The Santa Marta Fossil Fuel Transition Conference: Something We Should Pay Attention to

Not because it presents a road map to a fossil free world, but because it doesn't. The Santa Marta process needs an upgrade.

The Co-hosts of the conference have helpfully published their “takeaways” now that the conference has ended. The conference has been lauded by may climate and environmental groups as a major move to transition away from fossil fuels. And the praise is warranted in that almost 60 nations stepped up to move beyond the log jam of the IPCC COP meetings. Actually addressing the role of fossil fuels in the climate crisis, something the fossil fuel producers and their lobbyists have largely prevented at the COP meetings, is indeed a useful step. But only a step.

The Santa Marta process is worth paying attention to because it has the potential to break some of the stranglehold the fossil fuel industry has on the IPCC process. It also deserves our attention because as currently operating, it is unlikely to achieve what is actually necessary to avert climate disaster. It needs upgrading and should receive the feedback and inputs from climate and earth science researchers, as well as related NGOs to make that upgrade.

The “Takeaway” report summarizes many interesting issues openly discussed in Santa Marta, and identifies three major areas for further workstreams.

The report states:

“Work on roadmaps: this workstream will aim to connect countries with the Science Panel on the Global Energy Transition and the NDC Partnership. It will help countries develop roadmaps and align them with their NDCs. It will also facilitate cooperation between countries willing to provide and receive support for implementation.

Work on macroeconomic dependencies and financial architecture: together with IISD we will look for the necessary expertise to help leverage collective capacities to support the necessary changes in financial systems, unlock finance and investment flows required for the transition, and determine who needs to be involved. This workstream will include a focus on debt constraints, as well as on financial incentives and subsidies.

Work on producer–consumer alignment for fossil fuel transition: supported by the OECD, this workstream will engage with other experts to work towards mapping opportunities and ways to connect fossil fuel producers and consumers, that supports the decarbonization of trade balances, advancing progress toward a fossil fuel–free trade system. Aside from economic diversification, this workstream will consider how to make transitions people-centered and territorially grounded, therefore tackling the revenue exchange problem, while advancing energy sovereignty.”

The approaches being taken to each of these three major areas are problematic.

Road Maps Earlier pieces summarize my concerns with the road maps so far (here and here). One helpful aspect of the approach to road maps is the recognition that each nation has unique features that will influence how they transition away from fossil fuels. But this flexibility is not balanced with clear goals or guidelines. The two road maps presented at the conference, for example, used different years to identify the baseline targets they were aiming for. The exclusion of any guidelines to account for embedded emissions is another major weakness, as well as any considerations of population increases, or emissions from continued economic growth.

Both clearer goals and some guidelines about not making things worse would seem to be important upgrades needed to do what is necessary. The absence of consensus about what is actually necessary (not just politically feasible), is a glaring omission that needs upgrading for this process to work.

Yet another critical omission is any guideline about timing. The growing evidence is that irreversible tipping points are rapidly approaching. There is doubt that the assumed remaining carbon budget even exists. Urgency is missing from the approach.

The Science Panel on Global Energy Transition advising this process has the potential to clarify the science behind the upgrades needed. Let’s make sure they focus on what is necessary.

Macro Dependencies and Finance

The centrality of fossil fuels to everything we do, and the sheer size of the industry in terms of global finance, clearly represent major obstacles to reducing emissions. Eliminating subsidies is an obvious step needed, but politically challenging. Replacing revenue from fossil fuel sales will be even more difficult for many nations. Assuming that IISG goals should be the standard to aim for in this transition (as the approach suggests), ignores that ecological and social consequences of yet more material throughput. Our advanced state of ecological overshoot requires us to significantly reduce our material throughput by some 70 to 80%.

The approach taken assumes the importance of continued economic growth to fund the transition, and just fix the inequities involved in subsidies and debt arrangements. There is no consideration of the need to drastically reduce our overall energy and material throughput to operate within biophysical limits. The laws of physics and ecology contradict these assumptions, but they are ignored.

Upgrading the Santa Marta process requires a total rethink of our macro-economic paradigm if it is to succeed. Relying of the development focused IISD is not likely to champion the upgrades needed. It is not possible for undeveloped nations to achieve the material lifestyles of developed nations. The latter have to become more like the former. Incorporation of Degrowth and Post Growth approaches have the potential to contribute to the upgrades, but are absent from the process to date.

Producer–Consumer Alignment for Fossil Fuel Transition

A major focus of the Santa Marta process is the fuel switching approach from fossil fuels to electrification - keep everything going as it is now, just use a different energy source. Keep everybody happy, both consumers and producers.

This is a green growth approach that suffers from all the concerns already identified. A major issue is the requirement for using fossil fuels to make the transition to EVs, PVs and wind turbines, etc, as well as the mining and material throughput required for building this new global infrastructure. Also overlooked is the energy and material required to replace this global infrastructure in a few decades when it wears out. This is a lot of material growth for a planet on the cusp of ecological collapse.

These disappointments in the Santa Marta process reflect my earlier enthusiasm for this group explicitly tackling the fossil fuel lobby and producers who obstruct so much of the IPCC work. I wanted to see something truly breakthrough from Santa Marta - dealing with what is needed based on the science - not just the climate and other earth science research, but also the ecological research that is generally ignored. I wanted to see a real sense of urgency in not only transitioning away from fossil fuels, but also a clear recognition and acceptance that we have to greatly reduce our energy demand to live within the planet’s biophysical limits. I wanted to see a massive public education campaign to inform people of both the magnitude and urgency of change needed, and a road map to ensuring everyone’s universal basic needs are met.

I’m reminded of a quote attributed to Darwin, that went something like this:

“It’s not the strongest species that survive, or even the most intelligent, {one might add, or not the richest}, but the ones that adapt best to the realities they face. “

Ignoring the biophysical limits of the only planet we know of with life risks failing the adaptation challenge. The Santa Marta process needs an upgrade.