News

As global climate negotiations continue to struggle with the urgency of phasing out fossil fuels, a new form of climate governance has emerged: phase-out clubs. These voluntary coalitions of countries commit to terminating specific substances, such as methane, or fossil fuel technologies, from unabated coal-fired power plants to oil and gas production. Despite gaining attention, climate clubs focused on phase-outs have yet to be systematically assessed, leaving important questions about their role and effectiveness within global climate governance unanswered.

In my recent paper “Phase-Out Clubs: An Effective Tool in Global Climate Governance?”, I develop the first comprehensive comparative analysis of six phase-out clubs, including prominent examples like the Powering Past Coal Alliance (PPCA) and the Global Methane Pledge (GMP). In this contribution to the SUS-POL Research Programme at the University of Sussex, I examine phase-out clubs as implementation tools for the Paris Agreement and assess their effectiveness in global climate governance.

Paris implementation clubs

Phase-out clubs complement the Paris Agreement by supporting its implementation, raising awareness of phase-outs as climate mitigation measures, and building momentum for the adoption of such measures within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Rather than seeking to replace multilateral climate negotiations, these clubs explicitly position themselves as supportive and complementary mechanisms.

All phase-out clubs state their commitments as supportive of the implementation of the Paris Agreement, with most citing the agreement's target of limiting global warming to 1.5°C. This represents a significant shift from early climate club proposals, which were often conceived as alternatives to stagnating negotiations. Instead, phase-out clubs constitute sectoral implementation clubs for the Paris Agreement.

The clubs have proven remarkably effective at influencing the global climate agenda. The Climate and Clean Air Coalition was the first to raise awareness of short-lived climate pollutants, a set of greenhouse gases neither addressed in the Kyoto Protocol nor the Paris Agreement. Building on this foundation, the GMP's rapid membership increase created strong momentum for methane reductions ahead of the 2023 Global Stocktake at COP28 adopting methane reduction language. Similarly, the Powering Past Coal Alliance highlighted the need to tackle unabated coal emissions for 4 years before COP26 called for a 'phasedown [of] unabated coal power'.

These developments demonstrate how phase-out clubs can function as agenda-setters within the broader climate regime, creating political momentum for measures that eventually find their way into formal UNFCCC decisions.

Effectiveness varies dramatically

My analysis reveals striking differences in club effectiveness when assessed across three key criteria: scope of participation, depth of obligation, and member compliance. Using this framework, the GMP emerges as the most effective club, combining low entry barriers, strong commitment, material and other exclusive member benefits, and including members representing a large share of targeted emissions.

At the other end of the spectrum, the Zero Routine Flaring Initiative combines small membership, shallow obligations, and patchy compliance. Most concerning is that while some member countries like Angola and Cameroon achieved significant reductions, others including Canada, Republic of Congo, and Russia actually increased their flaring since joining without any consequences for this lack of compliance.

The study challenges conventional wisdom about club design. Based on the idea that agreement is facilitated more easily amongst a smaller number of countries, there is a literature assuming small clubs to be more ambitious. However, this assumption is not supported by the findings. The GMP, with 155 members, adopted a more concrete commitment than the smaller Climate and Clean Air Coalition with 84 members.

The analysis reveals a crucial trade-off: phase-out clubs pursuing a phase-down, rather than a full phase-out, attract more members. This explains the GMP’s success – its 30% methane reduction target by 2030 poses a lower barrier to entry than the full phase-out commitment to ending oil and gas production advocated by the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance for core members. While GMP members can achieve the joint target by cleaning up fossil fuel production, for example by eliminating flaring in oil and gas production and by preventing methane leakage from gas pipelines, BOGA requires a fundamental intervention in energy systems from its members, even from associate members pledging to end subsidies and public financial support for oil and gas exploration and production.  

This finding has important implications for future club design. While complete phase-outs might seem more ambitious, and are critically required, they can create seemingly insurmountable barriers for developing countries and emerging economies. The GMP’s approach of allowing countries to "contribute to their best abilities" within a collective reduction target proves more politically palatable in the short term. In combination with the short-lived nature and high global warming potential of methane, the GMP is effective despite the seemingly shallow target.

But this finding comes with two fundamental caveats. First, effectiveness is contingent on compliance, which presents ongoing challenges. The lack of recent comprehensive data on methane emissions and oil and gas production makes it difficult to assess whether members of recently established phase-out clubs are meeting their commitments. Second, compliance does not equate with effectiveness. Even if all members comply with their respective commitments, phase-out club objectives and current membership compositions alone will not induce a phase-out of fossil fuel production and consumption at a pace consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5°C. The GMP - as the most effective phase-out club - has the potential to effectively contribute to limiting global warming to 2°C, if members comply fully. In order to contribute to the 1.5°C target, however, the GMP would need to achieve methane reductions beyond its current 2030 target.

Looking ahead

While phase-out clubs alone are not going to induce a phase-out of fossil fuel production and consumption at a pace consistent with limiting global warming to well below 2°C, they are gaining traction in global climate politics. The emergence of phase-out clubs represents an important evolution in climate governance – moving from confrontational alternatives to collaborative implementation mechanisms.

Their success in agenda-setting and momentum-building suggests they will continue playing valuable roles in accelerating climate action domestically and internationally. Even if they cannot single-handedly deliver the pace of transformation necessary in their current form, the implementation networks established by larger ones, especially the Climate and Clean Air Coalition and the GMP, are an important supplement to drive Paris Agreement implementation and broader ambition on climate action.

Back to news list