A FOSSIL fuel non-proliferation treaty may sound like a bizarre idea. But it isn't, given the existential threat fossil fuels pose to the planet, akin to the danger nuclear weapons posed before the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
Don't be misled by the word "threat". No, it isn't a future danger, but a clear and present one.
Emission-driven temperature rises already kill five million a year globally, according to a Monash University-led 20-year study published on July 8, 2021.
Badged as the world's largest study of climate-related mortality, the study covered 43 countries between 2000 and 2019.
Humans are not the only victims. Wildlife, too, is facing a catastrophic decline in its population, says the Living Planet Report 2024 published by the World Wildlife Fund.
In just 50 years — from 1970 to 2020 — wildlife populations declined by 73 per cent.
The 15 richest people in the world and the political leaders they sponsor may be thinking of moving to Mars, but let us disturb their universe: the Earth is the only liveable planet. Let's keep it that way.
The frustration of 30 years of unfulfilled promises by UN climate summits (COP) to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy has led nations of the Global South, especially those vulnerable to extreme weather, to say "enough is enough" and push for a non-proliferation treaty.
On Wednesday, the Bahamas became the 16th nation to be on board, with Pakistan, one third of which was submerged in floodwaters in 2022, doing so earlier.
If all goes according to plan, the treaty terms are expected to be drafted next year.
Interestingly, the fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty is built on the principle of equity, which the Paris pact clearly lacks.
Neither does it mention fossil fuels when they are the primary drivers of carbon emissions. The fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty may just be the missing puzzle piece that is needed to give the leaders of the world a parallel path to net zero.
But why another treaty? Isn't the Paris Agreement enough?
Paradoxically, the Paris treaty is itself an argument for the fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty.
For one, by the sleight of hand of powerful hydrocarbon producers, fossil fuels were deliberately kept out of the pact.
We can't deny that it was a feat to get the 193 countries to sign off on the treaty on Dec 12, 2015 in Paris, during COP21.
But it was euphoria for only the developed countries, not the developing or emerging ones.
Most crucially, it has neither infringement procedures nor enforcement mechanisms.
A treaty that completely relies on peer pressure is a limp one, especially in a world order based on might is right.
An existential threat can only be kept away by a more robust treaty, which the fossil fuel treaty promises to be. It must be given the chance. A total of 16 countries is not a bad number. The non-proliferation treaty had a similar beginning.
And like the non-proliferation treaty, the fossil fuel treaty is based on non-proliferation, meaning equitably phasing down the production of coal, oil and gas.
The Paris treaty has had 30 years to do it, but at every COP, it failed. It is time to let the fossil fuel treaty rewrite the rules.