Climate groups taking UK Government to court over Rosebank oil field approval
The UK government is facing two separate legal challenges over its approval of the massive Rosebank oil project in the North Sea.
Both Greenpeace UK and climate group Uplift argue the approval of the oil field breaks the Government’s net zero pledges and fails to acknowledge the project’s environmental harm and emissions impact.
Uplift claims the Energy Secretary failed to prove how the oil field was consistent with the UK’s legally binding net zero emissions target and argues, the government did not provide a good enough assessment of the environmental impact of Rosebank on marine life.
In Greenpeace UK’s application, it argues the Environmental Impact Assessment used to approve the oil field did not consider downstream emissions, and is therefore invalid. The campaign group also argues that there is no evidence Scottish Ministers were consulted on the impacts of Rosebank, which it claims breaches Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations.
Greenpeace also argue oil contamination could affect whales and wild birds, while the drilling and cable laying under the sea could destroy habitats for species that live on the seabed.
Rishi Sunak gave the go-ahead for the controversial undeveloped oil field in September, set to be the UK’s largest untapped oil field containing an estimated 500 million barrels of oil. With Norwegian owner Equinor set to receive £3 billion in tax breaks.
…
Canada May Soon Give a $15.3B ‘Carbon Bomb’ Subsidy to Big Oil, Experts Say
Original article by Geoff Dembicki republished from DeSmog
Business leader says government tax credit for oil and gas ‘extends the life of Canada’s largest industrial sector.’
As world leaders meet in Dubai for the COP28 climate negotiations, federal and provincial governments in Canada are preparing to give an estimated $15.3 billion in new subsidies to oil and gas companies, and other heavy emitters, for expanding the production of fossil fuels, according to climate experts.
Those subsidies are taking the form of massive new tax credits for carbon capture and storage (CCS), which is a technology that companies use to grow their extraction of oil and gas while burying a fraction of their greenhouse gas emissions underground.
“I completely agree that Canada’s tax credit for carbon capture and storage is a subsidy to the oil and gas industry,” Jason MacLean, an adjunct professor who studies climate policy at the University of Saskatchewan, told DeSmog in an email.
The federal Canadian government is close to announcing details on a tax credit that will go to top oil and gas companies like Suncor, Cenovus, and Imperial Oil, along with other major industrial polluters. Policymakers previously estimated the value of these investment tax credits to be $10 billion. The government of Alberta, home to the tar sands, has meanwhile announced taxpayer funding in the range of $3.5 billion to $5.3 billion for CCS projects.
The Pathways Alliance, an industry lobbying and marketing group representing 95 percent of tar sands production, says these tax credits are essential for oil and gas producers to lower their emissions in line with achieving “net-zero emissions” by 2050. Reaching “net-zero” entails stabilizing global temperature rise at 1.5 degrees Celsius, a level beyond which scientists warn the impacts to humankind could be catastrophic.
Yet, in submissions to the federal government, the Pathways Alliance explained that lowering a portion of oil sands emissions via carbon capture will create opportunities for the industry to expand globally — even as other countries move away from fossil fuels. “We believe Canada should seek to increase its market share for responsibly produced, lower emissions energy, even if global market demand, as a whole, begins to decline,” the group said in one submission.
“We need to keep in mind that this is about reducing emissions and not reducing production,” the organization said last year in a separate submission, as revealed by DeSmog.
Representatives of the Pathways Alliance are among the 35 people with ties to the fossil fuel sector who are part of Canada’s official delegation to COP28 this year. At the climate talks, they are pushing for policies supporting global deployment of carbon capture, which will allow companies to keep producing oil as countries get stricter about regulating emissions.
“It is really important for the energy industry in Canada because it extends the life of Canada’s largest industrial sector and maintains our competitiveness over the long term,” Scott Crockatt of the Business Council of Alberta told the Calgary Herald last month.
However, tax credits supporting carbon capture risk accelerating already dangerous levels of global temperature rise, MacLean argues. Even if the technology can fully capture emissions from the production of oil and gas in Canada — which is an expensive and uncertain proposition — the vast majority of climate impacts occur when fossil fuels are burned in places like car and truck engines and house furnaces.
