Climate action is based on a simple formula: To achieve the climate targets, there cannot be any more new fossil fuel projects, and the phase-out of coal, oil and gas production must happen sooner.
But the exit path is unclear and rocky. This is why we take a closer look shortly before COP28: We report on how the UK takes a step away from the phase-out and plans to facilitate oil and gas production. We show which countries have the biggest plans to expand production. We also analyze Europe’s struggle to find a way away from fossil fuels: The EU Parliament is calling to cut fossil fuel subsidies. But the truth is that European companies fund many of the world’s dirtiest fossil fuel projects.
Bernhard Pötter has also investigated which sources could fill the loss and damage fund, whose structures will be determined at the COP. Just before the Xi-Biden summit, Nico Beckert analyzes China’s new methane strategy and what it could mean for COP28 and US-China climate cooperation.
After the transition committee of climate negotiators agreed on a draft structure for the loss and damage fund last weekend, the focus is now shifting to the question of where the money for the fund could come from. A range of instruments could be used to mobilize several hundred billion US dollars a year, ranging from fossil fuel taxes, a levy on air travel and maritime shipping, a global carbon price to tax revenues or cutting subsidies. This is the conclusion of a recent report by the UN Organization for Trade and Development (UNCTAD).
The report concludes that the funds currently available to compensate for loss and damage in the climate crisis are “insufficient.” In 2022, the damage in developing countries amounted to 109 billion US dollars, not including minor damage, losses due to slow processes and non-economic losses.
Overall, UNCTAD estimates loss and damage costs of around 435 billion US dollars for 2020 and 580 billion for 2030. This does not include the post-pandemic costs and inflation, meaning the amount could be significantly higher. For this reason, UNCTAD proposes filling the LDF with an initial 150 billion US dollars and allowing it to grow to 300 billion in 2030. The money should primarily flow in the form of grants, not loans. So far, the developed countries have only pledged around 300 million US dollars.
The report calls insurance mechanisms, some of which already exist, “insufficient tools.” Instead, it lists potential funding sources for the LDF:
The proposals vary greatly regarding who made them, who would be affected by their implementation, what they would mean for national economies and how specifically they could be used for the LDF. The report also provides its own assessment of how realistic the various ideas are:
After long and difficult negotiations over the weekend, the transition committee agreed on a blueprint for the structures of the LDF at an unscheduled fifth meeting. After a long struggle over details such as the position of the fund, the resolution now envisages the following:
COP President-designate Sultan al Jaber expressed relief: The committee’s “clear and strong recommendation” paves the way for a successful COP28. However, the text does not meet the expectations of the loss and damage collaboration of civil society groups. It shows “business as usual” or rather “avoidance as usual” when it comes to the lack of financial commitments from wealthy countries.
There was confusion about the role of the USA. Its negotiator had left the room when it was time to decide. She later explained that her country “can’t agree to this text.” Observers see this as a political move by the Biden administration: The US did not veto the fund. However, this also allows Biden to distance himself from the fund when it comes to compensation payments to the Global South, an unpopular topic in the US. The hard-won consensus will now be presented to the plenary for a vote at COP28 in Dubai.
They are talking to each other again and China is showing goodwill. What may not sound like much could be highly relevant for the upcoming climate conference in Dubai. The climate envoys of the USA and China, John Kerry and Xie Zhenhua, have spent the last few days preparing for the APEC summit in California (November 11-17), where Presidents Joe Biden and Xi Jinping will meet. The publication of the Chinese methane strategy shortly after the Kerry-Xie meeting is considered an important signal.
The reduction of methane emissions has been a recurring topic between the climate superpowers. At COP26 in Glasgow in 2021, both countries agreed to make more efforts to reduce short-lived but highly climate-damaging methane. At that time, China committed to developing a methane strategy. In Sharm el-Sheikh, at COP27, Xie confirmed China’s decision to do more in the future. The publication of China’s methane strategy could get the ball rolling. COP President Al Jaber welcomed it as “a moment for international climate action measures.”
