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.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
US political scientist Francis Fukuyama, during an interview with the UK’s Times Radio, reacted to US President Donald Trump’s overturning of decades of US foreign policy by saying that “the chance for serious instability is very great.” That is something of an understatement. Fukuyama said that Trump’s apparent moves to expand US territory and that he “seems to be actively siding with” authoritarian states is concerning, not just for Europe, but also for Taiwan. He said that “if I were China I would see this as a golden opportunity” to annex Taiwan, and that every European country needs to think
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
RSS