SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
just transition
Affordability, Authoritarianism, and the Climate Crisis: The Fight in California
There are real challenges that must be addressed to transition to a clean energy economy while maintaining affordability. And there are difficulties that are intentionally caused by the fossil fuel industry’s insistence on fighting a transition away from dependence on its products.
Feb 08, 2026
In California, as in the rest of the country, there is a war going on between two visions of the future. In one we have affordability, sustainability, and democracy. In the other we have poverty, extreme inequality, authoritarianism, and environmental disaster. Movement toward the first is powered by many organizations and a variety of forms of people power. Movement toward the second is powered by the fossil fuel industry, big tech, white nationalism, and the neofascist wing of the Republican Party. Deciding who will win that battle is the most dramatic question of our time.
The fossil fuel industry is a central player in this story. At the federal level, this was exemplified by President Donald Trump choosing the head of ExxonMobil to be secretary of state in his first term. In the run-up to the 2024 election it was exemplified by the $450 million dollars the industry donated to Republican candidates, with $96 million going directly to Trump’s election campaign. We will probably never know the extent of indirect donations. The industry’s centrality to the story is exemplified by the work done to shut down clean energy projects funded by the Biden administration. It is exemplified by the kidnapping of the president of Venezuela to take over that country’s fossil fuel resources. The industry is showing no signs of changing its strategy of putting profits over climate, over affordability, and over democracy.
Here in California we are at the crux of that battle. California is a global leader in making the transition to a clean energy economy. We have some of the strongest environmental legislation in the world. At the same time, California also produces 118 million barrels of oil per year. The fossil fuel industry is the largest contributor to our state’s politicians. The Western States Petroleum Association is the largest political contributor. Chevron is the second largest.
Most of our politicians would like for California to be a leader in building an affordable and sustainable society, and yet the structural limitations imposed by the political power of the fossil fuel industry are making the transition difficult. Finding a way through that contradiction at the core of our politics is an urgent need for those of us wanting to build a just, sustainable society in California.
In this period, environmentalists cannot afford to ignore the issues of energy prices and job loss. But neither can we allow the fossil fuel industry to slow our progress on getting off of fossil fuels.
Californians, like most people in the US, are being squeezed economically. Prices are rising and wages are stagnating. Politicians who focus on affordability are finding deep resonance with voters and the public. Some California politicians are becoming wary of bold climate legislation, out of concern that voters’ struggles with affordability will lead them to blame politicians’ support for clean energy for rising energy prices. Gas prices in California are some of the highest in the country. No Democratic lawmaker wants to be blamed for high energy bills. Gov. Gavin Newsom is more wary of that than anyone, as he positions himself to run for the presidency.
There are real challenges that must be addressed to transition to a clean energy economy while maintaining affordability. And there are difficulties that are intentionally caused by the fossil fuel industry’s insistence on fighting a transition away from dependence on its products. Politicians and advocacy organizations need to be wary of the traps that the fossil fuel industry is laying to prevent the transition to a just, sustainable society. Industry has laid traps by spiking gas prices and blaming environmental regulation for prices and by pretending that environmental laws are bad for labor. As the world weans itself from fossil fuels, it needs to wean itself from the political power of the fossil fuel industry and from its manipulative messaging.
To fight the traps laid by the fossil fuel industry, environmental organizations need to redouble their efforts to build alliances with those in labor who are not beholden to the fossil fuel industry; to work for regulations that prevent industry from spiking gas prices for political reasons; and to work to keep energy affordable. In this period, environmentalists cannot afford to ignore the issues of energy prices and job loss. But neither can we allow the fossil fuel industry to slow our progress on getting off of fossil fuels. In order to work our way through the maze of challenges in this struggle it is important to understand what impacts gas prices and the tools we have to combat the climate crisis while maintaining affordability and protecting democracy.
The Reality of California Gas Prices
In California, Chevron stations have QR codes prominently displayed that will take you to a site that will tell you how much of the price of gas can be attributed to taxes. They hope to build political support for lowering those taxes and to put the blame for high gas prices on environmental regulations. On those sites, Chevron fails to tell you the amount of the price that is attributed to profits, or even to the cost of the lobbying they do to convince you they need to be able to continue to despoil our environment.
The price of gas at the pump is driven by many things: 37% of the price of gas in California is set by the price of crude oil on the global market, 25% comes from California taxes and fees, and 4% is from federal taxes. Finally, 33% goes to the fossil fuel industry for refining and distribution costs, and profits.
How much of that 33% that goes to the industry is profits? According to the Environmental Working Group, in 2022, the year of a major price spike that made gas prices a political football, “Four of California refiners posted a combined $72.5 billion in record-breaking windfall profits last year, nearly tripling 2021 profits.”
In 2023 Gov. Newsom called a special session of the legislature to pass a law to limit price gouging. The bill created a new agency, the Division of Petroleum Market Oversight, to monitor profits within the industry. It was supposed to also charge penalties for price gouging, but in 2025 the governor put a 5-year moratorium on that out of fears of backlash from refinery closures.
In 2024 the agency published a report that showed that after accounting for other legitimate reasons for California gas to be more expensive than in other states, between 2015 and 2024 excess profits over industry averages of profits in other states were “$0.41 per gallon, costing Californians $59 billion.” If gas is at $4.10 per gallon now, that means that 10% of the price at the pump can be attributed to excess profits. Excess, or windfall profits, are profits over the industry average.
Californians get good roads and clean air as a result of the 25% of the price of gas that comes from state taxes. They gain nothing positive from the 10% that goes to excess profits for fossil fuel companies.
Gas production in California is complicated by a few factors. One is that we have high clean air standards, so gas cannot easily come from other places. Refiners are able to make excess profits because there are very few of them in the state. They are able to act as an oligopoly. Twenty-nine of California’s refineries closed between 1982 and 2024. At the present moment, 90% of our state’s refining capacity is controlled by four companies. We are in a very, very difficult situation of dependence on those few companies.
As we transition to a just and clean economy, we will see more refinery closures. California is slowly and steadily consuming less gasoline: “In-state consumption of gasoline has been declining since 2017, a trend projected to continue. Californians consumed around 13.8 billion gallons of gasoline in 2021, this is expected to drop to 8 billion by 2030 and to less than 2 billion gallons by the 2040s.”
The state has found a few ways to deal with this difficult situation. In 2024 California Attorney General Rob Bonta won a $50 million settlement with two gas trading firms for price manipulations. That same year the legislature passed ABX21, which required refiners to keep a certain amount of supply on hand to help deal with temporary refinery closures. A longer-term solution may need to involve the state taking refineries over and running them in the public interest to smooth the transition away from the use of fossil fuels.
Impacts for Fossil Fuel Industry Workers
Refinery closures are good news for the health of people living in the communities near them. They are not such great news for the tax base of those communities or for the people who work at them. There are around 100,000 people employed by the fossil fuel industry in California now, and several thousand have already lost their jobs in recent years.
A major study on a just transition for California was published in 2021. It was done by economists at the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) and commissioned by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Local 3299, the California Federation of Teachers, and the United Steelworkers Local 675. The report lays out in detail the kinds of policies needed to help workers transition to new jobs at comparable pay to what they have had, and what is needed to support the economic viability of communities facing the transition, and ways to pay for a just transition.
As we have learned with Trump, you don't deal with a bully by giving them your sandwich.
One of the most promising ways the state can support displaced refinery workers is by employing them in the work of plugging abandoned wells. In 2022 the state appropriated $20 million to a Displaced Oil and Gas Worker Fund. The 2022 budget included $20 million to train workers to plug oil wells. The state has budgeted $30 million to workforce organizations to retrain refinery workers for new jobs.
It is possible for California to transition to a clean energy economy while maintaining price affordability, good jobs, and a just transition for fossil fuel industry workers and impacted communities. But that possibility will only be a reality if we get the politics of the transition right. If we don't get it right the industry will continue to continue to punish consumers as a way to threaten politicians, while maintaining excess profits.
The Fight in 2025
In October of 2025 Gov. Newsom shepherded through a set of bills aimed at taming energy prices. Some of them were supported by environmentalists and some of them were opposed. The one that was most forcefully opposed by environmentalists was SB 237, which streamlines permitting for oil extraction in Kern County. It supersedes laws that restrict production near communities and ecologically sensitive areas.
In the lead up to that fight a coalition of environmental groups sent a letter to the governor and legislature arguing that there were other ways to deal with the affordability problem. Their argument boiled down to two main points.
The first was that the sooner we reduce our dependency on fossil fuels, the sooner we are freed from the price of gas. We free ourselves from dependence on oil with renewable energy, public transportation, electric vehicles, and charging infrastructure. California is well along the way in making this transition happen.
The other point they made was that there are ways to regulate the fossil fuel industry to prevent it from punishing consumers. Politicians need to lean into and expand ABX21, the bill that requires refiners to keep a certain amount of supply on hand to help deal with temporary closures. The organizations called for the bill to be expanded to prevent future supply shocks.
The other big thing that happened in 2025 was that a bill that would raise money to clean up the mess left behind by the fossil fuel industry was stopped for the time being, in part because politicians were afraid of a backlash by consumers over the price of gas. The Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Act was pulled by supporters when it became clear that legislators, many of whom have been strong environmental allies, did not have the stomach to push the bill forward. Supporters continue to do the groundwork to pass the bill in the future.
That bill would raise money for public goods and would only be paid for by the companies which have caused environmental damage in the state. It would be very good for consumers. But as long as the fossil fuel industry has the power to punish California consumers and blame politicians, the bill is not likely to pass.
The Solutions, an Agenda for 2026, and Beyond: Labor and Environmental Solidarity
For years many in the environmental movement have called for a just transition, where we take seriously the needs of workers whose good union jobs are being displaced in the transition to a clean energy economy. The PERI report of 2021 lays out in detail how that transition could happen with minimal suffering for workers or consumers. But of course the dirty energy industry is not interested in a just transition away from the use of their products. Rather than working to help society wean itself off of its dependence on fossil fuels, the industry has denied the reality of the climate crisis; propagated misinformation; formed alliances with the right wing of labor; and bought politicians willing to use the levers of government to suppress alternatives, stop regulation, and subsidize their dirty energy.
We need to always be sure that we propose solutions that don't benefit one part of society while causing another to suffer.
There are many unions in California ready to fight hard for policies that sit at the intersection of affordability, environment, and democracy. Several of them came out in support of the Polluters Pay Climate Superfund Act. But many unions are wary of supporting anything that labor is not unified on. And part of labor in California is committed to supporting the interests of the fossil fuel industry. The Western States Petroleum Association has an alliance with the Building Trades Council, which advocates for shared interests. The building trades have consistently come out in opposition to environmental legislation, even when there were no jobs the legislation put at risk.
Finding ways to form an alliance between labor and environment that is stronger than the alliance between the Building Trades and WSPA is an important part of freeing California politicians to be able to support moves toward a pro-affordability, democracy, and sustainability agenda.
Conclusion
We are in the middle of a transition from a dirty energy economy that requires political control over geographies, which requires dictators and war, to an economy based on sunshine and wind, which can develop into a sustainable system where no concentrations of power are needed, and where all people can have access to the things they need to live well.
Navigating the bumps and difficult spots in the transition requires us to be very thoughtful about how our work sits at the intersection of affordability, sustainability, and democracy. It requires that we maintain as much solidarity as possible among those who are fighting for a world that works for us all. And it requires that we be proactive in dealing with the political machinations of an industry that will stop at nothing to protect its ability to profit.
Solidarity means we are all in this together, we look for solutions that serve a multiplicity of needs, and use our intersectional lenses to make sure no one is left behind. We need to always be sure that we propose solutions that don't benefit one part of society while causing another to suffer.
One response to refinery closure and rising gas prices is to give industry what it wants and hope that they will not punish the state too much. We can slow the transition and allow industry to continue to profit, allow frontline communities to continue to suffer health impacts, and the climate to be destroyed. The other approach is to challenge industry head on, and risk them causing all sorts of damage in retaliation. As we have learned with Trump, you don't deal with a bully by giving them your sandwich. Bullies need to be taken on directly. But as we are also learning from Trump you need to be smart in how you disarm a bully; you need to be proactive in managing and limiting his ability to retaliate.
Some of the steps we need to take to move through the difficult phase of the transition we are in in California are:
- Expose the politicians who do the industry's bidding, so that we have politicians who are more willing to be bold in their support for policies that help us move forward on an agenda that supports affordability, environment, and democracy;
- Pass laws that prevent retaliatory actions and price gauging. This can include amending and expanding the scope of ABX21;
- Encourage the state to be ready to take over our oil and refining resources if needed;
- Keep communicating with the public about who is to blame for the high prices of gasoline, and to not allow those prices to go so high as to harm California consumers;
- Build stronger bridges between labor and environmental organizations; and
- Remind the public that we are on their side and committed to pushing for win-win goals that promote affordability, labor strength, environmental goals, and democracy.
Update: The number of refineries closed in California has been corrected from 46 between 2018 and 2024 to 29 between 1982 and 2024.
Keep ReadingShow Less
We Need a Global Movement to Unrig the System Exploiting Indonesian Nickel Workers
Labor activist Raraa Rahmawati argues that the hazards in her country’s nickel industry are part of the broader problem of a global economy rigged to favor the wealthy
Dec 09, 2025
Electric vehicle sales are rising rapidly around the world. But few people who purchase these cars know anything about the workers who produce them.
Labor activist Raraa Rahmawati is trying to change that for one group of e-vehicle supply chain workers: the more than 230,000 Indonesians who toil in the nickel mining and processing industry. Recently, she reported on the reality of these workers’ lives at an international “People’s Summit” held parallel to the G20 leaders meeting in Johannesburg, South Africa.
Indonesia boasts the world’s largest reserves of nickel, a key component of the lithium batteries that power electric vehicles. To capture more of the value of this essential mineral, the national government banned raw nickel exports in 2020. This has triggered a boom in domestic nickel processing.
Who’s benefiting most from this boom? The Chinese firm Tsingshan ranks as the top investor in Indonesia’s nickel processing operations. The company has contracts to supply carmakers around the world, including a $5 billion deal with Tesla.
“People who buy electric cars think they’re contributing to a ‘just transition’ away from fossil fuels,” she told the international crowd in Johannesburg. “But they should know this is really just another form of extractivism."
Tsingshan’s founder and chairman, Xiang Guangda, has accumulated a fortune worth an estimated $3.7 billion. Known as the “Nickel King,” the Chinese tycoon closely guards his privacy. But Bloomberg last year spilled one revealing tidbit: that Xiang had purchased a $62 million mansion for his daughter in Singapore.
The contrast between the living and working conditions for Xiang’s family and his employees could not be more extreme. Rahmawati works with an organization, Sembada Bersama, that is documenting the severe workplace hazards in this industry.
In a new report, Sembada Bersama reveals disturbing information about the Indonesia Weda Bay Industrial Park, a massive nickel mining and smelting complex in a former rainforest in the northern part of the Maluku Islands. Tsingshan owns the largest share of the project.
The most disturbing finding: an apparent pattern of “sudden deaths” among the plant’s workers, who are mostly 25 to 35 years old. Nearly every worker Sembada Bersama interviewed was aware of these tragic incidents. Rahmawati said that while lack of transparency and oversight make it impossible to prove, these deaths are likely the result of cardiac arrests related to grueling working conditions.
Smelter operators typically work two 12-hour shifts over two days, often having to rotate between day and night shifts, with a third day off. To document additional hazards, Sembada Bersama collaborated with workers to take meter readings inside the smelters. The data they collected reveal workplace heat temperatures of as high as 108.5°F, excessive levels of inhalable dust particles that can cause respiratory disease and cancer, and noise levels high enough to cause permanent hearing loss.
These occupational health risks come on top of the Indonesian nickel industry’s devastating environmental costs and high accident rates. Two years ago, an explosion at a Tsingshan plant left 21 workers dead.
Tsingshan recently signed an agreement with the United Nations Industrial Development Organization to improve ecological practices and industrial skills training at its Indonesia operations. This suggests the firm is feeling some pressure. But with few alternative job opportunities, local communities and workers remain vulnerable to the enormous power of Tsingshan and other nickel corporations.
The Sembada Bersama report ends with detailed recommendations for the Indonesian government and corporations. Rahmawati also argues that the hazards in her country’s nickel industry are part of the broader problem of a global economy rigged to favor the wealthy. International solidarity and cooperation, she feels, will be key to unrigging the system.
“People who buy electric cars think they’re contributing to a ‘just transition’ away from fossil fuels,” she told the international crowd in Johannesburg. “But they should know this is really just another form of extractivism. We need a cross-border movement. It’s time for us to be united.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Climate Talks End With 'Empty Deal' That Fails on Forests, Finance, and Fossil Fuels
"COP30 provides a stark reminder that the answers to the climate crisis do not lie inside the climate talks—they lie with the people and movements leading the way toward a just, equitable, fossil-free future," one campaigner said.