China is the world’s largest methane emitter. Methane, when considered over 20 years, is 80 times more harmful than CO2. Reducing its emissions is seen as the “fastest way to immediately slow global warming,” according to the Environmental Defense Fund.
China’s methane plan, which had been in the drawers of the Chinese Ministry of Ecology and Environment as a draft for more than a year, has been silent since Xie’s comments in November 2022.
However, the plan presented now severely lacks ambition:
“The goals mentioned in the plan are too ambiguous and mainly contain descriptive text,” says Yan Qin, an energy expert at the analysis firm Refinitiv, to Reuters. Analyst Lauri Myllyvirta also criticizes the plan’s “soft aims.” The plan only says that China will “study the establishment of” or “seek to establish” the establishment of a methane measurement, reporting, and verification system, he writes.
Zhang Kai, Deputy Program Director at the Beijing office of Greenpeace East Asia, however, sees the plan as a “positive step towards combating methane emissions,” as he writes on X. Controlling methane emissions in the coal sector should be a priority, Zhang writes.
China faces significant challenges in reducing methane emissions because a large portion of the emissions comes from the coal sector. These emissions are more challenging to control than those in the gas and oil sector. However, economic factors are not the only consideration in China’s methane plans. The country does not want to be pressured into more climate action by the USA; it would be a loss of face in front of the domestic audience if the major systemic rival could demand concrete targets and plans. Yet, China is highly threatened by climate change, so it’s in the country’s own interest to reduce emissions.
COP President Sultan Al Jaber has also committed himself to reducing methane emissions. However, one of his proposed initiatives has been met with a lot of criticism. Al Jaber aims to bring together the major oil and gas producers in the Oil and Gas Decarbonization Alliance (OGDA). The aim is to reduce methane emissions from the production and transportation of fossil fuels to “near zero” by 2030. So far, more than 20 companies are in talks on joining the OGDA, Al Jaber told the Financial Times.
However, the OGDA alliance is not a new idea. Similar alliances have already been announced in the past. As early as 2022, companies launched the Aiming for Zero Methane Emissions Initiative. It also aims to reduce methane emissions in the sector (Scope 1 and 2) to “near zero” by 2030. And in the same year, the USA, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Norway and Qatar joined forces to form the Net Zero Producers Forum with the aim of reducing the sector’s greenhouse gas emissions.
However, methane emissions in oil and gas companies’ supply chains only account for a small proportion of greenhouse gases in the sector. The largest share is generated during the combustion of raw materials. These so-called Scope 3 emissions are not covered by the OGDA. Furthermore, the UAE and other countries intend to massively expand the production of fossil fuels (see “Climate in Numbers” section). For this reason, observers call the OGDA a project with no clear goals and a lack of transparency.
Nearly exactly two years ago, the UK positioned itself as a global climate leader as the host of COP26. Since Boris Johnson resigned from the UK premiership in June 2023, his successors have toned down the country’s rhetoric and action on climate change. On Tuesday, only weeks ahead of COP28, King Charles read out government scripted plans for oil and gas drilling licenses in the North Sea, as he opened the UK’s new parliamentary term.
In 2021, the International Energy Agency made it clear any new oil and gas expansion was not in line with holding global warming to below 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, as set down in the Paris Agreement. Following this announcement, the UK helped, as the host of the Glasgow summit, to secure the first mention of the need to tackle fossil fuels in a global climate agreement. Yet, just months later, the UK government was already discussing “fast-tracking” new North Sea oil and gas licenses.
This tendency has continued in the last couple of years, culminating, it would seem, in the new legislation announced by the King this week that will allow for new rounds of North Sea licensing to be held each year. In reality, however, the announcement means very little since nothing was previously stopping ministers from holding annual licensing rounds for new oil and gas extraction in the North Sea. Jess Ralston, Head of Energy at the think tank Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), described the changes to North Sea licensing as “political theater” that would do nothing for the climate or help lower people’s energy bills.
Opposition leader Keir Starmer, who, if elected in the next general elections, has committed to not allowing any new exploration licenses, said it was: “A bill that everyone in the energy sector knows is a political gimmick. Even the energy secretary admits it will not take a single penny of anyone’s bills.”
