With 75 Parties now on board, including the US, China, India and the European Union, the Paris Agreement is set to enter into force on 4 November.
This commits countries to fulfilling the pledges they put forward last year – their “nationally determined contributions” to tackling climate change.
For many countries, these “contributions” focus on building more renewable power, burning less coal for electricity, and increasing energy efficiency.
Even as these actions will reduce the burning of fossil fuels, the word “fossil” is never mentioned in the Paris Agreement. This may well be by design – to bypass what could be a political flashpoint. But it is striking: countries appear unwilling to name fossil fuels as the main source of human-driven CO2 emissions.
Yet a growing number of researchers and civil society organizations are targeting fossil fuels head on, considering ways to limit what is extracted in the first place as a means to accelerate a low-carbon transition.
A conference in Oxford last week, organized by my colleagues, highlighted a wide range of “supply-side” climate policy approaches – from fossil fuel-free zones, to moratoria on new coal mines, to subsidy reforms, to litigation.
My own recent work has focused on the United States, where two major supply-side climate policy approaches are getting serious consideration from Barack Obama’s administration.
Source: Climate Home, UK