Five Rich Nations Jeopardizing Future With Plans for Fossil Fuel Expansion: Report

The United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and Norway "are condemning communities in the Global South to a state of perpetual crisis which they did nothing to create."


Ocean Rebellion staged a theatrical action with a Boris Johnson head and an "Oil head" burning a boat on Marazion beach on June 5, 2021 in Cornwall, United Kingdom.

 (Photo: Gav Goulder/In Pictures via Getty Images)


KENNY STANCIL

COMMONDREAMS.ORG

November 12, 2021


As the COP26 climate summit draws to a close following two weeks of talks and pledges in Glasgow, a new report out Friday details five wealthy nations' life-threatening plans to expand fossil fuel production, exposing the utter emptiness of their professed commitments to decarbonization.

"Coal, oil, and gas production must fall globally by 69%, 31%, and 28% respectively between now and 2030... Projections suggest that the Fossil Fuelled 5 will... actually increase oil and gas production by 33% and 27%."

Shedding further light on the enormous gap between rhetoric and reality, the report, titled The Fossil Fuelled 5, compares governments' most recent emission reduction targets with their future energy plans and finds that even as they refer to themselves as climate leaders, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and Norway intend to approve and subsidize new fossil fuel projects that "will be in operation for decades to come."

Despite climate scientists' repeated warnings about the need to keep coal, oil, and gas underground to have a fighting chance of limiting global warming to 1.5ºC above preindustrial levels by the end of the century, several of the world's wealthiest nations "are doubling down on fossil fuel production," says the report, which was assembled by Freddie Daley, a research associate at the University of Sussex, in collaboration with the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, as well as key partners in each of the five countries analyzed—Oil Change International, Uplift U.K., The Australia Institute, Stand.earth, and Greenpeace Norway.

The world is currently on pace for catastrophic levels of heating, and further increasing the extraction and burning of fossil fuels—the main driver of the climate emergency—will "have disastrous impacts for all life on our planet," the report notes, "but especially those communities in the Global South who have done the least to create this crisis and have the fewest resources to adapt to its impacts."

According to the report, "Coal, oil, and gas production must fall globally by 69%, 31%, and 28% respectively between now and 2030 to keep the 1.5ºC target alive." Exemplifying how "net-zero" by mid-century promises "do not focus on the urgent need to stop production and consumption of fossil fuels in the immediate term," the report adds that over the course of this decade, "projections suggest that the Fossil Fuelled 5 will reduce coal production by only 30%, and actually increase oil and gas production by 33% and 27%, respectively."

Related Content

'Dangerous Trajectory': Report Details a World Set to Consume Fossil Fuels at Full Speed
Julia Conley

Many had hoped that countries would respond to the coronavirus crisis by jumpstarting the renewable energy transition. Although they vowed to "build back better," the U.S., U.K., Australia, Canada, and Norway have provided "more than $150 billion USD to support the production and consumption of fossil fuels since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic," states the report. "This level of support from the Fossil Fuelled 5 is more than the entire G7 put towards clean energy as part of the pandemic recovery effort ($147 billion)."

"There's an alarming gap between what wealthy nations are saying and what they are doing," Daley said in a statement. "They seem to be quite content to make pledges and promises with one hand, while expanding and subsidizing fossil fuel production to the tune of billions on the other."

"Not only are these wealthy nations jeopardizing their own futures and the futures of their citizens through this continued expansion," he added, "but they are condemning communities in the Global South to a state of perpetual crisis which they did nothing to create."

Country-specific findings from the report include:

The United States has pledged to halve emissions by 2030 yet has simultaneously provided $20 billion in annual support to the fossil fuel industry;

Despite hosting COP26, the United Kingdom is expected to greenlight the Cambo oil field, which contains approximately 255 million barrels of oil;

Despite its recent commitment to net-zero by 2050, Australia has over 100 fossil fuel projects currently in the approval pipeline;

Canada is looking to increase their price on carbon but also provided approximately $17 billion in public finance to three fossil fuel pipelines between 2018 and 2020; and
Norway has raised its ambition to decrease emissions but has already granted 60+ new licenses for fossil fuel production and access to 84 new exploration zones in 2021 alone.

Progressive advocates from all five countries denounced their respective governments for subsidizing planet-wrecking fossil fuels when the world is demanding a rapid and just transition to clean energy.

The United States—which has planned to expand oil and gas production more than any other country between 2019 and 2030—was described by Collin Rees, U.S. program manager at Oil Change International, as "the poster child for climate hypocrisy."

"If we are to prevent the worst impacts of the climate crisis from becoming a reality, we must address the root of our collective problem: fossil fuels."

"The world's largest historical emitter [is] claiming the mantle of climate leadership while pouring fuel on the fire of the climate crisis," Rees continued. "[President] Joe Biden's words will ring hollow until he cancels deadly fossil fuel expansion projects like the Dakota Access Pipeline or the dozens of proposed oil and gas export terminals awaiting approval from his administration."

He added that "the U.S. remains a massive driver of oil and gas expansion, and that won't change until our leaders commit to a managed phase-out of fossil fuel extraction that truly protects communities, workers, and the climate."

The U.S., U.K., Austalia, Canada, and Norway "have the responsibility and capacity to transition rapidly away from fossil fuels with limited impact to their own economies, and to support developing countries around the world to move away from fossil fuels, under timeframes and conditions that are fair, reasonable, and just," says the report. "Instead, they are downplaying their historical responsibility for the climate crisis and effectively appropriating the limited remaining fossil fuels that can be produced before humanity breaches 1.5ºC."

One reason why wealthy signatories to the Paris agreement have been able to avoid scrutiny for "expanding fossil fuel production in the face of overwhelming evidence that they need to do the opposite" is because exported fossil fuels are not reflected in the producer country's domestic emissions, which is why the report calls them "the elephant in the room" that must be addressed.

While the countries that import fossil fuels are held responsible for those emissions on paper, the reality is that major coal, oil, and gas exporters are still exacerbating global greenhouse gas pollution and therefore undermining efforts to curb rising temperatures, "impacting the lives of billions alive today and those yet to be born," the report notes.

"Together, the Fossil Fuelled 5 account for 25% of global fossil fuel exports," says the report. "Nations such as Australia, Norway, and the United States continue to export huge amounts of coal, oil, and/or gas, essentially exporting their greenhouse gas emissions and contributing to the continued fossil fuel dependence of many countries worldwide."

The report emphasizes that "the principles of fairness and equity are vital for collective international action on climate," adding:

Wealthy countries failing to phase down fossil fuel production leaves little incentive for developing nations, who are typically more dependent on the revenues and employment opportunities derived from fossil fuel production, to do the same.

Wealthy nations expanding fossil fuel production has a symbolic effect. Continuing to extract and burn fossil fuels, as well as supporting the fossil fuel industry through subsidies, implies that large-scale fossil fuel production is compatible with steep declines in emissions and essential to future prosperity, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

To "end the era of fossil fuels," the report urges the U.S., U.K., Australia, Canada, and Norway to:

Halt the licensing for further exploration and extraction of fossil fuels;

Commit to a timeline for domestic phase-out of fossil fuels in line with 1.5ºC, noting that wealthy countries can and should move first and should therefore exceed the average rates identified in the Production Gap Report of phasing out coal, oil and gas on average by 11%, 4% and 3% respectively each year;

End the support for fossil fuel production through subsidies, tax relief and other mechanisms of government support;

Join the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance (BOGA) to work with other ambitious governments to end fossil fuel production and fund a just transition for workers;

Act as first movers as part of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty; and
Redirect the vast financial support currently provided to fossil fuel industries towards helping developing countries shift away from a reliance on fossil fuel production and consumption.

"If we are to prevent the worst impacts of the climate crisis from becoming a reality," the report concludes, "we must address the root of our collective problem: fossil fuels."

Latest COP28 draft text sets new options on fossil fuel phase out

William James and Elizabeth Piper
Fri, December 8, 2023 

Climate activists protest against fossil fuels at Dubai's Expo City during the United Nations Climate Change Conference COP28 in Dubai


By William James and Elizabeth Piper

DUBAI (Reuters) - The U.N. climate agency published a new draft of its COP28 agreement on Friday which included a range of options for the future of fossil fuel use, the most contentious issue at the summit.

Over the next few days countries are expected to focus on the issue in hopes of reaching a consensus before the summit's scheduled end on Dec. 12.