Ralston said the UK taxpayer had received a double blow given that more oil and gas would not bring down bills and because “private renter’s insulation standards are confirmed as scrapped.”
“It seems that the Government is firmly positioning itself as on the side of the landlord over the renter, a kick in the teeth for those still struggling with the cost of energy bills that remain high,” she commented.
Ralston was referring to the decision to remove the requirement on landlords to upgrade insulation in properties they rent – one of the measures around net zero announced by Sunak back in September, along with a delay to the date at which a ban on the sale of fossil fuel cars should come into force in the UK. Earlier proposals had called for landlords to upgrade homes to an energy performance certificate grade C by 2035. In Sunak’s September speech, a 2035 ban on new gas boilers was also relaxed with new exemptions for poorer households and a new 7,500 GBP grant for those wanting to replace their existing gas boiler.
“Saying we’ll get to net zero by extracting oil and gas is like saying you’re going to put out a fire with a petrol pump,” commented Leo Murray, co-director of climate charity Possible. “We know it won’t bring down bills or improve energy security – only rapid investment and roll out of renewables will do the job.”
Even putting aside the controversial question of new licenses, the North Sea Oil and Gas Transition Authority, a public body, says the North Sea basin is in decline. It projects the volume of gas available for extraction annually in the UK will fall by 85 percent by 2040, meaning 90 percent of gas would need to be imported if demand stayed at current levels, says ECIU.
“Put simply, unless we reduce the amount of gas we use as a country by building more renewables, insulating homes and switching to electric heat pumps, we will become increasingly dependent on foreign gas imports, but progress on all three measures has been slow,” said the ECIU’s Alasdair Johnstone.
Paweł Czyżak, an analyst with Ember, an energy non-profit, said the oil and gas license announcement was another sign that “while the rest of the world is barreling towards the benefits of a green economy, the UK is slip sliding backward.”
“Sending muddled signals around net zero risks knock on impacts for the UK’s leading green industries, including in the power sector, as investors lose confidence in the government’s increasingly confused approach,” said Czyżak.
This week’s announcements follow Sunak’s pushback in September not just on insulation policies, but also on the UK’s date to introduce a ban on the sale of gasoline and diesel cars, which was moved from 2030 to 2035, much to the consternation of car companies that have invested massively in electric vehicles. Lisa Brankin, chair of Ford UK, said: “Three years ago the government announced the UK’s transition to electric new car and van sales from 2030. The auto industry is investing to meet that challenge.” Ford has invested 50 billion US dollars globally to launch a new range of EVs and vans.
However, once again it remains to be seen how much impact the delay will have given that the government has confirmed its zero emissions vehicle mandate will remain in place. This mandate means that from January 2024, 22 percent of vehicles sold in the UK should be electric, rising to 80 percent by 2030. Manufacturers failing to hit that target could receive a fine of up to 15,000 GBP a car.
More generally, Sunak has been speaking out against the so-called “war on motorists.” At the Conservative Party conference in October, the Prime Minister promised measures to limit the rollout of 20mph speed limits and low emissions zone, but no bills on these issues were forthcoming in the King’s speech.
Sunak has pledged to attend COP28 and insists the UK is on track for net zero, but the UK’s climate change committee, an advisory body, is not convinced. In June, the committee expressed concerns to Parliament about the pace of change required to meet the UK’s climate goals. Since then, there has been “tangible positive policy progress” like the zero emission vehicles mandate, said Professor Piers Forster, the committee’s chair, in October.
“But the Prime Minister has also relaxed important policies to decarbonize buildings and transport and sent a message to business and the international audience that he will allow more time for the UK to transition to key clean technologies,” said Forster. “These steps have countered the positive progress of other announcements.”
According to the committee, around a fifth of the required emissions reductions to 2030 are covered by plans that it believes are “insufficient.” Forster urged the Government to “restate strong British leadership on climate change in the crucial period” before COP28. The announcement of new oil and gas licenses and an absence of focus on the clean energy transition in the King’s speech is not likely to be seen as an adequate response to this call. Philippa Nutall-Jones
Russia, the United Arab Emirates, the USA and numerous other fossil fuel producers plan to increase production in the coming years and decades. This is the conclusion of the Global Production Gap Report published on Wednesday. The 20 producing countries examined want to increase coal production until 2030 and oil and gas production until at least 2050.
