Hatching a fossil fuel phase out treaty

From CFACT

By David Wojick

About 60 countries just gathered together to try to kick off a global phase out of fossil fuel use. For now it is more of a show than a threat so it is worth watching with some humor. Planning to achieve the impossible has to be funny.

At this point there are just a lot of proposals. By far the funniest is a proposed phase out deadline of 2030 for coal. Do they not know that China is burning over 5 billion tons a year? That India, Indonesia and others are rapidly building fleets of new coal-fired power plants? This madness is the measure of the phase out movement.

The most threatening proposal is for a designing a new Fossil Fuel Treaty (FFT) mandating the phase out that countries can adopt. As a treaty the FFT would be a legally binding instrument enforceable by the Courts. The FFT has  its own promoting organization here.

What is most interesting is that such a Treaty has the potential to destabilize the UN Climate Change Program. The UN Program is based on an existing treaty, the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC).

The FFT could compete with the FCCC such as for financial resources and even for jurisdiction. The FCC might even make the FCCC obsolete.

This is no accident since the FFT was born out of frustration with the FCCC. The annual decision meeting of the FCCC is the well known COP which stands for Conference of the Parties.

It took 28 COPs to finally get the words “fossil fuel” into a decision and it had no teeth. The reason is simple. The FCCC COP rules call for decisions to be unanimous so nothing controversial ever gets said. At COP 30 there was a movement to get a decision calling for national roadmaps for phasing out fossil fuels. It failed but the present phase out Conference was authorized as a concession.

Given that the FFT is not part of the Conference charter it is far from clear what connection this Treaty has to the UN, quite possibly none. So it is certainly possible that the FFT movement could compete with the UN Program for attention, funding and other resources. The UN Program may have spawned its demise.

The Conference itself made some progress down the road to impossibility that the FFT movement can tap into. France claims to have created a model phase out roadmap. I have not seen it but it likely uses a lot of nuclear power. France figures that if the world goes nuclear their companies will get a lot of the work.

There has also been created a so-called “Panel of Experts” to help countries develop national phase out roadmaps. It is described here.

They are described as scientists and economists and I do not see any engineers. More fantasy that.

It is easy to see how developing a phase out roadmap can lead to adopting a phase out treaty to enforce it. All it takes is a strong green government which most countries get from time to time when the political pendulum swings far left.

It is also easy to see this FFT movement replacing the FCCC. Why spend a fortune on huge ten day global meetings where nothing gets decided? Better to operate at the national level picking off one country at a time.

That the goal is impossible and ill informed has little bearing on the political reality. The Fossil Fuel Treaty movement is potentially even more dangerous than the UN Climate Change program. It bears careful watching.

Stay tuned to CFACT as this hatchling monster grows.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 8 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
42 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bryan A
May 5, 2026 10:12 am

Yes, they get the Political Green Movement as the Political Pendulum swings left. Fortunately though the Political Pendulum also swings Right and we get a Political Bowel Movement Like Trump which eliminated a lot of Crap the Green Movement built up.

Derg
Reply to  Bryan A
May 5, 2026 3:13 pm

“This town needs an enema.”

Giving_Cat
May 5, 2026 10:16 am

Start with an advisory show of commitment. The question being: “What year is your nation absolutely committed to no coal use whatsoever?”

This is yet one more attempt to extract money from “developed nations” despite coal use being a “developing nation” issue.

Ex-KaliforniaKook
Reply to  Giving_Cat
May 5, 2026 3:23 pm

And again – “What year are YOU resolved to no longer accept or use products from any source that requires fossil fuels in their manufacturing process?”

I don’t mean to imply the YOU and Giving Cat are the same. This was an add on to your statemnt.

MrGrimNasty
May 5, 2026 10:22 am

Strange that the major users of fossil fuels; China, USA, India etc. aren’t interested in joing a death cult preparing a suicide pact.

The final list of participating countries: Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, European Union, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Kenya, Kiribati, Luxembourg, Malawi, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Micronesia, Mongolia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Portugal, Saint Kitts y Nevis, Saint Lucia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Türkiye, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Vatican – Santa Sede.

Bill Toland
Reply to  MrGrimNasty
May 5, 2026 11:00 am

I don’t see any eastern European countries in the list and very few African countries. In fact, any countries which use significant amounts of coal have refused point blank to have anything to do with this ludicrous reality denying organisation.

Reply to  Bill Toland
May 5, 2026 11:38 am

Good observation! Unlike a good dozen of SIDS, which prominently participated in the newly-invented climate jamboree, those nations are busy with real things and cannot waste time for this hot air.

Bryan A
Reply to  Bill Toland
May 5, 2026 2:14 pm

Being the “B” in BRICS I’m surprised to see Brazil on that list

Reply to  MrGrimNasty
May 5, 2026 12:59 pm

First prize to Norway for hypocrisy.

Reply to  MrGrimNasty
May 5, 2026 3:50 pm

I went through their participation list and did not find ‘Australia’, as in the Federal Government, signing on to this boondoggle.

There are some regional councils and one territory (the ACT, of course).

There is nothing I could find in their extensive praise of their achievements and future plans for replacing the thousands of products for which fossil fuels are a necessary prime input.

‘Equality’ and ‘reparation’ are front and centre. When we are all carbon copies (pun intended) of each other (other than the people who have to sacrifice themselves to run the World) and we are all living in squalor, then they will have achieved their ‘equality’.

They do wish for locals to own and have responsibility for local resources and mining of same. How they will mine anything without fossil fuels is not stated. Child labour, maybe???

Reply to  John in Oz
May 5, 2026 4:13 pm

Check the list. Australia is in the list.

Reply to  MrGrimNasty
May 5, 2026 7:22 pm

NOT ONE of those countries would, or could, exist without the massive benefits of the use of fossil fuels.

Sparta Nova 4
May 5, 2026 10:22 am

Yet another COP-out.
On the bright side, all the talking generated enough wind to power a single WTG for an hour or so.

Scarecrow Repair
May 5, 2026 10:23 am

As a treaty the FFT would be a legally binding instrument enforceable by the Courts.

King Canute had more brains than those clowns. They can write all the treaties they want, even get Congress to ratify them and ditto for however other countries ratify treaties. They can’t stop reality.

starzmom
Reply to  Scarecrow Repair
May 5, 2026 10:42 am

It is pretty unlikely that the US Senate would ratify an extreme treaty. Some senators may be clueless but not 2/3s of them.

Scarecrow Repair
Reply to  starzmom
May 5, 2026 2:03 pm

Irrelevant. Reality will not ratify any such treaty, and reality gets the ultimate say.

starzmom
Reply to  Scarecrow Repair
May 5, 2026 3:38 pm

Reality won’t let it be complied with. That is different than a legal mechanism for ratification.

AlbertBrand
May 5, 2026 10:32 am

Now let’s see. Fossil fuels provide 82% of the energy needed today. We have been reducing that share for 5 decades now and at the present rate (off the top of my head) it would probably only take about 5 centuries to reach net zero and I’am being kind.

Harry Durham
May 5, 2026 10:55 am

I’d suggest we encourage this nonsense enough to get at least a few of the countries to sign.

Then start a movement to recognize all subterranean and subsea hydrocarbon deposits as “abiogenic” in origin, so none of the world’s resources would be subject to the agreement.

After all, changing the meaning of words to suit their objectives is a favorite tactic of liberals, wokesters and climate hoaxters…

Bruce Cobb
May 5, 2026 11:05 am

It probably wouldn’t nice to laugh and point at the stupid 60 countries. Oh, what the heck. No more Mr. Nice Guy.

