Protesters demonstrate against the British government’s approval of the Rosebank oil field’s development. Photograph: Lucy North/PA
Even if the 2050 goal is still met, postponing action – as the UK has done – will cause more heat and damage
Postponing action and taking a slower route to net zero emissions by 2050 will worsen the climate crisis even if the goal is still reached by that date, the new chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has warned.
Prof Jim Skea also said that approving new oil and gas fields only increased the already large amount of reserves that will have to be kept in the ground if global heating limits are to be reached.
The IPCC is the world’s foremost authority on climate change, under which thousands of the world’s best experts give advice to the 195 nations that founded the body. It does not comment on the climate policies of individual nations, but Skea’s comments on Monday clearly indicate that the recent actions of the UK government has slowed climate action, despite IPCC scientists warning of “a rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a livable and sustainable future for all”.
Dolphins die due to severe drought and many more could be affected if water temperatures remain high
A dead dolphin is seen at the Tefe lake effluent of the Solimoes river that has been affected by the high temperatures and drought in Tefe in Brazil’s Amazonas state on 1 October (REUTERS)
More than 100 dolphins have died in the Brazilian Amazon rainforest in the past week as the region grapples with a severe drought, and many more could die soon if water temperatures remain high, experts say.
The Mamiraua Institute, a research group of Brazil’s Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, said two more dead dolphins were found Monday in the region around Tefe Lake, which is key for mammals and fish in the area. Thousands of fish have also died, local media reported.
Experts believe high water temperatures are the most likely cause of the deaths in the lakes in the region. Temperatures since last week have exceeded 39 degrees Celsius (102 degrees Fahrenheit) in the Tefe Lake region.
Gianluca Grimalda, a researcher with the Kiel Institute for the World Economy in Germany, has refused to fly home for a meeting on October 2, 2023 from his field trip in Papua New Guinea, citing the fossil fuel emissions generated by aviation. (Photo: Scientist Rebellion)
“I am prepared to pay this price, if it helps raising awareness among the public and the societal leadership on the desperate situation we are in,” said Giancarlo Grimalda.
A climate researcher based in Kiel, Germany said Monday that he was prepared to lose his job at a globalization think tank, after his employer gave him an ultimatum and demanded he go against his climate-based objection to aviation travel in order to return to his place of work—a requirement at least one critic said was rooted in retaliation for the scientist’s activism.
Gianluca Grimalda has been working on a field assignment in Papua New Guinea for the past six months, studying the relationship between globalization, climate change, and social cohesion for his employer, the Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW). He traveled to Papua New Guinea without the use of airplanes and has planned to get back to Germany the same way, boarding cargo ships, ferries, trains, and coaches to avoid 3.6 tonnes of carbon emissions.
Grimalda was originally scheduled to be finished with his work on September 10, but said in an essay on Monday that he received permission from the head of his department to remain in Papua New Guinea after wrapping up the project and noted that he is able to complete his work while traveling.
Nevertheless, on Friday the president of IfW informed Grimalda that he was required to be back in Kiel on Monday, which would require him to board a plane—a demand that he said ignores the climate impact of aviation travel and the effects already being felt by communities across the globe, including in Papua New Guinea.
“Traveling by plane would produce around four tons of carbon dioxide—the greenhouse gas responsible for global warming,” wrote Grimalda. “In my outbound journey, I limited my emission to two tons by traveling over land and sea for 35 days over 16,0000 of the 22,000 kilometers. In my inbound journey I plan to cover the entire distance without catching a plane, which would limit carbon dioxide emissions to 400 kilograms—ten times less than traveling by plane.”
By resolving to carry out his “slow-travel” plans instead of flying back to Kiel, Grimalda said he is risking his job.
“I know that most people would swallow the bitter pill, take a plane, and go ahead with their work—both as a professional and as an activist,” wrote Grimalda. “With this job, I have enough economic stability and spare time to pursue environmental causes. Nevertheless, I believe that we have reached the point where instrumental rationality is no longer applicable. The most recent scientific evidence says that we have transgressed six out of nine planetary boundaries and that several ecosystems are close to collapse (or likely past their point of collapse) because of temperature rise—in turn caused by greenhouse gases emissions.”
Grimalda acknowledged that his individual refusal to support the airline industry is no match for the continued emissions of the sector as well as fossil fuel giants, industrial farming, and other corporate actors.
“My decision not to catch a plane will mean close to nothing for the protection of the environment,” he wrote. “‘That plane will fly even if you have not boarded it,’ many people have already told me. This is true, but giving less money to the aviation industry may mean fewer planes in the future. In any case, all the science I know, all the evidence I see, point to the fact that we are in [an] emergency. In [an] emergency, extraordinary actions should be taken. That is why, with enormous sadness, I have decided not to take a plane and face all the consequences this will lead to.”
“I am prepared to pay this price, if it helps raising awareness among the public and the societal leadership on the desperate situation we are in,” Grimalda added. “It is my act of love to the current and future generations, to the animal species under threat of extinction, to the idea of humanity that I instinctively and undeservedly abide by.”
Grimalda and direct action group Scientist Rebellion went public with the researcher’s dilemma on the same day the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) in the U.S. released a report on private jet travel out of Laurence G. Hanscom Field near Boston, the largest private aviation field in New England.
Constrasting with Grimalda’s commitment to reduce his support for carbon-intensive activities, IPS found that over 18 months, private jet owners and operators were responsible for an estimated 106,676 tons of carbon emissions, with half of those flights used for recreational or luxury travel. More than 40% of the flights were less than an hour long.
Climate groups in the area are currently pushing to ensure developers don’t expand Hanscom in order to avoid even more planet-destroying emissions.
It's time to stop private jets–at Hanscom field and everywhere their carbon-spewing engines go! https://t.co/xOhjWngTSN
Grimalda told Scientist Rebellion that IfW has withheld his pay for the month of September without notice.
I'm even more saddened by @kielinstitute, as I've just realised they have withheld my September payment without even communicating it to me. Do I really deserve this treatment for having been overly zealous in finishing up my fieldwork with the desired sample size? 138/
Julia Steinberger, a lead author of the latest report by the International Panel on Climate Change—which reiterated that “human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gasses, have unequivocally caused global warming” and warned that “approximately 3.3 to 3.6 billion people live in contexts that are highly vulnerable to climate change”—said it was “extraordinary that a research institute threatens to dismiss a researcher for doing his job too diligently and for avoiding flying during a climate emergency.”
She added that she believes IfW aims to “retaliate for Gianluca’s past participation in civil disobedience on climate change with Scientist Rebellion.”
Grimalda has taken part in actions such as a blockade of the entrance of a biofuel refinery controlled by Eni, Italy’s energy company.
The researcher expressed hope that his latest action “will sound yet another alarm bell to the ears of an inactive political leadership.”
“As a scientist, I feel I have the moral responsibility to be proactive in sounding such alarms,” Grimalda wrote. “It is true that thus far hundreds, if not thousands, of protests have all but gone unheard and have changed very little. Nevertheless, ‘social tipping points’ have existed for much progressive social change and things have changed rapidly for the good after a critical mass of support has been garnered.”
Greenpeace International activists from the Rainbow Warrior attach a flag reading ‘Stop Deep Sea Mining” to a cable holding the prototype robot Patania II in April 2021. (Photo: Marten van Dijl/Greenpeace)
“By embarking on mining in the deep sea without sufficient knowledge, we risk destroying unique nature, eradicating vulnerable species, and disrupting the world’s largest carbon sink,” said one advocate.
Calling on Norway to “live up to the responsibilities” it has as co-chair of an international panel on sustainable oceans, more than 30 climate and conservation organizations on Monday delivered a letter to nearly two dozen Norwegian embassies on all continents, intensifying global outcry over plans for deep-seabed mining in the Arctic.
The groups, including Greenpeace, Sustainable Ocean Alliance, and the Blue Climate Initiative, called on officials to abandon plans to open 281,000 square kilometers—an area nearly the size of the United Kingdom—to deep-sea mining, saying the world currently lacks “the robust, comprehensive, and credible scientific knowledge to allow for reliable assessment of impacts of deep-sea minerals extraction, including impacts on the planet’s life-support systems and human rights.”
Therefore, they said, the plan violates Norway’s “ambition to act according to a knowledge-based and precautionary approach.”
“By embarking on mining in the deep sea without sufficient knowledge, we risk destroying unique nature, eradicating vulnerable species, and disrupting the world’s largest carbon sink,” said Sofia Tsenikli, global campaign lead for the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition. “At a time when humanity is racing against the clock to tackle both the climate crisis and the biodiversity crisis, we should protect nature—not destroy it.”
“European countries like France, Germany and Spain have taken a precautionary position, advocating a precautionary pause, a moratorium or a ban on deep-sea mining.”
Mining companies have lobbied for deep-sea mining, claiming it is necessary to source cobalt and copper, but advocates have noted that the minerals are already found elsewhere on the planet and have warned that the mining process could disturb the habitat of thousands of marine species.
The advocates behind Monday’s letter, which was delivered on the day Norway’s parliament began its autumn session, noted that the country’s co-chair on the High-Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy—Palau—is among a growing number of governments that have urged caution regarding deep-sea mining.
“European countries like France, Germany and Spain have taken a precautionary position, advocating a precautionary pause, a moratorium or a ban on deep-sea mining,” wrote the groups. “Scientists, Indigenous groups, fisheries and seafood organizations, civil society organizations, and major businesses including Storebrand, BMW, and Google are all calling for a stop to deep-sea mining. The European Investment Bank has excluded deep-sea mining from its investments as it is deemed ‘unacceptable in climate and environmental terms,’ and the European Parliament has called for a moratorium multiple times.”
The international coalition further called on Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre to “step back from the brink of introducing this destructive industry and to support a global moratorium on deep sea mining.”
The letter was sent a week after Greenpeace activists confronted Støre and other Norwegian Labour Party politicians with a 45-foot long octopus model that displayed a banner reading, “Don’t destroy my home.”
Greenpeace campaigners in Denmark shared on social media that on Monday, the letter was delivered by an activist dressed as a jellyfish.
“Norway opening for deep-sea mining while chairing the international Ocean panel, and committing to 100% sustainable use of its waters, is hypocrisy and risks destroying both ecosystems in the vulnerable Arctic and Norway’s reputation internationally,” said Louisa Casson, senior campaigner for the group’s Stop Deep-Sea Mining campaign. “If Norway decides to proceed with their plans, they must give up their seat in the Ocean panel to a state that delivers on ocean protection.”
In a four-line statement announcing the approval of the new Rosebank oil field 80 miles west of Shetland, the UK’s offshore oil and gas regulator showed its mission no longer serves the public good.
The announcement by the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA), which regulates oil and gas extraction in the waters off the British coast, asserted that net zero considerations had been taken into account – a technical definition that makes it appear long-term oil production is compatible with climate goals. This has outraged and dismayed climate scientists, campaigners, and the many other people concerned about the UK’s faltering climate leadership.
The approval greenlights a process that is expected to produce first oil by 2026, and around 300 million barrels of oil (and a smaller amount of gas) over the next two decades. The project’s developers are Equinor, an oil company owned for the most part by the Norwegian state, and Ithaca Energy, owned by the Delek Group listed on the Tel Aviv stock exchange.
The decision is out of step with demands for rapid action on climate change coming from a range of quarters. This includes shareholder activists demanding corporations accelerate decarbonisation, direct action groups such as Just Stop Oil, and financiers concerned about the risks of “asset stranding” as renewables become cheaper than fossil fuels.
Public protests and legal challenges to the NSTA spotlight the irrationality and recklessness in the government’s expressed support for issuing new licenses. Activists are not alone in making this point.
A welter of scientific studies and reports by international agencies confirm that new fossil fuel extraction is incompatible with keeping global temperature increases well below 2℃.
Rosebank has been a major focus for climate activism in the past couple of years, as science, international policy and campaigners turn their attention to stopping new extraction, rather than solely focusing on reducing emissions. Calls to end new licensing for oil and gas are in line with climate science.
But a climate politics focused on new licensing alone misses the point. The thing is, like other North Sea oil fields yet to be approved, Rosebank was licensed for oil and gas extraction years ago.
The NSTA approval process follows licensing, sometimes after considerable time has passed. And it is this approval process that locks the UK into hydrocarbon production for years to come.
End ‘maximising economic recovery’
The core objective of the NSTA is to maximise the economic recovery of UK petroleum – a principle shorthanded as MER – as set out in the 1998 Petroleum Act. In practice, this means the regulator’s primary mission is to facilitate the extraction of oil and gas.
A revised strategy in 2021 paired MER with an obligation to support the UK’s net zero commitments. And the former Oil and Gas Authority changed its name to include an explicit reference to the “transition” in 2022, underpinned by ambitions for emissions reduction and decarbonisation.
NSTA sees its job as effecting the industry’s alignment with these goals. It is now also in charge of licensing for carbon capture and storage and offshore hydrogen storage.
Rosebank’s approval therefore reveals a deeper truth: the regulator’s guiding objective fails the public good test. Regulation aims to avoid economic, environmental and social harms, and ensure the public good through delivering collective benefits and upholding socially-desirable ideals. The Rosebank decision arguably breaches this principle.
Supporters of Rosebank argue it will contribute to the UK’s energy security and deploy decarbonisation technologies that reduce CO₂ emissions overall. These arguments do not stand scrutiny, however: oil from Rosebank, like around 80% of North Sea oil production, will be sold directly into international markets and will not materially affect the price of petrol or diesel for UK motorists.
Much of the value of that oil will flow into the portfolios of Equinor and Ithaca. That value could be harnessed to speed up transition to renewables or ensure its benefits are widely distributed, but that’s largely down to Equinor and Ithaca – not the UK government.
A decade ago, a decision by NSTA would not have raised much attention. Now it highlights a significant problem in need of reform. Piecemeal adaptation has left MER and other core regulatory principles untouched, which is at odds with the climate emergency.
Existing licensed fields escape the weak scrutiny embodied in instruments such as the climate compatibility checkpoint, a series of tests to be applied in decisions about future licensing rounds. What’s more, as a litmus test for approval, Rosebank indicates other licensed projects may get the go-ahead, like Cambo.
Removing NSTA’s central objective to maximise economic recovery requires nothing less than a rewrite of the Petroleum Act. This would be an opportunity to fundamentally revise what the North Sea is for, and whether or how to exploit its resources in the future. A start would be to consider a reversal of direction – a “minimising” of economic recovery, for example – which redefines the “economic” in terms of what is socially necessary.
Such a move will inevitably entail reviewing licences already in place, and will likely generate challenges from the sector and other powerful incumbents. Rosebank exposes, however, how the new mission of the offshore regulator has to be about securing a new public good. This needs wider social debate, and should ultimately be decided through parliament.
Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
