What sort of climate deal is a summit hosted by the world’s third-largest net oil exporter most likely to pull off? The type that boosts revenues for petroleum companies.
It sounds like a bad joke. Still, the Oil and Gas Decarbonization Charter unveiled at the UN COP28 summit in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, at the weekend counts as one of the most substantive pacts to have emerged from the conference so far.
The agreement includes most of the traditional Western oil majors, along with state producers from Saudi Arabia and hosts the United Arab Emirates, between them accounting for about 40 percent of global oil output. The most important bit is a promise to crack down on the millions of tons of methane that are pumped into the atmosphere through leaks at oil and gas fields and flares burning off surplus gas.
Campaigners will rightly complain that the pledges are unenforceable, making the deal little better than a pinky promise. A similar vow to end routine flaring of gas was agreed nearly a decade ago at COP21 in Paris, and there is precious little evidence it is going to meet its targets.
The Global Methane Pledge formed one of the centerpieces of the Glasgow COP26 conference two years ago. Roughly a quarter of the warming to date has been caused by methane. Over the coming century, each ton of methane emitted will heat the atmosphere as much as 28 tons of CO2.
Petroleum producers should be highly motivated to do something about the problem. Natural gas — which is almost entirely methane — is still running at elevated prices, with European futures for the 2024 to 2025 winter peak season at more than double the level they were at three years ago.
Capturing that valuable commodity and selling it, instead of venting it or burning it as waste gas, should be extremely profitable: About 41 percent of methane emissions from oil and gas facilities can be eliminated at no net cost, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said.
There is an even more cynical reason for fossil-fuel producers to get on board. Since the warming impact of methane is so front-loaded, a quicker reduction in methane emissions might take out a few more years to sell down those petroleum reserves before the chaos of climate change forces tougher action.
The main issue is that the easiest way to tackle this is to go to the root of the problem and cut petroleum production as a whole. Oil companies are not stupid: If they are throwing away methane as waste gas, it is very often because capturing it and selling it is a lot harder to do in practice than it is on paper.
If you are managing an oilfield, a pipeline or a storage tank, you do not always have good alternatives to releasing methane into the atmosphere. A large share of pollution comes from blowdowns — deliberate releases, often in emergency situations, to prevent buildups of gas that may make equipment inoperable or dangerous. Burning this gas off in a flare is cheaper and easier than installing all the infrastructure needed to capture and sell it, but even then about 9 percent of the methane coming out of the pipe does not set alight and gets released in its raw form.
Since the mid-1980s, attempts to reduce the share of flaring in global petroleum production have shown only limited effectiveness. Much of the success of late has likely been a result of the US, a country with an unusually comprehensive gas collection and distribution network, increasing its share of the global oil market.
Even a complete elimination of petroleum’s methane emissions would not make much of a difference unless the rest of the industry cuts back. methane from oil and gas facilities released the equivalent of 2.3 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere last year, the IEA said. Reduce that by an extremely ambitious two-thirds by 2030, and you still would not have cut emissions enough to offset the 1.8 billion tons of additional CO2 that would be produced if OPEC’s forecast for oil output over the period plays out.
The more effective action against the oil and gas industry’s carbon footprint, may be happening closer to OPEC’s headquarters in Vienna than the COP28 talking shop in Dubai. The crude oil cartel’s supply cuts of 2.2 million daily barrels announced last week, if they are not offset by increases elsewhere, would cut CO2 emissions by about 347 million tonnes, equivalent to about 1 percent of the annual total.
OPEC would argue that those cuts are temporary. If, however, they are the first signs of a peak and decline in petroleum production, that is the real action the world needs — and it is not being done out of altruism.
Ultimately, an Oil and Gas Decarbonization Charter is an oxymoron, because the carbon is locked into the chemical structures of oil and gas molecules themselves. The only viable way to tackle that is to stop burning fossil fuels. It is the looming decline in oil and gas production itself, rather than any attempt to make the industry’s operations more efficient, that will make the real difference to the planet.
David Fickling is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering energy and commodities. Previously, he worked for Bloomberg News, the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS