Since the Paris climate agreement was signed in 2015, too many policymakers have fallen for the oil and gas industry’s rhetoric about how it can help to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Tall tales about “clean coal,” “oil pipelines to fund clean energy,” and “gas as a bridge fuel” have coaxed governments into rubber-stamping new fossil-fuel projects, even though current fossil-fuel production already threatens to push temperatures well beyond the Paris agreement’s limit of well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that in 2016, investment in the oil and gas sector totaled US$649 billion, and that fossil-fuel subsidies within the G20 countries amounted to US$72 billion. By 2030, investments in new gas projects across G20 countries are expected to surpass US$1.6 trillion.
Clearly, the industry has pulled out all the stops to expand production and profits before the world moves to a decarbonized economy and so far, it is succeeding, because it has convinced governments of multiple falsehoods.
Illustration: Kevin Sheu
For starters, there is the claim that natural gas can be a “bridge fuel” to a stable climate even though its climate impact often equals that of coal — or worse. In reality, a “dash for gas” would consume almost two-thirds of G20 countries’ combined carbon budget by 2050. Worse, new gas production often displaces not coal, but wind and solar-energy projects, both of which are now cheaper than coal and gas in many regions. The fact that most new investments in gas production assume at least a 30-year operational timeline should be evidence enough that they are not geared toward reducing emissions any time soon.
One would expect the EU to lead the way toward a decarbonized future, but, if anything, it seems to be doing the opposite. Since 2014, the EU has allocated 1 billion euros (US$1.16 billion) to the natural-gas sector. Although the European Commission’s proposed 2020-2027 budget would reduce such funding, it would allow member states to continue spending taxpayers’ money on fossil-fuel production. Yet, according to a study by British climate scientists Kevin Anderson and John Broderick, to meet its climate commitments, the EU must phase out all fossil fuels by 2035.
Another industry canard is that income from oil and gas expansion is needed to fund the transition to a “clean” economy. This incoherent claim has underpinned policy in Canada, where the authorities continue to push for major new tar-sands pipelines. Most recently, the government stepped in and paid the Texas-based energy firm Kinder Morgan US$3.4 billion for a 65-year-old pipeline to ensure its planned expansion, which the company had deemed too risky.
This use of public funds is particularly objectionable, because it threatens to lock in the very energy sources that are driving dangerous climate change. Implicit in any major new investment in energy infrastructure is that operations will continue for decades, as even if demand and prices fall dramatically, an owner or investor will prefer some income return on that capital rather than nothing. As a result, politically and legally, it is much harder to shut down a project than to stop it before it starts.
A third ingredient of fossil-fuel flimflam is so-called clean coal, often relying on carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. Governments and the energy industry have long framed CCS as a silver bullet for climate change, and thus as a perfect excuse for postponing meaningful reductions in fossil-fuel use. CCS is even being promoted as an enabling technology for magical schemes that can “suck” carbon out of the atmosphere.
CCS was originally developed for enhanced oil recovery (EOR), whereby pressurized carbon dioxide is pumped into older oil reservoirs to extract otherwise inaccessible crude oil, significantly boosting production, and thus greenhouse-gas emissions. The technique has been used for more than 40 years, particularly in the US. However, it is costly in terms of both money and energy: a coal-fired power station that adopts CCS must burn even more coal to produce the same amount of energy.
The main reason that oil companies have become such strong proponents of CCS is that it offers them a source of subsidized carbon dioxide for use in EOR. Companies such as Shell and Statoil have spent decades and billions of dollars on CCS research and development, and all they have to show for it is a few commercial-scale CCS operations. It is already clear that CCS is commercially viable only when used for EOR, which means that coal itself will never be a clean fuel, even if modern filters can be used to reduce particulate air pollution.
A final claim often made by oil and gas companies is that they can execute any given project more “cleanly” than anyone else. Energy companies have been racing to announce new technologies and measures that supposedly improve the efficiency of their current operations, as if that should give them the right to increase production unabated.
However, as with the rest of the industry’s doublespeak, this logic more often than not leads to further lock-in, as firms sink ever more funding into unproven negative-emissions technologies and other measures that will perpetuate dependence on fossil fuels. For example, the Canadian province of Alberta, home of the tar sands, is investing US$304 million explicitly to “help [oil sands] companies increase production and reduce emissions.”
At a time when science and expertise are increasingly being dismissed as elitist conceits, governments that know better should not be helping fossil-fuel companies profit from the mounting climate crisis. The industry’s spin machine threatens to trap us all in a dangerous “status quo.”
The global climate movement is redefining leadership on this issue, but nongovernmental organizations and activists alone cannot usher in a decarbonized future. Governments that claim to be committed to the Paris accord must offer a robust plan to phase out fossil fuels, rather than supporting that sector’s continued expansion.
Lili Fuhr heads the Ecology and Sustainable Development Department at the Heinrich Boll Foundation. Hannah McKinnon is Director of Energy Futures and Transitions Program at Oil Change International.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs