Connect with us

Published

on

The UK is considering a new law which would invite applications for new oil and gas production licenses in the North Sea every year.

This Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill will not help with the UK’s energy security, reduce bills or serve anything but fossil fuel giants’ short-term profits. 

On top of this, if it passes into law, the UK faces the grave risk of economy-wrecking lawsuits.

This is because the UK is a member of the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) – a multilateral investment pact which allows investors in energy to sue governments over policies that affect their investments in over 50 countries across Europe and Asia.

Investors weapon

The ECT is the most litigated investment agreement in the world. It contains Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions which are used by fossil fuel companies to deter, delay or raise the cost of climate policies. 

ISDS enables them to sue governments for billion-dollar payouts over their climate policies, in secretive tribunals outside of national legal systems. 

Weak attempts at reforming the Energy Charter Treaty have failed numerous times over the years, and thus many European countries including Germany, France and the Netherlands have decided to exit over the risks to their climate action. 

Loss and damage must be a focus of IPCC’s next reports

The UK government launched a review of its membership last year and is overdue announcing its outcome. 

Recent research by CommonWealth found that at least 40% of the UK’s North Sea oil and gas licenses are owned by foreign investors, many headquartered in ECT member countries like France or Spain.

If the UK government fails to leave the ECT, foreign investment into North Sea oil and gas means not only a headlong sprint in the wrong energy policy direction, but invites a huge bill even if a future government changes course. 

The Labour Party, which is far ahead in the polls, says it will stop new oil production. An election will be held this year.

Coming clash

Carbon Tracker recently showed that North Sea oil and gas companies are financially planning for far slower energy transition scenarios than governments are working to. 

Switzerland proposes first UN expert group on solar geoengineering

As a result, they are setting up a clash between climate policies and their financial expectations, raising the risk of ISDS claims.

Producing the first oil and gas from a field can take more than 18 years. By then, the climate policy landscape will be vastly different.

The 1.5 C warming limit is likely to be passed within the next decade or two, so the imperative to reduce fossil fuel use will be even greater. 

The dearth of long-term thinking in Westminster means policymakers are ignoring the risk of leaving the fossil fuel industry with such a powerful weapon.

An investor using ISDS can claim not only for costs sunk by a government policy but for any future lost profit it expected to earn over a project’s lifetime.

These companies can decry far bigger losses than is reasonable given the fast-moving renewables revolution, and ISDS tribunals are rigged to back them up.

Problems mount for Sahara gas pipeline, leaving Nigerian taxpayers at risk

Facing an ECT claim, any reasonable argument the UK may have developed about the environmental, social – even economic – imperative to phase out fossil fuels will have to be left at the door: it signed up to the fossil fuel giants’ charter, failed to leave it when it had the chance, and breached it. 

So much for the polluter pays: the UK taxpayer will have to bail them out.

Failed reforms

There’s no reforming the deadly oil and gas bill, in or out of the ECT. But remaining a member of the treaty adds an incredulous new dimension of fiscal irresponsibility.

The European Commission is proposing a mass withdrawal to neutralise the Energy Charter Treaty’s sunset clause – which extends the right to ISDS claims for 20 years even after countries leave – among exiting parties. 

If the countries leaving together agree to cancel the sunset clause between themselves, then the benefits of exit are magnified.

Given how many ECT-covered investors in 1.5C-incompatible projects on British soil are European, the UK joining this coordinated withdrawal would eliminate 99% of the ISDS risk – leaving little logical argument to remain bedfellows with climate laggards in a collapsing treaty.

It’s time to rip up the get-out-of-jail-free card that dirty North Sea projects, fast becoming obsolete, have up their sleeve. 

At stake is a chill on policies to address the biggest crisis facing humanity, and an unjust transition that would be billed to the UK public. 

Cleodie Rickard is trade campaign manager at Global Justice Now.

The post Oil drilling while in the Energy Charter Treaty is economically reckless appeared first on Climate Home News.

Oil drilling while in the Energy Charter Treaty is economically reckless

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Earth’s Greatest Underwater Migrations Are Disappearing

Published

on

From the Amazon to the Mekong, migratory freshwater fish underpin food security for millions, but over 300 species need urgent conservation intervention, warns a new UN report.

Beneath the surface of the planet’s rivers and lakes, the historically heaving migrations of freshwater fish are thinning out. The blubbery-lipped Siamese giant carp of Asia’s Mekong River, the mottled brown goonch of India’s Ganges and the ancient-in-appearance beluga sturgeon of Europe’s Danube River are declining.