Nov 22, 2025
The United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, concluded on Saturday in Belém, Brazil with a deal that does not even include the words "fossil fuels"—the burning of which scientists agree is the primary cause of the climate crisis.
Environmental and human rights advocates expressed disappointment in the final Global Mutirão decision, which they say failed to deliver road maps to transition away from oil, gas, and coal and to halt deforestation—another important driver of the rise in global temperatures since the preindustrial era.
“This is an empty deal," said Nikki Reisch, the Center for International Environmental Law's (CIEL) director of climate and energy program. "COP30 provides a stark reminder that the answers to the climate crisis do not lie inside the climate talks—they lie with the people and movements leading the way toward a just, equitable, fossil-free future. The science is settled and the law is clear: We must keep fossil fuels in the ground and make polluters pay."
COP30 was notable in that it was the first international climate conference to which the US did not send a formal delegation, following President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement. Yet, even without a Trump administration presence, observers were disappointed in the power of fossil fuel-producing countries to derail ambition. The final document also failed to heed the warning of a fire that broke out in the final days of the talks, which many saw as a symbol for the rapid heating of the Earth.
“Rich polluting countries that caused this crisis have blocked the breakthrough that we needed at COP30."
“The venue bursting into flames couldn’t be a more apt metaphor for COP30’s catastrophic failure to take concrete action to implement a funded and fair fossil fuel phaseout,” said Jean Su, energy justice director at the Center for Biological Diversity, in a statement. “Even without the Trump administration there to bully and cajole, petrostates once again shut down meaningful progress at this COP. These negotiations keep hitting a wall because wealthy nations profiting off polluting fossil fuels fail to offer the needed financial support to developing countries and any meaningful commitment to move first.”
The talks on a final deal nearly broke down between Friday and Saturday as a coalition of more than 80 countries who favored more ambitious language faced off against fossil fuel-producing nations like Saudi Arabia, Russia, and India.
During the dispute, Colombia's delegate said the deal "falls far short of reflecting the magnitude of the challenges that parties—especially the most vulnerable—are confronting on the ground," according to BBC News.
Finally, a deal was struck around 1:35 pm local time, The Guardian reported. The deal circumvented the fossil fuel debate by affirming the "United Arab Emirates Consensus," referring to when nations agreed to transition away from fossil fuels at COP28 in the UAE. In addition, COP President André Corrêa do Lago said that stronger language on the fossil fuel transition could be negotiated at an interim COP in six months.
On deforestation, the deal similarly restated the COP26 pledge to halt tree felling by 2030 without making any new plans or commitments.
Climate justice advocates were also disappointed in the finance commitments from Global North to Global South countries. While wealthier countries pledged to triple adaptation funds to $120 billion per year, many saw the amount as insufficient, and the funds were promised by 2035, not 2030 as poorer countries had wanted.
"We must reflect on what was possible, and what is now missing: the road maps to end forest destruction, and fossil fuels, and an ongoing lack of finance," Greenpeace Brazil executive director Carolina Pasquali told The Guardian. "More than 80 countries supported a transition away from fossil fuels, but they were blocked from agreeing on this change by countries that refused to support this necessary and urgent step. More than 90 countries supported improved protection of forests. That too did not make it into the final agreement. Unfortunately, the text failed to deliver the scale of change needed.”
Climate campaigners did see hope in the final agreement's strong language on human rights and its commitment to a just transition through the Belém Action Mechanism, which aims to coordinate global cooperation toward protecting workers and shifting to clean energy.
“It’s a big win to have the Belém Action Mechanism established with the strongest-ever COP language around Indigenous and worker rights and biodiversity protection,” Su said. “The BAM agreement is in stark contrast to this COP’s total flameout on implementing a funded and fair fossil fuel phaseout.”
Oxfam Brasil executive director Viviana Santiago struck a similar note, saying: “COP30 offered a spark of hope but far more heartbreak, as the ambition of global leaders continues to fall short of what is needed for a livable planet. People from the Global South arrived in Belém with hope, seeking real progress on adaptation and finance, but rich nations refused to provide crucial adaptation finance. This failure leaves the communities at the frontlines of the climate crisis exposed to the worst impacts and with few options for their survival."
"The climate movement will be leaving Belém angry at the lack of progress, but with a clear plan to channel that anger into action."
