When the world gathers in the United Arab Emirates later this month for the next round of unending climate challenges, countries' emissions reduction pledges will be in the spotlight. This has been the basic scorecard of climate change talks almost since their inception. However, this is a very incomplete scorecard, which is becoming increasingly clear as we enter the final stages of the energy transition. We've been measuring it wrong.
It is a country export The amount of fossil fuels is not counted in the total amount. But it is these exports, from some of the most diplomatically powerful and wealthy countries on the planet, that are driving the expansion of fossil fuels around the world.
To take the most obvious and biggest example, the United States regularly reduces its carbon emissions. The envoys are honest about the fact that the Anti-Inflation Act should soon actually reduce the country's use of oil, gas and coal, as it subsidizes heat pumps and builds EV charging networks. will be able to report. But at that same moment, U.S. fossil fuel production is skyrocketing. That means, of course, that much of that supply is going overseas.
U.S. export emissions can be attributed to other countries, but when visible in the atmosphere, they are red, white, and blue.
And the numbers are truly staggering. For example, if the liquefied natural gas (LNG) ramp-up continues as planned, by 2030, U.S. LNG exports will emit more greenhouse gases than all homes, cars, and factories in the European Union. . Emissions will be included in scorecards for the EU and dozens of countries, mainly in Asia, that buy gas under the United Nations accounting system. But if you could see it in the atmosphere, it would be red, white, and blue.
Exactly the same is true for a few other countries. In fact, some countries are even more grotesque in their hypocrisy, if not their influence. Norway has probably done as good a job of getting over oil and gas as any country on earth. Almost all new cars in this country run on electricity. But the company is planning one of the dozen or so biggest expansions in state-run oil and gas production, almost all of which will be for export. Canada and Australia are in the same basket.Certainly a new and noteworthy report According to research from Oil Change International (OCI), these four countries (the US, Canada, Australia and Norway) and the UK will account for just over half of the oil and gas expansion planned between now and mid-century. I understand that. In most cases, licenses have already been granted for the projects, and the damage (enough carbon and methane to meet the Paris climate goals) will remain locked up unless authorities intervene.
But this means that if other countries and the climate movement can find a way to pressure these countries to turn the faucet on, much of the flow of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere could be stopped. Masu. When five countries account for half of the expansion problem, and when those five countries have rich and diverse economies that allow freedom of choice about the future, some of the main goals are clear. is. Remember, they've all been right voices about the need for urgent climate action. They just don't want to confront the exporters.
Canada continues to approve and subsidize new pipeline and LNG export projects, as well as permitting new oil and gas fields, putting it on track to become the world's second-largest oil and gas producer. Australia, the world's third-largest fossil fuel exporter, has given the green light to a new large-scale coal and gas project. Norway, Europe's largest oil and gas producer, has granted 47 new licenses for oil and gas projects in the Norwegian Sea, allowing expansion into the Barents Sea in the Arctic. The current British Conservative government is adopted the policy “Maximizing” fossil fuel development in the North Sea.
As for the United States, the OCI report reveals that the country plans the largest expansion of its oil and gas industry to date, by about a third of the global total. Essentially, this is the result of his invention of hydraulic fracturing, which began in the early 2000s and enabled the rapid expansion of oil and gas production. We literally have more stuff than we know what to do with, so we needed to find other people to sell it to us.
LNG has turned the United States into an export powerhouse. Seven major terminals have been built, with 24 more planned.
That would have been almost impossible before 2015. Oil shock In the 1970s, the United States banned crude oil exports. But in one of the greatest historical ironies of all time, Congress, under enormous pressure from the fossil fuel industry, lifted that ban the very week it was gathering in Paris to finalize a global climate agreement. Some of us were fighting (using laptops from cafes in Paris) to keep this ban in place. At the time, I co-authored an op-ed criticizing Congressional leaders, calling them „politicians who simply don't understand the physics of climate change.“.”
As it turns out, I didn't understand the true scale of the unfolding disaster. This is because crude oil was not the only thing sold overseas. Until 2016, the United States was a net importer of natural gas, but that year the situation began to change. And it's LNG that really turned America into an export monster. Huge terminals (seven of them) are being built, mostly along the bay, with 24 more planned. The rationale for their business is simply to extract the excess gas produced by hydraulic fracturing operations and send it overseas. And the numbers are astonishing. Remember the anger President Biden caused himself (and the damage he caused to young voters) when he foolishly approved Alaska's Willow oil complex in March?Now, next export terminal Pending approval — CP2 in Cameron Parish, Louisiana — 20 times Greenhouse gas emissions from the Willow project.
