Hans Stegeman’s Post

A study by University College London and the International Institute for Sustainable Development has examined projected global demand for oil and gas production and coal and gas-fired power generation in the context of limiting global warming to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels. Based on scenarios drawn from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Sixth Assessment Report, the findings indicate that the current capacity of fossil fuels is sufficient to meet the world's energy needs. Researchers say the study provides a rigorous scientific basis for governments to ban new fossil fuel projects and begin a managed decline of the fossil fuel industry while encouraging investment in clean energy alternatives. Read more: https://lnkd.in/eQdF2Bvz #thomaslloyd #renewableenergy #infrastructure #esg #netzero #asia #climatechange #sustainability #emergingmarkets #energytransition #electricity #biomass

When in a hole, stop digging! With record temperatures right now scorching Indians and Mexicans heading to the polls, a new study reiterates that we cannot and need not expand fossil fuel production to stay below 1.5C this century: "The world has enough fossil fuel projects planned to meet global energy demand forecasts to 2050 and governments should stop issuing new oil, gas and coal licences, according to a large study aimed at political leaders." "If governments deliver the changes promised in order to keep the world from breaching its climate targets no new fossil fuel projects will be needed, researchers at University College London and the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) said on Thursday." "The data offered what they said was “a rigorous scientific basis” for global governments to ban new fossil fuel projects and begin a managed decline of the fossil fuel industry, while encouraging investment in clean energy alternatives." #climatecrisis #generationcleanup

🌎 ❗ The G7 has agreed on a historic agreement to phase out coal-fired power plants by 2035. Ending coal, which is the most environmentally harmful of all fossil fuels, has sparked debate in global climate discussions. While the final details will be confirmed later, the agreement aims to eliminate unabated coal power generation. 🌿 This move signals a significant step towards transitioning away from the most polluting fossil fuel! Clean Globe Staffing is thrilled to share this positive environmental news worldwide as we strive to contribute to a greener future and promote the growth of renewable energy. If you're interested in managerial or commercial positions within the Renewable Energy sector, reach out to us! 📫 💚 Read more: https://lnkd.in/epqXvP7m #carbonemissions #climateaction #G7 #renewableenergy #sustainability #environmentnews #cleanglobestaffing #hiring

⏳ Back in 2021, Faith Birol the IEA’s executive director and one of the world’s foremost energy economists, told the Guardian: “If governments are serious about the climate crisis, there can be no new investments in oil, gas and coal, from now – from this year.” 🚨 On Thursday, researchers at University College London and the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) said: "If governments deliver the changes promised in order to keep the world from breaching its climate targets no new fossil fuel projects will be needed." 📚 The data offered what they said was “a rigorous scientific basis” for global governments to ban new fossil fuel projects and begin a managed decline of the fossil fuel industry, while encouraging investment in clean energy alternatives. https://lnkd.in/gJ9wUnrh #climatescience #oilandgas

The G7 meeting on Environment, Energy and Climate was held between 28 and 30 April in Turin, Italy, and it was agreed to 'phase out the current unabated coal-fired power generation in our energy systems in the first half of the 2030s or in a timeframe consistent with maintaining a 1.5C temperature increase limit'. There are, however, several environmental groups that assess this target as insufficient to meet the indications given by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the International Energy Agency (IEA), which have indicated the need to completely phase out coal by 2030 and gas by 2035. https://lnkd.in/dpXgW7n8

Governments are not accountable. Energy and Petrochemical corporations are not accountable. Promises made at climate forums are hollow and never binding. This does not bode well for our species' future. https://lnkd.in/geZ3FExg

AIGCC is pleased to support The Powering Past Coal Alliance (PPCA)'s Call to Action for No New Coal. 25 countries and the European Union have signed on and announced their intention to put forward national climate plans that reflect no new unabated coal in their energy systems and call on others to do the same. More: https://bit.ly/4hZOfpk AIGCC CEO Rebecca Mikula-Wright said: “AIGCC and IGCC are pleased to join and support PPCA’s Call to Action for No New Coal in national climate plans. To keep to a 1.5°C or even 2°C aligned pathway, Asia-Pacific countries need to immediately reduce their emissions with demonstrable progress towards coal phase out, such as the early winding down of coal plants.  "As we are approaching the deadline for submitting the national determined contributions (NDCs), we urge governments to have plans that reflect no new unabated coal in their energy systems whilst allowing for just transition elements to be considered.  "Having a fair, fast, and well-planned transition will enable new capital flows and investment avenues for renewables.” Investor Group on Climate Change (IGCC) . . . #NDCs #nonewcoal #nationaldeterminedcontributions #coal #coalphaseout #AsiaPacific #APAC #nationalclimateplans #climateaction #justtransition #renewables #renewableenergy #PPCA

The only way Australia can provide both regional energy and climate security is our ‘renewable superpower’ vision. Pursuit of this renewable model has particular support among First Nations communities, who form a key northern Australian constituency and a prominent stakeholder in Australia’s current diplomacy. That’s James Bowen talking, a consultant on Indo-Pacific climate and energy matters writing for the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. James writes, "Groups such as the First Nations Clean Energy Network have captured a zeal for climate-friendly economic development with no fossil fuel precedent. "The Future Gas Strategy highlighted supposed gas-linked opportunities that First Nations communities might seize. In reality, however, Indigenous leaders have been among the loudest critics of the gas strategy and its purported misrepresentation and misalignment of their interests. "Gas will undoubtedly help Australia achieve its renewable superpower vision. But, to serve the broadest national interest, the government should minimise that role. Rather than offer more support to gas, it should redraft or abandon its flawed strategy for the sector." Thanks for recognising us James. We work hard to represent the interests of our huge Member base, with many First Nations communities at the forefront of the devastating impacts of climate change. We know the clean energy transition away from fossil fuels (gas and coal) can be fair and just by including and embedding First Nations as partners in the energy transition, and the right to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) in systems, policy, legislation, programs, funding arrangements and projects. Doing so will mean the clean energy transition in Australia occurs at the pace necessary (and avoids legal contestation), while delivering mutual cultural, social, economic and environmental benefits to people and Country. Programs, policies and funding arrangements to support First Nations to take up the economic development opportunities associated with the clean energy transition must be developed now.

I have wondered for years why Canada is putting/planning to put so much capital towards CCS projects given other less expensive technologies that have higher and proven emissions reducing impacts. Therefore, I read the following post by Swarandeep Singh from ABB Energy Industries with much interest as it's one of the best summaries of the reasons why the Canadian government may be so deeply involved in the potential funding of Carbon Capture & Storage (#CCS) facilities. From the Gas Outlook cited article: "There are roughly 30 commercial CCS projects from around the world, and they are only capturing 42.5 metric tons of CO2 per year, equivalent to less than 0.2 percent of the emission cuts required by 2030, according to a 2023 analysis from the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). Seven of those projects are in Canada, most of them in oil and gas. But they only capture 0.5 percent of the country’s emissions. Even within the sector, the amount of CO2 captured only accounts for 2.6 percent of the emissions needed for the oil and gas industry to make its contribution to national climate targets, according to IISD. But even that figure may be overly optimistic. That is because around 70 percent of carbon captured is used to increase oil and gas production. Known as enhanced oil recovery, or EOR, carbon dioxide is injected into ageing wells to increase pressure and extract more resources. “CCS is, therefore, facilitating continued Canadian oil and gas production—which the industry expects to grow by nearly 30% above 2020 levels by the end of the decade,” IISD wrote in a 2023 report. “CCS in the oil and gas sector is expensive, energy intensive, unproven at scale, and has no impact on the 80% of oil and gas emissions that result from downstream use.” Despite these formidable challenges and drawbacks to CCS, the Canadian government has heavily supported the carbon capture plans from major oil and gas companies." This 2023 study from the International Institute for Sustainable Development was one of the source documents for the article. https://lnkd.in/eTMtf4PN #CCS #CCUS

Carbon capture and storage has contributed less than 1% to emissions reductions globally, despite decades of investment and promises. There are roughly 30 commercial #CCS projects from around the world, and the amount of CO2 being captured globally is not more than rounding error. Seven of those projects are in Canada, most of them in oil and gas. But they only capture 0.5 percent of the country’s emissions. The continued government funding of CCS despite its limited success appears driven by several key factors: 1. Industry #Lobbying - Major oil and gas companies spend hundreds of millions annually on lobbying efforts - They've successfully framed CCS as a way to preserve existing energy infrastructure and jobs - Campaign contributions create political incentives to support industry-favored solutions 2. Path Dependency - Governments have massive existing investments in #fossilfuel infrastructure - CCS promises to preserve these assets rather than requiring their early retirement - The promise of a "technological fix" is politically easier than structural economic changes 3. Political Economics - Many regions remain economically dependent on fossil fuel industries - CCS funding helps politicians appear to address climate change while avoiding difficult transitions - The jobs argument resonates strongly in fossil fuel-dependent communities 4. Policy Capture - Industry representatives often help shape energy policy directly - Technical committees and advisory boards frequently include fossil fuel executives - This creates an echo chamber reinforcing industry-preferred solutions The key insight is that CCS funding often reflects political and economic pressures rather than technological merit or climate effectiveness. Michael Barnard Paul Martin