Petróleo / Crude / Oil / Natural Gas - Tópico Principal

[I. I. Kaspov]

Um artigo e comentários interessantes, acerca da famosa e actualmente desejada (parece ser "wishful thinking"...) por tanta gente "transição energética"...


«Is the Global Energy Transition Simply Too Expensive?

By Irina Slav - Dec 02, 2023, 6:00 PM CST


    Funding the global energy transition, which is estimated to cost over $100 trillion by 2050, would require 1.3% of projected global GDP.
    High interest rates are only making the task more daunting, with the cost of capital potentially putting off those that would fund it.
    Challenges in the EV market and offshore wind troubles are only adding to concerns over the global energy transition.


Join Our Community
energy


The energy transition has been estimated to cost more than $100 trillion by 2050. In fact, according to the calculations of the Energy Transitions Commission, a grouping of business leaders, it will cost $110 trillion.

That would translate into $3.5 trillion annually and represent 1.3% of the projected global GDP for the period. As a percentage of GDP, the figure does not look particularly impressive or frightening—a Deloitte estimate pegs the transition cost at $5-7 trillion annually.

There are many estimates of the transition cost and different outlooks for global GDP, but it is safe to say that when we talk about the transition, we are talking about trillions that need to be spent every year. And it seems that many investors and most regular consumers are unwilling to shoulder the burden.

Ahead of this year's COP28, which began in Dubai on Thursday, Reuters reported that transition advocates were worried about high interest rates, which made the cost of capital more expensive, threatening to shrink transition enthusiasm among potential funders.

"I'm very worried. What used to be available at Libor plus 50 (basis points) or Libor plus 100 is not available at those rates anymore," Gauri Singh, deputy director general at the IRENA, told Reuters.

Indeed, higher interest rates have been blamed by wind and solar companies for their higher costs and increasingly problematic economics, especially in offshore wind. They have also been blamed for companies asking for higher subsidies from governments and also higher prices for their electricity—higher rates have made it a challenge to turn in a profit on many of these.

Capital will be discussed copiously at COP28. Whether the parties involved in the discussion would be able to come to an agreement remains highly uncertain. Meanwhile, the different wheels of the transition seem to be acting like the wheels of a defective shopping cart.

In the U.S., carmakers are losing money on EVs because demand is weaker than expected. In Europe, the industry is optimistic, anticipating a surge in EV sales thanks to the launch of many new affordable models. On the other hand, a phase-down of EV subsidies in Germany from January 1st has led to warnings of lower EV sales, and Consumer Reports just came out with a report that found EVs are less reliable than ICE cars. Both could affect the sales outlook.

In offshore wind, as already mentioned, troubles abound. The more expensive form of wind power generation enjoyed several years of significant interest from transition-oriented governments, not least because project developers promised cheap electricity. Now, this is no longer the case. Instead, offshore wind developers are booking billions in impairments, canceling projects, or, as noted, asking for higher prices.

It appears that higher interest rates—as well as expected shortages in some key materials—have affected the wind and solar industries more significantly than they have affected oil and gas. Oil and gas executives are also complaining about higher interest rates in the U.S., at least, but they seem to be managing to squeeze a record production out of oil fields despite that.

The list of examples is long. The short of it is that the transition is turning out to be more expensive than most can stomach. For investors, the above developments are worrisome from a return perspective. For consumers, until those cheap EVs roll off the line, the switch from ICE to electric is not really something they'd gladly do. And when you see news such as this report saying German grid operators would be able to limit power supply to heat pumps and EV chargers, the switch begins to look even less appealing.

Speaking of the above report, the supply limits would be necessitated by insufficiently large grids. Grid investment is a major element in the transition price tag. And people are already opposing new transmission lines in evidence that besides expensive, the transition is going to be problematic in other ways as well.

"By putting a price—financial or implicit—on a free resource (the climate), the transition increases production costs, with no guarantee that the reduction in energy costs will eventually offset them, while the investments it calls for do not increase productive capacity but must nevertheless be financed."

That's according to French economist Jean Pisani-Ferry, who is a senior fellow at energy think tank Bruegel, as quoted by the Wall Street Journal. Pisani-Ferry added, in a recent report, that if the switch to EVs and heat pumps to support the transition cost more than their hydrocarbon versions and if the government raises taxes to pay for heat pump and EV subsidies, the end consumers would end up worse off. It would be hard to spark enthusiasm about the transition in such a context.

What would be even more challenging is to convince investors that there would be no change in climate policies as governments come and go. So far, the evidence, at least in Europe, points to the opposite. Sweden's new government went back on the climate commitments of the previous one. Elsewhere, conservative parties are gaining popularity, not least with anti-climate policy rhetoric. The transition advocates really do have their work cut out for them.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:

    Russia’s Urals Crude Price Drops but It’s Still Above the $60 Cap
    Why Oil Prices Fell After OPEC+ Announced Deeper Output Cuts
    OPEC to Host “Special Pavilion” at COP28


Download The Free Oilprice App Today

Back to homepage




FACEBOOK
Twitter
GOOGLE+
LINKEDIN
REDDIT
PRINT
Related posts
Oil Inches Up on Crude Inventory Draw
Why Venezuela Is Escalating the Essequibo Dispute
U.S. Warship Takes Down Houthi Drone After Attack On Tanker


Leave a comment


    Peter Farley on December 02 2023 said:

    Global EV sales are running 30-40% above last year, wind and solar installations are at a new record. In the last decade wind and solar output has jumped by 3,000 TWh/y and on track for 500 TWh gain this year. Over the decade coal and gas combined have grown by 1,900 TWh and nuclear has stalled.
    It took nuclear 40 years to grow by 2,600 TWh.
    I am sure that in the age of a demand for energy security every nation will be increasing energy sufficiency and home grown renewables
 


   Mamdouh Salameh on December 03 2023 said:

    Spending 100 trillion dollars or 1.3 percent of global GDP on energy transition by 2050 is a waste of financial resources which could be used more efficiently to provide poorer countries of the world with health care, clean water and electricity.

    Moreover, the notions of total global energy transition and net-zero emissions by 2050 are myths. The reason is the intermittent nature
    Of solar and wind energy.. Today’s technology doesn’t allow us to store solar and wind energy in summer for use in winter. Even a partial transition can’t succeed without huge contributions of gas,coal and nuclear energy.

    Furthermore, EVs could neither prevail over ICEs now or eve nor match them in performance, efficiency, cost or range.

    Dr Mamdouh G Salameh
    International Oil Economist
    Global Energy Expert»



https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Is-the-Global-Energy-Transition-Simply-Too-Expensive.html

[I. I. Kaspov]

esquerdistas

Pois, esses abundam...   

[I. I. Kaspov]

«IEA Raises Its 2024 Oil Demand Growth Forecast

Tyler Durden's Photo

by Tyler Durden

Thursday, Dec 14, 2023 - 07:40 PM


By Tsvetana Paraskova of OilPrice.com

Global oil demand growth is materially slowing down this quarter compared to the third quarter, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said on Thursday, but at the same time, it lifted its 2024 demand growth projection by around 130,000 barrels per day (bpd) from last month’s assessment.

Demand growth is slowing down this quarter, the agency said in its Oil Market Report for December, and revised down its Q4 consumption growth forecast by nearly 400,000 bpd, with Europe making up more than half of the downward revision.

    “Evidence of a slowdown in oil demand is mounting, with the pace of expansion set to ease from 2.8 mb/d y-o-y in 3Q23 to 1.9 mb/d in 4Q23,” said the agency, which advocates for a faster energy transition.

    “A deterioration in the macroeconomic outlook led to a downward revision in our global oil consumption growth forecast of nearly 400 kb/d in the final three months of the year,” the Paris-based agency said.

Higher interest rates feeding through the real economy and a very soft European demand amid a broad manufacturing and industrial slump were the reasons for the downward revision for this quarter, which also led to the IEA adjusting its 2023 demand growth forecast down by 90,000 bpd. The agency now sees this year’s growth at 2.3 million bpd.

Next year, oil consumption growth “is expected to ease significantly,” to 1.1 million bpd, the IEA said.

But its 2024 demand forecast from today is around 130,000 bpd higher than the estimated growth of 930,000 bpd for next year in the November report. 

The IEA also noted that U.S. supply growth “continues to defy expectations.” 

According to the agency, “The continued rise in output and slowing demand growth will complicate efforts by key producers to defend their market share and maintain elevated oil prices.”

Unlike the IEA, OPEC continues to expect much higher oil demand growth for 2024—at 2.2 million bpd, for an average of 104.4 million bpd total global consumption next year, unchanged from the November assessment.

“Oil demand is expected to be supported by resilient global GDP growth, amid continued improvements in economic activity in China,” the cartel said in its Monthly Oil Market Report (MOMR) on Wednesday.»


https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/iea-raises-its-2024-oil-demand-growth-forecast

[I. I. Kaspov]

Muito interessante, dos ilustríssimos Goehring & Rozencwajg (12.2023), acerca do famoso Paradoxo de Jevons:


«Jevons Paradox: Improved Energy Efficiency Increases Demand - Let's Discuss

12/14/2023

Share on linkedin Share on twitter Share on email


The article below is an excerpt from our Q3 2023 commentary.


“It is a confusion of ideas to suppose that the economical use of fuel is equivalent to diminished consumption. The very contrary is the truth.”
William Stanley Jevons, The Coal Question, 1865


The emergence of the “Magnificent Seven” has dominated all investment thinking. Owning these seven mega-cap growth stocks has become mandatory for survival in today’s investment world. These seven stocks alone now constitute almost 30% of the S&P 500’s weighting and advance daily in price.

Waking up after a fitful night’s sleep, dominated no doubt by worries over underperformance tied to being underweight this group, a portfolio manager gazing into the mirror, might debate what “Magnificent Seven” stocks must be purchased the coming day.

“NVIDIA has pulled back a little here; the stock is expensive here, but everyone agrees AI will be taking over the world….” On the other hand, they muse: “ Microsoft looks a bargain at only 30x earnings [only twice its long-term earnings growth!] and aren’t they doing AI too—look, they just hired that AI guru from chatGPT to run their AI business ?” Then again, “Meta’s multiple is below its estimated growth rate and thankfully, Mr. Zuckerberg has stopped wearing those silly glasses—isn’t the Metaverse just another form of AI?” Or maybe Amazon: “Now there’s a great way to play AI—even though the stocks trade at a PE of 40, everyone forgets that almost all their earnings come from server farms and cloud computing—remember: you want to own the retailers of picks and shovels, not the miners—I think my grandfather told me that.” Google and Apple are also considered. Ultimately, our sleep-deprived investor considers Tesla – maybe both the stock and the product. “After all, the IEA reiterated how EVs are taking over the world. Everyone in my neighborhood has a gleaming $100,000 Model S – one certainly does not want to be left out. It’s settled then: today, I buy Tesla—both the car and the stock.”
Seldom, if ever, would our investor think about energy.

If our hypothetical investor were to think about energy (doubtful), it would likely be from the short side. Traditional energy sources are already on the funeral pyre, at least according to the gloomy World Energy Outlook 2023 released by the IEA (International Energy Agency). The appetite for oil, gas, and coal investments has supposedly peaked. The new kings – renewables -- are expected to be crowned before this decade ends. Why invest in a sector with such a dismal outlook? Adding to one’s (already overweight) Amazon position is far easier. All growth, all good! Energy stocks--with their bleak prospects—garner zero interest.

