What sort of climate deal is a summit hosted by the world’s third-largest net oil exporter most likely to pull off? The type that boosts revenues for petroleum companies.
It sounds like a bad joke. Still, the Oil and Gas Decarbonization Charter unveiled at the UN COP28 summit in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, at the weekend counts as one of the most substantive pacts to have emerged from the conference so far.
The agreement includes most of the traditional Western oil majors, along with state producers from Saudi Arabia and hosts the United Arab Emirates, between them accounting for about 40 percent of global oil output. The most important bit is a promise to crack down on the millions of tons of methane that are pumped into the atmosphere through leaks at oil and gas fields and flares burning off surplus gas.
Campaigners will rightly complain that the pledges are unenforceable, making the deal little better than a pinky promise. A similar vow to end routine flaring of gas was agreed nearly a decade ago at COP21 in Paris, and there is precious little evidence it is going to meet its targets.
The Global Methane Pledge formed one of the centerpieces of the Glasgow COP26 conference two years ago. Roughly a quarter of the warming to date has been caused by methane. Over the coming century, each ton of methane emitted will heat the atmosphere as much as 28 tons of CO2.
Petroleum producers should be highly motivated to do something about the problem. Natural gas — which is almost entirely methane — is still running at elevated prices, with European futures for the 2024 to 2025 winter peak season at more than double the level they were at three years ago.
Capturing that valuable commodity and selling it, instead of venting it or burning it as waste gas, should be extremely profitable: About 41 percent of methane emissions from oil and gas facilities can be eliminated at no net cost, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said.
There is an even more cynical reason for fossil-fuel producers to get on board. Since the warming impact of methane is so front-loaded, a quicker reduction in methane emissions might take out a few more years to sell down those petroleum reserves before the chaos of climate change forces tougher action.
The main issue is that the easiest way to tackle this is to go to the root of the problem and cut petroleum production as a whole. Oil companies are not stupid: If they are throwing away methane as waste gas, it is very often because capturing it and selling it is a lot harder to do in practice than it is on paper.
If you are managing an oilfield, a pipeline or a storage tank, you do not always have good alternatives to releasing methane into the atmosphere. A large share of pollution comes from blowdowns — deliberate releases, often in emergency situations, to prevent buildups of gas that may make equipment inoperable or dangerous. Burning this gas off in a flare is cheaper and easier than installing all the infrastructure needed to capture and sell it, but even then about 9 percent of the methane coming out of the pipe does not set alight and gets released in its raw form.
Since the mid-1980s, attempts to reduce the share of flaring in global petroleum production have shown only limited effectiveness. Much of the success of late has likely been a result of the US, a country with an unusually comprehensive gas collection and distribution network, increasing its share of the global oil market.
Even a complete elimination of petroleum’s methane emissions would not make much of a difference unless the rest of the industry cuts back. methane from oil and gas facilities released the equivalent of 2.3 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere last year, the IEA said. Reduce that by an extremely ambitious two-thirds by 2030, and you still would not have cut emissions enough to offset the 1.8 billion tons of additional CO2 that would be produced if OPEC’s forecast for oil output over the period plays out.
The more effective action against the oil and gas industry’s carbon footprint, may be happening closer to OPEC’s headquarters in Vienna than the COP28 talking shop in Dubai. The crude oil cartel’s supply cuts of 2.2 million daily barrels announced last week, if they are not offset by increases elsewhere, would cut CO2 emissions by about 347 million tonnes, equivalent to about 1 percent of the annual total.
OPEC would argue that those cuts are temporary. If, however, they are the first signs of a peak and decline in petroleum production, that is the real action the world needs — and it is not being done out of altruism.
Ultimately, an Oil and Gas Decarbonization Charter is an oxymoron, because the carbon is locked into the chemical structures of oil and gas molecules themselves. The only viable way to tackle that is to stop burning fossil fuels. It is the looming decline in oil and gas production itself, rather than any attempt to make the industry’s operations more efficient, that will make the real difference to the planet.
David Fickling is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering energy and commodities. Previously, he worked for Bloomberg News, the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
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
RSS