May 5, 2026 11:21 am

IPCC, UNFCCC, FFT, FCCC… This excess of organization, treaties, and bureaucracy…

WALOAFABON (What A Load Of Acronyms For A Bunch Of Nonsense)

MrGrimNasty
Reply to  Charles Armand
May 5, 2026 1:55 pm

Yer, cancel UN tyranny.

JTraynor
May 5, 2026 11:40 am

More boondoggles to come at lush resorts all on the taxpayer’s dime.

May 5, 2026 11:43 am

“…About 60 countries just gathered together to try to kick off a global phase out of fossil fuel use…a treaty the FFT would be a legally binding instrument enforceable by the Courts.”

I think MUNR just had an orgasm in his pants.

Mr.
Reply to  Fraizer
May 5, 2026 12:06 pm

EEEuuuuwww!

Mr.
May 5, 2026 12:04 pm

FCCC – “how come we’ve now got the FFT?

SPLITTERS!!

Bryan A
Reply to  Mr.
May 5, 2026 2:18 pm

Soon to fizzle out…PFFT…poof gone

Reply to  Mr.
May 5, 2026 3:52 pm

FFS. We will need to add letters to the alphabet soon.

claysanborn
May 5, 2026 12:12 pm

The question in this regard is “Why has Virtue Signaling replaced common sense, substance and truth?”

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  claysanborn
May 5, 2026 1:05 pm

Money.
Control.
Power.

May 5, 2026 2:04 pm

If you read one of the links , you will find that one of the “chairs” is Ottmar Edenhofer, the German director and chief economist of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research…

.. who once said the following…

endenhofer
May 5, 2026 2:07 pm

And of course they all travelled to Santa Marta, Columbia, an idyllic seaside town, without any use of fossil fuels 😉

This is just another self-aggrandising COP-out soiree..

Edward Katz
May 5, 2026 2:14 pm

This is just another climate change fighting publicity stunt, much like the various COP conferences. With the COPs, it soon became evident that few of the signatories had any intentions of taking anywhere near the drastic measures to replace fossil fuels because no practical ones existed. Instead government and green product peddlers saw that creating a bogus climate threat was a way of generating tax revenue and forcing eco-friendly products on what they hoped were credulous consumers. So creating a fossil fuel phase-out treaty might look good on paper, but when industries, businesses and consumers find that the only viable alternatives to oil, natural gas and coal either don’t exist or are prohibitively expensive, the mandates and demands for them will be dropped like the proverbial hot potatoes.

ScienceABC123
May 5, 2026 2:50 pm

They’d have better luck trying to get rid of paper clips and staples.

May 5, 2026 2:54 pm

“China is burning over 5 billion tons a year…”. Wow. I just asked ChatGPT how big a cube of 5 billion tons of coal would be and he replied about a mile on each side.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 5, 2026 9:52 pm

So after burning all that coal, roughly 0.38% or an additional 0.73 ppm of all plant food currently in the atmosphere.

It’s time the trees went on strike demanding more plant food

Bob
May 5, 2026 3:22 pm

Yet another useless international organization screwing things up.

Edward Katz
Reply to  Bob
May 5, 2026 6:00 pm

That’s all they know how to do because when it comes to realistic practical solutions they can’t provide any.

Reply to  Bob
May 5, 2026 7:06 pm

Just another rag-tag group of hypocritical totalitarian “believers” wanting to force their agenda on others.

May 5, 2026 4:03 pm

Why would it be dangerous for these 60 countries to swear off fossil fuels?

Bruce Cobb
May 5, 2026 4:19 pm

So, you’re saying they laid an egg?

Leon de Boer
May 5, 2026 9:30 pm

“Most of the world’s biggest emitters are absent from the group of 59 participants”

ROFL so this is going nowhere unless they are proposing an armed invasion 🙂

I love lefties describe it as high level important talks … it’s a room full of leftards that think they are important and matter.

Nothing they do will matter and no-one will care but they will have a good holiday and think they are achieving something … bless there little hearts.