Unfortunately, our hypothetical investor is not alone. The market’s enthusiasm for energy stocks remains negative. Despite outpacing tech stocks since March 2020, energy stocks account for less than 5% of the S&P 500, well below the 14% historical average.

Looking at the outstanding shares of energy stock ETFs, we can see that investor interest continues to fall. The preferred ETFs (XLE, XOP, and OIH) have all significantly shrunk their share counts over the past two years. Despite being the star performer, energy investments are more related to short covering than sustained investor buying—which just doesn’t exist. In contrast, investors continue to add to mega-cap tech positions. Despite last year’s 35% drop in the NASDAQ composite, open interest in the QQQ ETF (which tracks the Nasdaq 100 Index) has increased by 20%.

The imagined struggle of the institutional investor closely mirrors reality. The consensus call is to pile onto tech stocks. Any remaining energy investments must be promptly sold to fund further purchases of the QQQ. It’s better to sell now than be stuck later.

But what if the opposite scenario unfolds? What if the IEA projections have erred and energy demand continues to surge in the coming years? After all, the IEA has a history of being ridiculously pessimistic in its demand forecasts. The agency has underestimated demand in 12 of the past 14 years by an impressive 820,000 b/d on average (excluding COVID-impacted 2020).

As we will discover in this essay, the IEA’s flawed methodologies persist. Analysts who revere the IEA’s forecasts are also prone to these errors. Case in point – LNG analysts have consistently undershot demand predictions since 2010. Projections of surging supply outpacing demand and breaking LNG’s historical oil-linked price have fallen flat, with demand often exceeding expectations.

Historically, producers sold LNG under long-term contracts with a price linked to crude oil. By the late 2000s, traders established a robust spot market. Most pundits believed that surging supply would overwhelm demand while a freely trading spot market would break LNG’s historical oil-linked price. The most bearish argued that prices would ultimately fall to LNG’s marginal cost of $1 per MMBtu supplied by low-cost Qatari gas. Despite their cries, the bearish case never materialized. Stronger-than-expected demand absorbed the new supply (much of it from Australia and the US), and the spot market rarely deviated from the 6:1 oil price link. Experts again significantly underestimated demand.

Our prediction contradicts the conventional narrative – we believe energy demand will continue to beat expectations well into the next decade. This presents considerable investment implications. The widely accepted belief that demand will peak sends investors scrambling to sell their existing energy positions. The recent IEA’s bleak World Energy Outlook only reinforces this perspective. We, however, believe that demand will maintain its upward trajectory.

When the realization dawns that oil and gas demand is not in free fall, investors will be forced to confront how little the industry has invested to offset declines. According to our modeling, global oil markets have already fallen into a “structural deficit” masked by massive releases from government-controlled strategic stockpiles.

Such an awakening will stun investors, whose energy exposure hovers near zero. Thus, the day will soon come when that same investor stands before the mirror preparing for the day and says: “Today, I must buy energy shares -- a lot.”

    THE JEVON’S PARADOX WAS BORN: IMPROVED EFFICIENCY INCREASES CONSUMPTION.

While every investor is familiar with Moore’s Law (often misapplying it to areas such as the cost of renewable energy), hardly anyone knows about the Jevons Paradox. They would be wise to learn. In 1865, an English economist, William Stanley Jevons, detailed his eponymous Paradox in his book The Coal Question. Jevons noticed how improved steam engine efficiency actually led to much greater coal demand. At the time, economists were worried that England was running out of coal. Many argued that improved efficiency would temper demand and forestall a crisis. Jevon dismissed this logic, correctly concluding that improved efficiency would accelerate demand by promoting increased adoption. Jevon’s Paradox was born: improved efficiency increases consumption. The mechanics were two-fold. First, better efficiency encourages more significant use. Secondly, as the same input unit generates more output, economic growth accelerates, increasing overall consumption. Although Jevons’ work dramatically advanced micro- and macroeconomics, the world has abandoned his invaluable lessons entirely. This does not make them any less relevant.

For decades, we have been fascinated with energy demand. Unlike supply, which is much more tangible, predicting demand is an abstract exercise. Analysts model supply, tally reserves, count rigs, and total capital spending. With demand, we must ponder how societies develop, regions urbanize, and individuals consume. And yet, getting demand right has never been more critical.

While many clients we meet with understand the absence of resource capital and the resulting supply shortages, they cannot invest owing to their worries about demand. In the near term, they are concerned about an impending recession. In the long term, they worry about “peak demand.” We vehemently disagree with both. So long as investors fail to appreciate Jevons’ lessons, demand will constantly surprise to the upside. Educated investors stand to benefit tremendously.

Three real-world examples help breathe life into the Jevons Paradox. First, while the average fuel economy of modern automobiles has surged in recent decades, gasoline demand never faltered. Motorists instead chose to drive larger SUVs and drive much further. Second, the energy required to heat and cool a home has collapsed as more efficient windows and HVAC systems have proliferated. Homeowners have taken the savings and doubled the size of the average American home, offsetting any efficiency gains. Finally, as we write this essay, we are aboard an Airbus A350-ULR en route to Singapore. The 9,500 mile journey is made possible by the highly efficient Rolls-Royce Trent XWB-97 engine, which consumes 25% less fuel compared with the previous engines. Once again, instead of reducing jet fuel demand, passenger miles have skyrocketed in recent years, resulting in record demand.

    EXCLUDING 2020, THE IEA INCREASED DEMAND BY AN INCREDIBLE 800,000 B/D ON AVERAGE FROM ITS INITIAL EXPECTATION. IF THE IEA’S ERROR WERE A COUNTRY, IT WOULD BE THE WORLD’S 21ST LARGEST OIL CONSUMER.

The IEA is leading the bearish chorus. In their most recent World Energy Outlook 2023, published in October, the IEA lays out its “Announced Pledges Scenario” for global energy demand. Between 2022 and 2030, the IEA estimates demand (which it oddly calls Total Energy Supply [TES]) will fall by 1%. By 2040, it will fall by 3.2%. These numbers are not possible given our understanding of global energy consumption. Our models tell us the IEA uses fundamentally flawed mythologies that introduce a systematic downward bias. Their bias has been apparent since at least 2010. Over that time, the IEA has chronically underestimated global oil demand in twelve of the fourteen years (including COVID-impacted 2020). Excluding 2020, the IEA increased demand by an incredible 800,000 b/d on average from its initial expectation. If the IEA’s error were a country, it would be the world’s 21st largest oil consumer.

2023.12 Figure 1

We believe the IEA’s error stems from its faulty understanding of energy intensity (the inverse of efficiency). Energy intensity, defined as Total Energy Supply per dollar of real GDP, has improved dramatically over the last six decades. In 1965, it took 13 megajoules (MJ) to generate one US dollar of real GDP. By 2022, the same real dollar required less than 7 MJ – a reduction of nearly 40% or almost 1% per annum. The IEA expects these trends will accelerate dramatically. Based on their projections, energy intensity will take only seventeen years to fall as much as it did over the past six decades. From 7 MJ today, the IEA expects a dollar of real GDP will only require 4 MJ by 2040 – an incredible decline of nearly 3% annually.

2023.12 Figure 2

The IEA’s analysis has three critical flaws. First, while the chart above seems to reflect a reasonable extrapolation, it implies a massive acceleration in efficiency gains. From 1980 to 2022, on a 10-year rolling basis, energy intensity improved by approximately 1% per year. The IEA assumes this improvement accelerates nearly three-fold – something we believe is impossible.

2023.12 Figure 3

Second, the IEA’s projections fly squarely in the face of the Jevons Paradox. Over the past six decades, although (or indeed because) energy efficiency improved by 40%, energy demand per capita nearly doubled while total energy demand rose four-fold. According to the IEA, over the next seventeen years, a similar 40% improvement in efficiency will lead to a nearly 15% decline in per capita demand and a 3% decline in total demand. Never in human history has improved efficiency resulted in less demand – the coming two decades will be no different.

Third, the IEA fails to account for recent memory’s most significant growth driver: the rise of emerging markets. At any given moment, global energy intensity is the aggregate of countless smaller markets, each with wildly different needs. Although one dollar of real GDP requires 7 MJ globally, China (and most emerging economies) takes nearly 10 MJ, while the US (and most of the developed world) takes less than 5 MJ. While every country has become more efficient over time, the difference between emerging and developed economies remains stark. Global energy intensity is the sum of each country, weighted by its proportion of global real GDP.

2023.11 Figure 4

For decades, emerging markets represented a low and constant share of global GDP. In 1970, poor countries represented 30% of real GDP; 35 years later, little had changed. A significant shift occurred around 2005 as numerous Asian countries entered a period of accelerated economic growth. By 2022, poor countries had gone from 30% to 45% of global real GDP and will soon exceed 50%. Emerging markets have been even more impactful as a proportion of total growth. Despite representing only one-third of global output, emerging markets delivered two-thirds of all growth since 2005.

    WITH MORE GROWTH FROM ENERGY-INTENSIVE ECONOMIES, GLOBAL ENERGY PER DOLLAR OF REAL GDP SHIFTED HIGHER THAN EXPECTED.

With more growth from energy-intensive economies, global energy per dollar of real GDP shifted higher than expected. For example, although energy intensity in developed and emerging markets fell by a quarter between 2005 and 2022, global intensity fell by only 17%. Had emerging markets remained at only one-third of global output instead of growing to 45%, total energy demand would be nearly 10% lower than it is today. Just as emerging markets started to become a more significant source of growth (between 2005 and 2010), the IEA started chronically underestimating demand.

The IEA’s error is about to get much worse. By 2040, emerging markets will go from 45% to 53% of global GDP, representing nearly 70% of all growth. Despite this accelerating shift towards more energy-intensive economies, the IEA predicts global intensity will fall by nearly 40% -- twice the improvement compared to the last seventeen years. For this to be possible, emerging-market energy intensity would have to fall by 50%, and per capita demand would have to fall by 10%, doubling per capita income. The Jevons Paradox teaches this is not possible: even if the efficiency gains were achievable, economic output would accelerate, more than making up the difference.

Our demand models are fundamentally different. We believe economic development drives energy demand, and our models capture that relationship explicitly. The result is our S-Curve demand model, where we plot per capita energy demand against real GDP. When an economy is very poor, it consumes little energy; any growth goes towards subsistence. As it reaches middle-income, its energy demand grows materially. Finally, energy demand begins to flatten at $20,000 of real per capita GDP.

2023.11 Figure 5

Our S-Curve holds well across different regions and times. In 1965, South Korea had a $1,300 real per capita GDP and consumed 9.4 petajoules (PJ) per person. By 2010, Korean GDP had grown to $25,000, while energy demand reached nearly 220 PJ per person. Four decades earlier and an ocean away, US real GDP hit $23,000 while energy demand was 250 PJ per person – remarkably similar. China currently sports a real GDP of $12,000 and consumes 113 PJ – comparable to Korea in 1994 in terms of GDP and energy demand. For China to exit the middle-income trap and top $20,000 per capita, the S-Curve suggests its energy demand must grow by at least 60%.

Once an economy reaches $20,000 per capita, energy demand still grows, albeit much slower. After $40,000 per capita, the economy is mainly saturated, and energy demand stays essentially flat, with efficiency gains offsetting economic growth.

