moral norm” against new fossil fuel projects could also combat industry pushback. “Norms are most resonant when they are framed in terms of simple demands for powerful actors to cease or ban harmful activities.”
By shifting the focus to upcoming projects that create wide-ranging environmental, public health, and climate harms, a No New Fossils norm would align groups with diverse interests for the same cause, which “reduces the power asymmetry between pro- and anti-fossil fuel forces.”
The researchers point to past cases when a norm change has succeeded in shifting power away from vested interests, like the slave trade and the nuclear arms race.
Those cases show the power of a simple demand, said lead author Fergus Green, a lecturer in political theory and public policy at University College London. “Complex, long-term goals like ‘net-zero emissions by 2050’ lack these features, but ‘no new fossil fuel projects’ is a clear and immediate demand against which all current governments, and the fossil fuel industry, can rightly be judged.”
The researchers say the norm should be used to push governments toward ending permits for fossil fuel exploration, production, or power generation, “and to take whatever legislative or administrative action is necessary to give effect to such a policy.” While a legislated ban would be ideal, other measures—like restrictions on finance or subsidies—could also help.