The options included in the text, which is still under negotiation, were for the final deal to call upon countries to "take further action in this critical decade towards":

- "A phase out of fossil fuels in line with best available science"

- "Phasing out of fossil fuels in line with best available science, the IPCC's 1.5 pathways and the principles and provisions of the Paris Agreement"

- "A phase-out of unabated fossil fuels recognizing the need for a peak in their consumption in this decade and underlining the importance for the energy sector to be predominantly free of fossil fuels well ahead of 2050"

- "Phasing out unabated fossil fuels and to rapidly reducing their use so as to achieve net-zero CO2 in energy systems by or around mid-century"

- No language on the future use of fossil fuels.

The document also set out an option for a "rapid phase out of unabated coal power this decade and an immediate cessation of the permitting of new unabated coal power generation". The other option for this paragraph was to include no text on the issue.

Elsewhere the draft offers an option to call either for "the phase out of fossil fuel subsidies that do not address energy poverty or just transition", or to include no text on the issue.

(Reporting by William James and Elizabeth Piper; Editing by Katy Daigle)
View comments (8)

At COP28, pageantry is over and negotiations get intense; 'It's go time' to save planet in peril

SETH BORENSTEIN, DAVID KEYTON and JON GAMBRELL
Updated Fri, December 8, 2023 















DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Teams of veteran negotiators fanned out Friday at the United Nations climate conference with orders to get the strongest, most ambitious agreements possible, especially on the central issue of the fading future of fossil fuels for a dangerously warming planet.

The leadership of climate talks, called COP28, sent out four pairs of veteran and high-level ministers to push countries together on four key but stubborn issues as the summit went into its second week after a day of rest Thursday.

New proposed language on how to curb warming released Friday afternoon strengthened the options for a phase-out of fossil fuels that negotiators could choose from. Four of the five options call for some version of a rapid phase-out.

Major oil-producing nations were always seen as likely to resist that, and late Friday, multiple news organizations reported that OPEC's top official, Secretary-General Haitham Al Ghais, had written to member countries urging them to reject any text that targets fossil fuels rather than emissions. OPEC didn't immediately respond to an email from The Associated Press seeking comment.

Mohamed Adow, director of Power Shift Africa, called the letter “shameful.”

“These letters show that fossil fuel interests are starting to realize that the writing is on the wall for dirty energy," Sadow said in a statement. “Their fossil fuels have imperiled the planet, pushed millions of people to the brink of survival and sadly, too many over that line. Climate change is killing poor people around the globe and these petrostates don’t want COP28 to phase out fossil fuels because it will hurt their short-term profits.”

Earlier, Adow had been among environmental advocates who had some qualified optimism about the expanded 27-page draft language.

“The bare bones of a historic agreement is there,” Adow said. "What we now need is for countries to rally behind the stronger of the options and strengthen them further.”

Making a possible final document stronger was also a priority for top United Nations officials.

“It’s go time for governments at COP28 this week,” U.N. Climate Chief Simon Stiell said at a press event. “If we want to save lives now and keep (the international goal of 1.5 degrees Celsius, 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, of warming since pre-industrial times) within reach, the highest ambition COP outcomes must stay front and center in these negotiations.”

Stiell underlined the challenge ahead if the world doesn’t limit emissions, describing ice shelves melting to cause catastrophic flooding in coastal cities around the globe.

“If we pass these key thresholds, we can never go back from the planet’s perspective,” he said. A report released Wednesday on the sidelines of the summit warned that melting of ice sheets could reach the point of no return with more warming.

COP28 President Sultan al-Jaber said he was “quite positive, hopeful and optimistic” that the summit could bring a “paradigm shift centered around and based on the science.”

Members of the four pairs of high level special teams — who will work with negotiators from nearly 200 countries — said they too thought they'd be able to get the job done.

“I think there is some momentum. Having spoken to all parties' groups of countries for months now there really is this sense of urgency,” Denmark's Environment Minister Dan Jorgensen, told The Associated Press. “We need an agreement, so I am optimistic.”

EU countries, some Latin American countries and the small island countries often victimized by climate change are aligned on calling for a phase-out of fossil fuels, negotiators said.

Two groups of countries are likely to oppose, in some manner, a full and quick phase out of fossil fuels, said World Resources Institute CEO Ani Dasgupta. One is developing nations, like India and Indonesia, that think they need fossil fuels to power up their economies, but with financial and other aid, they can be pulled out of that position, he said.

The other group are fossil fuel producers. The United States is the biggest oil producer in the world and Special Envoy John Kerry earlier this week said the U.S. is committed to supporting strong phase-out language. But a big country looming against it is Saudi Arabia and they are close partners with the United Arab Emirates, the country hosting and running the conference, Dasgupta said.

The UAE has a lot to gain from a successful climate conference and “I think they will bring Saudi Arabia as close as possible,” Dasgupta said. When asked at a press conference about working with Saudi Arabia, al-Jaber, who also leads his country's national oil company, avoided answering that part of the question.

The Arab group is a major blocker so far, a negotiator said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid affecting negotiations.

“I felt from the consultations that very many parties understand that we have to have a real progress on mitigation,” climate talk for emissions cuts, said Norway Foreign Minister Espen Barth-Eide. “That was not as true in Sharm el-Sheikh” in 2022 climate talks.

Annalena Baerbock, Germany’s foreign minister, said: “What we need to be successful here is to achieve the goal of phasing out fossil fuels ... not emissions. It does make quite a substantial difference.”

European negotiators provided some extra hope. The EU goal is to cut emissions by 55% by 2030, but European Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra said Friday that the European parliament hopes to do better than than and instead slice 57%.

Negotiators said there is a sense of urgency because of floods, droughts, storms and heat waves in a world that keeps setting heat records.

"We cannot negotiate with nature,” Jorgensen said. “The climate cannot compromise.”

As analysts and activists examined the new text they kept looking for more clarity, especially when it comes to fossil fuels and adaptation plans.

The frequent use of phase-out in the draft is good, "but it also has terms that would leave parties in an ambiguous position," said Jamal Srouji of World Resources Institute. He worried that it would not tell people clearly “who needs to do what when."

“We have never been closer to an agreement on a fossil fuel phase-out,” said Oil Change International's Romain Ioualalen.

Asked when talks would start to go around the clock, Danish negotiator Jorgensen looked at his watch and said, “Now.”

___

Associated Press journalist Sibi Arasu and Gaurav Saini from The Press Trust of India contributed to this report.

___

Associated Press climate and environmental coverage receives support from several private foundations. See more about AP’s climate initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

UN talks look for deal on winding down fossil fuels

Shaun Tandon and Laurent Thomet
Fri, December 8, 2023 

Negotiations over phasing out fossil fuels are at the heart of the UN climate conference in Dubai (Giuseppe CACACE)


Negotiators strived for a compromise on phasing out fossil fuels at UN climate talks Friday as momentum gathered to strike a historic deal in Dubai.

After the arrival of ministers for the summit's final stretch, a new draft was released with more options on the most difficult part of an emerging deal -- cutting fossil fuels to tame the planet's soaring temperatures.

The third version of the draft, which represents views of various countries, offers five options. One that remains from previous versions calls for not mentioning fossil fuels at all.

Other options include phasing out "unabated" fossil fuels -- those whose emissions cannot be captured -- with a goal of peaking consumption this decade and aiming for the world's energy sector to be "predominantly free of fossil fuels well ahead of 2050".

A new line calls for ramping up renewable energy to displace fossil fuels -- oil, gas and coal -- with a goal of "significantly reducing global reliance on non-renewable and high-emission energy sources".

That language is in line with an agreement between the United States and China, the world's top emitters of greenhouse gases, at talks in California last month.

COP28 president Sultan Al Jaber wants to wrap up the talks on schedule at 11 am (0700 GMT) on Tuesday, which means that all the nearly 200 nations will have to come to a consensus.

"Let us please get this job done," he said.

- 'Never closer' -

Romain Ioualalen, global policy manager of the advocacy group Oil Change International, said that the latest text "shows we have never been closer to an agreement on a fossil fuel phaseout."

But he voiced alarm over "large loopholes" under consideration for the fossil fuel industry.

The most vocal holdout to calls to end fossil fuels is Saudi Arabia, which like summit host United Arab Emirates has grown wealthy on oil.

While China has sided with the camp opposed to a phase-out so far, the country is seen as a constructive partner in the talks, negotiators said.

"We won't reach a deal without China," said a French delegation official.

In a sign that oil-rich countries are growing worried, OPEC chief Haitham Al Ghais sent a letter to members of the cartel and their allies on Wednesday, urging them to "proactively reject" any COP28 deal that "targets" fossil fuels instead of emissions.