    A THIRD OF THE WORLD’S POPULATION IS NOW IN THE “SWEET SPOT” OF ENERGY DEMAND GROWTH, REPRESENTING HALF OF ALL ECONOMIC GROWTH. NEVER BEFORE HAVE SO MANY PEOPLE SIMULTANEOUSLY BEEN IN A PERIOD OF ENERGY-INTENSIVE ECONOMIC GROWTH. SO LONG AS THIS IS TRUE, GLOBAL ENERGY DEMAND WILL REMAIN A TAILWIND.

Therefore, countries between $5,000 and $20,000 per capita real GDP are the most significant when studying growth trends. While an economy’s real per capita GDP is less than $5,000, energy consumption is inconsequential; consumption begins to flatten when it is above $20,000. For most of the twentieth century, people between $5 and $20,000 per capita GDP remained relatively constant at 500 mm. While new countries would enter the bloc (such as Brazil in 1975), others would leave (such as Japan in 1981). Between 2000 and 2010, the population of energy-hungry consumers surged from 600 mm to 2.4 bn, and by 2022, the number had reached 2.6 bn. A third of the world’s population is now in the “sweet spot” of energy demand growth, representing half of all economic growth. Never before have so many people simultaneously been in a period of energy-intensive economic growth. So long as this is true, global energy demand will remain a tailwind.

Using the IEA’s methodology, between now and 2040, global energy demand is projected to fall by 3%, with real GDP per capita growing by 40%, demand per GDP (somehow) falling by 40%, and population growing by 15%. Using our S-Curve, energy demand will increase by 35%, assuming the same real GDP and population growth rate. Poor countries will go from $6 to $9,000 per capita GDP, causing energy demand to surge 43% per capita. With 16% population growth, emerging market energy demand should rise nearly 70%.

2023.12 Figure 6Even if developed countries’ energy per capita fell by 20% (something we believe impossible), global energy demand would still increase by more than a third.

While the IEA assumes global energy demand will peak around now, our model predicts it will grow by 217 EJ between now and 2040, representing the fastest seventeen-year period of growth in human history.

Nor are we concerned about a recession over the near term. First, our real-time models confirm demand remains robust. Even if a severe coordinated slowdown took hold, we believe the impacts would be less painful and shorter-lived than most analysts expect. There have been four global recessions since 1965: 1975, 1982, 1991, and the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) in 2009. In the first three instances, global energy demand fell by 1%, driving average per capita energy demand lower by 4.4%. Energy per capita took eight years on average to recover to pre-recession highs. The GFC was much worse in terms of economic dislocation. Global per capita GDP fell by 2.5% -- nearly three times the average of the previous three worldwide recessions. However, because of the rising influence of energy hungry emerging market economies, per capita energy demand only fell by 2.9% -- one third less than in the previous three recessions despite a nearly three times sharper slowdown in economic activity. Instead of taking eight years, per capita energy demand surpassed the pre-crisis high by 2010. If we experience another global slowdown (of which we have no evidence presently), the impact would be much less than people expect.

We want to leave you with our corollary to the Jevons Paradox: only high energy prices reduce demand. The IEA paints a bearish picture in which improved efficiency reduces aggregate demand and persistent low energy prices. We would offer a different take: economic output and, by extension, energy demand will surprise to the upside until high energy costs reduce overall activity. In such a world, what assets would you prefer to own?

Intrigued? We invite you to download or revisit our entire Q3 2023 research letter, available below.»


https://blog.gorozen.com/blog/dr-jevons-paradox-energy-demand?utm_campaign=Weekly%20Blog%20Notification&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=286517804&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9JKlTHPqX8hUTEsFvAXVhBMS3uwSHGiJkdASynCiAxQk-NOh1Wf--L3DjgjXewPV6KbmMCSVS8dvUU1u2wB7-AcZJEMg&utm_content=286517804&utm_source=hs_email

[I. I. Kaspov]

Greta dixit:


«Activismo climático

Greta Thunberg: acordo na COP28 é uma “facada nas costas”

Acordo “não tem força e não é suficiente para nos manter dentro do limite de 1,5 graus [de aquecimento]”, afirmou Greta Thunberg, dizendo que é como uma facada nas costas dos países mais vulneráveis.

Reuters   

15 de Dezembro de 2023, 17:35»


https://www.publico.pt/2023/12/15/azul/noticia/greta-thunberg-acordo-cop28-facada-costas-2073883

[I. I. Kaspov]

O carvão em alta, diga o q disser a camarada Greta:


«Global Coal Demand Is Set to Hit a Record High in 2023

By Tsvetana Paraskova - Dec 15, 2023, 6:00 AM CST


Global coal demand is set to rise by 1.4% this year and surpass a record-high level of 8.5 billion tons for the first time, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said on Friday.

While coal demand in the United States and the EU is set for a 20% record decline this year, coal use in emerging economies “remains very strong, increasing by 8% in India and by 5% in China in 2023 due to rising demand for electricity and weak hydropower output,” the IEA said in its Coal 2023 annual report today.   

This year marks the second consecutive year of record-high levels of coal demand globally after 2022 was also a record year for coal use.

The agency expects coal use to decline by 2.3% by 2026 compared to this year’s record-high levels, due to projections of major expansion in renewable energy sources over the next three years. 

China’s coal demand is expected to drop next year and plateau through 2026, and global demand is set to decline to 2026, “but China will have the last word,” the IEA noted. 

The outlook for coal in China will be significantly affected in the coming years by the pace of its clean energy deployment, weather conditions, and structural shifts in the Chinese economy, according to the agency.

Moreover, the three top coal producers in the world – China, India, and Indonesia – are boosting production, which is reaching new highs.

Those three coal producers, accounting for more than 70% of the world’s coal production, are expected to break output records in 2023, pushing global production to a new high in 2023.

Despite projected slight annual drops after 2023, global consumption is forecast to remain well over 8 billion tons through 2026, according to the IEA’s report.

“To drive down emissions at a rate consistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement, the use of unabated coal would need to fall significantly faster,” the agency said.

Keisuke Sadamori, IEA Director of Energy Markets and Security, commented,

“A turning point for coal is clearly on the horizon – though the pace at which renewables expand in key Asian economies will dictate what happens next, and much greater efforts are needed to meet international climate targets.” 

By Tsvetana Paraskova for Oilprice.com»


https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Global-Coal-Demand-Is-Set-to-Hit-a-Record-High-in-2023.html

[I. I. Kaspov]

And... 


«Biden Tells Federal Employees to Use EVs and Trains on Official Travel

By Tsvetana Paraskova - Dec 15, 2023, 7:30 AM CST


The Biden Administration is directing Federal agencies to prioritize the use of sustainable transportation such as electric vehicles and trains for official travel, as part of efforts to build a clean transportation future, the White House said in new guidelines. 

As the Administration announced new public and private commitments to boost access to EVs, save taxpayer dollars, and tackle the climate crisis, it says it would lead by example with the release of new Federal employee travel guidelines.

“As the Nation’s largest employer and with an annual business travel purchasing power of $2.8 billion, the Federal Government is leading by example by shifting to cleaner transportation options, including American-made electric vehicles and charging infrastructure,” the White House said.

Last year, federal employees took more than 2.8 million flights, 2.3 million vehicle rentals, and 33,000 rail trips, the Administration added.

The prioritization of cleaner transportation includes guidelines that federal employees will rent an EV on official travel when the cost of the EV is less than or equal to the most affordable comparable vehicle available. Employees will also opt for cost-competitive EV options where available when using taxis and ride-share platforms.

In addition, federal agencies are directed to tell employees they will use rail for trips less than 250 miles when cost-effective and available, instead of taking an airplane or vehicle. Federal employees will also use more public transit when conducting local travel or upon arrival at the official travel location, the Biden Administration said.

As early as in 2021, President Joe Biden vowed to replace the almost 650,000-strong federal vehicle fleet with electric cars as part of his climate agenda.

The Administration aims for EVs to make up at least 50% of new car sales in the United States by 2030.

But last month, a group of U.S. car deals known as EV Voice of the Customer warned the Biden Administration that most U.S. car buyers aren’t interested in purchasing electric vehicles, incentives or not.   

By Tsvetana Paraskova for Oilprice.com»


https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Biden-Tells-Federal-Employees-to-Use-EVs-and-Trains-on-Official-Travel.html

[I. I. Kaspov]

Entretanto, o camarada N. Maduro:


«Venezuela Orders “Immediate” Start of Oil Exploration in Disputed Territory

By Charles Kennedy - Dec 06, 2023, 1:39 AM CST


Venezuela’s president, Nicolas Maduro, has ordered the immediate start of exploration and exploitation of oil reserves in the Essequibo region—the disputed territory that Venezuelans voted to annex.

Per an AP report, President Maduro said that he is “to grant operating licenses for the exploration and exploitation of oil, gas and mines in the entire area of our Essequibo.”

He also issued an order for the creation of local subsidiaries of the state oil and mining companies, PDVSA and Corporacion Venezolana de Guayana.

The Venezuelan parliament has yet to pass a law establishing Venezuela’s jurisdiction over the Essequibo region, which represents two-thirds of the territory of Guyana and is where its oil riches are concentrated.

Guyana has refused to accept the results of the Venezuelan referendum, saying it was an attempt at annexing most of its territory, even after the International Court of Justice ruled that Essequibo is part of Guyana. Venezuela’s government has said it does not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICJ on the matter.

Essequibo used to be part of Venezuela during its colonial period but at the end of the 19th century an international arbitration gave the land to Guyana, then a British colony. Venezuela has never accepted the arbitration decision but for most of the time since it was made it has not acted on its grievance.

Following last weekend’s referendum, Guyana said it will reach out to the UN Security Council for help if Venezuela takes any further steps to establish control over the Essequibo region.

The Attorney General of the former British colony told the AFP that "any action or any attempt to take any action pursuant to the referendum will necessitate a resort to the UN Security Council as an injured party."

As Maduro yesterday announced the set-up of a Comprehensive Defense Operational Zone for the Essequibo region, Guyana’s Attorney General said that "In terms of military, it (the UNSC) can authorise the use of armed forces by member states to assist in the enforcement."

By Charles Kennedy for Oilprice.com»


https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Venezuela-Orders-Immediate-Start-of-Oil-Exploration-in-Disputed-Territory.html

[I. I. Kaspov]

Acerca das famosas "alterações climáticas", um excelente texto, de um ambientalista verdadeiro e esclarecido:



«Henrique Pereira dos Santos

Ativar alertas

Convidado da Oficina da Liberdade

A ilusão da catástrofe climática


Não há nenhuma necessidade de salvar o planeta, o planeta não precisa de nós para se salvar.

10 nov. 2023, 00:17
36

(...)

Advertência: este texto estava escrito e entregue antes de Terça-feira. Isto é, não são os acontecimentos de Terça-feira ligados ao lítio e hidrogénio que motivam esta crónica, bem pelo contrário, esses acontecimentos são uma coincidência que ilustra, de forma totalmente autónoma, a tese do texto.

Este título é uma auto-citação, usei a frase do título num artigo que fiz sobre o fosso que separa a Climáximo dos miolos.

É uma frase dúbia, tão dúbia que eu, que a escrevi, me vejo agora obrigado a escrever um novo artigo a dizer que não concordo com ela, ou melhor, com a interpretação mais imediata dela.

A frase parece dizer que acho a questão das alterações climáticas uma ilusão, mas o que acho uma ilusão é a ideia de que, havendo alterações climáticas, é inevitável que isso se traduza numa catástrofe planetária.

Comecemos por delimitar o problema: não há nenhuma necessidade de salvar o planeta, o planeta não precisa de nós para se salvar ou para o que quer que seja.

Usando um exemplo de Chicco Testa no Elogio della crescita felice/Contro l’integralismo ecológico, se Veneza desaparecer afundada pelo aumento do nível da superfície do mar, isso não corresponde a perda nenhuma para o planeta. Seria uma grande perda para nós, para muitas outras espécies a renaturalização da laguna seria uma bênção.

A questão das alterações climáticas é uma questão humana, demasiado humana, e diz respeito à nossa relação com um mundo de que dependemos para sobreviver e nos reproduzirmos.

Não sei o suficiente para ter opinião própria sobre o que se espera que venha a ser a evolução do clima, um assunto de enorme complexidade, portanto aceito como bom aquilo que me parece ser esmagadoramente dominante: está a haver alterações relevantes dos padrões climáticos.

Sei o suficiente para distinguir entre meteorologia e clima, portanto sei que haver um ano de seca, ou um fenómeno meteorológico extremo, não demonstra nem deixa de demonstrar o que quer que seja sobre alterações climáticas, isto é, sobre o padrão de ocorrência desses fenómenos.

Do que falo é da ilusão malthusiana de que o futuro vai ser uma projecção do presente e, se eu conseguir saber que o futuro será mais quente e seco, posso concluir que o problema dos fogos se vai agravar.

Independentemente das discussões sobre se o futuro vai ser assim ou assado, a verdade é que mesmo que saibamos exactamente como vai evoluir um determinado factor, saberemos muito pouco sobre como vão reagir as pessoas e a sociedade a essa alteração.

Se o problema dos fogos se tornar socialmente mais relevante, a sociedade adapta-se, seja gerindo melhor, seja inventando novos modelos de produção, seja alterando padrões de consumo, seja através de inovações tecnológicas, seja alterando padrões de uso do solo em que o fogo possa ser brutal, mas não afectar a vida das pessoas, por exemplo, por haver pouco contacto entre áreas de elevada densidade de combustíveis e povoamento humano que seja potencialmente afectado pelo fogo.

Haverá sempre catástrofes, como sempre houve, haverá sempre perdas, como sempre houve, a mudança provoca frequentemente disrupção, e a discussão séria não é sobre a forma de parar a mudança, mas sobre o óptimo social na adaptação a essa mudança.

Eu conheço o argumento de que quanto maior for a mudança, mais cara e difícil será a adaptação, mas é um argumento que não me parece demonstrado em lado nenhum, é um argumento lógico, não sabemos se é um argumento verdadeiro.

É um argumento suficientemente consistente para ser tido em atenção na definição de políticas, mas tê-lo em atenção significa, para cada medida que achamos adequada para lidar com o problema, que temos de avaliar custos e benefícios de uma forma global, e não isolando o meu problema dos problemas dos outros nem contabilizando apenas os custos de não adoptar a medida, sem contabilizar os custos de a adoptar, incluindo os custos de oportunidade.

Grande parte das políticas de adaptação climática necessárias são políticas razoáveis e sensatas, quer haja ou não alteração climática, porque são políticas de eficiência no uso de recursos, isto é, políticas que visam produzir mais, a partir de menos recursos.

RECOMENDAMOS

    Argentina: está tudo doido ou nem por isso?
    Morreu Emir do Kuwait, Nawaf Al Ahmad Al Sabah
    Pasta confidencial desapareceu no fim da era Trump
    Combatentes reclamam tomada de cidade em Myanmar

O capitalismo (Ricardo Dias de Sousa dizia num Contracorrente que capitalismo é uma palavra inventada por Marx para designar a realidade, permitindo-lhe desenvolver a sua utopia de negação da realidade, espero não estar a trair a ideia que estou citar de memória) é o sistema mais eficiente de alocação de recursos à produção, usando o preço como mecanismo de transmissão de informação, rápido e eficaz.

A ideia de que as catástrofes ambientais, climáticas ou outras, podem ser evitados, ou pelo menos minimizadas, de forma mais eficiente, com medidas de política centralizadas e tecnicamente racionais, é a enésima declinação da ideia de que o planeamento centralizado da economia é mais eficiente que a “mão invisível” na resposta às necessidades das pessoas comuns, incluindo as necessidades decorrentes de alterações de contexto, como são as alterações climáticas.

O problema é que essa ideia nunca foi demonstrada em lado nenhum e sempre que foi testada resultou em desastres sociais (frequentemente ambientais também, dificilmente a tragédia do mar de Aral ocorreria num contexto em que os preços transmitissem informação a todos os interessados, de forma eficiente e rápida), desigualdade e falta de liberdade individual.

Infelizmente, apesar do histórico de desastres humanos e ambientais, essa ideia tem vindo a ser apresentada, com cada vez mais insistência, como o único caminho para evitar o desastre.

A mim parece-me que é ela mesma uma autoestrada para o desastre.»


https://observador.pt/opiniao/a-ilusao-da-catastrofe-climatica/?fbclid=IwAR2LarhpwfIxWz3Vnp6UO6x-sdVPUCFZkyEHKsnlSYn_vorKyM79EEyoXkU

[I. I. Kaspov]

«OPEC Production Falls While U.S. Oil Output Hits New High

By Tsvetana Paraskova - Dec 13, 2023, 8:00 AM CST

    OPEC MOMR: OPEC's crude production fell in November for the first time in months.

    OPEC: U.S. oil output continued to reach new highs.

    Venezuela and Libya, which are exempted from the OPEC+ deal, saw their crude oil production rise month-on-month, as did Kuwait.


Join Our Community

Kuwait oil industry


OPEC’s crude oil production fell in November for the first time in months, while U.S. oil output continued to reach new highs, OPEC said in its monthly report on Wednesday.

Total OPEC-13 crude oil production averaged 27.84 million barrels per day (bpd) in November 2023, down by 57,000 bpd from October, amid lower production from Iraq, Angola, and Nigeria, OPEC’s Monthly Oil Market Report (MOMR) showed.

Venezuela and Libya, which are exempted from the OPEC+ deal, saw their crude oil production rise month-on-month, as did Kuwait, according to the secondary sources that OPEC uses to track its supply to the market.

Saudi Arabia, the leader of the cartel, increased its production slightly, by 12,000 bpd to 8.998 million bpd—in line with the Kingdom’s pledge to pump around 9 million bpd as part of its voluntary cut of 1 million bpd, which was extended by the end of March 2024.

The official OPEC production numbers are in line with the Reuters survey from earlier this month, which showed that OPEC’s oil production dropped in November for the first monthly decline since July as Nigeria and Iraq saw lower shipments.

At the same time, OPEC noted in its report that “US crude and condensate production as well as NGL output continue to reach new highs. Total US liquids output reached a record 21.6 mb/d in September due to persistent outperformance of onshore and offshore production.”

OPEC expects U.S. liquids supply to grow by 1.3 million bpd in 2023.

The non-OPEC liquids supply growth forecast remains unchanged at 1.8 million bpd for 2023, driven by the U.S., Brazil, Kazakhstan, Norway, Guyana, Mexico, and China, the cartel said.

In a commentary on crude oil price movements in recent weeks, OPEC said that oil futures prices “experienced a significant downturn, marked by heavy selloffs amidst a highly volatile futures market.”

“The market dynamic was fuelled by exaggerated concerns about oil demand growth, which negatively impacted market sentiment,” the cartel noted. 


By Tsvetana Paraskova for Oilprice.com»


https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/OPEC-Production-Falls-While-US-Oil-Output-Hits-New-High.html

[I. I. Kaspov]

Um novo país exportador (do grande continente que é a África):


«This Country is About To Export its First Ever Crude Oil

By Charles Kennedy - Dec 11, 2023, 10:00 AM CST


    Niger's President Tiani said that his country is about to start exporting its first crude oil in January.

    The commercial stage of the exports is expected to start in January from the Benin port of Cotonou.

    General Abdourahamane Tiani, the commander of Niger’s presidential guard, was appointed head of state at the end of July by a governing council set up by military forces that ousted Niger’s President Mohammed Bazoum.


Join Our Community

Pipeline


Niger aims to start exporting its first crude oil in January, the military leader of the African country, Abdourahamane Tiani, has said on state television.

The commercial stage of the exports is expected to start in January from the Benin port of Cotonou, Tiani said, as quoted by Reuters.

General Abdourahamane Tiani, the commander of Niger’s presidential guard, was appointed head of state at the end of July by a governing council set up by military forces that ousted Niger’s President Mohammed Bazoum. A group of military commanders overthrew the Niger government and the country’s army declared its support for the coup. 

The Western African country is a former French colony and a major supplier of uranium for France’s and other European nuclear power plants. Following the coup, there has been some concern about uranium deliveries to the EU but, according to Euratom, there was no immediate risk for supply even if Niger halted exports of the commodity, Reuters reported at the time.

Niger now looks to export its first barrels of crude oil via a new pipeline project. The pipeline was launched at the start of November and connects the Agadem oilfield in Niger to the port of Cotonou in Benin.

Currently, storage tanks in Cotonou are being filled and the filling up is expected to be completed by January, according to Niger’s military leader. After that the commercialization stage should begin, Tiani added.

Niger wants to focus on refining crude domestically for the local market, the leader said.

“Our desire is not to market crude oil. We want to move towards a refinery which will process Nigerien crude on Nigerien soil,” Tiani was quoted as saying by Reuters.

Currently, Niger has one small refinery with a capacity of 20,000 barrels per day (bpd), whose production predominantly supplies the domestic market.

By Charles Kennedy for Oilprice.com»


https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/This-Country-is-About-To-Export-its-First-Ever-Crude-Oil.html

[I. I. Kaspov]

O famigerado "aquecimento global" em acção...   


«Mínimas abaixo de zero: aviso amarelo de tempo frio para Bragança, Guarda, Vila Real e Viseu

O Instituto Português do Mar e da Atmosfera alertou para temperaturas mínimas baixas no continente, sobretudo nas noites de segunda e terça. Há aviso amarelo para Bragança, Vila Real, Guarda e Viseu.

    Agência Lusa
    Texto

17 dez. 2023, 21:42 2

    Oferecer

A geada cobre as manhãs da cidade de Chaves, em Chaves, 5 de janeiro de 2019. O primeiro fim de semana de janeiro de 2019 ficou marcado por uma descida de temperatura, levando à formação de geada em diferentes localidades no país. Os próximos dias também serão de frio, marcados por baixas temperaturas mínimas e acentuado arrefecimento noturno. PEDRO SARMENTO COSTA / LUSA

▲De acordo com o IPMA, prevê-se que a temperatura mínima atinja valores abaixo de 0º C (graus Celsius) em grande parte do interior norte e centro, sendo entre 0 e 3°C no interior sul e entre 3 e 7° C no litoral

PEDRO SARMENTO COSTA/LUSA
Jogue ao Abrapalavra

Uma palavra cinco letras. Descubra a palavra do dia.
Jogar Agora
Receba os alertas do Observador

Com os nossos alertas, pode seguir o seu autor, tópico ou programa favorito. Para não perder nada do que lhe interessa.
Configurar

“Devido à influência de um anticiclone localizado no norte da Península Ibérica, quase estacionário, prevê-se nas próximas duas noites (18 e 19 de dezembro) valores baixos de temperatura mínima um pouco por todo o território do continente, em especial nas zonas de vale ou mais abrigadas”, indicou o IPMA, em comunicado.

Está prevista a ocorrência de neblina ou nevoeiro matinal, mais provável no interior norte e centro, que poderá persistir em alguns locais do nordeste transmontano e Beira Alta.

De acordo com o IPMA, prevê-se que a temperatura mínima atinja valores abaixo de 0º C (graus Celsius) em grande parte do interior norte e centro, sendo entre 0 e 3°C no interior sul e entre 3 e 7° C no litoral.

Por outro lado, segundo o instituto, a temperatura máxima “deverá apresentar-se dentro ou mesmo ligeiramente acima do normal para a época do ano, esperando-se valores entre 7 e 13° C no interior norte e centro e entre 13 e 17° C para o restante território”.

RECOMENDAMOS

    117 mulheres assassinadas em Cuba
    Exército israelita descobre o maior túnel do Hamas
    Moedas questiona ideias de Pedro Nuno Santos
    EUA contra scanners chineses no porto de Lisboa

A exceção será nos locais onde o nevoeiro persistir durante o dia no nordeste transmontano e Beira Alta, onde a temperatura máxima poderá não ultrapassar os 5° C.

“Por esse motivo, emitiu-se aviso amarelo de tempo frio devido a temperaturas mínimas baixas nos distritos de Bragança, Vila Real, Guarda e Viseu”, explica o IPMA.

Apesar do alerta apenas para estes distritos, o IPMA salienta que “tendo em conta a situação de estabilidade, temperaturas mínimas próximas de 0°C ou ligeiramente inferiores podem ser sentidas um pouco por todo país nas zonas de vale ou mais abrigadas, com formação de geada”.

Para o final do dia 19 prevê-se uma alteração temporária na situação meteorológica, com a aproximação e passagem de uma superfície frontal, que trará um aumento de nebulosidade e precipitação fraca, que resultará num aumento da temperatura mínima no dia 20.»


https://observador.pt/2023/12/17/minimas-abaixo-de-zero-aviso-amarelo-de-tempo-frio-para-braganca-guarda-vila-real-e-viseu/

[I. I. Kaspov]

Este mapa (e este problema) tb têm muito a ver com a história de Portugal...


https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/global-trade-risk-shippers-shun-red-sea-over-houthis-attacks

[vbm]

Vasco da Gama
e Eça de Queiroz
que o digam. -:)

[I. I. Kaspov]

Outro problema de "emissões"... com soluções curiosas: "Breeding low-methane animals"...


«How New Zealand is reducing methane emissions from farming

Share using Email
Share on Twitter
Share on Facebook
Share on Linkedin

(Image credit: Getty Images)

Dairy cattle farm in Vetschau Germany (Getty Images)

By Ellen Rykers

15th December 2023


New Zealand is home to 10 million cows and 26 million sheep. To reach its climate goals, the country must curb potent methane emissions from animal farming, using science and policy.

T

The young bull's head disappears into a plastic green hood. He scoops up a mouthful of dried pellets, chews, flicks his ears, and exhales. The hood is attached to a contraption on wheels that looks a bit like a high-tech mobile pizza oven.

But the only thing cooking up here is a precise measurement of methane, a highly potent gas that has a global warming impact 84 times higher than carbon dioxide (CO2) over a 20-year period.

The bull's breath, laced with gas from his digestive tract, is hoovered up by a fan at 40 litres (8.8 gallons) per second, and measured in this device known as a GreenFeed system.

Over a few minutes of snacking, the bull's burps and breaths are analysed to build a picture of just how much methane his digestive system is churning out. Lorna McNaughton, senior scientist at agri-tech cooperative Livestock Improvement Corporation (LIC) in New Zealand, scrutinises the data on a computer monitor. Some bulls produce more methane, some less.

The bulls, aged between six and 15 months, are "like teenagers, getting up to all sorts of mischief", says McNaughton. They're enticed into the GreenFeed contraption six times a day with a tasty snack of Lucerne hay cubes: "lollies they get for doing the work," she says. Their barn stay lasts around 40 days, so researchers can closely monitor food intake and weight gain alongside burps.

Since 2021, LIC and another cattle breeding cooperative, CRV Ambreed, have joined forces to measure the methane of 800 young bulls and counting. It's the first step in breeding dairy cows that naturally produce less methane – one way New Zealand is hoping to curtail emissions of this potent, short-lived greenhouse gas.
Sign up to Future Earth

Sign up to the Future Earth newsletter to get essential climate news and hopeful developments in your inbox every Tuesday from Carl Nasman. This email is currently available to non-UK readers. In the UK? Sign up for newsletters here.

New Zealand has an unusual emissions profile, thanks in part to its resident 10 million cattle and 26 million sheep. Almost half of the country's emissions come from agriculture. Methane alone makes up 43% of total emissions, with most methane (more than 85%) coming from livestock.

Unlike carbon dioxide, which hangs around for centuries, most methane persists for only a decade or so. This means that tackling methane is a powerful lever: reducing methane emissions by 30% by 2030 globally, as per the Global Methane Pledge, could eliminate over 0.2C (0.36F) warming by 2050.

New Zealand is one of more than 100 countries signed up to the Global Methane Pledge. But while other nations focus on plugging leaks from oil fields and natural gas pipelines, New Zealand's focus is on the methane brewed by microbes in the digestive tracts of farm animals and belched into the atmosphere. The country has long seen this as a niche where it can punch above its weight – and it will need to do so, if it hopes to reach its climate targets.

Its two-step target, established in 2019 legislation, seeks to reduce biogenic methane (from both animals and waste) by 10% on 2017 levels by 2030, and 24–47% by 2050. In turn, this goal is meant to be consistent with global efforts to keep heating below 1.5C, via the country's international commitment under the Paris Agreement.

In 2022, New Zealand unveiled its strategy to curb greenhouse gases and transition to a low-emissions future in an emissions reduction plan. In the agriculture sector – considered an important player due to its substantial chunk of the total emissions pie – plans for a world-first emissions pricing scheme featured alongside boosting mitigation tech development.

But a change in government following October's election has seen the demise of the pricing scheme and a shift in policy to focus on as-yet-unavailable gene editing technology. What will it take to curtail methane from livestock in a country with agriculture at its heart?   
New Zealand is harnessing a range of scientific tools, including methane-blocking vaccines, inhibitors and selective breeding, to curb its farming emissions (Credit: Getty Images)

New Zealand is harnessing a range of scientific tools, including methane-blocking vaccines, inhibitors and selective breeding, to curb its farming emissions (Credit: Getty Images)

"People are attracted to this idea of a silver bullet. But it's a variety of practices and technologies that are going to be needed," says Sinead Leahy, principal science advisor at the New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre (NZAGRC).

The NZAGRC has sought to cultivate this variety of solutions since 2009. It doesn't employ research teams directly, but strategically funds external teams investigating new technologies like vaccines and methane inhibitors.

Since its inception, around NZ$90m (£44m/US$56m) has been invested in research, infrastructure and capability through the NZAGRC. A 2018 review acknowledged the research is "scientifically challenging", and found a "shortfall in feasible and practical mitigation options". Currently available approaches – mostly changing how operations are managed on-farm, like frequency of milking – would only result in a 10% emissions reduction at best, according to the review.

Five years on, that's still largely true. New Zealand's 2030 target, to reduce emissions by 10% on 2017 levels, is looking "challenging", says Leahy. "There may be a limited set of technologies that will be available in time for the 2030 target," she estimates. Leahy is more optimistic about the potential of emerging tech in the longer term. "We're really looking more in that 2030 to 2040 bracket for when investment into science will hopefully start to pay dividends," she says. In the meantime, she adds, most reductions are likely to come from farmers becoming more efficient, alongside land-use changes and reductions in the waste sector.

    Methane makes up 43% of New Zealand's total emissions

Methane inhibitors may be one of the technologies to make the grade in time. One is already on the market internationally: a Dutch-developed feed additive called Bovaer. The compound reduces dairy cow methane emissions by 30% – but only in feedlot animals where it can be added to every mouthful. This makes it tricky to implement in New Zealand's pastoral grazing system where cattle are outdoors munching grass. "We need to figure out an effective way to make it work, and be economically viable, in our system," Leahy says.

Another attractive tech solution, a methane-blocking vaccine, is much less likely to be ready by 2030. Considered a holy grail due to its potential to be long-lasting and applicable in pasture-based farming, a vaccine remains elusive despite more than a decade of research effort. "We don't have any proof of concept," says Leahy. "But no experiments to date have shown that it won't work either, which is encouraging," she adds. Scientists at AgResearch, a research institute in New Zealand, have achieved promising test tube results, but vaccination trials in sheep haven't been successful yet.

You might also like:

    Native Americans are reclaiming energy
    The pig-producing nation weaning itself off meat
    How Chinese buses influenced the world's EVs

One idea is likely to be in farmers' climate toolbox sooner than either inhibitors or vaccines. Selective breeding with low-emitting bulls could reduce the methane outputs of the country's dairy herd, which currently accounts for almost one-fifth of all of New Zealand’s emissions.

"We're seeing 15 to 20% differences between low emitters and the average," says McNaughton. "So I'm feeling quietly optimistic."

Leahy agrees that the results appear promising, but notes there's a lot more research and time needed to gather data. "There's still a good bit of work to be done to verify the trait and make sure there are no adverse effects for breeding a low-emitting cow, for example on fertility," she says.

Evidence from a US dairy cow herd suggests that low-methane cows might be smaller in stature with different gut bugs, but that their milk production and composition won't be affected. Similarly, Irish cows that emit 15% less methane produce just as much milk for the same amount of feed, according to a study published this week.

At LIC, a similar investigation is underway with a new generation of daughters sired by the low-emitting bulls identified so far. The cows will be closely monitored for any adverse effects, such as reduced milk production.

By 2026, if no curveballs emerge, McNaughton expects that LIC and its competitor CRV will have a methane index for the bulls that sire 90% of New Zealand's dairy herd through artificial insemination. This will mean that farmers can select bulls with lower methane profiles, among other desirable traits.
New Zealand is home to 10 million cattle and half of its national emissions come from agriculture (Credit: Getty Images)

New Zealand is home to 10 million cattle and half of its national emissions come from agriculture (Credit: Getty Images)

Selective breeding of low-methane dairy cattle rests on a foundation of sheep. While sheep emit, on average, 13kg of methane every year, compared to 98kg for a dairy cow, starting with sheep was a logistical choice. "Sheep are much easier to handle," says Suzanne Rowe, senior scientist at AgResearch, "and their gestation period is much shorter." Fourteen years ago, Rowe and a team of AgResearch scientists wondered whether a sheep's methane emission levels could be passed from one generation to the next. They gathered 1,000 sheep from across New Zealand and began to measure their gas outputs over 48 hours using a respiration chamber.

"It took years to get through the 1,000 animals," says Rowe, explaining the painstaking process to refine measurement down to just one hour instead of 48. The "huge challenge" yielded three incredibly useful things: a flock of low-emitting sheep, a flock of high-emitting sheep, and a portable unit for fast methane measurement.

The two flocks were relocated to the same farm in the South Island. High emitters bred with other high emitters, and lows with lows. Every year, Rowe and her team measured the methane outputs of the new lambs. And every year, the low emitters got lower by about 1%. Today the difference between the high and low flocks is, on average, 18%. Plus, the reduction doesn't appear to come at the cost of other desirable traits – in fact, changes that have emerged so far are positive. "[Low-emitter] sheep had more wool," says Rowe. "We also found that they have a slightly different fatty acid profile in their milk and meat, and were leaner."

Meanwhile, the portable methane chamber has enabled farmers across New Zealand to identify the low emitters in their own flocks as part of a 'Cool Sheep' programme. "We've been driving up and down the countryside, measuring sheep from different farms," says Rowe, estimating that they have now measured 30,000 individuals. "The plan is to enable farmers to choose the low emitters within their own flocks," Rowe explains. "That's really important because it means that the animals they choose are already adjusted to that environment."
New Zealand has found a way to breed flocks of lower methane-emitting sheep (Credit: Getty Images)

New Zealand has found a way to breed flocks of lower methane-emitting sheep (Credit: Getty Images)

What impact will selective breeding have on New Zealand's methane emissions? For sheep, Rowe estimates a decrease in methane emissions of around 0.5 to 1% per year. "Over time, that quickly becomes substantial," she says. "The other benefit is that, other than the actual measurement of the animal, it's low cost. And it's permanent." But the impact of selective breeding is also slow to emerge, as genes filter through a population over time rather than acting instantaneously.

In Canada, low-methane bull semen became commercially available earlier this year. Semex, the company behind the genetics, says adoption of the low-methane trait could reduce Canada's dairy herd emissions 20–30% by 2050.

New Zealand's numbers are more conservative. In 2021, modelling by the country's Climate Change Commission suggested that low-methane breeding for sheep and beef cows would produce 4.5–7.5% reductions by 2050. For the dairy cattle herd, breeding is predicted to come online from 2030 and yield a 7.5–13.5% methane reduction by 2050.

Behind the incremental march of scientific efforts, the spectre of a price on agricultural emissions looms large. New Zealand's first attempt at introducing an agricultural emissions levy dates back to 2003, when a 'fart tax' furore erupted. 'Fart tax' is a misnomer, says Leahy, as most gases are expelled out the front end: "about 75:25 nostrils to mouth".

The proposed levy would have raised NZ$8.4m (£3.1m or US$4.9m) per year for research. Vehement opposition to the idea saw one MP drive a tractor up the steps of parliament, and another lead two cows around parliament grounds, with one depositing a steaming cowpat in front of the parliament.

Since then, the agriculture sector has lobbied hard to avoid being roped into New Zealand's emissions trading scheme, making it an outlier industry that doesn't pay a price for its climate pollution.
New Zealand's Climate Change Commission has warned that the country is not on track to meet its long-term methane reduction targets (Credit: Getty Images)

New Zealand's Climate Change Commission has warned that the country is not on track to meet its long-term methane reduction targets (Credit: Getty Images)

In 2017, Jacinda Ardern, who had campaigned on a promise to bring farming into the ETS, unexpectedly became prime minister. The farming sector secured a deal with the government to co-design a separate pricing scheme in a partnership called 'He waka eke noa' (named after a Māori proverb, meaning "we're all in this together"). In advice delivered during the design process, New Zealand's Climate Change Commission said that "a farm-level pricing system, supported by well-designed, well-thought-through policy" is an important tool for achieving the country's climate targets.

In the final plan, announced in December 2022, the government would set different five-year prices for methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide, with input from farming representatives and the Climate Change Commission. The scheme was meant to come into effect in 2025, but by mid-2023 the plan had fallen over. A new centre-right coalition is likely to see any potential pricing of cow burps pushed back to 2030.

Suzi Kerr, a New Zealand economist with expertise in emissions pricing policy, says the delay is "going to be really damaging when they have to hurry to catch up later.

 "Hurrying to catch up is costly, it's difficult," she says.

According to Kerr, an agricultural pricing scheme wouldn't just benefit the climate, it would also help New Zealand farmers by providing consistent market signals and a mechanism to reward them for their climate action.

"Farmers are in this invidious position of knowing what they should be doing from a global point of view, but facing really strong economic signals that are saying 'produce more' and don't focus on mitigation. Pricing levels that playing field," says Kerr.

    We're seeing 15 to 20% differences between low emitters and the average – Lorna McNaughton

Without a pricing scheme, will New Zealand be able to reach its methane reduction targets? "New Zealand's history would suggest no," says Kerr.

In 2021, emissions from the agriculture sector dipped by 1.5%, in part due to fewer sheep and cattle. But it’s a tiny blip after almost a decade of a stubborn plateau, and not necessarily enough to indicate a new trend, says Kerr. "Improvements in lowering emissions have been offset by increased levels of production," she says. "Even if they're beginning to fall in some places, they're not falling nearly fast enough."
Carbon Count

The emissions from travel it took to report this story were 0kg CO2e. The digital emissions from this story are an estimated 1.2g to 3.6g CO2e per page view. Find out more about how we calculated this figure here.

In advice released this week, the Climate Change Commission warned that New Zealand is not on track to meet its overall emissions reduction targets. For methane, the commission writes: "Existing policies alone… would not result in adequate biogenic methane reductions to meet the 2030 target."

In order to achieve a 10% methane reduction by 2030 and reach the longer-term 2050 target, the commission emphasised that agricultural emissions pricing from 2025 will be "key" and a "necessary tool". New tech, diversifying land use, and increasing on-farm efficiency will also play a role in the 2030 target, according to the commission.

Breeding low-methane animals, along with the development of methane inhibitors and vaccines, will help New Zealand meet its long-term climate goals, the commission notes.

The analysis was conducted in October 2023, before the election resulted in a change of government and new policy direction. While the new climate change minister welcomed the advice and has affirmed the government is "steadfast" in its commitment to the Paris Agreement, several keystone climate policies are set to be discarded or delayed – like the agricultural pricing scheme. The shift has attracted criticism from environmentalists for relying on technological works-in-progress, rather than proven interventions to reduce agricultural emissions. It will be up to the new government whether they heed the commission's advice.

If the country fails to meet its agreed emissions reduction targets under the Paris Agreement, it may need to spend billions of dollars on overseas carbon credits to offset its climate pollution, including the methane-laced breath of farm animals.

Leahy says reducing methane in line with the official targets will be "challenging". But she remains optimistic. She used to give presentations and tell the audience that she wasn't even sure it would be possible to reduce the methane brewed in an animal's gut. "Fast forward to today, and yes, there is sheep breeding, yes, there are inhibitors, yes, there are some feeds. These are all coming. And hopefully more," she says.»


https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20231214-how-new-zealand-is-reducing-methane-emissions-from-farming

[I. I. Kaspov]

Ora aí está!     - «a fossil-free future»:


«How Colombia plans to keep its oil and coal in the ground

Share using Email
Share on Twitter
Share on Facebook
Share on Linkedin

(Image credit: J Torres/ Getty Images)

Oil is a major source of revenue in Colombia, but the country's new president has promised 'a green, not a black future' (Credit: J Torres/

Getty Images)

By María Paula Rubiano A.

17th November 2022


The country’s new president has been vocal about plans to leave fossil fuel extraction behind. But the country faces an uphill struggle to do this in practice.

I

In February 2020, the lifeblood that kept the tiny town of La Jagua de Ibirico in northern Colombia going stopped flowing.

As the Covid-19 pandemic sunk coal prices internationally, the multinational giant Glencore, through its local affiliate Prodeco, closed the two coal mines in the area.

Since the closure, the sky has cleared up and the air is fresher, says Álvaro Castro, a social leader and local researcher for Universidad del Magdalena, who lives in the town. Birds now chirp in the newly green treetops, and the blanket of coal ash covering the rooftops is gone, he says.

But at street level, the situation is dire.

As 7,000 workers – from a workforce of 7,300 – lost their jobs and contractors left town, nearly 100 restaurants, cafes, hotels and other businesses closed, the local branch of the country’s largest coal workers union says. As a result, according to the town's mayor, the municipality lost 85% of its income.

    Colombia’s new president, Gustavo Petro, has said the world needs an 'immediate withdrawal from the oil and gas industry'

Union leader José Ladeut, one of the few still working at Prodeco’s railroad, says this sudden closure of coal mines in La Jagua de Ibirico should be a cautionary tale for newly elected president, Gustavo Petro. "We were the guinea pigs," he says. "And we weren't ready. The transition found us still wearing nappies."

Petro, an economist and former guerilla who was elected as Colombia's first ever left-wing president in June 2022, rose to power with a socially progressive, environmentally conscious agenda which included a strong message on the need for the country to leave fossil fuels behind.

He promised the nation "a green, not a black future", and told La Jagua de Ibirico and other towns in the coal corridor they would be an essential part of Colombia's transition into a future where coal, oil and gas remain underground. In a speech at the COP27 climate talks in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, in early November, Petro said the world needs an "immediate withdrawal from the oil and gas industry".
Supporters of Colombia's new President, Gustavo Petro, hold a painting depicting him and his vice president Francia Marquez (Credit: Guillermo Legaria/Getty Images)

Supporters of Colombia's new President, Gustavo Petro, hold a painting depicting him and his vice president Francia Marquez (Credit: Guillermo Legaria/Getty Images)

Despite the rising momentum around climate action in recent years, the idea of cutting off fossil fuel supply is rarely made much of by world leaders, even at climate conferences. But there is a rising recognition that it is a crucial part of climate action – even the relatively conservative International Energy Agency (IEA) has said there must be no new investment in new gas, oil or coal extraction projects from now on if the world is to reach net zero emissions by 2050.

A recent report from the Tyndall Centre at the University of Manchester found rich countries need to phase out all oil and gas production by 2034, and poorer countries by 2050, to stay on track with the 1.5C target.
Towards Net Zero

Since signing the Paris Agreement, how are countries performing on their climate pledges? Towards Net Zero analyses countries' progress and major climate challenges, and their lessons for the rest of the world in cutting emissions.

So far, Colombia is the largest, most fossil-fuel-dependent country adhering to an agenda that explicitly calls to leave fossil fuel extraction behind. "There's really very few countries in the world that have said anything regarding this 'leave it on the ground' idea," says Paola Yanguas-Parra, policy and energy transition economist at the Technical University of Berlin's FossilExit Group.

Last year, Costa Rica and Denmark formed an international alliance to phase out production of fossil fuels, called the Beyond Oil & Gas Alliance (although under its new presidency, Costa Rica has recently backed away from the alliance leadership). Meanwhile, the South Pacific island nation of Tuvalu recently became the second country to call for a Fossil Fuel Non Proliferation Treaty, joining Vanuatu in backing the idea of creating a legal pathway to regulate and phase out the global production of coal, oil and gas. On the coal front, since its launch in 2017, the Powering Past Coal Alliance, has gathered almost 100 countries and subnational governments working to phase out existing unabated coal power generation.

In these cases, however, most official members don't heavily depend on fossil fuel extraction, says Yanguas-Parra. Conversely, Colombia is among the top coal producers globally and heavily dependent economically on fossil fuels: between 40 and 50% of its exports are coal and oil. Taxes from the sector and dividends from the partially state-owned oil Ecopetrol – the largest company in the country – account for about 9% of the central government's income.
Could we cut off fossil fuels at the tap?