Earth’s Greatest Underwater Migrations Are Disappearing

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Border Communities Remain in the Dark About Federal Government’s Billion-Dollar Buoy Project

Published

on

The industrial-grade buoys, already being installed in Brownsville, Texas, are meant to prevent unauthorized crossings. But experts warn the buoys could intensify flooding and change the river’s course.

Reporting supported by the Water Desk at the University of Colorado, Boulder.

Border Communities Remain in the Dark About Federal Government’s Billion-Dollar Buoy Project

Continue Reading

Climate Change

How can we make the energy transition fair and sustainable?

Published

on

The extraction of minerals needed for the clean energy transition is projected to expand globally in coming years, presenting multiple risks to ecosystems and Indigenous Peoples, necessitating strong global guidelines.

But what are these minerals, what role do they play in our efforts to combat climate change, and how can we source and use them in an environmentally sustainable way? Let’s take a look!

So, what are these key minerals?

Renewable energy and electric vehicle (EV) technologies will play an important role in combating climate change. These technologies rely on key raw materials, such as lithium, cobalt, nickel, copper, manganese, graphite and rare earth elements.

These materials are often referred to as ‘critical minerals’ due to their perceived significance for national interests or ‘transition minerals’ due to their importance in the clean energy transition.

Where are they found?

While these minerals are found globally, some countries have greater reserves than others, based on geology and the economic feasibility of their extraction. The countries listed below have the highest reserves, listed from first to third.

  • Lithium: Chile, Australia, Argentina
  • Cobalt: Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Australia, Indonesia
  • Nickel: Indonesia, Australia, Brazil
  • Copper: Chile, Peru, Australia

How is mining these minerals a risk to people and the environment?

There are multiple impacts from mining minerals that are considered critical. Here are a few of them:

A banner rejecting nickel mining on Manyaifun Island, West Waigeo District, Raja Ampat Regency, Southwest Papua Province, Indonesia. © Nita / Greenpeace

So what can we do?

Some studies projecting massive increases to the demand for transition minerals in coming years are used to justify more mining. However, embracing less mineral-intensive solutions can reduce the need for mining, while still ensuring renewable energy growth.

We need to pressure governments and industries to adopt policies, practices and solutions that reduce demand while also minimising mining’s impacts.

These changes require ambition to go beyond climate action, focusing investment toward less mineral-intensive solutions like EV public transportation, advancing technology to use fewer minerals more efficiently, and expanding reuse and recycling.

What are the solutions to reduce the need for mining?

Given the problems associated with the extraction and use of transition minerals, it is important to remember four key solutions that will help limit the need for mining. They are:

  • Sufficiency – prioritise a decent living standard for all while reducing the total energy and material needed across the economy,
  • Efficiency – investments to help technologies do the same or better with less materials
  • Substitution – remove or reduce the need for certain minerals in products by using different types of technology or energy solutions, 
  • Recycling – can significantly reduce environmental and social impacts compared to mining, and therefore should be maximised.  
Dominga Port Mining Project Cancelled in Santiago. © Greenpeace / Cristobal Olivares
The Dominga port mining project, valued at US$2.5 billion, intended to be installed in the set of eight islands that make up the Humboldt Archipelago, however, due to social and community pressure, the project was stopped. © Greenpeace / Cristobal Olivares

Five guiding principles on minerals for energy transition

Greenpeace has developed five key principles essential for ensuring a just and equitable energy transition that can be adapted into local contexts.

  1. The 1.5°C Guiding Star: We must achieve the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to no more than 1.5°C. Any use of minerals must be prioritised for a fast and green energy transition above non-essential uses, such as for military purposes.
  2. Just and Equitable Solutions: Justice and equity for people and the environment must be embedded in every aspect of using and sourcing materials from reducing mineral demand, to recycling and mining.
  3. Reduce Demand: Slowing mineral demand by adopting the concepts of sufficiency (ie. reducing the need for resources) and efficiency (ie. enhancing the effectiveness of resource use).
  4. Prioritise ‘Above Ground’ Materials: Recycling can significantly reduce environmental and social impacts compared to mining. Potential sources include spent batteries, production waste, household e-waste and industrial scrap piles.
  5. Protect Sensitive Areas and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities: While there are many initiatives pushing for improved mining practices, the industry continues to pose serious risks to people and the environment. Three requirements are proposed:
    • 5.1 Protect ‘No-Go’ zones, areas where mining should not occur
    • 5.2 Respect the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities 
    • 5.3 Companies must act responsibly, preventing and mitigating environmental damage and impacts, and respecting human rights.

Irène Wabiwa is a Biodiversity Programme Manager at Greenpeace International

How can we make the energy transition fair and sustainable?

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com