"It seems that the undue and disproportionate pressure against fossil fuels may reach a tipping point with irreversible consequences," Ghais wrote in the letter seen by AFP.

Climate campaigners have viewed Jaber with deep suspicion as he is head of the UAE national oil firm ADNOC.

But he has sought to reassure doubters by stating that a phase-down of fossil fuels is "inevitable".

Wopke Hoekstra, the European Union's climate commissioner, acknowledged that the fossil fuel question was the most difficult at COP28.

He voiced doubt about technologies promoted by energy producers -- including the US -- to rely on new technologies when extracting fossil fuels, so-called carbon capture and storage or CCS.

It is "crystal clear that CCS is part of the solution. But make no mistake -- we cannot CCS ourselves out of this problem," Hoekstra said.

The level of technology "simply doesn't exist. We need to drive down emissions."

- 'Credibility' on line -

Scientists warn that greenhouse gas emissions -- the bulk of which come from burning fossil fuels -- must fall by 43 percent by 2030 for the world to reach the goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

"I think many countries at the end might be able to agree to phase-out if the word unabated is included because unabated will weaken the phase-out and make it more of a phase-down," John Verdieck, director of international climate policy at The Nature Conservancy, told AFP.

This would still "create a good signal because the word phase-out could be in there", said Verdieck, a former climate negotiator at the US State Department.

Ugandan climate justice activist and UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador Vanessa Nakate said there were a record 2,400 fossil fuel lobbyists at the talks and the whole process was at stake.

"If after all of this, leaders still don't have the courage to agree upon a fossil fuel phase out, then it will put in question the credibility not only of COP28 but of the entire COP process," she said.

lth-sct/pvh

OPEC Oil Cartel Tells Members to Reject Efforts to Phase Out Fossil Fuels

Charisma Madarang

ROLLING STONE
Fri, December 8, 2023 


As delegates at the 2023 COP28 UN climate change summit work to identify global climate actions by the Dec. 12 deadline, the head of the OPEC oil cartel urged the group’s members to block any deal aimed at phasing out fossil fuels.

In a letter dated Dec. 6, first reported by Reuters, Haitham Al-Ghais, secretary general of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, insisted producers “proactively reject any text or formula that targets energy i.e. fossil fuels rather than emissions.”

“It seems that the undue and disproportionate pressure against fossil fuels may reach a tipping point with irreversible consequences, as the draft decision still contains options on fossil fuels phase out,” Al-Ghais wrote. “It would be unacceptable that politically motivated campaigns put our people’s prosperity and future at risk,” he added. According to the New York Times, the letter was sent to top ministers in all 13 OPEC countries, and 10 nations in an expanded organization known as OPEC Plus, which includes Russia.

In a statement to Bloomberg, Al-Ghais said that OPEC “will continue to advocate for is reducing emissions, not choosing energy sources,” adding, “The world requires major investments in all energies, including hydrocarbons, all technologies, and an understanding of the energy needs of all peoples. Energy transitions must be just, fair and inclusive.”

Earlier this week, The Guardian reported that the host of COP28 had cast doubt on whether eliminating fossil fuels would help limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, saying there is “no science” behind it.

“There is no science out there, or no scenario out there, that says that the phase-out of fossil fuel is what’s going to achieve 1.5C,” Sultan Al-Jaber, CEO of United Arab Emirates state oil company ADNOC, said in November during an online SHE Changes Climate event.

Environmental activists expressed concern in January when Al-Jaber was announced to lead the 2023 COP, noting that his position as an oil executive constitutes a conflict of interest. “Like last year’s summit, we’re increasingly seeing fossil fuel interests taking control of the process and shaping it to meet their own needs,” Teresa Anderson, global lead of climate justice at ActionAid, said in a statement at the time.

Scientists at the summit released a new report warning that without “a rapid and managed fossil fuel phase-out,” the 1.5C threshold is unobtainable, and surpassing it is almost inevitable.

Despite the mounting calls for countries to come together to mitigate Earth’s climate crisis, the oil-rich kingdom of Saudi Arabia recently attempted to claim clean energy is bad for the environment, and called for nations to take action against wind and solar power.

More from Rolling Stone

Oil-Rich Saudi Arabia Tries to Claim Clean Energy Is Bad for the Environment


COP28 Climate Host: There's 'No Science' Behind Calls to Eliminate Fossil Fuels

OPEC push on fossil fuels draws ire at climate talks
Laurent THOMET
Sat, December 9, 2023 

Climate negotiators are scrambling to reach a compromise over the future of fossil fuels (Giuseppe CACACE)

Negotiations over the future of fossil fuels heated up at UN climate talks on Saturday, with OPEC catching flak over the oil cartel's push to block any phase-out in the final deal.

The tone has veered between optimism and concern about the pace of talks as negotiators have held marathon sessions aimed at finding a compromise on the fate of oil, gas and coal.

OPEC added fuel to the fire after it emerged that its Kuwaiti secretary general, Haitham Al Ghais, sent a letter to the group's 13 members and 10 allies this week urging them to "proactively reject" any language that "targets" fossil fuels instead of emissions.


"I think that it is quite, quite a disgusting thing that OPEC countries are pushing against getting the bar where it has to be," Spanish ecology transition minister Teresa Ribera, whose country holds the rotating EU presidency, told reporters.

Dramatically scaling up the deployment of renewable energy while winding down the production and consumption of fossil fuels is crucial to achieve the global goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

The High Ambition Coalition, a broad group of nations ranging from Barbados to France, Kenya and Pacific island states, also criticised the OPEC move.

"Nothing puts the prosperity and future of all people on Earth, including all of the citizens of OPEC countries, at greater risk than fossil fuels," said Tina Stege, climate envoy for the Marshall Islands, which chairs the coalition.

"1.5 is not negotiable, and that means an end to fossil fuels," Stege added.

- Iraq supports OPEC -

A third draft deal released Friday offers various ways to phase out of fossil fuels, but it also includes the option to not mention them at all in the final text.

Saudi Arabia had until now been the most vocal country against a phase-out or phase-down of fossil fuels.

In the OPEC letter sent Wednesday, Ghais said it "seems that the undue and disproportionate pressure against fossil fuels may reach a tipping point with irreversible consequences".

Assem Jihad, spokesman for Iraq's oil ministry, told AFP his country supports the OPEC letter.

Iraqi oil minister Hayan Abdel Ghani "has rejected attempts to target fossil fuels", Jihad said.

He added that Ghani has tasked Iraq's COP28 delegation to "ensure that the wording of the final statement puts the emphasis on world cooperation on a reduction of emissions in order to preserve the environment and climate".

But another OPEC member, COP28 host the United Arab Emirates, has taken a conciliatory tone throughout the negotiations and acknowledged that a phase-down was "inevitable".

- 'Critical stage' -

Canadian climate minister Steven Guilbeault told AFP he was "confident" that the final text would contain language on fossil fuels.

Guilbeault is among a group of ministers who have been tasked by COP28 president Sultan Al Jaber to shepherd the negotiations and find an agreement by Tuesday, when the summit is due to end.

"It's a conversation that will last a few more days," Guilbeault said.

"Different groups are talking and trying to understand on what we could agree, but it's still quite an embryonic conversation," he added.

German climate envoy Jennifer Morgan said countries were "now moving into the critical stage of negotiations" but she was "concerned that not all are constructively engaging".

Fresh calls for a phase-out were made by ministers addressing a plenary session on Saturday.

"We are extremely concerned about the pace of the negotiations, given the limited time we have left here in Dubai," said Toeolesulusulu Cedric Schuster, chairman of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS).

AOSIS has pushed hard for a phase-out, warning that their nations were on the frontlines of climate change, with rising seas threatening their existence.

"I implore you, let this COP28 be the summit where we leaders are remembered for turning the tide," Schuster said, adding that stepping up renewable energy "cannot be a substitute for a stronger commitment to fossil fuel phase-out."

Students and staff are calling on Imperial College London to end its complicity in the climate crisis

 by The Canary
7 May 2024
in Analysis

This article was updated on 7 May at 8pm to reflect an error. Imperial College London informed us that as of 31 January 2024 it no longer invests in EOG Resources and Berkshire Hathaway. It also claimed that it “does not have any existing fossil fuel investments – its investment portfolio currently has no exposure to companies that derive revenues from fossil fuel extraction”. The Canary looked into this last claim. Read more below.

Hundreds of Imperial College London students, staff, and alumni – including former government chief scientific advisor David King – have called on the university to fully divest its £542m endowment from the fossil fuel industry.

Imperial College London must divest from fossil fuels

In December 2022, the student group Imperial Climate Action (ICA) released a student petition, which has now received 792 signatures. A similar open letter has garnered over 200 signatures from Imperial academics. The Imperial College Union, which represents the university’s student body, also supports full divestment.

The open letter is directed towards professor Brady, professor Walmsley, and professor Ryan – the president, provost, and vice-provost of the university, respectively.


Prominent alumnus David King, as well as special representative for climate change and alumna Harvard professor Naomi Oreskes who has written extensively on the fossil fuel industry misinformation, have joined calls on Imperial College London to divest from fossil fuels.

The student open letter outlines the profound misalignment of all major fossil fuel companies with the goals of the Paris Agreement. It also notes the disproportionate impact of the climate crisis on women, Indigenous Peoples, working-class communities, and low-emitting nations in the Global South.

The letter goes on to state that:


the College’s continued investment in fossil fuel companies is in contradiction with the climate science being produced by its own academics.

This makes clear that all new investment in oil, coal or gas expansion must cease immediately.


‘Imperial Net Zero’… Really?

The fossil fuel companies that remained in Imperial’s portfolio, EOG Resources and Berkshire Hathaway, were there until 31 January 2024; something this article previously did not state. Imperial College London told the Canary that:


The university does not have any existing fossil fuel investments – its investment portfolio currently has no exposure to companies that derive revenues from fossil fuel extraction.

The Canary looked at Imperial College London’s latest endowment fund breakdown. Aside from it having direct investments in some of the most notoriously unethical, environment and human rights-abusing companies on the planet – like Rio Tinto Mining, McDonald’s, and Nike – it also still has indirect holdings in companies that, contrary to its claims, do indeed “derive revenues from fossil fuel extraction” – albeit they don’t take the fossil fuels directly out of the ground themselves.

For example, Imperial College London has indirect (i.e. through an investment vehicle) holdings in General Electric. As campaign group As You Sow wrote in November 2023:


the General Electric Company (GE), whose technology is used to produce 30% of global electricity, continues to expand global reliance on fossil fuels through the sale of high-emitting, long-lived products including natural gas-powered turbines and liquid natural gas infrastructure. The emissions from downstream use of these carbon-intensive products accounts for 90% of GE’s total carbon footprint. Continued investments in such high-carbon energy infrastructure locks in high emissions for decades, jeopardizing the achievement of global net zero targets.

In the past year, GE’s sales of natural gas-powered turbines have increased.

So, while Imperial College London can claim it doesn’t have investments in “companies that derive revenues from fossil fuel extraction” – this has a distinct stench of whataboutery when it has investments in companies like General Electric that directly derive revenue from the burning of fossil fuels.

It all seems a bit like Imperial College London are greenwashing, don’t you think?
Greenwashing?

Students at Imperial stated their grave concern that, until it divests, Imperial is lending its world-renowned reputation for scientific excellence to companies ignoring climate science at every turn, helping to greenwash their reputations and add legitimacy to their false sustainability claims.

Amidst these calls for divestment, Imperial has announced the release of the Imperial Zero Index. The index will be used to ‘assess annually how its energy industry collaborators are performing in their commitment, strategy and operational efforts towards net zero’.


The university has stated that it will disengage from collaborations with companies that score poorly in this assessment.

However, it remains unclear if investments are to be included in this assessment, yet campaigners are urging the university not to apply this index to its investments – where evidence and precedent in the sector for divestment, is overwhelming – and to heed the calls of the Imperial community to fully divest from the fossil fuel industry.

Imperial’s investment policy currently states that it will only invest in Fossil Fuel companies that are aligned to the Paris Agreement. Yet, there is already overwhelming evidence that the fossil fuel industry is not transitioning its business model in line with the Paris Agreement, instead doubling down on long-term fossil fuel expansion several orders of magnitude greater than the planet can withstand.
Unresponsive to demands

In addition, the Imperial Climate Action group has stated that “decades of investor engagement efforts” have failed to transition these companies away from their core oil, coal and gas business models. Fossil fuel companies continue to invest billions into new long-term fossil fuel expansion projects.

The student letter makes the case that “divestment by respected public institutions is a key strategy… as it helps to expose fossil fuel companies’ failure to voluntarily shift their business models”, helping to pave the way for the necessary legislative action to compel companies to halt destructive business practices.

In other words, investor engagement approaches rely on companies voluntarily transitioning their business models. Divestment approaches aim to increase public awareness of company malpractice, and therefore pressure on governments to force companies to halt practices and make the necessary transitions within the timelines dictated by science.

Imperial College has continued to delay taking action on the matter, and has been unresponsive to demands of its staff and students.
Break up with fossil fuels for Valentine’s Day

In response to this, ICA undertook an action for Valentines Day, in which multiple students signed a valentine’s day card asking Hugh Brady (the university president) to break up with fossil fuels. A response has not been given to the student group:



This action is the latest in Imperial Climate Action’s Fossil Free campaign It is coordinated by student-led campaigning charity People & Planet in partnership with SOS UK’s Invest for Change campaign.

The Fossil Free campaign has seen almost 75% of UK universities divest from fossil fuels. This includes 21 out of the UK’s 24 research-intensive Russell Group universities, further showing how Imperial College London is falling behind in the sector.

Ioana Balabasciuc, divestment campaign leader at Imperial Climate Action, said:


With time running out, and the fossil fuel industry rolling back the inadequate climate transition plans it had committed to, it has never been clearer that light-touch shareholder engagement is not the answer.

We need institutions like Imperial to join the rest of the university sector and stop pedalling this myth. Instead, Imperial must mobilise its reputational influence to put pressure on our government to finally legislate against the fossil fuel industry’s catastrophic business practices.

The scientific evidence is unequivocal and strongly condemns the fossil fuel industry’s deliberate disregard for alarming indicators of climate change. We don’t require yet another index to comprehend this; we need full divestment from fossil fuels.
Imperial College London: it’s time to act

Naomi Oreskes said:


Around the globe, world leaders and citizens have recognized the need for immediate action to address the climate crisis. Yet, fossil fuel development continues unabated, in part because banks, financial institutions and individual investors continue to invest in it.

The time has come to stop the flow of finance that supports and sustains this damaging industry. As a leader in science, technology, and engineering, Imperial College should have been at the forefront of the divestment movement. Instead, Imperial stands as one of the few Russell Group universities still investing its endowment in fossil fuels. It is time to fix this!

David King said:


The climate crisis has entered a new phase.

Key scientific information now available on the rapid rate of ice loss from Greenland to 30m tons per hour following on from the data showing that over the past 15 years the Arctic Circle has been heating up at four times the rate of the global average temperature rise since the pre-industrial period.

I strongly urge the College to divest from those fossil fuel industries, including Shell, BP and Exxon-Mobil, that are still investing in new oil and gas discovery. As many economists point out, this will not only worsen our chances of a manageable future for humanity, it will also prove to be a stranded economic asset.

‘Double agents’: fossil-fuel lobbyists work for US groups trying to fight climate crisis

Story by Oliver Milman • THE GUARDIAN

More than 1,500 lobbyists in the US are working on behalf of fossil-fuel companies while at the same time representing hundreds of liberal-run cities, universities, technology companies and environmental groups that say they are tackling the climate crisis, the Guardian can reveal.

Lobbyists for oil, gas and coal interests are also employed by a vast sweep of institutions, ranging from the city governments of Los Angeles, Chicago and Philadelphia; tech giants such as Apple and Google; more than 150 universities; some of the country’s leading environmental groups – and even ski resorts seeing their snow melted by global heating.

The breadth of fossil fuel lobbyists’ work for other clients is captured in a new database of their lobbying interests which was published online on Wednesday.

Related: State Farm stopped insuring California homes due to climate risks. But it shares lobbyists with big oil

It shows the reach of state-level fossil fuel lobbyists into almost every aspect of American life, spanning local governments, large corporations, cultural institutions such as museums and film festivals, and advocacy groups, grouping together clients with starkly contradictory aims.

For instance, State Farm, the insurance company that announced in May it would halt new homeowner policies in California due to the “catastrophic” risk of wildfires worsened by the climate crisis, employs lobbyists that also advocate for fossil fuel interests to lawmakers in 18 states.

Meanwhile, Baltimore, which is suing big oil firms for their role in causing climate-related damages, has shared a lobbyist with ExxonMobil, one of the named defendants in the case. Syracuse University, a pioneer in the fossil fuel divestment movement, has a lobbyist with 14 separate oil and gas clients.

