What can we do with a sentence?

The Dubai COP may have handed activists a new tool

As North America slept, delegates from around the world concluded the global climate conference in Dubai, when the chair—local oilman Sultan al-Jaber—quick-gavelled through an agreement that included a sentence calling for "transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner."

That may not seem like much—it is, after all, the single most obvious thing one could possibly say about climate change, akin to “in an effort to reduce my headache, I am transitioning away from hitting myself in the forehead with a hammer.”

And by itself it will accomplish nothing. As Samoa, speaking on behalf of the Small Island Nations, said a few minutes later, “we have come to the conclusion that the course correction that is needed has not been secured."

But it is—and this is important—a tool for activists to use henceforth. The world’s nations have now publicly agreed that they need to transition off fossil fuels, and that sentence will hang over every discussion from now on—especially the discussions about any further expansion of the fossil fuel energy. There may be barriers to shutting down operations (what the text of the agreement obliquely refers to as “national circumstances, pathways and approaches.”) But surely, if the language means anything at all, it means no opening no more new oil fields, no more new pipeline. No more new LNG export terminals.

In fact, that last point—LNG export terminals—will almost certainly be the first real test of whether this agreement means anything. The American envoy John Kerry, who celebrated his 80th birthday during the talks, could be forgiven for thinking of it as a crowning achievement. Though he acknowledged stronger language would have been nice, he said “I think everybody here should be pleased that in a world of Ukraine and the Middle East war and all the other challenges of a planet that is foundering, this is a moment where multilateralism has actually come together and people have taken individual interests and attempted to define the common good,” Kerry said. “That is hard. That is the hardest thing in diplomacy, the hardest thing in politics.”

But Kerry’s job isn’t done. He needs to return home and convince the White House to pause the granting of new export licenses for the ongoing LNG buildout, a project so enormous that by itself it could produce more greenhouse gas emissions than all of Europe. If the White House agrees—and Dubai saw the release of a letter from 230 environmental organizations urging just such a pause—than we will know there was something real in all this endless talk.

And in that case, the bland sentence—"transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner"—would join at least two others in the long history of the climate talks as historically significant.

The first came in 1995, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in its second assessment report, said “the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.” That bland sentence—bland for the same reason, because it also had to get past every government in the world—was the death knell for the argument that climate change wasn’t real; after it, no serious person (admittedly a category with many exceptions) could argue there was no need to do anything.

The second came in 2015, in the preamble to the Paris accords, when (at the urging of those same small island states) the text included a pledge to “substantially reduce global greenhouse gas emissions to hold global temperature increase to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change.” That recognition of 1.5 degrees changed the debate—but only because activists and scientists used it to demand that governments and businesses identify a “1.5 degree path,” which increased the seriousness of those plans. We’re not going to stay below 1.5 degrees—but that sentence may, in the end, knock half a degree off how much the planet warms.

If today’s sentence is to matter, it will need that same kind of activism, especially since the fossil fuel industry—the most well-represented ‘nation’ at the talks—managed to lard the text with wiggle words. For instance, the agreement “recognizes that transitional fuels can play a role in facilitating the energy transition while ensuring energy security,” which the fracked gas industry is going to interpret as permission for them to go on pumping. We need to insist that the clear, plain meaning of the language is, the fossil fuel era is over. No more new digging and drilling.

What I’m trying to say is, today’s agreement is literally meaningless—and potentially meaningful. But the diplomats are done now—the rest of us are going to have to supply that meaning.

In other climate and energy news:

+A big night tonight at Third Act, where we celebrate our second birthday with Senator Bernie Sanders. Join us on the zoom—and tomorrow night we kick off a multi-part training series on nonviolent direct action. I’ll be talking about the history, from Thoreau on—and it will be good prep for taking action in the new year!

+Colombia’s interesting new president, Gustavo Petro, is worth listening to on the climate crisis, and the obstacles to addressing it:

“I think that the rise of the extreme right is fundamentally driven by fear,” he said. “Fear is weighing on the mentality of the middle classes, which are very powerful in Europe and the United States, about losing consumption, comfort, the standard of living, which no doubt may grow with the transformation.” That fear, he says, will grow because “migratory flows are going to increase in the world if we don’t act quickly. And it is simply because the tropics are running out of water. Migration will grow to become hundreds of millions. That is foreseeable, and so a construct is emerging as in Germany in the 1930s, based on the fear of difference. And anti-migration policies deepen, and the middle and upper classes, even in white Europe, begin to construct a sense of barbarity, of the barbarians who are coming.”

That is a very reasonable description of where we are, and where we may be going. And Petro has acted forthrightly to do what he can, stopping oil exploration in the sections of the Amazon under his control, something his Brazilian counterpart Lula has refused to do.

“The Amazon jungle, with rising temperatures, may burn, with which all that mass of CO₂ absorbed for millennia returns to the atmosphere. That is one of the points of no return. So, caring for the Amazon jungle is one of the greatest objectives of a struggle against the climate crisis.

“Brazil has to undergo a transformation of its mindset,” he said.

“It is much easier in Colombia. In Colombia we understand the importance of the jungle, though there are predatory factors at work that have to do with illegal mining [and] money laundering associated with drug trafficking, which has become a motor of depredation there.

“Yet in Brazil the idea of transforming the jungle into large agrarian plantations, in large estates, has been developing for a long time. Many indigenous and environmental leaders have died, have been assassinated, because of that struggle.

“Politically, it is difficult in Brazil to propose the idea of saving the jungle and not exploiting it commercially, its lands, its territories. That is why a Bolsonaro was possible,” he said.

+A fine account in the Times of bus rapid transit systems, one of the cheap and obvious solutions to climate and congestion problems.

“For so many people, buses are just not sexy. Light rail is sexy, streetcars are sexy,” said Jeanette Sadik-Khan, a transit analyst. There has been a bias, she said, toward heavy infrastructure projects that are seen as a spur to development. But rail projects are less flexible, can cost billions of dollars and may take decades to complete.

Improving bus systems also allows cities to take advantage of infrastructure the U.S. has already invested hundreds of billions of dollars in: roads.

I saw and wrote about the very first of these systems, in Curitiba Brazil, in the 1990s; they’ve been widely adopted in South America and Asia, and I think they’re immensely wise. “Subways on the street,” they can move massive numbers of people cheaply. But only if they’re given priority over cars, which is always the problem in American transit policy.