Connect with us

Published

on

From cross-border pipelines for green hydrogen that can also carry natural gas, to sustainable aviation fuel that threatens forests, and costly carbon capture projects that are used to recover more oil, “false solutions” to climate change have gained ground in recent years, often backed by fossil fuel firms.

A new research paper, published last month in the journal Energy Research and Social Science, shines a light on this trend, exploring such projects that have also caused environmental injustices such as air pollution or depriving communities of their source of income.

The study by the Institute of Environmental Science and Technology at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ICTA-UAB), in collaboration with the University of Sussex, is based on 48 cases of environmental conflicts around the world, contained in the ICTA-UAB’s Global Atlas of Environmental Justice (EJAtlas).

The selected cases range from Norway’s Trollvind offshore wind farm, built partly to decarbonise the power supply to the Troll and Oseberg oil and gas fields; to US fossil fuel firms working with the dairy industry to turn manure into biogas; and a tree plantation in the Republic of Congo proposed by TotalEnergies, where locals say they have been prevented from accessing their customary farmland.

“House of cards”: Verra used junk carbon credits to fix Shell’s offsetting scandal

The researchers argue that “false solutions” – which also include large-scale carbon offsetting projects, many of which have been discredited – help to reinforce the political and economic power of the industry that is responsible for the climate crisis, and are undermining the global energy transition.

Climate Home News spoke to co-author Freddie Daley, a research associate at the University of Sussex’s Centre for Global Political Economy, about the paper’s findings and implications for climate policy.

Q: What was your motivation in exploring these types of “false solutions” to the climate crisis?

A: It’s very much a reaction to the fossil fuel industry insisting these technologies are solutions, rather than us creating a typology of things that are not working. All of the [paper’s] authors are very keen on a habitable planet – and we’re not going to let perfection be the enemy of the good.

But this is a call [to] arms to say that governments need to be very careful about what they’re giving public subsidy to, because in a complex situation – where there’s an urgency for reducing emissions but also for creating sustainable livelihoods and for ensuring that the needs of people living in and around these projects are met – I think it’s very important to scrutinise the viability of these schemes.

The starting point was off the back of oil majors – or so-called integrated energy companies – coming out and being very bullish on sustainability and net zero, and alongside this, proffering that they were part of the solution to climate mitigation, energy transition, job creation, green growth. And we took this as a problem statement to begin our analysis: How can fossil companies be part of the solution?

Q: What did your work reveal about “false solutions” and how can it deepen understanding of them?

A: “False solutions” is a term that’s been used for many, many years by Indigenous groups and by frontline communities – so we wanted to formalise it because it’s not really been engaged with in academic literature so far. We thought it was quite a big gap that needed to be filled.

We thought how can we categorise it? How can we help redefine it? What are the characteristics of these false solutions? So we dug into the data, the EJ Atlas, across many technologies – from hydrogen through to carbon offsets and biofuels, but also renewable energy projects, because we were finding that renewable energy projects causing conflicts were either being used to fuel fossil fuel production, such as solar panels or wind turbines to run rigs, which we thought was an interesting pattern – and also utility-scale renewable energy projects which were operated by fossil fuel firms.

Out of total energy generation, fossil fuel companies’ production of renewables is a tiny, tiny fraction. Why do these projects exist, and how do they operate within the broader energy system? We wanted to look at what their function was – and going through the data and the lived experience of the communities on the frontlines of these projects, we found that they’re very much used to legitimise fossil fuel expansion or just continued operation.

Is the world’s big idea for greener air travel a flight of fancy?

And then we also looked at the governmental role within the institutions as well – so fossil fuel firms using these technologies and these false solutions as ways to garner public subsidy, particularly for carbon capture and storage (CCS) and hydrogen, to some degree.

And what we found across all these cases was they did very little to reduce emissions and generated environmental conflicts… and they ultimately delayed an energy transition, or the sort of industrial transformation that’s required to deliver deep and rapid emissions cuts.

Q: Shouldn’t fossil fuel companies be able to use all the climate solutions available to help reduce their emissions while the world is transitioning away from coal, oil and gas?