When you hire these insider lobbyists, you are basically working with double agents. They are guns for hireTimmons Roberts of Brown University

“It’s incredible that this has gone under the radar for so long, as these lobbyists help the fossil fuel industry wield extraordinary power,” said James Browning, a former Common Cause lobbyist who put together the database for a new venture called F Minus. “Many of these cities and counties face severe costs from climate change and yet elected officials are selling their residents out. It’s extraordinary.

“The worst thing about hiring these lobbyists is that it legitimizes the fossil fuel industry,” Browning added. “They can cloak their radical agenda in respectability when their lobbyists also have clients in the arts, or city government, or with conservation groups. It normalizes something that is very dangerous.”

The searchable database, created by compiling the public disclosure records of lobbyists up to 2022 reveals:

Some of the most progressive-minded cities in the US employ fossil fuel lobbyists. Chicago shares a lobbyist with BP. Philadelphia’s lobbyist also works for the Koch Industries network. Los Angeles has a lobbyist contracted to the gas plant firm Tenaska. Even cities that are suing fossil fuel companies for climate damages, such as Baltimore, have fossil fuel-aligned lobbyists.

Environmental groups that push for action on climate change also, incongruously, use lobbyists employed by the fossil fuel industry. The Environmental Defense Fund shares lobbyists with ExxonMobil, Calpine and Duke Energy, all major gas producers. A lobbyist for the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund also works on behalf of the mining company BHP.

Large tech companies have repeatedly touted their climate credentials but many also use fossil fuel-aligned lobbyists. Amazon employs fossil fuel lobbyists in 27 states. Apple shares a lobbyist with the Koch network. Microsoft’s lobbyist also lobbies on behalf of Exxon. Google has a lobbyist who has seven different fossil fuel companies as clients.

More than 150 universities have ties to lobbyists who also push the interests of fossil fuel companies. These include colleges that have vowed to divest from fossil fuels under pressure from students concerned about the climate crisis, such as California State University, the University of Washington, Johns Hopkins University and Syracuse University. Scores of school districts, from Washington state to Florida, have lobbyists who also work for fossil fuel interests.

A constellation of cultural and recreational bodies also use fossil fuel lobbyists, despite in many cases calling for action on the climate crisis. The New Museum in New York City, the Los Angeles County Museum of Art and the Sundance Film Institute in Utah all share lobbyists with fossil fuel interests, as does the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra and the Florida Aquarium. Even top ski resorts such as Jackson Hole and Vail, which face the prospect of dwindling snow on slopes due to rising temperatures, use fossil fuel lobbyists.

Cities, companies, universities and green groups that use fossil fuel-linked lobbyists said this work didn’t conflict with their own climate goals and in some cases was even beneficial. “It is common for lobbyists to work for a variety of clients,” said a spokesperson for the University of Washington.

A spokesperson for the Los Angeles County Museum of Art said it had retained a lobbyist on the F Minus database “for a period during the pandemic … We are not currently working with the company.”


The Los Angeles County Museum of Art said it no longer works with the lobbying company that F Minus linked to fossil fuel interests. 

A spokesperson for the Environmental Defense Fund said that working for big oil is “not, in itself, an automatic disqualification. In some cases it can actually help us find productive alignment in unexpected places.” Microsoft said despite its lobbying arrangements there is “no ambiguity or doubt about Microsoft’s commitment to the aggressive steps needed to address the world’s carbon crisis”.

But the vast scale of the use of fossil fuel lobbyists by organizations that advocate for climate action underlines the deeply embedded influence of oil, gas and coal interests, according to Timmons Roberts, an environmental sociologist at Brown University.

“The fossil fuel industry is very good at getting what it wants because they get the lobbyists best at playing the game,” Roberts said. “They have the best staff, huge legal departments, and the ability to funnel dark money to lobbying and influence channels.

“This database really makes it apparent that when you hire these insider lobbyists, you are basically working with double agents. They are guns for hire. The information you share with them is probably going to the opposition.”

Roberts said that climate-concerned organizations may get a “short term” benefit by gaining access to politicians close to the fossil fuel lobbyists they use but that the enduring impact is to simply reinforce the status of polluting industries. “It would make a big difference if all of these institutions cut all ties with fossil fuel lobbyists, even if they lose some access to insider decisions,” he said. “It would be taking one more step to removing the social license from an industry that’s making the planet uninhabitable.”

Nearly all states require lobbyists to register and submit periodic disclosure reports, and lobbyists tend not to advocate for both sides of the same piece of legislation. Beyond that, the laws around lobbying are scant. There is no bar to lobbyists working for clients with seemingly diametrically opposing aims, and there are few guardrails to ensure sensitive information isn’t shared with the other side.

This has led to lobbyists with client lists that are jarring in their juxtapositions. Hinman Straub, a New York-based advisory firm, lobbies on behalf of Koch Industries, known for its history of climate denial and muscular efforts to block action to cut emissions, as well as Bard College, one of the most liberal institutions in the US.

Seth McKeel, a former Republican state legislator in Florida, is lobbyist to both Apple, which has vowed to completely decarbonize its supply chain by 2030, and Kinder Morgan, which has more than 140 oil and gas terminals.

Syracuse University’s lobbyist, the Brown & Weinraub outfit, also has 14 fossil fuel clients, including Koch Industries companies, Shell and the American Petroleum Institute, a situation that Alex Scrivner, a Syracuse PhD student and campus climate advocate, described as “disheartening”. The Koch Industries network itself shares lobbyists with a broad range of institutions, from the Pittsburgh Ballet Theatre to Google.

The practice of political lobbying has grown significantly since the 1970s, with the fossil fuel industry among the most prolific users of paid operatives to help shape favourable government policies. A study released in May found that not only is the industry more likely to lobby than others, its lobbying expenditures have jumped when faced with potential climate-linked threats to its business model.

This morass of fossil fuel lobbying now touches all flavours of political persuasion. Lobbying contracts can involve a range of different tasks that do not necessarily directly clash with the stated aims of another client, and some environmental groups feel that having fossil fuel-aligned lobbyists can open up pathways to Republican lawmakers who might otherwise not be amenable to them.

Denis Dison, director of communications for the National Resources Defense Council Action Fund, said the environmental group “as a rule” doesn’t use people who also work with the fossil fuel industry. But he added that “at times we retain vendors that specialize in engagement that can help build support for climate and equity progress across both sides of the aisle”.

Browning said his advice would be to avoid “cynical calculations”. He said: “We got into this mess on climate by groups seeking short-term wins but empowering the fossil fuel industry and giving them credibility.” State capitols can act as a sort of “alternate reality” where existential issues like the climate crisis are overshadowed by the desire to cultivate alliances and bolster influence, he added.

“People just assume there is no alternative to the status quo, but it’s time to take a side. It’s all about who is in the room when decisions are made, and the only way to force change is to get these fossil fuel companies and their lobbyists out of the room.”

Lobbyists, like lawyers, aren’t required to hold the same worldview as their clients, according to Sarah Bryner, director of research at OpenSecrets, a nonprofit that tracks lobbying. “But you could see it would be problematic to represent clients with radically opposed views to other clients,” she said.

“The money thing matters, too. These environmental groups, and even cities, can’t pay lobbyists as much as huge multinational fossil fuel companies can, so there is an imbalance there. Loyalties would be split.”

You shouldn’t be funding the person who is poisoning you

Former Culver City, California, mayor Meghan Sahli-Wells

Meghan Sahli-Wells saw the pressure exerted by fossil fuel lobbying first-hand while she was mayor of Culver City, California, where she spearheaded a move to ban oil drilling near homes and schools. Culver City, part of Los Angeles county, overlaps with the Inglewood oilfield, and the close proximity of oilwells to residences has been blamed for worsening health problems, such as asthma, as well as fueling the climate crisis.

“It takes so much community effort and political lift to pass policies and then these lobbying firms come in and try to undo them overnight,” said Sahli-Wells, who ended her second mayoral term in 2020. Oil and gas interests, which spent $34m across California lobbying lawmakers and state agencies last year, mobilised against the ban, arguing it would be economically harmful and cause gasoline prices to spike.

“There was just a huge push from the fossil fuel industry,” Sahli-Wells said. “It’s not a good look to be funding lobbyists for fossil fuels, especially with public money.

“I hope that many people just don’t know they share lobbyists with fossil fuel companies and that this database will bring transparency and allow leaders to better vet these companies,” she added. “You shouldn’t be funding the person who is poisoning you.”

Health groups call for fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty

Around 200 health organisations and more than 1,400 health professionals on Wednesday called for governments to establish a binding international treaty on phasing out fossil fuels, which they said pose "a grave and escalating threat to human health".