“No possible innovation or improvement to [carbon capture technology] can change the fact that it applies only to the direct and upstream greenhouse gas emissions arising from the production of oil and gas, not the downstream emissions resulting from the combustion of oil and gas, which represent approximately 85 percent of the total emissions,” MacLean told DeSmog.
Allowing oil and gas to expand while relying on carbon capture could result in the release of 86 billion additional tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide between 2020 and 2050, according to a new analysis from the organization Climate Analytics. This “86 billion tonne carbon bomb” could derail efforts to keep global warming from exceeding dangerous thresholds, the group argues.
The Canadian government earlier this year unveiled detailed plans to remove “inefficient” oil and gas subsidies, with Environment and Climate Minister Steven Guilbeault saying at the time that “the simple reality is that it’s no longer free to pollute in Canada.”
But climate campaigners say that promise risks being completely undermined by the new carbon capture tax credits.
Original article by Geoff Dembicki republished from DeSmog
Warning: the UK government’s hydrogen plan isn’t green at all, it’s another oil industry swindle
Kevin Anderson and Simon Oldridge
A taxpayer-funded drive for ‘blue’ hydrogen is good news for fossil-fuel lobbyists, but bad news for the climate crisisMon 4 Dec 2023 12.25 CET
With the impacts of the climate crisis so apparent for all to see, it is becoming ever harder for governments to fob off voters with promises of action tomorrow. At Cop28 we’ll see increasingly overt action by fossil fuel companies and petrostates to preserve their traditional power. But it is just as important to scrutinise emerging so-called green or low-emission solutions, which sound plausible, but are often simply big oil’s business-as-usual in a new guise.
The UK’s much touted low carbon hydrogen standard (LCHS) is an example of this. While hydrogen can be a low-emission fuel, the UK’s plan is quite clearly a fig leaf for “blue” hydrogen – which is made from fossil fuels – and according to one study, is even more at odds with our commitment to limiting global temperature rises to 1.5C than burning coal.
Today, the vast majority of the UK’s hydrogen production is made from natural gas (the marketing term for methane) in a very carbon-intensive process. Blue hydrogen would also be produced from methane, but with promises that the resulting CO2 emissions would be captured and buried underground. But even if most of the CO2 can be safely captured (a very big “if”), blue hydrogen’s full life-cycle emissions are likely still to be high.
That is in part as a consequence of methane leaks across the vast North Sea supply chain. Methane is a very powerful warming gas, so even with relatively low leakage rates, blue hydrogen will be bad news for the climate. Currently, 84% of the UK’s misleadingly named “low carbon” hydrogen capacity under development is of this blue variety.
Companies will be awarded substantial taxpayer funding for blue hydrogen plants that are certified compliant with the new LCHS – and here, the hallmarks of lobbying are only too apparent. The LCHS method for calculating life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions appears rigged to greenwash blue hydrogen.
…
FFS: Publically financed Fossil Fuel Subsidies
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/fossil-fuel-subsidies-public-finance
Like it or not, we’re all paying the fossil fuel industry to destroy the planet every time we do our taxes.
That’s right. Each of us is chipping in our hard-earned dollars [, Euros or Pounds], all to an industry earning billions in profits every year. One whose product is heating up our planet and sowing more and more climatic chaos the higher the thermometer rises.
We’re doing it through fossil fuel subsidies. And the time to end them is now.
…
According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), fossil fuel subsidies reached an all-time high of $7 trillion USD last year, costing the equivalent of over 7% of global GDP. To put it in more relatable terms, it’s “more than governments spend annually on education and about two thirds of what they spend on healthcare.” Fossil fuel subsidies rose by $2 trillion USD over the past two years alone.
In general, most fossil fuel subsidies are implicit. This means that they fail to consider the negative externalities of fossil fuel production, such as the environmental and human health consequences of GHG emissions and particulate matter pollution. While it may seem difficult to account for these costs, the IMF estimates that implicit government subsidies resulted in failing to cover over $5 trillion worth of environmental damages last year.
…
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/fossil-fuel-subsidies-public-finance