Climate plans unrealistic with lack of green energy

Whereas the target deliverable is universally agreed, the players are diverse and driven by varying motivations.

We have governments and countries which are consumers and producers of fossil fuels; investors in production and use of fossil fuels; investors and users of renewable energy; and the community of climate scientists and activists.

The implementing agent and umpire is the UN armed with protocols based on “promised” future actions by governments.

Often stated is that “oil demands are going to be with us for many years to come” which is indeed correct.

However, what remains uncertain is the quantity and timelines for future oil/gas demands, after considering replacement with renewable energy.

It is this conversation that has not taken place exhaustively, leaving the amount of oil to produce at the mercy of speculation and guesswork.

Premature reduction of oil production, as pushed by climate agencies and lobbyists will create a global economic crisis with outages and high prices. An economic and pollical reality that no nation will want to countenance.

This uncertainty is seen as an opportunity by oil producing nations and companies to continue producing oil, guided only by routine global supply/demand fundamentals. They are justifiably guided by actual oil demands not climate objectives.

The OPEC countries are maximising oil production as long as the demand is there, and prices are attractive.

In the absence of future global oil demands caps, countries pioneering in new oil production (Uganda, Ghana, Guyana) are going full steam ahead with investments to put their new oil in the market.

Countries like USA and China which are both producers and users of fossil fuels are having to balance national economic and political risks in deciding how to balance various energy mixes.

The other week US President Biden was pleading with OPEC to produce more oil to keep prices and inflation down, a contradiction for a country that is daily pushing for reduced fossil fuels and carbon emissions.

It is only the EU, which appears able to make effective policies and regulations to support energy transition from fossil to renewable energy.

The oil companies continue to produce oil mostly driven by corporate P/L considerations. They have committed carbon reductions by 2050, but these are mainly indirect without actually delivering reduced oil production.

They are cutting oilfield flaring of gases; storing carbon dioxide; improved supply chain energy efficiencies; while others are planting trees in developing countries to absorb carbon.

When they disinvest in marginal oil and gas assets they usually sell them to others who continue producing oil. In the absence of firm numbers of future oil demands, no oil company is willing to reduce oil supply to committed markets.

It is only significant availability and affordability of renewable energy (wind, solar, transport electrification) and technologies across the world that will replace oil demands and reduce carbon emissions.

And the truth is that we are many years before renewable energy becomes a significant player in global energy mix.

Therefore, the UN, governments, and climate agencies cannot correctly push for oil and gas reduction ahead of significant renewable energy supply.

Reduction of oil and gas supply must go in tandem with increased renewable energy, to avoid a global energy crisis.

Come November, nations and stakeholders will be meeting in Scotland. There will be sincere grandstanding by governments as they re-avow commitments to reduce carbon emissions.

But these will not be supported by reality on the ground. And the world will continue to experience an increasing frequency of fires and floods.