The health community is calling for a binding international treaty to phase out fossil fuels

© ANGELOS TZORTZINIS

A letter proposing the "fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty" said it could work similarly to the World Health Organization's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control -- except this time the harmful controlled substances would be coal, oil and gas.

The WHO was among the health organisations from around the world who signed the letter.

"The modern addiction to fossil fuels is not just an act of environmental vandalism. From the health perspective, it is an act of self-sabotage," WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said in a statement.

The letter called on national governments to develop and implement a legally binding mechanism that would immediately stop all future fossil fuel expansion, as well as phasing out existing production.

It emphasised that the transition should be carried out in "a fair and equitable manner," and that high-income countries should support lower-income nations to ensure the change "reduces poverty rather than exacerbating it".

Air pollution, mostly from burning fossil fuels, has been linked to the deaths of seven million people a year.

Climate change has also spurred more frequent and severe extreme weather events, which can have a lasting impact on health even beyond those initially affected by the disasters, including smoke from wildfires and diseases spread after floods.

The letter also pointed to the heightened health risks faced by the workers who extract, refine, transport and distribute fossil fuels and related products.

Phasing out fossil fuels would prevent 3.6 million deaths a year from air pollution alone, the letter said, adding that "the same cannot be said for proposed false solutions, such as carbon capture and storage".

- Either fossil fuels or health -

Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum, the head of the WHO's climate change unit, said that "from a health point of view, you can't fix a disease without calling out what is causing it".

The call for a treaty was important because it did not "try to use false accounting or imaginary solutions to continue to prop up the burning of fossil fuels," he told AFP.

"We can either have fossil fuels or we can have health -- we can't have both."

Courtney Howard, an emergency physician in Canada's sub-Arctic region who signed the letter, said that the city of Yellowknife had some of the worst air quality in the world when it was ringed by wildfires in 2014.

"We had a doubling of emergency department visits for asthma, a 50 percent increase in pneumonia and one of our pharmacies ran out of one of the breathing medicines," Howard told AFP.

She said that phasing out fossils fuels is "something we need to do for everybody -- for everybody's kids."

Jeni Miller, the executive director of the Global Climate and Health Alliance which helped coordinate the letter, called for international dialogue and negotiation to make the treaty a reality.

"The costs of inaction are increasing," she said.

Fossil fuel ban treaty would save lives, say global health groups

Air pollution linked to carbon emissions causes millions of deaths every year. A coalition of health groups have called for a nonproliferation treaty to end fossil fuel use around the world.


Air pollution linked to fossil fuel use is responsible for more than 6.5 million deaths every year, according to the WHO

More than 1,000 health workers and 200 organizations have demanded that governments worldwide create and enact a legally binding nonproliferation treaty to end the global dependence on fossil fuels, which are known to be harmful to human health.

"The modern addiction to fossil fuels is not just an act of environmental vandalism. From the health perspective, it is an act of self-sabotage," said Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director-general of the World Health Organization, which backed the initiative along with the Global Climate and Health Alliance, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Health Care Without Harm and other groups.

In a public letter released Wednesday, they called for an immediate end to new fossil fuel exploration, production and infrastructure. Existing production should be phased out in a "fair and equitable manner" to meet the 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) climate goal set out in the 2015 Paris Agreement, with "financial, technological and other support" for low- and middle-income countries to ensure a"just transition"to a sustainable future.

"The proposal for a treaty aims to support what the international community has been pushing on for years but focusing on the supply side," Jeni Miller, executive director of the Global Climate and Health Alliance, told DW. "A treaty will allow the Paris Agreement to be stronger by creating a legally binding international mechanism that focuses on the heart of the problem: extracting fossil fuels. If we do not end extraction, it will be much more difficult to end use of these fuels."

"While everybody is aware that we need to end fossil fuel production and use in order to limit climate change, there is less awareness about the huge health bill that has come with decades of coal, oil and gas use," said Anne Stauffer, deputy director at the Brussels-based Health and Environment Alliance.

"With the pandemic, policy makers have placed health protection to the top of their agendas. Now, they need to bring their commitment to preventing ill-health to the area of fossil fuels."

Poor air quality causes millions of deaths each year

Air pollution linked to fossil fuel use causes more than 6.5 million deaths around the world each year, according to a May 2022 study in The Lancet Planetary Health journal. More than 90% of these deaths are happening in rapidly developing countries in Africa and Asia. Almost no one on Earth is spared. According to the latest WHO figures, 99% of the world's population lives in places where the air they breathe exceeds quality limits set by the global body.

The link between fossil fuel emissions and health was made clearer during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, when cities across the world essentially shut down. With businesses closed, roads empty and many people staying home, carbon emissions decreased and air quality improved in many major centers, if only for a short time.

A recent study comparing 46 European cities during those months estimated that 800 deaths linked to air pollution in those cities may have been prevented in the first half of 2020. While just a snapshot of an unprecedented moment in time, the results do reflect how better air quality could improve the health of billions of people worldwide.

The results of the study are backed by moves to phase out coal in other parts of the world over the last 20 years. After the closure of coal-fired power plants in California and Ontario, Canada, for example, surrounding communities saw significant decreases in premature deaths, preterm births and hospital admissions.

Exiting fossil fuels to protect human and ecosystem health

The proposed treaty, to be negotiated by participating countries, would follow the example set by the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. The international accord, which entered into force in 2005, aims to raise awareness of the dangers of tobacco and limit its use.

A fossil fuel treaty would seek to do the same for the use of coal, oil and gas, which are known to be harmful to human and ecosystem health. The letter points out the numerous health effects of fossil fuel use that go beyond the direct impact of air pollution. A warming climate, for example, also increases the risk of heat-related illness and death and favors the spread of food and waterborne illnesses. At the same time, health care systems and medical supply chains are also coming under increasing strain.

The effects of air pollution in major cities like Dhaka, as seen here, are worse for children and the elderly

"Communities around the world have been paying the health price for our dependence on fossil fuels for far too long," said Miller. "Every stage of the fossil fuel cycle puts people's health at risk, from mining and fracking to transport through pipelines, to processing and finally to burning fossil fuels for transport, electricity, and industrial use," she said.

New treaty would be a 'tangible sign' that governments are serious

Stauffer of the Health and Environment Alliance told DW the call for a new treaty comes at a crucial time, pointing out that despite increased commitments in recent years from entities like the G20 and the European Union, progress on cutting back on fossil fuels has been too slow. The current geopolitical crisis in Europe isn't helping matters, with countries scrambling to find oil and gas from sources other than Russia rather than strengthening renewables.

"With the many short-term measures to deal with the implications from the war in Ukraine, we're risking a fossil fuel lock-in in Europe, despite all commitments to climate neutrality and energy transition," Stauffer said.

"A fossil fuel nonproliferation treaty would be a tangible sign and commitment by governments that they're serious about protecting our health and tackling a top cause of ill health," she added.

Miller said clean energy alternatives to fossil fuels are readily available, but remain out of reach for many. Developed countries, which have profited from decades of growth based on polluting power, now "have the resources and moral responsibility not only to make the clean energy transition, but to support developing countries to do the same," she said.

"For decades we've depended on the capacity of fossil fuels to provide energy, but we now have alternatives that are cleaner and more sustainable — and compatible with the healthier future we want," she added.

7 WAYS HELPING THE ENVIRONMENT WILL BENEFIT HUMAN HEALTH
Link between CO2 and less nutritious food
Cutting greenhouse gas emissions would not only slow global heating, it would also ensure our food remains nutritious. When plants absorb excess CO2, they produce less protein and fewer nutrients like zinc and iron. Deficiencies in those nutrients can result in many health problems, especially in children. If CO2 keeps rising, hundreds of millions more people will face chronic undernutrition.
1234567

Edited by: Jennifer Collins

IEA

The global energy crisis pushed fossil fuel consumption subsidies to an all-time high in 2022

Fossil fuel consumption subsidies globally rose above USD 1 trillion for the first time in 2022


Toru Muta, Senior Energy Analyst
Musa Erdogan, Energy Analyst

Commentary — 16 February 2023


Fossil fuel consumption subsidies worldwide soared in 2022, rising above USD 1 trillion for the first time, according to new IEA estimates, as turmoil in energy markets sent fuel prices in international markets well above what was actually paid by many consumers.

Last year’s record subsidies – amid the global energy crisis triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine – were double their 2021 levels, which were already almost five times those seen in 2020.