A: My response [to that argument] is to actually look at the data. When people say hydrogen and CCS are very important and they’re crucial, I don’t disagree with the idea that we might need some sort of technology to suck carbon out the atmosphere at some point in the future. But currently, the operational projects are not delivering that, and fossil fuel projects should not be expanded on the premise that future technologies can undo their emissions.

Just a few weeks ago, the Financial Times ran a very big story about how most of the oil majors have cancelled all their hydrogen projects because the scale of it’s not there yet, and they don’t think it’s going to stack up. These are companies with huge amounts of capital in an easy-to-abate sector – energy – saying we’re not going to do this. So you have to question the plan of hydrogen as a solution, if even the people that have the expertise and the capital to make it work are saying we’re not going to do this because we cannot make it work.

Clean hydrogen hype fades as high costs dampen demand

Likewise with carbon capture, many of the large energy projects and energy producers that have garnered vast amounts of public subsidies on the promise that they will do carbon capture are cutting those research projects down.

So at this stage in the energy transition – which some people call the “mid transition”, the difficult part – I think we need to scrutinise these technologies and look at what they do deliver on a project-by-project basis, and then on an aggregate basis.

Q: High-carbon industries say they need government subsidies to cover the high cost of researching, developing and creating markets for new technologies to help combat climate change. Is this justified?

A: I’m a big believer in the idea that the energy transition – the ideal energy transition, which is one of scaling up new industry while phasing out an old one – is going to require not only public money, but public coordination. That means states actively stewarding investment, picking winners and sequencing what is going to be a highly disruptive process.

I think public subsidy is necessary. We need to see deep and rapid decarbonisation, especially in wealthy industrialised states, but it should be used in a very targeted way to scale up technologies which have a marked impact on emissions and also uplift welfare as well – so heat pumps insulating homes in poorer communities. With these sort of things, you get your bang for your buck.

Comment: The battle over a global energy transition is on between petro-states and electro-states

You don’t get bang for your buck giving BP and Shell money to pilot a carbon capture and storage facility. It’s an extension of existing relationships between big business and government that needs to be looked at closely in the context of energy transition, because ultimately, these companies are not serious about transitioning at the requisite speed or scale to stave off climate disaster.

Look at both oil and gas companies’ ownership of renewable assets (1.42% of operational renewable projects around the world) and the renewables share of their primary generation (0.13%). They have the capital, and they have the know-how to do this. They haven’t done it. The question is, why do they need more public subsidy to continue not doing it?

This interview was shortened and edited for clarity.

The post Q&A: “False” climate solutions help keep fossil fuel firms in business appeared first on Climate Home News.

Q&A: “False” climate solutions help keep fossil fuel firms in business

Continue Reading

Climate Change

UN chief urges countries to adopt fossil fuel transition plans with timelines

Published

on

The head of the United Nations has called on all countries to deliver plans for phasing out their production and consumption of fossil fuels, as rising oil prices and climate shocks threaten energy and human security.

In his farewell speech to the UN General Assembly (UNGA) in New York on Tuesday, outgoing UN Secretary-General António Guterres for the first time urged “every government to adopt a national plan to transition away from fossil fuels” aligned with limiting warming to 1.5C. The plans, he said, should include “clear timelines and protection for affected workers and communities”.

“We know fossil fuel interests won’t step aside on their own. For decades, Big Oil has treated the atmosphere as an open sewer – and cashed in on the consequences,” Guterres told diplomats in his speech opening the leaders’ segment of the assembly, also calling out the industry’s windfall profits after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

    At last year’s COP30 climate summit in Belém, a group of about 80 governments led a failed push to develop a global roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels. Brazil instead proposed to draft a voluntary report that will be presented this year ahead of COP31 after countries and organisations submitted their views to the process.

    Governments first agreed to transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems at COP28 in Dubai in 2023, but have since failed to agree at UN climate talks on how to move forward with that commitment, as efforts to do so have been effectively blocked by large fossil fuel-producing countries.

    France, Netherlands issue plans

    A few countries have moved forward with their own transition plans. France launched the first one at an international conference on the issue in April and the Netherlands followed suit this month. Not being major fossil fuel producers, both European nations aim to end their coal, oil and gas consumption by 2050, although the Dutch plan was criticised for not setting specific phase-out dates for the dirty fuels.

    Adão Soares Barbosa, climate ambassador from Timor-Leste and chair of the Least Developed Countries (LDC) group in the UN climate negotiations, told a press briefing on Tuesday that last year’s discussions on shifting away from fossil fuels need to continue at COP31, adding that developed countries should lead the way with transition plans and curb their use of fossil fuels.

    “We are expecting that we can make a request to major-emitting countries to limit emissions from this sector,” he said. “For LDCs, we’ll also try to reduce fossil fuel use, but it will depend on national circumstances.”

    Samoa’s lead negotiator Anna Rasmussen said small island states have outlined their energy transition plans in their nationally determined contributions (NDCs) – countries’ plans for meeting the Paris Agreement goals – but added “we’re still waiting” for climate finance to help implement those plans.

    Despite the global push to clean up the energy mix, countries leading climate talks are themselves also expanding fossil fuel production. COP31 co-presidents Australia and Türkiye have both recently given the green light to mine and drill more coal, oil and gas, and still depend on fossil fuels for 60% and 56% of their electricity production respectively.

    Fossil fuel expansion threatens COP31 hosts’ credibility, experts warn

    COP30 host nation Brazil has also persisted with its plans to explore potential new oil reserves near the mouth of the Amazon River – a region known as the Equatorial Margin.

    These are moving ahead despite President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva announcing last year at the Belém climate summit that the country would develop its own fossil fuel phase-out plan. This is still under development with little information about its progress and may be hampered by elections next month.

    “We have achieved our self sufficiency in oil and will continue to explore the potential of new reserves, such as those in the Equatorial Margin,” Lula said in his speech to the UNGA on Tuesday. “But we will not abandon the environmental agenda,” he insisted. “We will move forward with the roadmap for the decarbonisation of the Brazilian economy.”

    Transition far cheaper than status quo

    Speaking at the main Climate Week NYC venue, Mads Christensen, executive director of Greenpeace International, said given the fast-shifting cost dynamics for both fossil fuels and renewables, countries should revise their existing energy plans because they are now out of date.

    Gas power generation now costs around 150 euros per megawatt compared with around 50 euros for solar with battery storage – making the latter two-thirds cheaper.

    “If these plans were updated, I think we would have a much faster transition because it simply makes good financial sense,” he said.

    A technician walks next to solar panels that partially provide electrical power to the Grand Mosque of Istiqlal in Jakarta, Indonesia (Photo: REUTERS/Willy Kurniawan)

    A technician walks next to solar panels that partially provide electrical power to the Grand Mosque of Istiqlal in Jakarta, Indonesia (Photo: REUTERS/Willy Kurniawan)

    Tzeporah Berman, founder and chair of the Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative, told Climate Home News that the Santa Marta process for transitioning away from fossil fuels (TAFF), launched at April’s conference, could help countries discuss, design and develop their national roadmaps, as well as mobilise the international cooperation required to actually deliver them.

    “Many countries want not only national roadmaps but a global roadmap off the highway to hell,” she added. “A global plan is necessary to ensure the rules aren’t rigged against those who want to do the right thing and so all countries can make credible commitments.”

    The second TAFF conference will be held in the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu next spring, co-chaired by Ireland. In New York, Tuvalu’s climate minister Maina Vakafua Talia called for stepped-up efforts to tackle the fossil fuel use that is threatening his country’s “demise” by driving global warming.

    “The world is running out of time, and so I ask every government to come to… Tuvalu with solutions – real solutions, not false solutions – for us to ensure that we have a pathway and a way forward,” he urged.

    The post UN chief urges countries to adopt fossil fuel transition plans with timelines appeared first on Climate Home News.

    UN chief urges countries to adopt fossil fuel transition plans with timelines

    Continue Reading

    Climate Change

    COP31 electrification pledge leaves out clean power commitment

    Published

    on

    COP31’s flagship initiative to accelerate the electrification of the world’s economy has been criticised for failing to include a commitment to produce the power from clean energy.

