Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Earth Government

Report: 'Carbon Bombs' Are Poised To Screw Us Over Big Time (gizmodo.com) 269

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo: Oil and gas companies are gearing up to invest in so many new projects that they'll blow away potential progress to mitigate emissions and stop worst-case climate scenarios, says a new investigation from the Guardian. Why describe them as bombs? If completed, these projects would push climate change well past the 1.5-degree Celsius warming target that the Paris Agreement has set for the world. These projects would literally blow through our carbon budget, the Guardian reports.

But how will this be financed? Oil prices are currently sky high at the pump, and the two largest petroleum companies in the U.S. -- Chevron and ExxonMobil -- have raked in record profits. That means that large fossil fuel companies can bet on expansion projects that could dish even bigger payouts, the Guardian found. [...] The Guardian's investigation found that about 60% of these projects are already pumping, and Canada, Australia, and the U.S. are among the nations with the biggest fossil fuel project expansion plans. The commitment to these projects is pretty clear. Large companies, including Shell, Chevron, BP, PetroChina, and Total Energies, are set to spend over $100 million a day for the rest of this decade on creating projects in new oil and gas fields. This is despite the fact that we might be on track to meet 1.5 degrees of warming in the next four years.
In an editorial follow-up to their investigation, the Guardian says "governments much find ways to promote the long-term health of the planet over short-term profit." They added: "There is no alternative but to force companies to write off the most dangerous investments."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Report: 'Carbon Bombs' Are Poised To Screw Us Over Big Time

Comments Filter:
  • by Tony Isaac ( 1301187 ) on Thursday May 12, 2022 @10:39PM (#62528340) Homepage

    First we had "bomb cyclones" which was neither bomb-like nor a cyclone, just a big winter storm. Now we have a "carbon bomb" which isn't even a sudden surge of oil and gas projects, just business as usual for oil companies.

    Regardless of how one feels about fossil fuels, the over-use of the word "bomb" as an attention-getting linguistic device will have diminishing returns.

    • by Klaxton ( 609696 )

      "Why describe them as bombs? If completed, these projects would push climate change well past the 1.5-degree Celsius warming target"

      Seems appropriate to me.

      • by Roger W Moore ( 538166 ) on Friday May 13, 2022 @02:46AM (#62528682) Journal

        Seems appropriate to me.

        Why? Nothing has exploded or even changed rapidly. All this article is saying is that if all the reserves tapped by all the projects slated are fully extracted then we will likely exceed the 1.5C increase goal. However, if we are successful in reducing fossil fuel use then not all of the reserves in these projects will be extracted or at least they will be extracted over a much longer period than the article assumes.

        The article's basic premise is wrong: the problem is not that oil companies are supplying our demand for oil it is that we have too much demand for oil. If we reduce our demand then the oil companies will naturally scale back projects and leave resources in the ground.

        • "the problem is not that oil companies are supplying our demand for oil it is that we have too much demand for oil"

          Very much this. Oil and gas companies are bound to provide rising supply in response to rising demand. If they don't meet demand the result is energy shortages and rising energy prices that will affect poorer countries and lower income households first.

          The demand for energy will rise in the foreseeable future, so the only solution is to de-incentivize energy sources that use oil and gas, and in

      • By that logic the previous decade of oil development has also been a "bomb", and the decade before that, and so on. It's all cumulative, given that the atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is hundreds of years. This "bomb" is just the latest contributor during a time when we pass a threshold that we've defined as bad.

    • The headline is sentient.

    • @Tony > First we had "bomb cyclones" which was neither bomb-like nor a cyclone, just a big winter storm. Now we have a "carbon bomb" which isn't even a sudden surge of oil and gas projects, just business as usual for oil companies.

      Seems you have not heard of the carbon "budget" of the atmosphere - just another of those pesky feed back loops.
      The bomb is the fossil fuel project pushes things into the red as it were.. but then you don't really see a problem, do you?

      https://public.wmo.int/en/reso... [wmo.int]
      • pushes things into the red as it were

        Now that's an analogy that fits. When the temperature needle on your car gets into the red, your car is in serious trouble. It could literally destroy your engine. But no one would describe that situation as "bomb-like."

    • oh, those big winter storms are most definitely cyclones. just not warm-core tropical ones i.e. hurricanes. they're cold core baroclinic cyclones.