Governments plan to produce around 110 percent more fossil fuels in 2030 than would be compatible with limiting warming to 1.5 degrees. The report was published by over 80 experts from 30 countries and the Stockholm Environmental Institute (SEI), Climate Analytics, E3G, IISD and UNEP.
The study’s authors warn that investments in new coal projects, in particular, could end up as stranded assets. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), demand for coal, oil and gas will peak by 2030 at the latest. After this point, coal demand will fall sharply. However, the IEA scenario predicts demand for oil and gas will remain consistently high until 2050.
The Global Production Gap Report’s authors criticize:
The report reveals how difficult reaching an agreement on phasing out fossil fuels at the upcoming climate conference (COP28) will be. The authors warn of significant “risks and uncertainties” regarding technologies for capturing and storing CO2 (CCS). Therefore, countries should “should aim for a near total phase-out of coal production and use by 2040 and a combined reduction in oil and gas production and use by three-quarters by 2050 from 2020 levels.” nib
Gavin Newsom has committed himself to a lofty motto: from California to the world. Just a few weeks ago, the governor of the most populous US state traveled to faraway China, where he even met President Xi Jinping. The tiny US leader also had a message for the great People’s Republic. “We are here to make our climate ambitions clear and not let silence be the loudest sound either side hears,” explained the 56-year-old.
Newsom has made climate the focus of his policies like no one else. If the energetic Democrat has his way, his Golden State will not only be a shining example for the US, but also for other countries around the world. Since taking office five years ago, he has set a remarkable pace. By 2035, all new cars sold in California will have to be emission-free. The state aims to be completely climate-neutral by 2045. And Newsom declared the oil industry his main adversary, which once helped the state’s economic boom. “For more than 50 years, Big Oil has been lying to us – covering up the fact that they’ve long known how dangerous the fossil fuels they produce are for our planet,” the political science graduate recently said.
From an early age, nature played a big role for the San Francisco native. His father, a renowned lawyer and judge, was a staunch environmentalist and sat on boards of various environmental organizations. He took his young son Gavin on hiking tours along the Californian rivers. However, it was, above all, the family’s unusual pet that turned the current governor into a climate activist: an otter. According to the US media, at least that’s what the father of four once told a school class in Paradise, a town that devastating forest fires had previously ravaged. The rodents’ natural habitat is severely threatened by climate change. “When I think about climate change, I think about animals. I think about plants,” he said. Newsom now has four children of his own, aged between 7 and 14. He is in his second marriage to the American filmmaker and actress Jennifer Siebel. The family lives in Fair Oaks, a sleepy town in the north-east of the Californian capital, Sacramento.
His stories resonate with people. At September’s UN Climate Ambition Summit, Newsom was the only invited speaker from US politics. The governor received much applause for his speech on the international stage. Expectations are high that Newsom will also attract attention at the upcoming COP28 in Dubai. Whether he will attend has not yet been officially announced.
However, his ambitious policy comes at a price. According to an analysis by the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, a total of 352 companies relocated their headquarters from California between 2018 and 2021 – and the trend continues. Strict regulation and a high tax burden made business difficult for them. The departing companies also include businesses that actually fit in with the state’s climate identity. “California used to be the land of opportunity,” commented Elon Musk, for instance. Now, it’s turned into “the land of taxes, overregulation and litigation.” Almost two years ago, the Tesla boss also relocated the EV manufacturer’s headquarters from Palo Alto to Austin, Texas.
However, Newsom’s climate policy could also be a political calculation. It is an open secret that the governor has high ambitions to become president in 2028. His uncompromising stance on climate change will likely win him a lot of support, especially from the younger generation – and therefore from the group that will dominate the electorate in five years. From California to the world – that would no longer be just a motto for Newsom. It would become his main task in the White House. Laurin Meyer
Climate action is based on a simple formula: To achieve the climate targets, there cannot be any more new fossil fuel projects, and the phase-out of coal, oil and gas production must happen sooner.
