We don't need more fossil fuels
In the Middle East, leave all coal and most gas in the ground.
In Canada, abandon the dirty oil.
Exploration for new fossil fuel deposits should stop now, because we have already discovered far more than we can safely burn. That means no fracking, no oil rigs in the Arctic, no tar sands. It also means no investment in fossil fuel companies as long as they continue to use their profits to “drill, baby, drill” — finding yet more carbon that, once discovered, must be left in the ground.
Most politicians around the world, on the advice of nearly every climate scientist in the world, have agreed that we need to put the brakes on global warming and that we can do that by severely reducing carbon emissions. But most politicians have not yet followed through on the logic of that decision. In fact, we have already discovered so much coal, oil, and gas that we must leave 75 to 80 percent of it unrecovered, unsold, and unburned. It should therefore be obvious that we do not need to find any more fossil fuels, and all such exploration should immediately cease.
Who will leave it in the ground?
Politicians’ motivations, however, are muddled. What is good for the world in the long term may not be good, say, for China right now. It’s expensive, or inconvenient, or simply unfair to developing countries for them to make up for the West’s profligate carbon burning. Xi Jinping has pledged that China’s carbon emissions will peak in 2030, but in the meantime more coal plants are built and more gasoline cars sold. Even here in California, where we like to think of ourselves as climate leaders, the message is mixed. Governor Jerry Brown calls for increasing use of renewables in the state to 50 percent by 2030, up from the previous goal of 33 percent, but he continues to support fracking for oil in the Central Valley.
The motivations are muddled, in part, because it’s not clear exactly who should give up what. What percentage of those unused fossil fuel assets will be stranded in China versus California? How much will be subtracted from Shell’s bottom line versus ExxonMobil’s? There are no clear guidelines, and altruism is in short supply. But that 75 to 80 percent we leave in the ground must somehow be allocated in a way that still targets a global temperature rise under 2° Celsius.
Here’s a framework
A new research paper in this week’s issue of Nature provides a a glimmer of hope for solving this difficult problem. Christophe McGlade and Paul Ekins of the Institute for Sustainable Resources, University College London, estimate the quantities and locations of the world’s oil, gas, and coal reserves and then explore the implications of this emissions limit for fossil fuel production in different regions. They conclude that some fuels, from some geographical areas, can be unearthed with greater safety and economic efficiency than others.
Their conclusions are sometimes surprising. Most current oil reserves, they say, could be burned without danger. But only 20 percent of coal reserves fall in that category:
Our results suggest that, globally, a third of oil reserves, half of gas reserves and over 80 per cent of current coal reserves should remain unused from 2010 to 2050 in order to meet the target of 2°C. We show that development of resources in the Arctic and any increase in unconventional oil production are incommensurate with efforts to limit average global warming to 2°C.
But no more exploration!
All further exploration, especially with fracking and tar sands — or in difficult environments like the Arctic — should cease. And anyone who doubts the scientists’ wariness about fossil fuels in the Arctic need only read about the harrowing adventures of Shell’s feckless and ill-fated attempts to drill for oil in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. That series of disasters and near disasters will change your mind.
The continued plunge in oil prices, fortunately, will make many of these risky exploration projects uneconomical. A barrel of oil now sells for less than $50 on the world market, and almost all Canadian oil sands, for example, require a $95 price to make money. Since the Keystone XL pipeline has been designed to carry this Canadian oil to market, it too is uneconomical and should not be built.
This ground-breaking research has powerful implications for the climate talks in Paris next December. Every country will bring its own plan for combatting climate change, and these data can provide a framework for what kind of changes should occur and when. McGlade and Ekins recognize the political complications, but their conclusion is inescapable:
Our results show that policy makers’ instincts to exploit rapidly and completely their territorial fossil fuels are, in aggregate, inconsistent with their commitments to this [2°C] temperature limit. Implementation of this policy commitment would also render unnecessary continued substantial expenditure on fossil fuel exploration, because any new discoveries could not lead to increased aggregate production.
No more exploration for fossil fuels. That’s the message for fossil fuel companies and for politicians worldwide.
And as long as they refuse to heed this warning, no more investment in fossil fuel companies. That’s the message for CalPERS and CalSTRS and all the rest of us.