  • by mi ( 197448 ) <slashdot-2017q4@virtual-estates.net> on Thursday May 12, 2022 @10:53PM (#62528372) Homepage Journal

    The less oil the West produces, the more oil they have to buy from Russia and similar regimes. Whether those regimes actually paid the Guardian (as the makers of "Promised Land" were [businessinsider.com]), or whether the useful idiots are doing it for free, is not even all that important...

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 )
      Putin isn't doing anything but dying of liver cancer. The Russian oligarchs are freaking out at the prospect of us switching over to wind and solar and making Russia's economy implode. 30% of their economy is dependent on oil and gas and that's going to go away soon. One way or the other. Are there global warming is going to cause our civilization to collapse because we won't be able to maintain enough food production to prevent the massive wars and strife that are coming and will kill ourselves back to the
    • We don't have to do anything. The level of consumption in the west can be massively reduced. It would be painful, but it wouldn't require anyone to starve.

      The transition as planned can only be implemented with a warlike mentality, war is fought with central planning and high selective inflation not with business as usual global capitalism.

    • The less oil the West produces, the more oil they have to buy from Russia and similar regimes.

      You could just use less oil instead.
      Take the power away from all such regimes.

      The high prices will incentivise alternatives.

  • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Thursday May 12, 2022 @11:09PM (#62528398)
    is "Externalized Cost".
  • suicide (Score:3, Informative)

    by blackomegax ( 807080 ) on Thursday May 12, 2022 @11:11PM (#62528414) Journal
    Humanity, is at its' core, a suicidal species.
  • These projects don't actually burn the fuel though.

    stop blaming hte oil companies for things they arent doing.

  • by bb_matt ( 5705262 ) on Friday May 13, 2022 @12:04AM (#62528498)

    This is somewhat of an "over the top" article by the Guardian with a click-bait title.

    I mean, what did they actually think the oil companies were going to do in the next decade, turn off the money faucets?
    These are the same damn companies who covered up papers written by their own science bods - you know, that 40 years or more back, they knew where we were headed.
    And you expect them to now "fess up" and starting turning off the faucet?

    Furthermore, you expect governments to crack down on them and say "no, you can't do that" - well, we can only wish that would be the case.
    I think we all know it isn't going to be the case. These companies hold the levers of power globally. They are deeply embedded into governments worldwide.
    FFS, just look at Gazprom - what more do you need to understand here?

    So, what is the solution?

    I don't think there is one. We're fucked, it's just the time scale of that fuckery that is at question.

  • by GotNoRice ( 7207988 ) on Friday May 13, 2022 @12:21AM (#62528520)
    The real "Carbon Bomb" is China, because they will easily offset all gains made by the west with their increased pollution. The Chinese are still building new Coal power-plants as fast as they can, which by-far generates the most pollution of any type of power-plant. They care as much about pollution treaties as they care about democracy in Hong Kong. It's all the same planet. Why is no one talking about China in any of these articles and making this seem like it's just a western problem? Remember how bad smog was in many US cities 30-40 years ago? It got better because the tech got better (catalytic converters, etc). Meanwhile countless cities in China, India, and all over Asia have worse pollution now than what Los Angeles ever had, because there has been recent massive proliferation of small motor-scooters that use primitive motor designs that generate considerable pollution (more than a full-sized American car in most cases). And want to talk about the "great pacific garbage patch"? In many parts of Asia it's still customary to simply dump your trash into the local river (that flows out to the ocean). And people think that the "great pacific garbage patch" comes from plastic straws blown into the water from the beaches of southern California?
    • China? WTF! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by bussdriver ( 620565 )

      Lets do NOTHING because China!
      Humans are so idiotic they let people get away with that; serves them right...

      FACT: China makes everybody's shit and 1 reason we outsourced to them is the lack of regulations saved money, it's not actually all their pollution. The globalist race to the bottom is a big part of this. Freemarket religious cultists have been in charge.

      • by Budenny ( 888916 )

        You say: "Lets do NOTHING because China!"

        This is not the argument at all. The argument is, don't try to do things which are completely ineffective. The argument is, if you are on the Titanic, and water is coming in, don't equip the passengers with teacups and tell them to start bailing.

        It is not going to help.

        The reason the measures currently proposed are ineffective is largely China. China is after all producing and burning more coal than the rest of the world put together. Its boycotted COP26. Its e

        • by mccalli ( 323026 )
          "It has no idea how to meet the consequent need for storage to deal with intermittency. Its not going to happen."

          As someone in the UK who follows this quite closely...that's utter bullshit. The National Grid has indeed got those plans, and is not concerned about the transition to electric. I actually agree with quite a lot of what you wrote, but on the supposed inability of the UK to transition - UK is actually quite far ahead of most places in this, politicians or no politicians.

          Germany, of course, h
          • by Budenny ( 888916 )

            If this is correct, the National Grid really having those plans, can you give a reference stating how much storage and of what kind is going to be required and deployed?

            The country, if going to the Climate Change Committee projections, would need at least two weeks worth of usage in storage.

            That will be increased usage, from EVs and heat pumps.

            Lets say its about 40GW average in 2030. What are the plans for supplying that kind of power continuously, or storing to meet that kind of demand, for the inevitable

            • by mccalli ( 323026 )
              Certainly - here [nationalgrideso.com] is a good starting source. First off, understand that the energy required is less than previous peak electricity generation, which hit in the 70s. There's useful information around this here [service.gov.uk].

              We also have the head of the national grid saying for some time now that 'baseload' in general not quite as valid an idea as it used to be. I would suggest listening to an interview with National Grid's head here [fullycharged.show]. Basically, the Grid understands there is change required and investment required, but t
              • by Budenny ( 888916 )

                Well. I looked at the NG document and came on this, and am not persuaded:

                "Despite a huge increase in electricity storage capacity in the net zero scenarios, the energy it stores is dwarfed by that of hydrogen storage. In 2050 the capacity of electricity storage (excluding V2G) in each scenario represents 1.1%, 1.3% and 0.2% of the hydrogen storage capacities in Leading the Way, Consumer Transformation and System Transformation respectively (15 TWh, 12 TWh and 51 TWh). In Steady Progression we assume that n

              • by Budenny ( 888916 )

                I think what will happen in the UK is this. Either they will go renewable as planned. In that case they will have to drop heat pumps and EVs. And install huge amounts of batteries, or fudge it by huge amounts of natural gas backup.

                Or they will go ahead with the heat pumps and EVs, in which case they will have to stay with conventional, in fact build out more.

                What they are planning at the moment, to double demand and make supply unreliable, with a vague invocation of hydrogen in 2050, that's not going to

        • "Lets do NOTHING because China!" is totally one of the arguments; simplified.
          See WhatAboutism (a Russian invention BTW, extremely popular over at Fox News.)

          If you regulated commerce better, you'd not allow externalization and exploitation to circumvent local regulations. Ban slaves and slave labor but outsource to slaves outside jurisdiction (call them "reeducation camps") and outside oversight (plausible deniability.)

          If you require Chinese sourced products to adhere to your local laws or get banned that

    • Because is still a developing nation they get some extra permission for quick energy.
      Better would we supply the Chinese cities with square miles of solar panels to help them develop, but that is apparently too much to ask.
  • I agree that we need to stop using fossil fuels and that oil and gas companies must be deterred from massively expanding their operations.

    But that's why you pass laws making such investments less profitable, e.g., carbon taxes. *Anything* you do to stop new oil and gas exploration will raise the price so it's not like there is a choice here that doesn't impose greater costs on consumers.

    What you don't do is leave it perfectly legal and inexpensive (on paper) to develop oil and gas mines, refuse to do anything serious to decrease usage (eg carbon tax) and then turn around and target the investments oil companies make as if they were engaged in some disgusting awful and immoral activity. Not to mention the moral hazard involved in having governments decide on an ad hoc basis what investments they want to publish.

    A drug user who won't take steps to stop buying drugs doesn't really have any right to complain about the fact that their dealer keeps buying them from his supplier.

    • Or even better, have a carbon allowance. Each citizen gets a per-capita monthly carbon allowance to spend. They can either use it to buy fuel for their car, flights etc, or they can sell it to those who want to use more carbon.

      Of course since this implies some kind of collective ownership of the 'resource' that is the climate, it will be shot down as communism and incompatible with the western ideals of having the freedom to blast around as much as you want in a private jet if you have the right parents.

      • That solution would end up being worse for everyone and unworkable. I appreciate the sentiment but we can do better. Simply take the money from the carbon tax and give it to those with less money.

        If the issue is inequality, address it directly by giving money to those with less of it.

        The individual carbon allowance idea won't really work since:

        1) Some people need more carbon than others. Someone who lives in the midwest and has to heat and cool an old house as well as drive to work simply can't live on t

      • They already did this. That is why there is a global "emissions trade" in, basically, corruption. The big polluters got emission rights for free, and smaller companies are taxes instead of them.
  • With Russia, a key producer of energy products like natural gas and oil, being sanctioned, is this just going to replace their supply capacity, therefore reduce the world's dependence on Russian energy? Or is this intended to increase the supply beyond just Russia's supply capacity replacement, but if so, won't that push the price down below what they were before the Russian sanctions (adjusted for inflation of course)?
  • https://phys.org/news/2022-05-... [phys.org]

    They don't believe it, they are not going to reduce, they are positively planning on increasing. Like China.