But the exit path is unclear and rocky. This is why we take a closer look shortly before COP28: We report on how the UK takes a step away from the phase-out and plans to facilitate oil and gas production. We show which countries have the biggest plans to expand production. We also analyze Europe’s struggle to find a way away from fossil fuels: The EU Parliament is calling to cut fossil fuel subsidies. But the truth is that European companies fund many of the world’s dirtiest fossil fuel projects.
Bernhard Pötter has also investigated which sources could fill the loss and damage fund, whose structures will be determined at the COP. Just before the Xi-Biden summit, Nico Beckert analyzes China’s new methane strategy and what it could mean for COP28 and US-China climate cooperation.
After the transition committee of climate negotiators agreed on a draft structure for the loss and damage fund last weekend, the focus is now shifting to the question of where the money for the fund could come from. A range of instruments could be used to mobilize several hundred billion US dollars a year, ranging from fossil fuel taxes, a levy on air travel and maritime shipping, a global carbon price to tax revenues or cutting subsidies. This is the conclusion of a recent report by the UN Organization for Trade and Development (UNCTAD).
The report concludes that the funds currently available to compensate for loss and damage in the climate crisis are “insufficient.” In 2022, the damage in developing countries amounted to 109 billion US dollars, not including minor damage, losses due to slow processes and non-economic losses.
Overall, UNCTAD estimates loss and damage costs of around 435 billion US dollars for 2020 and 580 billion for 2030. This does not include the post-pandemic costs and inflation, meaning the amount could be significantly higher. For this reason, UNCTAD proposes filling the LDF with an initial 150 billion US dollars and allowing it to grow to 300 billion in 2030. The money should primarily flow in the form of grants, not loans. So far, the developed countries have only pledged around 300 million US dollars.
The report calls insurance mechanisms, some of which already exist, “insufficient tools.” Instead, it lists potential funding sources for the LDF:
The proposals vary greatly regarding who made them, who would be affected by their implementation, what they would mean for national economies and how specifically they could be used for the LDF. The report also provides its own assessment of how realistic the various ideas are:
After long and difficult negotiations over the weekend, the transition committee agreed on a blueprint for the structures of the LDF at an unscheduled fifth meeting. After a long struggle over details such as the position of the fund, the resolution now envisages the following:
COP President-designate Sultan al Jaber expressed relief: The committee’s “clear and strong recommendation” paves the way for a successful COP28. However, the text does not meet the expectations of the loss and damage collaboration of civil society groups. It shows “business as usual” or rather “avoidance as usual” when it comes to the lack of financial commitments from wealthy countries.
There was confusion about the role of the USA. Its negotiator had left the room when it was time to decide. She later explained that her country “can’t agree to this text.” Observers see this as a political move by the Biden administration: The US did not veto the fund. However, this also allows Biden to distance himself from the fund when it comes to compensation payments to the Global South, an unpopular topic in the US. The hard-won consensus will now be presented to the plenary for a vote at COP28 in Dubai.
They are talking to each other again and China is showing goodwill. What may not sound like much could be highly relevant for the upcoming climate conference in Dubai. The climate envoys of the USA and China, John Kerry and Xie Zhenhua, have spent the last few days preparing for the APEC summit in California (November 11-17), where Presidents Joe Biden and Xi Jinping will meet. The publication of the Chinese methane strategy shortly after the Kerry-Xie meeting is considered an important signal.
The reduction of methane emissions has been a recurring topic between the climate superpowers. At COP26 in Glasgow in 2021, both countries agreed to make more efforts to reduce short-lived but highly climate-damaging methane. At that time, China committed to developing a methane strategy. In Sharm el-Sheikh, at COP27, Xie confirmed China’s decision to do more in the future. The publication of China’s methane strategy could get the ball rolling. COP President Al Jaber welcomed it as “a moment for international climate action measures.”
