Equitable, effective, and feasible approaches for a prospective fossil fuel transition

Abstract

Most fossil fuel resources must remain unused to comply with the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. Scholars and policymakers debate which approaches should be undertaken to Leave Fossil Fuels Underground (LFFU). However, existing scholarship has not yet inventoried and evaluated the array of approaches to LFFU based on their effectiveness, equity, or feasibility. Hence, this review article asks: What lessons can we learn from reviewing scholarship on proposed approaches to leaving fossil fuels underground (LFFU)? We identify 28 unique LFFU approaches, of which only 12 are deemed environmentally effective (e.g., fossil fuel extraction taxes, bans and moratoria, and financial swaps); eight involve moderate‐to‐high (non‐)monetary costs, and only four are deemed entirely just and equitable. Of the 12 environmentally effective approaches: only three were deemed cost‐effective (regulating financial capital for fossil fuel projects, removing existing fossil fuel subsidies, and bans & moratoria); merely four were deemed equitable (asset write‐offs, retiring existing fossil infrastructure, pursuing court cases/litigation, and financial swaps); and all were deemed institutionally problematic in terms of their feasibility (six were challenging to implement as they threatened the vested interests of powerful stakeholder groups). Moreover, the reviewed scholarship draws heavily on empirical studies of how these LFFU approaches can be optimized in European, North American, and Chinese contexts; fewer studies have explored the effectiveness and fairness of LFFU approaches in the South and/or in a North–South context. Future research should particularly focus on North–South fossil fuel financial flows, which have received comparatively little attention. This article is categorized under: The Carbon Economy and Climate Mitigation > Decarbonizing Energy and/or Reducing Demand

Climate justice in higher education: a proposed paradigm shift towards a transformative role for colleges and universities

“…Grassroots behavior changes alone are insufficient to address climate injustices, and are definitely an inadequate approach to minimizing the climate impacts of higher education (Eichhorn et al 2022 ). To facilitate and support systemic changes, colleges and universities have an opportunity to reimagine their internal and external initiatives to prioritize direct engagement and investment in transformative social change toward more just systems locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally (Rempel and Gupta 2022 ).…”

An Unsettled “Stranded Asset Debt”? Proposing a Supply‐Side Counterpart to the “Climate Debt” in a Bid to Guide a Just Transition from Fossil Fuels in South Africa and Beyond

“…For instance, Blackrock announced that that they would divest from their thermal coal assets in 2020 (Partridge 2020), but Blackrock's equity investments in major coal multinationals increased between 2020 and 2021 -including in AngloAmerican ($2 billion vs. $2.5 billion), BHP ($6.5 billion vs. $19.8 billion), Glencore ($420 million vs. $2 billion), and Rio Tinto ($11 billion vs. $18 billion). That said, following the discussions at COP26 (Roach 2021), institutional investors like Blackrock may be more open or prone to rapid divestment in a bid to "clean and green" their portfolios, despite a consensus denoting divestment's climate ineffectiveness (Rempel and Gupta 2022). At a deeper level, divestment may encompass a critical element of climate injustice given its implications for de facto reallocating stranded assets (and thus SAD) across investors and financiers, a point that also merits further research.…”

Climate action or distraction? Exploring investor initiatives and implications for unextractable fossil fuels

“…just from coal) from FFs [15]. Divestment has also been critiqued for its de facto reallocation of the burden of meaningful climate action and governing inevitable stranded fossil assets, potentially inequitably absolving the investors who have profited from FF production of any responsibility or accountability [5,16,17].…”