Why ‘transitioning away from fossil fuels’ is the right formula
Simon Glynn
December 2023
Much of the climate movement is expressing anguish that the best COP 28 could do is to call for ‘transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems,’ rather than for a ‘phase-out’ of fossil fuels. ‘Phasing out’ is what climate science says needs to happen, so to call for anything less must be an unacceptable compromise and a sell-out to the fossil-fuel-producing companies and states. But if we focus less on the power plays at COP28 UAE, and more on what needs to happen next, ‘transitioning away from’ looks a good formula.
The words don’t directly matter in a legal sense. They have no binding effect on anyone. What binds the Parties who have adopted this new language is the Paris Agreement, which already commits them to goals that are unachievable without phasing out fossil fuels. The collective commitment for that phase-out is already implied, even if not stated.
But the choice of words does help to set norms and expectations for what countries do next. And countries may find they can do more with COP calling for transitioning away from fossil fuels, than they would have done with COP calling for a phase-out, even though both drive the same policy. Here’s why.
The climate action we need countries to do next will be undeniably expensive and, to an unresolved degree depending on the routes chosen, disruptive. For both those reasons countries will need the support of their national electorates (and of their populations even if not democratic); many governments have made incremental progress by stealth, but they risk an overpowering backlash if they try to act at the scale we now need without public acceptance.
To learn what the public will accept – what climate policies they will support, under what framing – Zero Ideas partnered with Potential Energy, the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and The Meliore Foundation in a survey of 58,000 citizens in 23 countries, covering the G20 and beyond. The full report of our research is here. What we learned, as it relates to the wording in the COP 28 Global Stocktake, is this:
- Phasing out fossil fuels, baldly phrased using those words, is one of the climate policies that the public is least ready to accept.
- Conversely, the public is most ready to accept policies phrased positively as a transition to clean energy (including nuclear) – which is just what the COP 28 Global Stocktake calls for.
In this research, we tested people’s reactions to specific climate policies by presenting each policy head-to-head with an opposing political stance. The question we asked people was, ‘The following are pairs of statements you might hear from two competing political leaders. In each case, which leader are you most likely to support?’ Figure 1 shows the findings (averaged across the 23 countries) for two policy frames most closely matching the COP 28 wording debate. Phasing out fossil fuels wins 53% support in our simulation; investing in clean energy to reduce dependence on imported fuels wins 75%.
The power of the positive transition story is particularly clear in the policy we tested on moving away from coal (Figure 2). When we framed this in terms of stopping new coal development, we saw 61% support. When we framed it in terms of clean energy alternatives to coal – against the same opposing argument – support climbed to 76%.
If we want the support of the public for the next step up in climate action – not just the support of the environmental movement – then ‘transitioning away from fossil fuels’ is a good call.