These escalating outlays were in sharp contrast with the Glasgow Climate Pact, which in November 2021 called on countries to “phase-out … inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, while providing targeted support to the poorest and most vulnerable”. Our analysis shows that many of these government measures were not well targeted, and while they may have partially protected customers from skyrocketing costs, they artificially maintained fossil fuels' competitiveness versus low-emissions alternatives.

For many years, the IEA has monitored subsidies for fossil fuels, evaluating situations in which consumers pay less than the market price of the fuel itself. According to our preliminary estimates for 2022, oil subsidies increased by around 85% while natural gas and electricity consumption subsidies more than doubled. As noted in the World Energy Outlook, high fossil fuel prices were the main reason for upward pressure on global electricity prices, accounting for 90% of the rise in the average costs of electricity generation worldwide (natural gas alone for more than 50%).

Fossil fuel consumption subsidies globally rose above USD 1 trillion for the first time in 2022

Fossil fuel consumption subsidies by fuel, 2010-2022

Open

Governments took a variety of measures to protect consumers from the worst effects of the energy crisis. The most common, as usual, was simply to fix end-user tariffs, or to cap fuel or electricity price increases. For example, the Peruvian government decided in April 2022 to temporarily include a number of transport fuels in the State Fuel Price Stabilization Fund to curb the rise in prices. Many advanced European economies limited consumer exposure to the full impact of spiralling natural gas prices. Thailand introduced a price cap of THB 30 (USD 0.85) per litre of diesel. Some successful subsidy reform programmes were interrupted: Egypt, for example, extended electricity subsidies, which it had previously planned to phase out by the end of the 2021-2022 fiscal year.

Almost all of the consumption subsidies that we found with our price-gap methodology were in emerging and developing economies. More than half were in fossil-fuel exporting countries.

But measures to limit the effect of price volatility were much more widespread, notably in Europe. Most interventions in advanced economies did not meet our definition of fossil fuel consumption subsidies, because average end-user prices remained above market-based values. But they were nonetheless a significant drain on fiscal resources1. The IEA’s tracking suggests that more than USD 500 billion in extra spending was committed to reduce energy bills in 2022, mainly in advanced economies; this is addition to the fossil fuel consumption subsidies identified elsewhere.

These measures included exemptions from various taxes and levies, compensation mechanisms for different affected groups of consumers, efforts to ease payment terms or to put a moratorium on disconnections for non-payment. Many utilities and other energy companies, as well as energy-intensive industries received additional support to manage higher fuel-related costs, especially for gas and electricity.

Phasing out fossil fuel subsidies is a fundamental ingredient of successful clean energy transitions, as underscored in the Glasgow Climate Pact. However, today’s global energy crisis has also highlighted the political challenges of doing so. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine caused the crisis, but 2022’s subsidy jump brings some broader lessons on the need for orderly and people-centred transitions.

Periods of high and volatile fossil fuel prices drive home the unsustainability of today’s energy system and underscore the benefits of energy transitions, but these episodes come with significant economic and social cost. High fossil fuel prices are no substitute for consistent climate policies.

During an energy crisis, government commitments to phasing out subsidies are overshadowed by the priority to protect consumers. The resulting government actions reduce hardship but also weaken incentives for consumers to save or to switch to alternative sources of energy, and use up public funds that could be spent in other areas, including on clean energy transitions.

High fossil fuel prices hit the poor hardest but subsidies are rarely well-targeted, and as a result tend to benefit the better-off. Effective targeting to protect vulnerable groups requires investments in better data collection and in setting up effective cash transfer mechanisms.

But well-designed policies should avoid fuel supply getting too far out of step with demand in the first place. Resources are best deployed to provide lasting protection against volatile fuel prices. This means anchoring market-based prices in a broader suite of policies and measures that enable households and industries to make cleaner energy choices. High-efficiency and low-emissions equipment and services need to be readily available, and poorer consumers need support to manage their upfront costs. It is far better for governments to spend time and money on structural changes that bring down fossil fuel demand, rather than on emergency relief when fuel prices go up.

Lessons for phasing out fossil fuel consumption subsidies

References

These types of interventions are assessed also by inventory-based subsidy assessments . https://www.oecd.org/fossil-fuels/

Fossil Fuels Consumption Subsidies 2022

Policy report

February 2023
LicenceCC BY 4.0


The IEA has been tracking fossil fuel subsidies for many years, examining instances where consumer prices are lower than the market value of the fuel itself. Our systematic analysis highlights the magnitude of these subsidies, and the potential benefits of their removal for energy markets, climate goals and government budgets. This report provides our first estimates for 2022, which show that global fossil fuel consumption subsidies doubled from the previous year to an all-time high of USD 1 trillion.

The Glasgow Climate Pact emphasized that phasing out fossil fuel subsidies is a fundamental step towards a successful clean energy transition. However, today’s global energy crisis has also underscored some of the political challenges of doing so. This report suggests lessons for energy subsidy reform from today’s energy crisis.

About this report

Prices for fossil fuels were extraordinarily high and volatile in 2022 as energy markets grappled with the strains caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine – in particular the sharp cuts in Russian natural gas deliveries to Europe. In many countries, though, the prices actually paid by consumers for these fuels remained at a much lower level. A range of policy interventions insulated consumers from ballooning prices, but with the adverse effect of keeping fossil fuels artificially competitive with low-emissions alternatives. In 2022, subsidies worldwide for fossil fuel consumption skyrocketed to more than USD 1 trillion, according to the IEA’s latest estimate, by far the largest annual value ever seen.

The IEA has been tracking fossil fuel subsidies for many years, examining instances where consumer prices are less than the market value of the fuel itself (adjusted for transport costs and VAT, as applicable). Our first estimates for 2022 show that subsidies for natural gas and electricity consumption more than doubled compared with 2021, while oil subsidies rose by around 85%. The subsidies are mainly concentrated in emerging market and developing economies, and more than half were in fossil-fuel exporting countries.

READ ON Fossil Fuels Consumption Subsidies 2022 – Analysis - IEA

Canada’s fossil-fuelled sprint away from climate safety

By Barry Saxifrage | Analysis, Climate Solutions Reporting | July 27th 2022

#2052 of 2053 articles from the Special Report: Race to a Safer World

Fossil fuel buring keeps rising in Canada, and Canadians now burn more per person than any of our peers in G7 and European Union nations.

Burning fossil fuels is the root cause of climate breakdown, ocean acidification and the choking air pollution that is killing millions every year.

For more than 30 years, Canada has been promising to do its part in solving these crises by reining in our hugely oversized fossil fuel burning. Instead, we keep cranking up the amount we burn. That's according to the data in the latest BP Statistical Review of World Energy.

This data also shows that Canada is dragging its feet on expanding climate-safe and less-deadly energy sources that we need to switch to — like hydro, nuclear, wind and solar. As a result, fossil fuels’ formidable lead in Canada’s energy use keeps growing.

Canadians now burn more fossil fuels per person than any of our peer nations in the wealthy Group of Seven (G7) or the European Union. And while nearly all these nations have managed to reduce their climate pollution since 1990, Canada hasn’t. We still emit far more.

Canada’s multi-decade failure to reduce fossil fuel burning has left Canadians and our economy increasingly exposed to the rapidly metastasizing climate crisis.

To illustrate Canada’s ever-growing fossil fuel problem, I’ve created a series of charts using the latest BP energy data.

Burning up

My first chart lets you compare Canada’s energy use last year to what we used back in 1990, the year Canada first promised to reduce climate pollution.

Back then, Canadians burned seven exajoules of fossil fuels.

(Note: An "exajoule" (EJ) is an energy metric used by BP and others to compare different sources of energy. It is roughly equal to the energy from burning 163 million barrels of oil.)

Over the next 30 years, instead of reducing our carbon burning as promised, we kept cranking it up. Last year, we burned nine exajoules worth of fossil fuels — two more than in 1990.

For scale, the combined nations of Central America currently burn about one exajoule worth of fossil fuels each year. So, Canada has increased its fossil fuel burning by two Central Americas worth since 1990. That’s the path to a chaotic climate future, not a safe one.

The chart’s green bars show how much climate-safe energy Canada uses. This increased by just one exajoule — only half as much.

Canada’s multi-decade failure to reduce fossil fuel burning has left us and our economy increasingly exposed to the rapidly metastasizing climate crisis. #ClimateCrisis #cdnpoli #FossilFuels @saxifrages writes for @NatObserver

Fossil fuels are pulling away

As my next chart highlights, fossil fuels' already formidable lead over cleaner alternatives has grown even larger.

Back in 1990, fossil fuels had a three exajoule lead over climate-safe energy sources in Canada. Now, the gap has grown to four exajoules.