A Norwegian regasification vessel arrives in Sassnitz, Germany. The vessel converts imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) from liquid back into gas.
Sean Gallup/Getty Images
Of course, the Obama administration loved fracking. It seemed like an easy way out of both the inherited climate and economic hardship. It fuels the economy with cheap fossil fuels and enables American economic activity because natural gas emits less carbon than coal when burned. CO2 emissions will decrease. But upon closer inspection, it turned out to be a devil's bargain. It wasn't even clear whether total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions were falling, as methane leaking from the natural gas production chain offsets those carbon increases. But that did not dampen further momentum, which accelerated after Russia's invasion of Ukraine, when the fossil fuel industry seized the opportunity to expand natural gas production as an altruistic measure. response. No matter what you think about this argument, we already have more than enough. EU needs; There was enough gas last winter, but there will be more this year. There is no need to build new terminals to ensure significant production increases over the next 40 years.
This is especially true because the old argument about gas exports (that it was cleaner than coal burned in Asia) is no longer relevant. We are no longer talking about transitional fuels, as solar and wind now produce the cheapest energy on the planet. The whole point of net zero emissions is that we need to move quickly to something that's actually clean.
The most important decision major exporters can make is to say, „We are not going to become the hydrocarbon equivalent of a drug cartel.''
And that is especially true as we are learning that exporting this substance is even more dangerous than using it domestically. I was the first to read a new paper by Bob Howarth (head of methane science) at Cornell University. report in new yorker Last week had some really shocking implications. It showed that when LNG is loaded onto ships and sent around the world, large amounts of LNG leak out in the process. In the best case scenario, he will have a 24% worse impact on the climate than burning coal. In the worst case (old ships, long voyages) it is 274% worse. This is mind-boggling and soul-wrenching, and makes the calculations in the OCI report, for example, all the more creepy.
Still, Biden may be able to limit the damage. His administration has already approved too many of these projects, but he could cancel the remaining ones. Under federal law, the Department of Energy must issue an export license for each new terminal and certify that sending the terminal to a country with which it doesn't have a free trade agreement is in the national interest. And clearly this is not the case. If we stand up here, we might be able to regain some of the ground we lost in the Willow disaster. And it will be difficult for the opponent to demagogue. Because exporting natural gas obviously drives up domestic prices. That's how economics works. In fact, Biden may even reinstate the oil export ban that was lifted in 2015.
The most important decision that the leaders of the United States, Canada, Australia, Norway, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere can make is simply to say, „We will not become the hydrocarbon equivalent of a drug cartel.'' If they do, some of that leeway will be taken up by other countries, such as former hosts the United Arab Emirates. Future COP. But some of it will also be absorbed by switching to renewable energy. If the largest supplier leaves the market, prices will rise and the spreadsheet will change. Again, that's how economics works.
But the real question here may be: How does politics work? The fossil fuel industry demonstrated its firm grip on power in the United States when its export ban was lifted in 2015. The industry is flush with cash right now. Exxon last month reported that its quarterly profit was $9.1 billion. The company is using the cash to buy up more fracking real estate. He clearly concludes that he has the political vitality to stand up to Biden and allow him to continue pumping gas for the planet.
And Exxon and the United States are not alone in this arrogance. In Canada, for example, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau continues to play the good fight about cutting emissions, but on some level who cares? There aren't enough Canadians to produce that much carbon (in fact, Forest fire This year, the national production is expected to be more than twice that of the national population. Canada's major contribution to our global crisis is exports. Prime Minister Trudeau summed up his country's position quite honestly in 2017 when he spoke the truth about the country's vast tar sands complex in a meeting with oil producers in Texas, saying, „173 billion barrels of oil are coming out of the ground. „No country would discover this much oil and leave it there.“ Canada can't burn 173 billion barrels of oil if everyone leaves their cars idling 24 hours a day, and even if everyone turned on their thermostats, there's still tons of oil to be found further north in Alberta. It is not possible to burn a large amount of natural gas. 115, I wore a swimsuit all winter. That's why they're busy building pipelines that will carry oil and gas to the Pacific Ocean.
The same calculation can be done for Australia, the UK and Norway. No matter what they stand up and say in the UAE over the next month, please remember this. They decided to hold a fire sale at the end of the world.