Romain Ioualalen, global policy lead at Oil Change International, said: “Rich polluting countries that caused this crisis have blocked the breakthrough that we needed at COP30. The EU, UK, Australia, and other wealthy nations are to blame for COP’s failure to adopt a road map on fossil fuels by refusing to commit to phase out first or put real public money on the table for the crisis they have caused. Still, amid this flawed outcome, there are glimmers of real progress. The Belém Action Mechanism is a major win made possible by movements and Global South countries that puts people’s needs and rights at the center of climate action."
Indigenous leaders applauded language that recognized their land rights and traditional knowledge as climate solutions and recognized people of African descent for the first time. However, they still argued the COP process could do more to enable the full participation of Indigenous communities.
"Despite being referred to as an Indigenous COP and despite the historic achievement in the Just Transition Programme, it became clear that Indigenous Peoples continue to be excluded from the negotiations, and in many cases, we were not given the floor in negotiation rooms. Nor have most of our proposals been incorporated," said Emil Gualinga of the Kichwa Peoples of Sarayaku, Ecuador. "The militarization of the COP shows that Indigenous Peoples are viewed as threats, and the same happens in our territories: Militarization occurs when Indigenous Peoples defend their rights in the face of oil, mining, and other extractive projects."
Many campaigners saw hope in the alliances that emerged beyond the purview of the official UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) process, from a group of 24 countries who have agreed to collaborate on a plan to transition off fossil fuels in line with the Paris goals of limiting temperature increases to 1.5°C to the Indigenous and civil society activists who marched against fossil fuels in Belém.
“The barricade that rich countries built against progress and justice in the COP30 process stands in stark contrast to the momentum building outside the climate talks," Ioualalen said. "Countries and people from around the world loudly are demanding a fair and funded phaseout, and that is not going to stop. We didn’t win the full justice outcome we need in Belém, but we have new arenas to keep fighting."
In April 2026, Colombia and the Netherlands will cohost the First International Conference on Fossil Fuel Phaseout. At the same time, 18 countries have signed on in support of a treaty to phase out fossil fuels.
"However big polluters may try to insulate themselves from responsibility or edit out the science, it does not place them above the law," Reisch said. "That’s why governments committed to tackling the crisis at its source are uniting to move forward outside the UNFCCC—under the leadership of Colombia and Pacific Island states—to phase out fossil fuels rapidly, equitably, and in line with 1.5°C. The international conference on fossil fuel phaseout in Colombia next April is the first stop on the path to a livable future. A Fossil Fuel Treaty is the road map the world needs and leaders failed to deliver in Belém.”
These efforts must contend with the influence not only of fossil fuel-producing nations, but also the fossil fuel industry itself, which sent a record 1,602 lobbyists to COP30.
“COP30 witnessed a record number of lobbyists from the fossil fuel industry and carbon capture sector," said CIEL fossil economy director Lili Fuhr. "With 531 Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) lobbyists—surpassing the delegations of 62 nations—and over 1,600 fossil fuel lobbyists making up 1 in every 25 attendees, these industries deeply infiltrated the talks, pushing dangerous distractions like CCS and geoengineering. Yet, this unprecedented corporate capture has met fiercer resistance than ever with people and progressive governments—with science and law on their side—demanding a climate process that protects people and planet over profit."
Indeed, Jamie Henn of Make Polluters Pay told Common Dreams that the polluting nations and industries overplayed their hand, arguing that Big Oil and "petro states, including the United States, did their best to kill progress at COP30, stripping the final agreement of any mention of fossil fuels. But their opposition may have backfired: More countries than ever are now committed to pursuing a phaseout road map and this April's conference in Colombia on a potential 'Fossil Fuel Treaty' has been thrust into the spotlight, with support from Brazil, the European Union, and others."
Henn continued: "The COP negotiations are a consensus process, which means it's nearly impossible to get strong language on fossil fuels past blockers like Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the US, who skipped these talks, but clearly opposed any meaningful action. But you can't block reality: The transition from fossils to clean energy is accelerating every day."
"From Indigenous protests to the thunderous rain on the roof of the conference every afternoon, this COP in the heart of the Amazon was forced to confront realities that these negotiations so often try to ignore," he concluded. "I think the climate movement will be leaving Belém angry at the lack of progress, but with a clear plan to channel that anger into action. Climate has always been a fight against fossil fuels, and that battle is now fully underway."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular