ELEVEN months from now, world leaders will gather in Glasgow at the United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP26, to make it "the defining year of climate action", as the prime minister of host Britain, Boris Johnson, calls it.
But between now and then, Paris accord member countries need to sort out a huge disconnect. Energy plans of many countries and their climate commitments are not marching to the same drumbeat.
And the culprit that is causing the disconnect is the doubling of fossil fuel production, according to a publication — The Production Gap Report 2020 — issued by research organisations and the United Nations.
It is calling for a six per cent annual reduction just to keep global warming at 1.5°C. Can it be done? Yes, but it is the "how" which is going to pose a big challenge to some countries.
It is not easy to tame politics and economics, especially when they come together as they did under the administration of United States President Donald Trump.
To him, climate change is a fiction spun in Paris. And Trump has spent the four years of his turbulent presidency to do all he can to make it unreal.
The fact that he succeeded tells a lot about his brand of politics. But it wasn't just politics. Economics, the fossil fuel kind, had a lot to do with it. In this sense, Trump is a dealmaker, of the bad kind, though. Small wonder, they call crude oil black gold there. Black gold fuels politics in US like no other place.
A Reuters report on Oct 16, which quotes data provided by the Center for Responsive Politics, the Washington-based research group tracking money in politics and its effect on elections and public policy, lends support to this view.
US oil majors and campaign cash are no strange bedfellows. Only the very generous will think that the oil majors are donating for the cause of responsible oil. Closer to the truth is that the oil majors are backing candidates who are more aligned to their business interests.
Climate change will be the furthest from their business plans. This is one difficulty. Ditto for Australia and Canada, where, like the US, production of fossil fuels is being ramped up.
Another difficulty is, for countries that are bent on slowing climate change, making a transition from a fossil fuel-based economy to more sustainable one.
There isn't a one-size-fits all solution. As the PGR acknowledges, transitional challenges will depend on the level of dependence of the economies on fossil fuels and their transition capacities. What's enough for Norway may not be enough for Nigeria, to paraphrase the PGR. Either way, there will be humongous societal changes to be adopted.
And that, too, in the most ungenerous of time. This is the consequence of opting for instant gratification in the past. That past must end. And it must end now. The good news is the authors of the report see the transition as doable, the short time frame notwithstanding.
Besides, the change is a climate necessity and it comes with new opportunities. Be that as it may, countries like Nigeria that depend almost entirely on fossil fuel revenues, will require international development assistance to make the transition.
If the international community is interested in a decarbonised world, it must help some make it there.
Before the heat is turned on, that is.