LONDON — The deepening climate emergency underscores the urgent need for policymakers to oversee a rapid transition away from fossil fuels.

It is highly debated how nations will make this change.

Climate crisis is primarily caused by the burning of fossil fuels like oil, coal and gas. Despite politicians and business leaders pledging their support for the energy transition in public, global fossil fuel dependence is still a major problem. remains on track to get even worse.

According to climate scientists, the best way to address rising global temperatures is by reducing greenhouse gas emissions quickly.

The Glasgow Climate PactAn agreement was reached at COP26 summitThis month marked the first international climate agreement to explicitly mention fossil fuels. In the final agreement, countries were required to cut down on coal usage and reduce subsidies for fossil fuels.

This is the language. done little to inspire confidenceHowever, this is especially true in light of recent research suggesting that fossil fuels make up the majority. must be kept in the groundIf we are to stop climate changes that become more severe and possibly irreversible, then the world must act now.

According to the U.N., global fossil fuel consumption is unacceptable.dangerously out of sync“With climate goals, activists have called for government to end the fossil fuel economy.

Experts assess how fast it is possible to decarbonize the world economy and offer some interim solutions.

In January, the International Energy Agency published this document. world’s first comprehensive roadmapTo build a global energy industry with zero emissions by 2050.

World’s largest energy company saidIn May, it was stated that no more oil, gas, or coal would be developed if the world aims to achieve net zero by the end of this century. The government promises at the time were “well below” what was needed to achieve net zero.

To put the total size of the energy market into perspective, global markets for coal and natural gas are both bigger than all metal markets combined — and the oil market is almost double that size, according to an analysis by Morgan Stanley.

According to the World Energy Information Center, more than 80% global energy consumption was attributed to fossil fuels in 2019. data compiledOur World in Data reported that renewable energy such as solar and wind accounted for 11.4%.

It is also growing in terms of the availability of renewable energy. still lowerBesides the overall increase in energy consumption.

“Considering that the whole energy system is growing as wellMartijn Rats (chief commodities strategist at Morgan Stanley) told CNBC via email, “The switch from fossil fuels and renewables isn’t a fast one.”

He said, “The energy transformation will not happen with only start-ups.” We need major global energy corporations to invest the billions of dollars that will be needed in the coming decades. Today’s fossil-fuel companies have a role to play in this. They have the engineering and project management skills to realize large-scale infrastructure projects.

In comments to assembled delegates attending COP26, Mohammed Barkindo (OPEC Secretary General) saidUnintended consequences could result from a failure of all parties to hear each other on matters such as energy affordability, security and reducing carbon emissions. These could include market distortions, heightened volatility energy shortfalls.

To be sure, all of these examples are already evident — and at a time when the global energy mix is still dominated by fossil fuels.

A group of large gas exporters has, however, formed a coalition. warnedAbout persistent “reductionism, cancel culture” regarding hydrocarbons. The Gas Exporting Countries Forum stated that it believes gas offers a “complete and balanced” solution for the transition in a statement sent to U.N.

Julia Steinberger from the University of Lausanne said that “that’s what I call the discourse of climate delay.” It’s an old one. “Fossil fuel solutionism” is a term we use to describe it. It means that although they’re the problem, they’re also the solution.

A paper publishedThe journal Global Sustainability published William Lamb (an economist) and other coauthors including Steinberger last July to examine the main messages proponents of minimal climate action. There are four major categories of “discourses about climate delay”. They include “redirect responsibility” which means someone should act first; “push for non-transformative options” (disruptive changes will not be necessary); “emphasize downsides” that emphasize the difficulties (it’s impossible to stop climate change); and “surrender” which indicates it is impracticable to do so.

Lamb’s team identifies fossil fuel solutionism as pushing for “non-transformative actions.” It is a message that promotes ineffective solutions while ignoring more efficient measures.

Steinberger stated that one of the major arguments is “Oh, well, if you change overnight, then you will be in trouble.” Although we would like to see a seamless transition, it is not possible. We must move as quickly as we can and that’s what we won’t do. This is precisely why we aren’t attempting that. These industries say: “You still need us moving forward.”

“We have to explicitly state, and that is something that didn’t happen at COP. That every country is working to eliminate fossil fuels. This looks like electrification. It also looks like the generation of renewable energy. These things are technically possible and very cost-effective. It is only that their ramp-up will be costly because they have been waiting so long.

Steinberger claimed that decarbonization will require massive public money, which would probably incur debt. But this shouldn’t be viewed as a problem. It is an investment in a sustainable future.

It is possible and can be done quickly, however, it comes with a cost that will eventually be paid in a healthy and prosperous society. It’s going to be that hard.