    Governments that sign the voluntary pledge at this year’s UN climate summit will commit to increasing electricity’s share of total energy consumption to 35% globally by 2035 in line “with pathways consistent with keeping 1.5C alive”, the text unveiled by the Turkish presidency on Tuesday says.

    While the document says that the electrification goal is “complementary to efforts to expand renewable energy and improve energy efficiency”, governments are not explicitly asked to commit to producing the extra power with clean sources and driving down greenhouse gas emissions.

    The text instead says the “use of clean electricity” will vary according to national circumstances. Fossil fuels are not mentioned by name, although the pledge cites the COP28 Global Stocktake decision, which called for “transitioning away from fossil fuels” in energy systems.

      COP31 president Murat Kurum said earlier this month that the push to make electrification more “widespread” – through measures like the rollout of electric vehicles and heat pumps – will “automatically” lead to a reduction in the use of fossil fuels.

      But many campaigners disagree, criticising the proposed pledge for failing to give an explicit signal on the fossil fuel transition.

      Lack of clarity on energy sources

      “Let’s not let electrification become the Trojan horse of our times, used to hide new fossil fuel consumption rather than promote renewable energy,” Claire Smith from civil society umbrella group Beyond Fossil Fuels said in reaction to the pledge’s publication.

      She added that the commitment will only help address the climate crisis if electrification is powered by a flexible energy system where solar and wind are complemented by enhanced grids and storage.

      The pledge’s text says that the electricity goal should be supported by “diverse and sustainable energy sources”, but it stops short of explaining what these sources are.

      Alden Meyer, an international climate policy expert and senior associate at think-tank E3G, said the details of the pledge matter to how effective it will be in helping bring planet-heating emissions down.

      “It has to be clean, and we haven’t got enough clarity on a guarantee that it will be a decarbonisation move,” he told Climate Home News.

      China’s industrial engine starts to break its fossil fuel habit

      According to an annual electricity review from energy think-tank Ember, in 2025 renewables edged ahead of coal power for the first time in 100 years. Continued growth in solar and wind pushed the share of renewables above a third of global electricity generation to just under 34%, compared with coal at 33%, it said.

      Janet Milongo, energy Transition lead at CAN International, said success cannot be measured simply by how much of the world’s final energy consumption becomes electric.

      “We must ask what generates that electricity, who has access to it, who owns the infrastructure, and whether it is helping communities transition away from fossil fuels,” she added.

      Electrification alone can’t meet climate goals

      Analysis published by the IEA on Tuesday, alongside the pledge, found that it would already be cost-effective to raise electricity’s share of global energy use from 23% today to around 33% with existing technologies, putting the COP31 goal “within striking distance”. Based on current policies, however, the share reaches only about 30% by 2035.

      Hitting the 35% target would cut fossil fuel importers’ import bills by around $400 billion a year by 2035, the IEA said. At the higher prices caused by the conflict in the Middle East, that saving rises to more than $500 billion.

      Speaking at New York Climate Week on Tuesday, IEA executive director Fatih Birol said the agency’s figures show that in 2026, about 80% of all new power plants built will run on renewables, with a few percentage points coming from nuclear power and the rest from fossils fuels. “So therefore, electrification itself will lead reduction of the [greenhouse gas] emissions,” he added.

      IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol speaks at Climate Week NYC on September 22, 2026 (Photo: Megan Rowling / Climate Home News)

      IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol speaks at Climate Week NYC on September 22, 2026 (Photo: Megan Rowling / Climate Home News)

      However, the IEA warned in its new report that electrification “by itself is not enough” to meet the world’s climate targets. It noted that, if “low-emission” sources of power continue to simply grow in line with current policy scenarios, that would be only just enough to cover the extra demand from electrification, driving a modest decline in emissions.

      Matt Webb, associate director of global clean power diplomacy at E3G, said the pledge is a “welcome signal of leadership” and can help COP31 be a “critical moment” for countries to double down on the energy commitments made at COP28.

      But to secure the full benefits of electrification, he added, it is essential that we “urgently clean up” by speeding up the rollout of renewables and developing credible national plans to transition away from fossil fuels.

      The post COP31 electrification pledge leaves out clean power commitment appeared first on Climate Home News.

      COP31 electrification pledge leaves out clean power commitment

      Continue Reading

      Climate Change

      As loss and damage fund stalls, Nepal crowdfunds flood relief

      Published

      on

      People around the world have donated almost $90 million to a government-led campaign to help Nepal recover from its recent devastating Himalayan flood, according to a Nepali climate negotiator, even as the UN chief slammed the tiny amount of money in a new fund to deal with such disasters.

      Individuals and companies from Nepal and abroad have chipped in from $5 to “many millions” of dollars to the Prime Minister’s Disaster Relief Fund, Manjeet Dhakal, an advisor to the poorest countries at UN climate talks, told an event on Monday focused on early warning systems.

      The prompt and substantial response from the public contrasts with the slower, more limited support that is potentially on offer from the UN’s new Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD), set up by governments to compensate developing countries for climate disasters.

      Comment: Human security relies on adapting to the world’s new climate reality

      Over three weeks have passed since Nepal’s finance and environment ministers asked the FRLD board to take an urgent decision to allocate funding to help Nepal protect people and restore essential services in the wake of the disaster, which caused around 1,450 deaths and left more than 5,000 people missing.

      “Time is of the essence,” the ministers wrote in an appeal to the FRLD on August 31, which was swiftly followed by a letter from a group of developing-country board members urging the FRLD board’s co-chairs to organise an extraordinary meeting to come up with a response.

      Loss and damage fund hesitates

      Yet, despite informal online meetings, the co-chairs have yet to convene a meeting with the power to allocate funds. The board’s next scheduled meeting begins on December 15.

      Dhakal said on Monday that the request has “received some positive response, but still there is some discussion ongoing about how to respond to that”.

      “If they can’t respond in a timely manner, then is [the fund] fit for purpose in terms of disasters that the world would be facing in the coming years? The scale and intensity of these disasters is increasing,” he said.

      With just $820 million pledged to it by rich countries and not all of that yet delivered, the FRLD has earmarked just $350 million to spend in its initial phase and without further contributions could run out of money next year.

      Because of these limited funds, and a huge number of requests for funding totalling nearly $3 billion, the FRLD has said it will only give out a maximum of $20 million to each project for now. It has yet to approve funding for any projects.

      Dhakal recently told The Nation magazine that this amount was just a “symbolic gesture”. Nepal’s government has estimated the costs of recovery and reconstruction at $4.8 billion, with homes, roads, bridges, hospitals and hydropower stations in the affected area needing to be repaired and rebuilt.

      “Ridiculously small” funding

      In a speech to the UN General Assembly on Tuesday, the body’s outgoing Secretary-General António Guterres criticised the “ridiculously small” level of funds made available by wealthy governments to the FRLD. Developed countries should “make the loss and damage fund work at scale”, he said.

      Secretary-General António Guterres speaks at UNGA (Photo: UN Photo/ Loey Felipe)

      The Portuguese diplomat told world leaders that when he travelled to Nepal three years ago, he had “sounded the alarm on accelerating glacier melt, warning that the rooftops of the world are caving in”.

      “Some dismissed it all as overstating dangers, but as tragic events have shown, impacts are arriving sooner, hitting harder, and spreading further than many anticipated,” he said.

      A recent study by scientists with the World Weather Attribution group found that climate change contributed to the rock-ice avalanche which sparked a huge flash flood along a river valley on the Nepal-Tibet border.

      Speaking at a separate event in New York on Monday, leading climate scientist Johan Rockström highlighted those findings on the role of global warming in the Himalayan disaster.

      “This will be potentially the first poster-child case of a loss and damage invoice, because here we have a proven case of a catastrophe which would not have occurred if it hadn’t been for human-caused climate change,” he said.

      The post As loss and damage fund stalls, Nepal crowdfunds flood relief appeared first on Climate Home News.

      As loss and damage fund stalls, Nepal crowdfunds flood relief

      Continue Reading

      Trending

      Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com