Compared to countries with a similar dependency, "Colombia's goals could be considered very progressive", says Yanguas-Parra. But a transition away from fossil fuels in Colombia will require several major transformations. And economists and energy policy experts agree that, despite the lofty speeches, Colombia is currently far from ready to "keep it in the ground".

Like most nations, to move to a clean economy, the country needs to clean up its energy grid by switching to renewables and electrify industry, homes and transport. But at the same time, Colombia will also need to replace half of its exports and restructure public finances on a national and a regional scale. To make sure the transition is just, it will also need to ensure about 109,000 workers can find new jobs, and that indigenous and black communities living in critical areas for renewable energy development are fairly included and compensated.

You might also like:

    How Australia became the world's greatest lithium supplier
    What if we had limitless clean energy?
    How ending mining would change the world

Some transformations, like a 100% renewable electric grid, are achievable as soon as 2030, researchers have found. However, other goals, particularly those referring to substituting Colombia's exports, ensuring economic transformation in fossil-dependent regions, and clean-up plans for closing mines and oil fields, are nowhere close to being a reality.

Until Petro's election this year, replacing oil and gas was not part of the energy transition conversation within the government. Colombia has been slowly building its clean energy policy since 2014, when Congress passed a law to promote the building of renewable energy projects – mainly solar and wind power – via tax breaks and other incentives. But in 2021, less than 1% of energy in the country came from these sources.

The former president Iván Duque passed important legislation regulating the renewables market, promoting electric vehicles (EVs) and designing a general energy transition policy. But he also promoted fracking, held auctions for new oil, gas and coal projects, and supported the fossil fuel industry as a "cornerstone" to get out of the economic crisis the pandemic created.
Fossil fuels including petroleum and coal make up a large proportion of Colombia's exports (Credit: BBC. Source: OEC)

Fossil fuels including petroleum and coal make up a large proportion of Colombia's exports (Credit: BBC. Source: OEC)

Yanguas-Parra says failing to recognise Colombia's financial dependency on fossil fuels in clean energy policies has been a mistake. As importing countries decarbonise their own economies, demand could plummet, leaving places like La Jagua de Ibirico extremely vulnerable to abrupt economic recession. This is particularly true in coal towns, as Colombia exports 90% of the coal it extracts.

"What we've seen historically is that when transitions are not planned, the social, economic and cultural repercussions remain for years, and even decades," she says. "It's extremely traumatic." (Read about How a just transition can make India's coal history)

That's exactly what could happen in La Jagua, where the prospects for a just transition currently look bleak.

Here, over the past few decades, taxes and royalties paid by the mining companies have outgrown those of other sectors. The four main coal towns of Cesar – Agustín Codazzi, La Jagua de Ibirico, Becerril and El Paso – represent 35% of the area's entire GDP and 30% of its income. These extraordinary revenues for municipalities have stalled mayors’ willingness to explore other income avenues, leaving many people behind: more than half still live in poverty in Cesar. As the mines pollute air and water, agriculture was lost, even for self-consumption, Álvaro Castro says.

In a way, a similar phenomenon has happened on a national scale. "Colombia has had an artificially strong currency because our exports are commodities paid in dollars," says Juan José Guzmán Ayala, an economist at Columbia's Center on Global Energy Policy. "But those commodities end up flattening the country's industrial growth." Leaving fossil fuels in the ground means finding alternatives incomes to replace them.
Demonstrators stage a protest against fracking in Bogota, Colombia (Credit: Reuters/Nathalia Angarita/Alamy)

Demonstrators stage a protest against fracking in Bogota, Colombia (Credit: Reuters/Nathalia Angarita/Alamy)

The government's campaign plan proposed to create an Energy Transition Fund with taxes and royalties from the industry to finance the phaseout and promote new economic sectors like agriculture, agroecology and clean energy technologies. However, it's still unclear if the fund will happen, how much money it will receive, and how it will decide where the money should go. It is also unclear what kind of product – or combination of them – has the greatest potential to replace such a big chunk of the country's exports.

A coalition of more than 30 national and international organisations addressed how a transition could be funded in a proposal published earlier this year. New taxes could be placed on the oil and coal industry, it said, (this seems likely, as they are included in a tax reform on the verge of being passed in Congress), while tax exemptions and benefits, which accounted for a lost $1.34bn (£1.14bn) in 2020 according to the proposal, could be removed.

A fund like this might help, but it leaves unanswered the question of what mine closures should look like, says Andrea Cardoso, an economist at University of Magdalena in Santa Marta, Colombia. The country's legal framework is largely silent on what happens to workers if a company voluntarily gives up its mining permits: they are legally responsible for the environmental clean-up, but the layoff of workers or responsibility for health outcomes after decades of pollution is hardly mentioned in laws and policies. The lack of clear regulations, Cardoso says, allowed Glencore to close its Prodeco mines with virtually no explanation.

The dismissals came with no notice, and while they included "voluntary retreat" programmes which gave some workers a year's salary and health insurance, the company did not support them in finding a new job or repurposing their skills, union members say. "With us, the workers and the communities, everything that should not be done in a just transition is being done," Robinson Moreno, a union leader at the country's largest coal workers union, Sintracarbón, says.

A spokesperson for Prodeco rejects the claim that workers were given no support, saying workers have been offered counselling and professional support programmes "aimed at identifying the occupational life project that best suits their needs, through either an entrepreneurship or a new labour opportunity". The spokesperson says since operations were first suspended "different communication channels have been established with all employees in order to keep them informed about the company's situation and the need to adjust our personnel due to the definitive termination of operations at Calenturitas and La Jagua mines". They add that "the decision to relinquish the mining contracts was not taken lightly and represents a disappointing outcome for the Prodeco Group".

Since the closures, according to the National Mining Agency the company has complied with only about 42% of its environmental obligations. The Prodeco spokesperson says the firm is working with Colombia's National Environmental Licensing Agency to fulfil its environmental obligations, and is awaiting the agency's approval of its proposals.

For Cardoso, many questions remain. "There is a lot of talk about alternatives, ecotourism or agriculture," says Cardoso. "But the communities themselves ask, 'But how can we do that if the soil is contaminated, the air is polluted, the water resources are scarce?'"
Energy use in Colombia by source (Credit: BBC. Source: Our World in Data/BP Statistical Review of World Energy)

Energy use in Colombia by source (Credit: BBC. Source: Our World in Data/BP Statistical Review of World Energy)

If Colombia wants to avoid a scenario like this playing out again, it needs to talk explicitly about mine closures and regulate them, says Cardoso. Last year, a Stockholm Environment Institute paper proposed that Colombia should spend the extra money currently coming in from coal's rising prices to research and promote the best alternative economic options in towns like La Jagua.

If the situation around coal is complex, though, things get even more tricky when it comes to oil and gas. Unlike coal, Colombia does need them to function. Gas provides 12% of the country's electricity and fuels its industrial processes as well as the stovetops and water heaters in most of its homes. Meanwhile, gasoline moves practically all of Colombia's fleet – of the 17 million vehicles in the country, only about 7,000 are electric.

That's why many were worried when mines and energy secretary Irene Vélez – a philosopher who, before joining the government, researched the environmental impact of illegal mining and the energy transition – announced in August that the government planned to stop granting new hydrocarbon exploration licenses and halt all pilot fracking projects. Vélez has explained that this will not affect the development of the 117 contracts that are exploring reserves, which, in combination with reserves already being exploited, are expected to last about a decade, according to a recent estimate.

If the government closes the oil and gas tap before demand for these fossil fuels shrinks, the country will have to import more gasoline and gas – and pay that price tag in dollars – risking internal economic chaos, says Guzmán Ayala.
Solar panels could help brig electricity to the 404,000 families that still live without it in Colombia (Credit: Luis Echeverri/Alamy)

Solar panels could help brig electricity to the 404,000 families that still live without it in Colombia (Credit: Luis Echeverri/Alamy)

That's why he advocates for policies that focus on demand instead of supply – much like the Climate Action package recently approved in the US, which incentives homeowners, companies and states to switch to renewables. In Colombia, this means tackling transport, the country's largest consumer of fossil fuels, says Jessica Arias, a policy researcher at Transforma, an energy transition research center in Colombia. To do this, country must boost electric public transport, shift public investment from roads to railways, and support EV ownership, according to a policy brief co-authored by Arias.

But Yanguas-Parra thinks moving away from the extraction of oil and gas is as necessary as electrifying internally and sees both processes as deeply intertwined. "[W]e either need to reduce exports so we can use more oil or drastically reduce internal use so we can export the same amount," she says.

To replace gas and oil by 2050, the country will need to produce about five times more electricity than it does today, Arias' team found. With an electric grid already relatively green (hydropower dams create about 70% of electricity in the country), reaching 100% renewable electricity grid is possible by 2030, according to a recent paper co-authored by Yanguas-Parra. However, the paper says policymakers need to move firmly towards this and ensure the energy transition gains "social licensing".

In fact, a lack of social approval could become the biggest roadblock for renewable energies, says Yanguas-Parra. If the government focuses on building megaprojects in areas where there is already conflict over land use, "social conflict will totally slow down the progress", she adds.

In Colombia, the wind power industry is already under scrutiny: Wayúu indigenous communities in La Guajira have denounced human rights violations and a lack of transparency from arriving projects. Meanwhile, in the small town of La Loma, near the now-closed mines in La Jagua, the renewable giant Enel is building Colombia's largest solar park, but local communities have said they were not informed about the project nor of any way they will benefit from it. "We agree with an energy transition. We know the world and the time requires it," Moreno, who is one of Prodeco's union leaders, said. "But right now, the energy transition is only for multinational companies."

Enel and SER Colombia, an industry body which brings together several companies developing renewable energy projects in La Guajira, did not respond to a request for comment.

If things like this keep happening, "society is just not going to accept the energy transition", says Yanguas Parra.
Colombia's per capita emissions are relatively low on a global scale (Credit: BBC. Source: Our World in Data based on the Global Carbon Project

Colombia's per capita emissions are relatively low on a global scale (Credit: BBC. Source: Our World in Data based on the Global Carbon Project

So far, Vélez has been explicit about the government’s intention to include communities in the energy transition. She has repeatedly mentioned that the government wants to support "energy communities", in which a neighbourhood can agree to install solar panels in a school or a residential complex, use the energy and sell the surplus to the national grid.

The proposal could be especially helpful in bringing electricity to the 404,000 families that still live without it in Colombia. The national government has also met with local representatives, companies, unions and communities in regional dialogues to create its energy transition roadmap that, according a recent speech by Vélez, will be ready in about six months.

 
Carbon Count

The emissions from travel it took to report this story were 0kg CO2. The digital emissions from this story are an estimated 1.2g to 3.6g CO2 per page view. Find out more about how we calculated this figure here.

When it came to Prodeco's exit from La Jagua de Ibirico, Ladeut says a fair system would have seen communities, workers and governments sitting down with the company to reach an agreement. "The energy transition is a reality. Today it is us. Tomorrow it will be other companies."

Laudet and other 35 former workers – including Moreno – are working with Cardoso and her research group to create a 150-hour academic programme on labour retraining that they hope will become a bachelor's degree. But they know they can't make the transition happen on their own – the entire society, they say, needs to move towards that goal – and the government needs to clearly outline how to reach it.

"When you're running a marathon, it is not enough to say 'I want to run this marathon'," says Guzmán Ayala. "You have to establish a structured training plan to achieve that goal."

The Colombian government has yet to set out its own training plan to achieve a fossil-free future. But this is essential if it, and the rest of the world, ever wants to be capable of crossing that elusive finish line.