Three decades ago, the climate task facing Canadians was to eliminate seven exajoules of fossil fuel energy. That’s a lot of energy to replace or cut back. But back then, we also had several decades ahead of us to engineer a graceful energy transition.

Instead of acting, Canada burned up precious decades while making the problem even larger. Today, Canadians face a much larger task — eliminating nine exajoules per year worth of fossil fuels. And we have far less time remaining to do it. The climate crisis is now hammering away with increasing fury on our communities, food supply, security, economy and the rich ecosystems we cherish and depend on.

The impacts will keep growing more dangerous until we’ve eliminated all fossil fuel burning.

Coal gains squandered

There is one form of fossil fuel that Canada has acted on — coal burning in power plants.

This effort was led by Ontario with its Cessation of Coal Use Regulation back in 2007. The provincial government calls this the "single largest greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction action on the continent." It remains Canada’s biggest climate success so far.

But, as this next chart highlights, all of Canada’s hard-won climate progress from coal cuts was wiped out four times over by our huge surge in oil and gas burning.

For those who like geeky details, coal burning declined by 0.7 EJ, while oil and gas burning surged by 2.7 EJ.

One step forward, four steps back.

On the positive side, Canadians are close to eliminating coal-burning power plants. Less than half an exajoule of coal burning remains. And Canada has laws on the books to shut down most of that.

But the flip side is that Canada has now played its coal card and, yet, fossil fuel burning continues to rise.

To make any meaningful climate progress now, Canada must make large and rapid cuts in our oil and gas burning. These now total 95 per cent of our fossil fuel burning.

However, Canada has been green-lighting economic and climate policies that do the opposite. Both oil and gas burning have risen relentlessly in Canada. Both hit all-time highs in 2019.

Global speed bumps

So far, the only thing that has slowed down Canada’s fossil burning has been two major global crises.

In 2009, the sudden global financial meltdown turned down Canada’s fossil burner — for a single year. And in 2020, the global COVID pandemic did it again.

But even these global crises were just temporary speed bumps in Canada’s determined acceleration off the climate cliff. In both cases, fossil burning rebounded strongly the next year.

In fact, it took just one year for Canada's fossil gas burning to erase the pandemic dip and surge to a record high in 2021.

Both these global economic crises also put a damper on Canada’s climate-safe energy. According to the BP data, Canada’s climate-safe energy peaked in 2017 and has been struggling through years of decline since.

Overall, though, Canada’s energy trends have been remarkably stable since 1990. Fossil fuel burning keeps rising. And it keeps rising much faster than climate-safe energy. The gap between climate-safe energy and climate-destructive energy keeps growing larger. And the amount of fossil fuel burning that Canadians must eliminate to preserve a livable climate keeps growing larger as well.

There is no sign in this data that Canada is turning the corner on its fossil fuel addiction.
Super burners

So far, we’ve looked at the total fossil fuel burning in Canada.

Another revealing comparison I found in the BP data is in the amount of fossil fuels burned per person.

My next chart shows fossil fuel burning per capita among Canada’s peers in both the G7 and the European Union. Combined, these 31 nations hold more than half the world's wealth, produce half the global GDP, and emit a third of the climate pollution.

Where are Canadians?

Fossil fuel burning per capita in G7 and EU nations. Data from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2022.

Yep, sadly, we are in first place — burning the most per person.

Canadians now burn nearly four times more fossil fuels per person than the global average; triple the French or British; and more than twice as much as the Germans and Japanese. Heck, even the Americans now burn less per person than we do. They used to burn a lot more than we did, but even the land of Trumpian climate denial and yahoo oil cowboys now burns less than us.

And, of course, all our oversized fossil fuel burning comes with oversized heaps of climate pollution.
Climate rogue

My final chart shows the climate progress these same nations have made since 1990.

Green bars show reductions in climate pollution. As you can see, nearly all our peers in this group have reduced their emissions. Not Canada. We are one of the few climate rogues — still polluting more.

Climate pollution changes from 1990 to 2020 in G7 and EU nations. Data from each nation's National Inventory Report to the UNFCCC.

The Europeans have cut their climate pollution — by a third.

The British have cut their climate pollution — in half.

We’ve cranked ours higher. Is this really who we want to be?

If Canadians ever want to get off our treadmill of rising fossil fuel addiction and endless climate failure, we could adopt the same carbon budget policies that have been working so well for our Commonwealth peers in the U.K.

At this point, we know what works and what doesn’t.

Continuing with climate arson isn't our only option. We can choose a different and more hopeful path.

July 27th 2022

Barry Saxifrage
Visual Carbon Columnist
@bsaxifrage

Comments

David Huntley | 12 hours ago

I do not know how to explain why Canada is doing so badly except that there must be corruption in the Cabinet.

f nordvie | 9 hours ago


5 years ago, Ontario was ahead of its schedule, to reach 2030 goals.
And none of its work, or Quebec's, or BC's, or anyone else's, counted for a dawdly-doo in the federal figures, because they were all wiped out by the petro industries in AB and SASK.

And then we got Doug Ford. I don't say "we" elected Doug Ford, bc I played no part in that.

James S | 9 hours ago


Isn't a very large portion of Canada's consumption of fossil fuels related to a very small number of industries, including oil and gas extraction/refining, cement production, and to a lesser extent steel and aluminum smelting? These per capita charts suggest that 'ordinary' Canadians are doing all that burning which I don't believe is the case. At the same time, it's a well known fact that Canadian domestic consumption is much higher than Scandinavian domestic consumption, and so 'ordinary' Canadians have much in the way of improvements to make. However, while the climate doesn't care about who is producing carbon, I think we need to keep the record straight as to the fact that key industries in Canada who are mostly international conglomerates with widely held international shareholdings, are the ones that are putting these big numbers on the backs of ordinary Canadians. It is these same companies, as well as the Canadian Banks that keep the country's carbon output high while lobbying our so-called democratic representatives to allow them to keep making money at the expense of our climate futures.

Geoffrey Pounder | 7 hours ago


"Canada's overall emissions growth over the 1990 to 2020 period was driven primarily by increased emissions from oil and gas extraction as well as transport."
"In 2020, the oil and gas sector and transport sector were the largest GHG emitters in Canada, accounting for 27% and 24% of total emissions, respectively."

Buildings, electricity, heavy industry, agriculture, "waste and others" (light manufacturing, construction, forest resources, coal production) account for the remainder. These five categories average around 9% (range: 7-12%).
"The Heavy industry sector consists of emissions from mining, smelting and refining, pulp and paper, iron and steel, cement, lime and gypsum, and chemicals and fertilizers."
Cement accounts for less than 2% (10-11 Mt) of Canada's total 730-740 Mt.
ECCC: Greenhouse gas emissions
https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environment...

Ultimately, just about all this economic activity is driven by consumption, i.e., by consumers here and abroad. Industry does not exist for its own sake. No consumers, no industry.
Cars, light trucks, motorcycles, bus, rail and aviation account for 13% of total emissions. Not including the upstream gas and diesel production upstream to fuel them.
Fossil fuels power our cars, natural gas heats our homes, agriculture puts food on our table, forestry provides our lumber and paper products, etc.

Dorothy Henaut | 5 hours ago


Our government certainly has the power to stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industries, which is a major factor in the fact that Canada is a rogue nation, perhaps even the worst rogue nation with regard to fossil fuels and bringing on climate Armageddon.

The only reason I can see that the Trudeau government is subsidizing the ridiculous carbon capturing and opening up more oil fields in the Atlantic and elsewhere is that he lives in a millionaire‘a bubble and his reality has very little to do with the real world that is rapidly burning up.

The day when federal ministers are willing to have lunch with citizens groups and climate activists the way they do with petroleum CEOs there might be some changes.

Meantime, Trudeau’s name is going to go down in history as the man who made Canada a rogue nation that largely affected the demise of the natural world as we know it, as well as an inestimable number of people in the world. Sometimes I wonder why he doesn’t think if that.

What people are reading


Baffled by the carbon tax rebate? It's not your fault
By Max Fawcett | Opinion | July 26th 2022

PM Trudeau, time to show us your cards
By Ross Belot | Opinion | July 25th 2022


LNG projects put a dark cloud over Trudeau’s clean energy cash for N.S.
By Cloe Logan | News | July 22nd 2022


“The planet already is 1.2 C hotter, yet new fossil fuel projects every day accelerate our race towards the precipice. Enough is enough."
By John Woodside | News, Energy, Climate Solutions Reporting | July 22nd 2022