China is the world’s largest methane emitter. Methane, when considered over 20 years, is 80 times more harmful than CO2. Reducing its emissions is seen as the “fastest way to immediately slow global warming,” according to the Environmental Defense Fund.
China’s methane plan, which had been in the drawers of the Chinese Ministry of Ecology and Environment as a draft for more than a year, has been silent since Xie’s comments in November 2022.
However, the plan presented now severely lacks ambition:
“The goals mentioned in the plan are too ambiguous and mainly contain descriptive text,” says Yan Qin, an energy expert at the analysis firm Refinitiv, to Reuters. Analyst Lauri Myllyvirta also criticizes the plan’s “soft aims.” The plan only says that China will “study the establishment of” or “seek to establish” the establishment of a methane measurement, reporting, and verification system, he writes.
Zhang Kai, Deputy Program Director at the Beijing office of Greenpeace East Asia, however, sees the plan as a “positive step towards combating methane emissions,” as he writes on X. Controlling methane emissions in the coal sector should be a priority, Zhang writes.
China faces significant challenges in reducing methane emissions because a large portion of the emissions comes from the coal sector. These emissions are more challenging to control than those in the gas and oil sector. However, economic factors are not the only consideration in China’s methane plans. The country does not want to be pressured into more climate action by the USA; it would be a loss of face in front of the domestic audience if the major systemic rival could demand concrete targets and plans. Yet, China is highly threatened by climate change, so it’s in the country’s own interest to reduce emissions.
COP President Sultan Al Jaber has also committed himself to reducing methane emissions. However, one of his proposed initiatives has been met with a lot of criticism. Al Jaber aims to bring together the major oil and gas producers in the Oil and Gas Decarbonization Alliance (OGDA). The aim is to reduce methane emissions from the production and transportation of fossil fuels to “near zero” by 2030. So far, more than 20 companies are in talks on joining the OGDA, Al Jaber told the Financial Times.
However, the OGDA alliance is not a new idea. Similar alliances have already been announced in the past. As early as 2022, companies launched the Aiming for Zero Methane Emissions Initiative. It also aims to reduce methane emissions in the sector (Scope 1 and 2) to “near zero” by 2030. And in the same year, the USA, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Norway and Qatar joined forces to form the Net Zero Producers Forum with the aim of reducing the sector’s greenhouse gas emissions.
However, methane emissions in oil and gas companies’ supply chains only account for a small proportion of greenhouse gases in the sector. The largest share is generated during the combustion of raw materials. These so-called Scope 3 emissions are not covered by the OGDA. Furthermore, the UAE and other countries intend to massively expand the production of fossil fuels (see “Climate in Numbers” section). For this reason, observers call the OGDA a project with no clear goals and a lack of transparency.
Nearly exactly two years ago, the UK positioned itself as a global climate leader as the host of COP26. Since Boris Johnson resigned from the UK premiership in June 2023, his successors have toned down the country’s rhetoric and action on climate change. On Tuesday, only weeks ahead of COP28, King Charles read out government scripted plans for oil and gas drilling licenses in the North Sea, as he opened the UK’s new parliamentary term.
In 2021, the International Energy Agency made it clear any new oil and gas expansion was not in line with holding global warming to below 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, as set down in the Paris Agreement. Following this announcement, the UK helped, as the host of the Glasgow summit, to secure the first mention of the need to tackle fossil fuels in a global climate agreement. Yet, just months later, the UK government was already discussing “fast-tracking” new North Sea oil and gas licenses.
This tendency has continued in the last couple of years, culminating, it would seem, in the new legislation announced by the King this week that will allow for new rounds of North Sea licensing to be held each year. In reality, however, the announcement means very little since nothing was previously stopping ministers from holding annual licensing rounds for new oil and gas extraction in the North Sea. Jess Ralston, Head of Energy at the think tank Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), described the changes to North Sea licensing as “political theater” that would do nothing for the climate or help lower people’s energy bills.
Opposition leader Keir Starmer, who, if elected in the next general elections, has committed to not allowing any new exploration licenses, said it was: “A bill that everyone in the energy sector knows is a political gimmick. Even the energy secretary admits it will not take a single penny of anyone’s bills.”