--

Miriam Quick contributed data research to this article.»


https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20221116-how-colombia-plans-to-keep-its-oil-and-gas-in-the-ground

[I. I. Kaspov]

A produção de crude nos USA continua bem elevada:


«Soaring U.S. Crude Production Fuels Export Boom

By Charles Kennedy - Dec 19, 2023, 6:00 PM CST

    U.S. oil production reached a record 13.2 million barrels per day, significantly increasing exports, especially to Europe and Asia.

    End-of-year tax considerations are prompting traders to export more oil to reduce taxable inventory, with exports expected to average 5 million barrels per day.

    The integration of WTI Midland in the Brent basket and the European embargo on Russian oil have contributed to the growing popularity of U.S. crude in global markets.


Join Our Community

Oil

Record-high crude oil production is driving a record in crude oil exports, too, as traders rush to rid themselves of inventory that they would otherwise have to pay taxes on.

Reuters reported this week that average crude oil shipments abroad from the Gulf of Mexico have averaged some 4 million barrels daily since the start of the year. This is half a million barrels per day over last year's average.

U.S. crude oil production recently hit an all-time high of 13.2 million barrels daily, according to the Energy Information Administration, whose latest confirmed data is for September. This is driving higher exports for Europe and Asia.

"Flows bound for Asia are looking to finish the year strongly, particularly for cargoes heading to China," Kpler's Matt Smith told Reuters. In fact, rising U.S. exports of crude oil to Asia were one reason, according to Bloomberg, that Saudi Arabia cut its oil prices for Asian buyers earlier this month. The intensifying competition from U.S. barrels seems to be pressuring the world's top exporter to fight for its market share.

Now, the end of the year is adding another motive for oil sellers to be quick about placing as many barrels as possible on tankers bound for Asia or Europe. Tax season is upon them, and the less oil they have in inventory as 2023 ends, the less they will pay in taxes. As a result, Kpler's Smith expects U.S. oil exports to end the year on a high note, at an average daily of 5 million bpd.

U.S. crude oil is shaping up as the biggest reason for the moderation in oil prices this year. With its main markets in Europe and Asia, exported crude from the world's top producer has proved a useful lever for keeping a lid on benchmarks even as Saudi Arabia and Russia reduced their production, especially the former.

The addition of WTI Midland to the Brent basket was a big reason for that surge in U.S. oil exports and, in turn, their moderating effect on global prices.

"As Midland becomes more and more important in the dated Brent assessment, it has a knock on effect on other grades having to price themselves lower to compete with WTI Midland," Vortexa market analyst Rohit Rathood told Reuters in August this year.

Midland is the cheapest grade included in the Brent basket, and this has been instrumental in making U.S. crude more popular, along with Europe's embargo on direct Russian oil flows.

The record exports will probably decline in January after tax season is over. Yet chances are they will remain much stronger than before as production continues to climb higher, albeit at a slower pace, at least according to the EIA. The agency has forecast that U.S. oil output will add some 180,000 bpd next year as opposed to 1 million barrels daily this year.

It may yet surprise to the upside, however. Forecasts for this year were that U.S. output would reach 12.5 million bpd in the final quarter. Yet actual output has significantly exceeded this, even at lower rig counts, to the surprise of many industry observers. Drillers themselves attributed this to improvements in drilling efficiency. These may continue, complicating OPEC+'s task of maintaining control of global oil prices. Unless they decide on a repeat of the 2014 flooding strategy that saw prices tank and dozens of U.S. drillers go under.

Should this happen—and some energy analysts predict it may—there would be fewer U.S. drillers to be affected by the move, and they would be more resilient as the industry matures and consolidates. This time, the flooding strategy may backfire.

By Charles Kennedy for Oilprice.com»


https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Soaring-US-Crude-Production-Fuels-Export-Boom.html

[I. I. Kaspov]

Acerca da famosa "transição energética", incluindo a recuperação do uso do carvão na Alemanha...


«A Big Oil Reality Check for the Energy Transition

By Irina Slav - Dec 13, 2023, 6:00 PM CST


    The participating nations in COP28 have managed to come up with a final agreement that calls for the ‘orderly’ transition away from fossil fuels.
    What many of the proponents of a fast phase-out of fossil fuels appear to have realized is that another course of action is impossible for oil-producing countries.
    Oil and gas demand is going nowhere anytime soon unless, of course, governments bite the bullet and mandate lower energy consumption.


Join Our Community
China crude storage


This year's COP28 on Tuesday ran into overtime as participating countries sought to clinch a last-minute agreement on a draft document detailing a global commitment to phase out hydrocarbons.

The reason for the overtime was the strong opposition to such a text by oil-producing countries. Some placed the blame singularly on Saudi Arabia as the leader of OPEC, and others blamed the whole cartel plus other oil producers.

What none of the blame-layers appear to have realized is that another course of action is impossible for oil-producing countries. Just as it is impossible for Big Oil to turn into Big Energy, at least not without a fight.

Earlier in the week, when OPEC's head warned member states about possible phaseout language in the final COP28 declaration, several European government officials expressed their utter shock at such behavior. They reacted as though it made perfect sense for a dozen countries to agree to the end of their main export commodity to make some people in Europe happy. It does not make perfect sense, however. It makes no sense whatsoever.

The situation is the same with various transition advocates calling on international oil companies to do more about the transition, essentially by reducing their oil and gas production. Because the IPCC said we need to do something about rising global temperatures.
Related: Oil Traders Turn Bears Fast and Furiously

As with OPEC, this is not happening. Exxon and Chevron, two of the world's biggest oil companies, recently announced higher capital spending plans for 2024, with most of the additional spending going into upstream activities, which usually translates as higher production.

Shell, BP, and Total have also signaled they have pretty ambitious plans for their core business, even as they invest increasingly in alternative energy such as wind and solar.

This has not made transition advocates happy. One of the most prominent of these, the International Energy Agency's head, Fatih Birol, has called repeatedly on the industry to go all in on the transition and start making plans to wind down oil and gas. This is happening as the IEA estimates that oil demand is going to hit a record this year and continue growing over the next few years as well. It then expects a peak around 2027, but many disagree.

One of them is Bloomberg's columnist Javier Blas who wrote in a recent piece that it was essentially silly to call on Big Oil to embrace the transition at the expense of its usual business. Citing Birol's calls for a change, Blas pointed out two areas that Big Oil was being targeted in and the fact that in only one of these areas did it make sense for Big Oil to work harder: reducing methane emissions. Blas suggests a stick-and-carrot approach by governments in that respect to motivate more investments.

It would be easy to extend the approach to investments in wind and solar, and EV charging, but, according to Blas, this is a different case because "Where to invest depends on the profit." It seems a lot of transition advocates have consistently failed to grasp this fact, hence the calls for Big Oil to stop being Big Oil and for oil-producing nations to embrace the shift that would alter their economies and quite likely damage them significantly.

Several Big Oil majors went down that road a few years ago. The most notable case was BP under Bernard Looney, which made massive low-carbon energy commitments and even started working on them. Just a couple of years in, a bit before his ousting, Looney admitted that the attempt at diversifying into low-carbon energy had fallen short of expectations in the return department. As a result, BP was refocusing on its core business, with a special emphasis on gas.

Right now, delegates at COP28 have scrambled to get everyone to agree to a text that might include the words "reducing both consumption and production of fossil fuels, in a just, orderly and equitable manner so as to achieve net zero by, before, or around 2050".

Many want to make the text as obligatory as possible for every country that signs it. Others didn't even want the words "fossil fuels" in there. The former appears to ignore the fact that committing to a reduction in the consumption of oil and gas is all very well on paper, but in reality, things stand very differently.

One look at Germany is enough evidence. Europe's most ambitious wind and solar builder has boosted coal power generation because it needs energy and no longer has nuclear power plants to generate it from. Despite wind and solar. Similar examples abound all over the world, with China being also notable for its "All of the above" approach towards energy sources.

Whatever COP28 delegates come up with in the end, oil and gas demand is going nowhere anytime soon unless, of course, governments bite the bullet and mandate lower energy consumption. It might sound far-fetched and risky today, but it is not out of the question.

If reducing emissions from oil and gas consumption is your priority number-one, then all measures, including mandating consumption cuts are allowed. Or perhaps there may come a time when priorities get rearranged, as they did last year in Europe.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com»


https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/A-Big-Oil-Reality-Check-for-the-Energy-Transition.html

[I. I. Kaspov]

O carvão regressa... quando o frio aperta...   


«Alemanha volta a abrir centrais a carvão mas não descura a transição energética»


«O governo alemão reafirmou o seu compromisso com a transição energética e diz que está no caminho certo para eliminar emissões de gases de efeito de estufa, apesar da reabertura temporária das centrais de carvão, especialmente as centrais de lenhite. Em 2023, aproximadamente 60% da energia produzida no país é proveniente de fontes renováveis.

Uma entrevista chocante! Manuel Luís Goucha abandona a televisão
Uma entrevista chocante! Manuel Luís Goucha abandona a televisão
Pub
Another Town
Para os especialistas, a decisão do governo é a correta desde que seja mesmo uma solução a curto prazo. “A Alemanha está num bom caminho quando se trata de fornecer energia a partir de fontes renováveis. Estou certo de que estas centrais de lenhite serão encerradas e desativadas para sempre a partir de março. Aliás, qualquer outra abordagem não seria razoável, para além de que legalmente não poderia ser aprovada”, defende Karsten Smid, da Greenpeace Alemenha.

Rene Schuster, perito ambiental da Grune Liga, destaca os impactos negativos na qualidade da água causados pela exploração mineira, salientando a necessidade urgente de reabilitar essas áreas: a localidade de Horno, um dos municípios do estado alemão de Brandemburgo, tinha 300 habitantes. Quando a exploração de lenhite teve início, toda a área teve de ser evacuada devido à poluição atmosférica.

(...)

O antigo autarca de Horno, Bernd Siegert, defende que, depois das dificuldades a que assistiu no município, é necessário encerrar definitivamente as centrais de lenhite. “Imagine-se um camião das mudanças. Arruma tudo e depois vai embora. Passados uns dias, quando regressa, tudo o que resta daquela casa são apenas ruínas. Foi tudo pelo ar. Só restam cinzas”, compara o ex-autarca.

A perspetiva do governo alemão é encerrar as centrais de lenhite até março de 2024.

Recorde-se que, desde a invasão da Ucrânia pela Rússia, a Alemanha, tal como outros países europeus, tem procurado soluções para reduzir a dependência do gás russo e explorar alternativas mais sustentáveis. O acordo recentemente alcançado na COP28 prevê que as nações abandonem os combustíveis fósseis e tripliquem as suas fontes de energia renovável

Em vista com a COP28, 200 países, incluindo a Alemanha, concordaram em deixar de utilizar os combustíveis fósseis e, até 2030, todos os países deverão triplicar as suas fontes de energia renovável.»


https://www.msn.com/pt-pt/noticias/mundo/alemanha-volta-a-abrir-centrais-a-carv%C3%A3o-mas-n%C3%A3o-descura-a-transi%C3%A7%C3%A3o-energ%C3%A9tica/ar-AA1lUpCN?ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=205711581ebe45f79751c174c0af5f7a&ei=12

[AI Operator]

O carvão regressa... quando o frio aperta...   

E isso é bom ou mau?