“We gather here to affirm the value of partnership and cooperation, to finding common solutions to shared problems.”
This was a phrase by South African President Cyril Ramaphosa in his strong call for global solidarity at Africa’s first G20 meeting, but which offers the mirage of a unified, problem-solving world.
Then there is the world of the Conference of Parties (COP). The just-concluded COP30 in Belém, Brazil, which had been billed as the ‘COP of Truth’ and was marred by heated disagreements between developed and developing countries on commitments, ended in a series of compromises. This includes a final outcome that side-stepped the issue of fossil fuels, leaving out one of the main issues at the heart of the accelerating global climate crisis. Africa Climate Insights learned that while the draft text had mentioned it, this was omitted during the final hours of the talks.
This casts doubt on the possibility of implementation of the highly sought transition away from fossil fuels.
Beginning of the end of an era
The decision to focus on a global transition from fossil fuels was made by state parties during the COP28 in Dubai in 2023, at the time hailed as the beginning of the end of the fossil fuel era. It was the first time that countries had resolved on a language calling for a transition away from fossil fuels.
However, this momentum stalled at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan during a summit that was clouded by allegations of undue influence from fossil fuel interests. In Belém, the final outcome only acknowledged that ‘the global transition towards low Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions and climate-resilient development is irreversible and the trend of the future.’ This was despite about 80 countries campaigning for a road-map that would ensure transitioning away from fossil fuels. However, it must be remembered that the promises made at this were non-binding, and likely to cause reluctance in implementing subsequent commitments on transitioning away from fossil fuels.
The final resolution displayed a conference that was alive to the urgent interventions needed to stop a catastrophic climate crisis, but at the same time hesitant to take on the major contributor to climate change. The conference, for example, recognized the ‘need for urgent action and support for achieving deep, rapid and sustained reduction of GHG in line with 1.5℃ as well as the expected goal of cutting down emissions by 43% by 2030 and 60% by 2035.
Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva pledged to take it to the G20 to lobby for its endorsement. With such a disappointing turn of events at COP, all eyes were drawn to the G20 Summit in Johannesburg, South Africa, which commenced a day before the conclusion of COP30.
What is G20?
The G20 Summit brought together the world’s largest economies to discuss issues of global importance, including economic, political, climate and energy. The forum consists of 19 countries and two regional bodies. They include Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States, the African Union, and the European Union.
The fact that the G20 summit was being held in Africa for the first time drew significant attention. As the leaders were arriving in South Africa, a joint open letter written by a consortium of 33 partners was released, calling on the G20 governments to foster urgent, and justice-centred action.
“Continued fossil fuel extraction is driving the climate crisis beyond the limits of a livable planet,” Alia Kajee, Global Campaign Project Manager for 350.org, cautioned the leaders.
On public momentum to tax the super rich, Fred Njehu, the Fair Share Global Political Lead at Greenpeace Africa, countered thus: “The political will has to follow with concrete actions. Billionaires in Africa and beyond are getting wealthier by the day, while billions are struggling with rising cost of living and escalating climate crisis.”
Would the member states that account for about 85% of the global Gross Domestic Product and contribute 80% of global carbon dioxide emissions make a firm stance on transition from fossil fuels?
For the African continent, the delay to phase out fossil fuels is not just an economic but also an existential threat. Africa contributes less than 4% of global GHG emissions, but is highly vulnerable to impacts of climate change; from devastating droughts, floods and heat waves fueled by the continued high emissions of richer nations.
Champions of a clear fossil-fuel road-map argue that weak global signal forces African countries, particularly those with oil and gas reserves, to confront the difficult paradox of using their resources for immediate revenue versus the long-term risk of climate disaster.
Ahead of the G20 summit, the African Energy Chamber (AEC) called for an energy policy that promotes the ideology of “drill, baby, drill” arguing that fossil fuels should be at the centre of “energy security, industrial growth and poverty alleviation.”
However, in their joint declaration, the G20 members did not mention fossil fuels. Instead, they made a raft of commitments touching on boosting investments in renewable energy and just energy transitions. The member states reiterated their pledge to intensify efforts to achieve global net zero greenhouse gas emissions/carbon neutrality by or around mid-century. They also expressed support to triple renewable energy capacity globally. Further, they vowed to recognize the ‘inequalities and challenges that exist in the current energy landscape globally, particularly in Africa and other developing nations, and endorsed the Mission 300 goal spearheaded by the African Development Bank and World Bank, which targets connecting 300 million people across Africa to electricity by 2030.
A section of experts says that the summit’s choice to side-step fossil fuels was somewhat expected. The 2025 report ‘Making it Happen’ by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) shows that G20 countries spent a staggering $665 billion on fossil fuel subsidies, the second-highest in history. It was also above the subsidy amounts provided before the global energy crisis of 2021 that was fueled by the Covid-19 pandemic and the Russian-Ukrainian war.
While the unique economic circumstances of the time warranted the support, the report notes that these subsidies are still in place – signifying that attainment of its 2009 commitment to phase out fossil fuels was still far from being achieved. The commitment to reverse these subsidies is further questionable, with the study indicating that in five G20 countries analyzed, about 30% to 55% of the subsidies could be removed quickly with minimal disruption.
“The G20’s backsliding on subsidy reform is disappointing, but not determinative. Ending fossil fuel subsidies is not a distant aspiration, it is a practical, achievable step that countries can take today. The evidence is clear, the strategies are known, and first-mover coalitions are already charting a path forward,” said Ivetta Gerasimchuk, Policy Expert, International Institute for Sustainable Development.
