Robert Soutar’s Post

A report launched today by the Independent High-Level Expert Group on Climate Finance points out that negotiators at #COP29 need to mobilize at least $1 trillion per year by 2030 for #DevelopingCountries to cope with #ClimateChange. While countries are fighting over how to raise the resources needed, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism revealed that global banks that have committed to net zero have poured, since May 2021, almost $1 trillion into companies pursuing expansion of oil and gas projects. Together, these projects would produce almost seven times the annual emissions of the US. Read more: https://lnkd.in/edg7-CJc

‘Net-zero’ banks raised $1 trillion for fossil fuel giants Less than a hundred miles from where world leaders are discussing how to meet their climate pledges, BP is drilling for gas. The Shafag-Asiman project, a sprawling gas field off the Azerbaijani coast, could inject more than 1 billion metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere, striking a major blow to efforts to slow global warming. BP has said it intends to invest heavily in new oil and gas fields in the coming years. But it would be unable to pursue these dirty projects without billions in support from big banks. Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells Fargo, along with a number of other banks, all helped BP raise more than $5 billion last year. Banks will be in focus at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, as world leaders discuss how to raise hundreds of billions of dollars for countries suffering the effects of climate change.  Although talks are unlikely to address their continued support for dirty energy, more than 140 banks worldwide have pledged to cut emissions associated with their lending and investments to almost zero by 2050. ‘We may have less to offer’: US negotiators confront diminished standing at COP29 Jake Bittle In May 2021, the International Energy Agency, the global body coordinating countries’ energy policies, sounded the alarm. Any new oil and gas developments would make it inevitable that temperatures would rise by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius. In other words, they would devastate the planet. Meanwhile, at BP’s Shafag-Asiman field, engineers were celebrating after finding fossil gas several thousand meters under the seabed. And the bankers were preparing to raise billions more for BP.   That’s not all. Since May 2021, global banks that have committed to net-zero have poured almost $1 trillion into companies pursuing expansion of oil and gas projects that would push the world beyond its survivable limits. Taken together, these projects would produce almost seven times the annual emissions of the U.S., according to an analysis by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, or TBIJ. “It’s indefensible,” said John Lang, founder of the Net Zero Tracker that evaluates big companies’ net-zero plans. “There’s no way we can meet the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement if we continue financing the exploration of oil and gas.”  He said banks with net-zero commitments covering direct and indirect emissions could not fund oil and gas expansion. “It’s greenwashing, plain and simple.”

the ongoing negotiations for climate finance will likely to continue even after the end of COP29, as parties are now increasingly worried about the lack of sufficient funding to reduce or mititate the effects of passing the 1.5C redline. the World Resources Institute (WRI) points towards three main take-aways or objectives that negotiators will need to achieve prior to COP29's session close. (in particular LDCs and SIDS). > https://lnkd.in/gdsxeXk4 this means that UN Article 6 will now play a pivotal role, alongside various rules and framework harmonization of all of the existing voluntary carbon markets (VCMs) for securing Scope II, III emissions compliance in developed nations while balancing the need for tangible ROI for deployment of private credit. > https://lnkd.in/g2F6Wavy the perennial question of carbon permanence is addressed in the latest round of agreed regulation from within the European Union > https://lnkd.in/d-spYzJT exactly how the mechanism for liability accounting will be one of the most crucial aspect of how project insurance and private-public capital partnerships in thousands of potential carbon capture, sequestration and storage sites around the world will be evaluated. (clarity will hopefully occur before the EU registry is set to be operational in the next four years...) by looking at the commentary from the WRI, where the anticipated target of capital in excess of US$1 trillion is to be eventually pledged (this time with tangible possibilities due to Article 6), return on capital and the opportunity cost of cash deployed otherwise (such as in fossil LNG, renewables-led electrification , renewables efuels across the upstream and downstream storage and blending sectors) becomes the singular factor that has to be pitted against carbon instrument issuance risk. #carboncredits #future #energy #money

Alarmism is multi-trillion dollar business model with government subsides 🤔 Calls are growing louder for a major rethink to scale up climate finance for developing countries. New financial arrangements are needed to raise funds, and more forceful moves are required to push finance in the right direction, including an end to fossil fuel financing, argued experts at London Climate Week. Tim Gould, chief energy economist at the International Energy Agency (IEA), laid out the challenge at a climate politics forum organized by think tank E3G: “We are not yet in a world that is transitioning away from oil and gas,” he said, pointing to the IEA’s view that oil demand is probably going to increase by around 1 million barrels per day this year. By 2030, the IEA expects oil demand will reach around 106 million b/d, including biofuels, and decline thereafter. For the world to achieve the 1.5°C climate goal, that decline would need to be very steep, with oil demand falling to around 25 million b/d by 2050, almost all of which would be non-combustion uses, Gould said.

As COP29 sets global standards for carbon credit markets, critics argue that carbon credits’ dual goals of reducing emissions and funding the transition clash. Demand for credits drops with emissions, impacting revenue potential. #COP29 #CarbonCredits

Perfect timing! The environmental lobby need to go back to the drawing board. They attacked the purchasing power and freedom of their supporters, like the climate those original supporters of their cause quickly changed. ESG was highjacked by religious warriors focusing on the E, forgetting there’s a G and an S, lacking science, lacking maths and business sense, without thinking of Social benefit and good governance. The general populous want win wins! Balanced ESG. An example of this was I was offered solar panels on my house, there was no economic benefit to me, it was a disguised high interest loan for 25K and a poor deal of me selling electricity into the grid at a fixed price whilst the Electricity co sold me power at three times the rate at a variable rate, and tied me to paying off panels for 25 years whilst those panels also degraded over 25 years. A complete con and poor deal where I lose. The ESG lobby need to put the S and G first! #Shell #Oil #Solar #Greenpeace

Carbon Bombs The Hidden Cost of Carbon Bombs: Is Your Bank Financing Climate Catastrophe? A carbon bomb is a fossil fuel extraction project that will generate more than one gigatonne of carbon dioxide (1GtCO2) over its remaining life. Despite the global commitment to net zero by 2050, banks are still financing 425 carbon bombs worldwide, with a projected output of 1,180 GtCO2 over their lifetime. Shockingly, these projects account for just 45% of global oil and gas extraction and only 25% for coal. To put this into perspective, the total spending on these carbon bombs is a staggering $1.8 trillion USD—equivalent to the GDP of the 16 most climate-vulnerable countries combined. Meanwhile, our remaining carbon budget as of 2023 is only 400-500 GtCO2, and these projects alone would more than double that limit. Even more concerning is that the world's largest climate fund, the Green Climate Fund, has raised less than 1% of the funds allocated to these carbon bombs. So, which institution are you banking with? And what exactly are they financing?

📌 Fossil oil and gas companies must also contribute to climate finance for the most vulnerable countries. Only in this way will it be possible to mobilize enough resources to make the Loss and Damage Mechanism effective, to focus the new global goals on adaptation and raise the bar of climate finance post-2025. This is the position with which the European Union wants to sit at the table of the COP29 negotiations in Baku next November. A Cop, the one in Azerbaijan, which will be played on the theme of climate finance. Progress on this front so far has been limited at recent climate summits.  Last year, Cop28 managed to set up the Loss & Damage fund, but for now it is an empty shell with no resources or targets. In Baku it will be necessary to give it body – that is, funds – to make it operational. And it was precisely the tug-of-war on climate finance that led to the stalling of negotiations on the Global Goal on Adaptation and the post-2025 climate finance framework in the last 2 years. #SENnews #environmnent #globalwarming #greeneconomy #solar #eolic #energy #greenenergy #solarenergy #windenergy #sustainable #sustainabledevelopment

UK Banks still lending to oil and gas giant BP – despite climate pledges A joint investigation from Channel 4 News and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism has found that the UK bank NatWest is continuing to lend to the oil and gas company BP, despite having led the way on net zero banking with a public pledge to only work with companies that have plans that align with the Paris Climate Agreement. Critics say BP does not. UK banks are continuing to help oil and gas companies borrow money, potentially jeopardising their own climate commitments, Channel 4 News and The Bureau for Investigative Journalism can reveal. One of those revealed to be helping provide cash for oil and gas giant bp is NatWest, which was the lead sponsor of COP26 in Glasgow in 2021. It’s a major investor in renewable energy and says that fossil fuels are a small part of its projects. Since 2021 it has promised to not lend to oil and gas companies unless they have a “credible transition plan” in line with the 2015 Paris Agreement, which pledged to keep global temperature rises below 1.5 degrees celsius. The International Energy Agency has warned that the goals of the Paris agreement are incompatible with development of new oil and gas projects. #COP29 #ESG #Sustainability #Globalwarming #oilmajors https://lnkd.in/ehQXwVsZ

Today, together Laurie van der Burg and I published an oped in the Financial Times responding to the COP29 Azerbaijan new fund - below the link and our main points: 1️⃣ The fund provides only a drop in the ocean and is a green washing tool for the fossil fuel industry. 2️⃣ No big oil and gas company is pledging to do even the bare minimum to prevent climate chaos, making a mockery of any money committed through Azerbaijan’s fund. 3️⃣ A quantum leap in climate finance is achievable. Rich countries can mobilise more than $3tn annually by shifting public money away from fossil fuels, taxing the fossil fuel industry, and changing unfair global finance rules. Just look at how governments managed to mobilise $16tn in Covid stimulus in the first year of the pandemic. We have enough public money for a full, fair and funded fossil fuel phaseout and a renewable economy. What is lacking is political courage. https://lnkd.in/eKeigMTS