In the coming years, multinationals such as Qatar Energy, Gazprom, Saudi Aramco, ExxonMobil, Petrobras, Turkmengaz, TotalEnergies, Chevron and Shell plan to open new oil and fuel production sites. These projects alone can put pressure on the carbon budget needed to restrict the effects of global warming.
In a report presented Wednesday at COP27, the US NGO Oil Change International revealed that new fossil fuel projects approved or in the process of approval between 2022 and 2025 can lead to the emission of 70 billion tons of CO2 into the environment each year. its operation. Projects approved in 2022 alone are guilty of 11 billion tons of CO2, equivalent to China’s annual emissions.
One of the projects the NGO is targeting is TotalEnergies’ oil extraction megaproject in Uganda, which is expected to be consistent with the national one until 2025. The French company plans to drill 400 wells and export the oil through the huge EACOP pipeline. These two projects combined will be responsible for the emission of more than 34 million tons of CO2 consistent with the year.
However, for several years, scientists have been insisting that the only way to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, the purpose set by the European Union, is to get out of our dependence on oil, fuel and coal. “Approximately 90% of the CO2 emissions emitted by humans are connected to fossil fuels,” says Jean-Marie Bréon, a climatologist at the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences. The remaining 10% is similar to deforestation.
According to the IPCC’s most recent report, to prevent global temperatures from exceeding the fateful 1. 5°C mark, we want to reduce our intake of coal by 95%, oil by 60% and fuel by 45% by 2050, compared to 2019 levels. . In 2021, the International Energy Agency called for an immediate halt to investments in new oil and fuel facilities. Since then, many agencies, led by the UN, have reiterated those instructions.
“Unfortunately, fossil fuels still account for 80 percent of the world’s energy mix today. We are not effectively accelerating the energy transition,” says Bréon. “And every new allocation of fossil fuel leads us to deviate from our trajectory and decrease our chances. “to remain below 1. 5°C”.
“We agree with the International Energy Agency on the goal for 2050 [. . . ] But our global life depends on fossil fuels, and believing that we will replace the formula overnight works,” TotalEnergies CEO Patrick Pouyanné told France Info at COP27. If we stopped the construction of new oil and fuel deposits, there would be a natural drop in production of 4 to 5% consistent with the year. If there wasn’t enough production, costs would keep going up and everyone would be angry. “
According to environmental coverage associations, these arguments are based on a “short-term logic”.
“Climate scientists tell us we only have 3 years left to buck the trend, so we want to act now,” says Lucie Pinson, director of the NGO Reclaim Finance and winner of the so-called Goldman Environmental Prize for Ecology. We know that all the fossil fuel reserves already in production would bring us to more than 1. 5°C of warming. Not only do we deserve that no new gas, oil and coal projects are built, but we also want to start removing existing sites. “
Pinson believes the main purpose is to prevent and avoid the implementation of new “carbon pumps. “The term “carbon bombs,” coined by a team of scientists in a study published in May 2021, refers to the world’s largest fossil fuel extraction projects. “These are all coal, oil and fuel infrastructures that can emit more than a billion tons of CO2 over their lifetime,” says Kjell Kühne, lead author of the study.
Kühne and his team have known a total of 425 “carbon bombs” in countries: 195 oil and fuel projects and 230 coal mines. The following countries have more than 10: China, Russia, the United States, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Australia, India, Qatar, Canada and Iraq.
“They are leading us to a climate catastrophe,” he says. “Taken to their logical conclusion, they are double our global carbon budget. “in Australia, the Hambach and Garzweiler mines in Germany and the allocation of EACOPs in East Africa.
“In 2019, 45% of global oil and fuel production and 25% of global coal production came from those carbon pumps,” says Kühne. “But 40% of our list is made up of sites that are still in the allocation stage,” he continues. Governments, establishments and corporations see it as a list of places to invest. Climate activists see it as a list of assignments to oppose. “
For several years now, environmentalists have stepped up efforts to prevent investments in fossil fuels by organizing protests and resorting to legal action. For example, Reclaim Finance, together with other NGOs, took the first step to file a complaint against BNP Paribas at the end of October 2022. They have launched the first French bank, shareholder of TotalEnergies, to prevent the financing of the advance of fossil fuels.
In June 2022, young Europeans filed a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights against 12 countries (UK, Switzerland, France, Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Greece, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Luxembourg and Sweden) that signed the Energy Charter Treaty, deemed too lenient on fossil fuels. Several of them, France, have since announced their withdrawal from the treaty.
Given the urgency of the situation, other voices at COP 27 in Egypt called for the status quo of a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty.
“Launched in 2020, the concept is now supported by the European Parliament, WHO, around 70 cities, plus Paris, London, Lima and Kolkata, one hundred Nobel laureates, 3000 scientists and 1800 civil society organisations,” says Alex Rafalowicz, head of the initiative. So far, only the state of Vanuatu has provided official support. In early November he was joined by Tuvalu, the first state to talk about the official climate factor in the negotiations.
This treaty, in the style of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and which Rafalowicz hopes to see drafted in the next two years, aims to complement the Paris agreements. The reference text, signed in 2015 and drafted with the aim of combating global warming, does not mention fossil fuels.
“Obviously, the issue was not addressed until COP 26 last year,” says Rafalowicz. “Until then, we only talked about reducing CO2 emissions and proposing renewable energies, without pointing out the main cause of global warming. “In fact, the nations involved officially committed to reducing their coal consumption for the first time at COP26 in Glasgow. Fifteen countries, in addition to France, have also pledged to avoid foreign investment in “fossil energy projects without carbon capture systems. “
“The purpose is to avoid the expansion and structure of new fossil fuel infrastructure, and then gradually decrease production,” says Rafalowicz. “But of course it must be done on a fair and vulnerable basis. Energy will have to be available to everyone. “
In addition to this treaty, several states formed at COP26 a coalition “Beyond Oil and Gas” (BOGA) to announce the transition away from fossil fuels. But a year later, the alliance, co-chaired by Denmark and Costa Rica and adding France, is struggling to recruit members. Fiji and Chile are the ones that have joined as “friendly” countries, while Washington state in the northwestern United States is now a full member.
In the context of the war-related energy crisis in Ukraine, which has led some countries to return to coal and fuel, the factor becomes thornier than ever. No less than 636 fossil fuel industry lobbyists attended COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh. , an accumulation of more than 25% over last year. NGOs see this as a sign that the Climate Conference may also have served as a front for some fuel contracts.
This article has been translated from French.