Now here’s an idea. The Earth Island Institute, an international environmental organization, has initiated a proposal for a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty.

The idea is patterned on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, a landmark treaty which came into force in 1970 and has been ratified by over 190 states, more than any other arms limitation and disarmament agreement.

The analogy is apt. Both nuclear weapons and fossil fuels threaten global civilization and therefore require global restraint. Both are, in effect, instruments of mass destruction, fossil fuels now perhaps the bigger threat.

The Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative states “We now need a concrete, binding plan to end the expansion of new coal, oil and gas projects and manage a global transition away from fossil fuels,” a statement hard to disagree with.

As the initiative points out, fossil fuels are the root cause of the climate crisis, yet despite their destructive reality, and the constant warnings of scientists, there is no binding mechanism to limit their production. The Paris Agreement, the world’s leading climate agreement, unfortunately doesn’t mention fossil fuels and has failed to constrain their production.

A complementary agreement is needed. The world needs a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty to fairly phase out fossil fuels while promoting a just transition to renewable energy leaving no worker, community or country behind.

In answer to this need, an initial group of 17 countries sought a mandate to negotiate a global treaty. The initiative is being carried forward by a diverse steering committee and an international support team. It is backed by civil society organizations, scientists, academics, parliamentarians, youth activists, faith leaders, Indigenous movements, health institutions and Nobel Laureates. The World Health Organization and the European Parliament have promoted it at the United Nations General Assembly.

In January of 2025, the European Union will start applying its carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM). The CBAM is in effect a tax on “dirty” imports. The tax will ensure that carbon-intensive goods entering the EU won’t have an advantage over carbon-taxed goods produced within the EU. Carbon pricing deducted in the exporting countries can be deducted from the CBAM charges giving those countries a strong incentive to implement their own carbon pricing schemes. China, for example, is strengthening its emissions cap-and-trade system and other countries are introducing schemes.

Brazil is pushing for global carbon pricing. It intends to make this a priority at the United Nations Climate Change Conference to be held in Brazil later this year.

All this activity coincides with a recent study reported in the journal nature that showed deadly heat waves can be linked directly to the world’s biggest fossil fuel companies. According to the article, “The research found that the emissions from any one of the 14 biggest companies were by themselves enough to cause more than 50 heatwaves that would otherwise have been virtually impossible.” In other words, those emissions caused the heatwaves. We can name the villains.

A quarter of the heatwaves world-wide recorded between 2000 and 2023 can be directly linked to greenhouse-gas emissions from individual energy corporations. The carbon pollution from ExxonMobil’s fossil fuels alone made 51 heatwaves at least 10,000 times more likely. Scientists are able to say how many degrees Exxon Mobile contributed to a particular heatwave and how much more likely it made it.

The findings will help support lawsuits seeking to hold companies accountable for their climate impacts. “We absolutely can allocate blame, and we absolutely should,” says climate scientist Karsten Haustein.

And earlier this year the International Court of Justice recognized that governments have a responsibility to protect their citizens from global warming. A unanimous ruling by the court’s 15 judges stated that countries are obligated to protect their citizens from the “urgent and existential threat” of climate change. If they fail to curb greenhouse gas emissions caused by the production or consumption of fossil fuels, or approve new exploration, or subsidize fossil fuel industries, they may be held liable for “an internationally wrongful act.” International law allows for governments to sue other governments for reparations where they fail to act.

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has declared the climate crisis a human rights emergency, and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea has affirmed that greenhouse gas emissions pollute the marine environment and countries have a duty to prevent environmental harm that affects other nations.

With our increased ability to name the culprits who are causing our global warming-fuelled catastrophes, and with the legal right to punish them firmly established, a treaty constraining fossil fuels—the ultimate source of the crisis—would seem timely.