Ralston said the UK taxpayer had received a double blow given that more oil and gas would not bring down bills and because “private renter’s insulation standards are confirmed as scrapped.”
“It seems that the Government is firmly positioning itself as on the side of the landlord over the renter, a kick in the teeth for those still struggling with the cost of energy bills that remain high,” she commented.
Ralston was referring to the decision to remove the requirement on landlords to upgrade insulation in properties they rent – one of the measures around net zero announced by Sunak back in September, along with a delay to the date at which a ban on the sale of fossil fuel cars should come into force in the UK. Earlier proposals had called for landlords to upgrade homes to an energy performance certificate grade C by 2035. In Sunak’s September speech, a 2035 ban on new gas boilers was also relaxed with new exemptions for poorer households and a new 7,500 GBP grant for those wanting to replace their existing gas boiler.
“Saying we’ll get to net zero by extracting oil and gas is like saying you’re going to put out a fire with a petrol pump,” commented Leo Murray, co-director of climate charity Possible. “We know it won’t bring down bills or improve energy security – only rapid investment and roll out of renewables will do the job.”
Even putting aside the controversial question of new licenses, the North Sea Oil and Gas Transition Authority, a public body, says the North Sea basin is in decline. It projects the volume of gas available for extraction annually in the UK will fall by 85 percent by 2040, meaning 90 percent of gas would need to be imported if demand stayed at current levels, says ECIU.
“Put simply, unless we reduce the amount of gas we use as a country by building more renewables, insulating homes and switching to electric heat pumps, we will become increasingly dependent on foreign gas imports, but progress on all three measures has been slow,” said the ECIU’s Alasdair Johnstone.
Paweł Czyżak, an analyst with Ember, an energy non-profit, said the oil and gas license announcement was another sign that “while the rest of the world is barreling towards the benefits of a green economy, the UK is slip sliding backward.”
“Sending muddled signals around net zero risks knock on impacts for the UK’s leading green industries, including in the power sector, as investors lose confidence in the government’s increasingly confused approach,” said Czyżak.
This week’s announcements follow Sunak’s pushback in September not just on insulation policies, but also on the UK’s date to introduce a ban on the sale of gasoline and diesel cars, which was moved from 2030 to 2035, much to the consternation of car companies that have invested massively in electric vehicles. Lisa Brankin, chair of Ford UK, said: “Three years ago the government announced the UK’s transition to electric new car and van sales from 2030. The auto industry is investing to meet that challenge.” Ford has invested 50 billion US dollars globally to launch a new range of EVs and vans.
However, once again it remains to be seen how much impact the delay will have given that the government has confirmed its zero emissions vehicle mandate will remain in place. This mandate means that from January 2024, 22 percent of vehicles sold in the UK should be electric, rising to 80 percent by 2030. Manufacturers failing to hit that target could receive a fine of up to 15,000 GBP a car.
More generally, Sunak has been speaking out against the so-called “war on motorists.” At the Conservative Party conference in October, the Prime Minister promised measures to limit the rollout of 20mph speed limits and low emissions zone, but no bills on these issues were forthcoming in the King’s speech.
Sunak has pledged to attend COP28 and insists the UK is on track for net zero, but the UK’s climate change committee, an advisory body, is not convinced. In June, the committee expressed concerns to Parliament about the pace of change required to meet the UK’s climate goals. Since then, there has been “tangible positive policy progress” like the zero emission vehicles mandate, said Professor Piers Forster, the committee’s chair, in October.
“But the Prime Minister has also relaxed important policies to decarbonize buildings and transport and sent a message to business and the international audience that he will allow more time for the UK to transition to key clean technologies,” said Forster. “These steps have countered the positive progress of other announcements.”
According to the committee, around a fifth of the required emissions reductions to 2030 are covered by plans that it believes are “insufficient.” Forster urged the Government to “restate strong British leadership on climate change in the crucial period” before COP28. The announcement of new oil and gas licenses and an absence of focus on the clean energy transition in the King’s speech is not likely to be seen as an adequate response to this call. Philippa Nutall-Jones
Russia, the United Arab Emirates, the USA and numerous other fossil fuel producers plan to increase production in the coming years and decades. This is the conclusion of the Global Production Gap Report published on Wednesday. The 20 producing countries examined want to increase coal production until 2030 and oil and gas production until at least 2050.
Governments plan to produce around 110 percent more fossil fuels in 2030 than would be compatible with limiting warming to 1.5 degrees. The report was published by over 80 experts from 30 countries and the Stockholm Environmental Institute (SEI), Climate Analytics, E3G, IISD and UNEP.
The study’s authors warn that investments in new coal projects, in particular, could end up as stranded assets. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), demand for coal, oil and gas will peak by 2030 at the latest. After this point, coal demand will fall sharply. However, the IEA scenario predicts demand for oil and gas will remain consistently high until 2050.
The Global Production Gap Report’s authors criticize:
The report reveals how difficult reaching an agreement on phasing out fossil fuels at the upcoming climate conference (COP28) will be. The authors warn of significant “risks and uncertainties” regarding technologies for capturing and storing CO2 (CCS). Therefore, countries should “should aim for a near total phase-out of coal production and use by 2040 and a combined reduction in oil and gas production and use by three-quarters by 2050 from 2020 levels.” nib
Gavin Newsom has committed himself to a lofty motto: from California to the world. Just a few weeks ago, the governor of the most populous US state traveled to faraway China, where he even met President Xi Jinping. The tiny US leader also had a message for the great People’s Republic. “We are here to make our climate ambitions clear and not let silence be the loudest sound either side hears,” explained the 56-year-old.
Newsom has made climate the focus of his policies like no one else. If the energetic Democrat has his way, his Golden State will not only be a shining example for the US, but also for other countries around the world. Since taking office five years ago, he has set a remarkable pace. By 2035, all new cars sold in California will have to be emission-free. The state aims to be completely climate-neutral by 2045. And Newsom declared the oil industry his main adversary, which once helped the state’s economic boom. “For more than 50 years, Big Oil has been lying to us – covering up the fact that they’ve long known how dangerous the fossil fuels they produce are for our planet,” the political science graduate recently said.
From an early age, nature played a big role for the San Francisco native. His father, a renowned lawyer and judge, was a staunch environmentalist and sat on boards of various environmental organizations. He took his young son Gavin on hiking tours along the Californian rivers. However, it was, above all, the family’s unusual pet that turned the current governor into a climate activist: an otter. According to the US media, at least that’s what the father of four once told a school class in Paradise, a town that devastating forest fires had previously ravaged. The rodents’ natural habitat is severely threatened by climate change. “When I think about climate change, I think about animals. I think about plants,” he said. Newsom now has four children of his own, aged between 7 and 14. He is in his second marriage to the American filmmaker and actress Jennifer Siebel. The family lives in Fair Oaks, a sleepy town in the north-east of the Californian capital, Sacramento.
His stories resonate with people. At September’s UN Climate Ambition Summit, Newsom was the only invited speaker from US politics. The governor received much applause for his speech on the international stage. Expectations are high that Newsom will also attract attention at the upcoming COP28 in Dubai. Whether he will attend has not yet been officially announced.
However, his ambitious policy comes at a price. According to an analysis by the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, a total of 352 companies relocated their headquarters from California between 2018 and 2021 – and the trend continues. Strict regulation and a high tax burden made business difficult for them. The departing companies also include businesses that actually fit in with the state’s climate identity. “California used to be the land of opportunity,” commented Elon Musk, for instance. Now, it’s turned into “the land of taxes, overregulation and litigation.” Almost two years ago, the Tesla boss also relocated the EV manufacturer’s headquarters from Palo Alto to Austin, Texas.
However, Newsom’s climate policy could also be a political calculation. It is an open secret that the governor has high ambitions to become president in 2028. His uncompromising stance on climate change will likely win him a lot of support, especially from the younger generation – and therefore from the group that will dominate the electorate in five years. From California to the world – that would no longer be just a motto for Newsom. It would become his main task in the White House. Laurin Meyer