  • It's really about time to introduce Carbon Takeback Obligations.

    The irony is that they won't even hurt the fossil companies...

    https://carbontakeback.org/abo... [carbontakeback.org]

  • by Canberra1 ( 3475749 ) on Friday May 13, 2022 @07:09AM (#62529096)
    Solar works a treat during daytime, viability confirmed. Wind is iffy, and relies on bigger subsidies than solar. Even after Fukishima, Nuclear is the only way forward. But it takes years and years to build, 10 years of running just to pay the carbon build cost, and little for decommissioning, let alone non-subsidized insurance. It will be interesting to see what Germany decides on, although they can cheat by buying French nuclear power. It seems the friendly oil exporters can't be trusted not to cook the economic goose.
  • To summarize, The Guardian is reporting that their "investigation" has revealed that oil and gas producers have multiple projects in the works to produce oil and gas. They do it well and we need them to do it to meet both our current and future global energy and petrochemical needs.

    Since this would normally elicit a yawn The Guardian has chosen to call it a "Carbon Bomb" to work up the anxiety ridden.

    I think we need an investigation on the causes of the "Anxiety Bomb" that has led to a massive increase in

  • 1. Gas prices are high
    2. Posting record profits
    3. People are suffering at the pump because of the high prices
    4. Solution ... lower gas prices and return profits to something more normal so inflation that is affected by gas prices goes down?

    Am i missing something? Or is this just a "Yay. Go Capitalism ... " moment?

  • First off, this is worthless study. It obviously assumes that other oil supplies remain the same. However, the west is not buying from Russia and it will drop fast. For now, they are dumping on the globe, but they can not afford that. So, these companies are simply going to take over what Russia provided.

    Secondly, the far lefties, namely the goon squad and the rest of their ilk, push taxes on O&G, but are doing it at American wellhead. That is about as stupid as you can.get. it simply discourages dri
  • by WaffleMonster ( 969671 ) on Friday May 13, 2022 @09:16AM (#62529490)

    Environmentalists with no coherent plan for energy demand and no solutions other than take away and "no pain no gain" are shooting themselves in the foot. All of the open ended demands for OTHERS to make fundamental changes to their lives because you say so will not only never work they will only backfire.

    This is a very good strategy if your goal is to alienate people and ensure there will not only never be consensus for constructive solutions but to expect a large group of people who will actively work against anything constructive and even seek out dirty fuel and energy inefficiency on purpose because now you have effectively declared war on them. A BEV? Not just no but would not be caught dead with one and lets go coal rolling just to spit in the face of people who do.

    Neither is crying to government the answer. Governance by consent only allows for the beating down of outliers not overriding sentiments shared by a substantial proportion of the population. All pretending otherwise does is promote illegitimacy. Despite all the virtue signaling and wishful thinking to the contrary humanity is inherently selfish. The degree to which people care about others depends entirely upon the degree to which charity negatively affects themselves.

    Energy companies would not be investing in more dirty energy if they didn't see a return on investment. They are entirely soulless creatures of the markets who respond to demand. If they didn't see a profitable future in it they would not be making capital expenditures on hydrocarbon extraction. They would either shift to whatever is profitable or die like the coal industry.

    What if instead all the Gretas of the world traded in their big mouths for STEM educations and worked on ways to lower the cost of energy storage by an order of magnitude? What if instead of attacking cheap energy people worked on new ways to better and more cheaply meet demand? Instead of making it about austerity and pain vs "saving the planet" why not direct the energy to provisioning what is needed?

    A hydrocarbon free future means not simply meeting existing energy demand but dramatically exceeding it. The vast majority of new energy is already green energy. This isn't because of environmentalists it's because green energy has the least cost.

    To quote Greta "blah blah blah" the US government despite all political talk and environmentalism can't even bring itself to end tens of billions of taxpayer dollars yearly funneled into subsidies for hydrocarbon extraction. If people were smart shit like this would be their political targets not making new enemies by telling everyone to get over accepting a lower standard of living which is effectively what happens when you intentionally throw a wrench in production.

Lisp Users: Due to the holiday next Monday, there will be no garbage collection.

Working...