A "coalition of the willing" is convening the world's first Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels conference in Colombia to bypass petrostate blockages at Cop summits and chart a path for phasing out fossil fuels.

It is proposed, with the utmost reason, that the recent initiative by the Colombian delegation and their associated coalition of willing nations be expanded into a formal, permanent, and legally binding system of Parallel Sovereignty. The committee has calculated the savings that may be accrued by simply ceasing to acknowledge the existence of any nation whose primary economic interest lies in the continued combustion of carbon.

It is a well-documented fact, known to any student of administrative efficiency, that the traditional multilateral forums, such as the COP summits, have become encumbered by a most tedious and unproductive form of democratic friction. We find ourselves in a state of perpetual stalemate, where the progress of the many is held hostage by the veto of the few. These “petrostates,” as they are so uncharitably termed by the more emotive elements of the press, have mastered the art of the procedural blockade, using the very mechanisms of international consensus to ensure that consensus can never be reached. To continue attempting to persuade these nations through the cumbersome machinery of global summits is not merely an exercise in futility; it is a waste of precious diplomatic capital and administrative resources.

The solution, therefore, is not to seek more persuasion, but to seek more exclusion. If a subset of nations finds itself unable to align with the global imperative of a fossil fuel phase-out, it is only logical that they should be removed from the equation entirely. The “coalition of the willing” currently convening in Colombia has identified the fundamental flaw in our current architecture: we are attempting to build a new house using the very bricks that are designed to obstruct the construction. By establishing a parallel, streamlined forum, we can effectively bypass the obstructionist elements, creating a high-velocity diplomatic corridor where policy can be drafted, ratified, and implemented without the irritating interference of those who profit from the status quo.

This proposal suggests a more rigorous application of the principle of “selective membership.” Just as a gentleman’s club may rightfully exclude those whose presence would disturb the harmony of the proceedings, so too should the global climate governance structure exclude those whose economic models are fundamentally incompatible with the transition. We might consider a tiered system of international law, wherein the “Transitioning Nations” operate under a streamlined set of mandates, entirely unburdened by the need for consensus from the “Non-Transitioning” bloc. This would allow for the rapid deployment of green technologies, the establishment of new carbon-credit markets, and the implementation of aggressive phase-out timelines, all while leaving the petrostates to continue their traditional, albeit increasingly isolated, modes of commerce.

The administrative benefits of such a bifurcation are immense. We would eliminate the need for the costly and protracted negotiations that characterize the current COP era. We would no longer need to expend energy on the “middle ground,” a territory that has proven to be nothing more than a swamp of indecision. Instead, we can focus our resources on the creation of a highly efficient, high-standard regulatory zone. The petrostates may continue to hold their summits, and they may continue to issue their communiqués, but these will be of no consequence to the functioning of the new, streamlined global economy. They will be left to govern their own declining assets in a vacuum of their own making, while the coalition of the willing moves forward with the brisk, unencumbered pace that true progress demands.

this approach provides a much-needed clarity to the global market. Investors loathe uncertainty, and there is no greater uncertainty than a climate policy that is subject to the whims of a blocking minority. By formalizing the exclusion of fossil-fuel-dependent nations from the primary decision-making apparatus, we provide the certainty required for the massive capital shifts necessary for the transition. We are not merely proposing a new conference; we are proposing the rationalization of global geopolitics. We are proposing that the world be divided into those who are capable of moving forward and those who are, by their own economic design, destined to be left behind. It is a clean, efficient, and entirely bloodless method of resolving the most intractable conflict of our age.