When it comes to climate change, I have always been a believer: not in hand-wringing debate, not in unrealistic solutions like the elimination of hydrocarbons, but in the power of action.
In 1997, as chief executive of BP PLC, I was the first leader of a major oil company to acknowledge that climate change was a problem, and that the industry had a responsibility to acknowledge and address it.
The head of the American Petroleum Institute claimed that I had “left the church.”
Twenty-one years later, I returned to the church in a different way, along with a group of distinguished business leaders.
Last month, Pope Francis hosted the chief executives of many of the biggest oil and gas companies, investors overseeing nearly US$10 trillion of capital and many of the energy sector’s leading thinkers and policymakers. We convened to discuss ways of reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and methane.
It was the first time in my 50-year career in the energy industry that such a gathering has taken place. The discussion was marked by humility and pragmatic optimism.
Not everybody shares this bright outlook. Two investment managers have argued in the Financial Times that the end of the “age of oil” is in sight. They urged oil and gas companies to commit to winding themselves down when the time is right, and return money to investors, who are more qualified to decide what to do next.
As things stand, they are wrong. In areas such as aviation, maritime and heavy commercial shipping, there are no viable substitutes for oil. Natural gas has a long life ahead as it replaces coal in the power sector and provides a reliable complement to the intermittency of renewables.
Based on current trends, IHS Markit expects total demand for oil and gas to rise by 30 percent between now and 2040.
Consumption of renewable energy is expected to triple, but from a lower base: By 2040, it will account for just 6 percent of the energy mix, about the same as nuclear power today.
It is also premature to discount the ability of today’s oil and gas companies to adapt. When I took over as CEO of BP in 1995, the industry invested almost nothing in renewable energy. Today, the “supermajors” allocate more than US$4 billion every year to low or zero-carbon energy.
These giants have the resources to make large capital commitments and, in many cases, skills that can be adapted and redeployed to deliver energy solutions at the immense scale that is needed. If leaders can redirect their organizations toward a new lower-carbon purpose and if they can successfully engage their staff, there is every reason to believe that they can be active participants in, or even drivers of, the energy transition.
The oil and gas industry has come a long way, but even today it accounts for a tiny share of low-carbon investment.
To accelerate the transition and reduce the risk of damaging climate change, the International Energy Agency has estimated that the rate of investment in the energy sector would have to double, with 85 percent of all investment allotted to renewable energy and energy efficiency.
To transform the pace and scale of investment, I have long advocated for a global price on carbon, most likely in the form of a consumption tax. This levy would need to be high enough to encourage the shift toward lower carbon energy sources on the supply side, and to drive adoption and improvement of efficiency measures on the demand side.
So far, no pricing proposal has been able to achieve those goals. Implementation of a carbon tax without exemptions and with measures to penalize countries that do not comply would require courage and determination to face down vested interests.
Most of the technologies to build the low-carbon energy systems of the future already exist.
There are designs — if not yet public confidence — to turn proven nuclear-fission technology into a safer and cheaper power source by making small, modular reactors. Every year, the efficiency of solar and wind generators improves, and the costs fall.
Energy storage technologies are increasingly viable for widespread application in transport systems and power grids. We also have extensive experience developing systems for carbon capture, storage and use. Many of the world’s experts in these technologies are employed by oil and gas companies.
Not all of these technologies work at scale or are economically viable, but they need refinement, rather than reinvention. There is a law of engineering that as a new technology is adopted and deployed, its price falls, predictably, and sometimes precipitously. Something of the kind is at work in the energy sector.
Solar generation, for example, has become cheaper by a factor of 250 over the past four decades and it is now the cheapest source of electricity in parts of the US, Italy, Spain and Australia. The same will soon be true in much of China and India.
If other technologies follow the same trajectory, then demand for hydrocarbons could plateau, and even decline, sooner than expected — but today’s oil and gas companies need not be victims of the energy transition; they can be a critical part of it.
This great shift must not come at the expense of the world’s poorest.
The provision of abundant energy has reduced the number of people living in absolute poverty by a factor of seven during my lifetime. Nevertheless, more than 1 billion people still do not have reliable access to electricity, while more than 2 billion still cook using low-quality fuels, such as biomass or animal waste, which are a danger to health.
Future energy systems must provide more to more people, while extracting a lower economic, humanitarian and environmental cost.
The meeting at the Vatican last month reaffirmed my conviction that we now have the tools to solve this pressing and complex global puzzle. The decisions we make about energy in the years ahead are among the most profoundly consequential we will face.
To cite Pope Francis: “Civilization requires energy, but energy use must not destroy civilization.”
Exxon Mobil Corp, Royal Dutch Shell PLC and Total SA invest about US$1 billion each. BP invests US$500 million. Figures for Chevron and Conoco are not available, but they are assumed to bring the total to more than US$4 billion.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS