US Behind More Than a Third of Global Oil and Gas Expansion Plans, Report Finds (theguardian.com) 107
An anonymous reader shares a report: The US accounts for more than a third of the expansion of global oil and gas production planned by mid-century, despite its claims of climate leadership, research has found. Canada and Russia have the next biggest expansion plans, calculated based on how much carbon dioxide is likely to be produced from new developments, followed by Iran, China and Brazil. The United Arab Emirates, which is to host the annual UN climate summit this year, Cop28 in Dubai in November, is seventh on the list.
The data, in a report from the campaign group Oil Change International, also showed that five "global north countries" -- the US, Canada, Australia, Norway and the UK -- will be responsible for just over half of all the planned expansion from new oil and gas fields to 2050. Greenhouse gas emissions from all of the oil and gas expansion that is planned in the next three decades would be more than enough to drive global temperatures well beyond the limit of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels that countries agreed in 2021 at Cop26 in Glasgow, the report found.
The data, in a report from the campaign group Oil Change International, also showed that five "global north countries" -- the US, Canada, Australia, Norway and the UK -- will be responsible for just over half of all the planned expansion from new oil and gas fields to 2050. Greenhouse gas emissions from all of the oil and gas expansion that is planned in the next three decades would be more than enough to drive global temperatures well beyond the limit of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels that countries agreed in 2021 at Cop26 in Glasgow, the report found.
Re: (Score:3)
One gets the impression that the "expansion plans" are moving forward despite him.
despite him? (Score:1)
One gets the impression that every plan is moving forward because of him.
Think geriatric abuse. "Sign here, dad. Mom needs her meds to be paid." "Oh good call, Billy, I mean Hunter"
The sooner we flush the old folks home out of Washington, the sooner we'll have younger looking faces that more align to the manipulative fucks that are causing all the problems - or, perhaps, representatives that aren't so damned complacent as to just take directions from their aides - we'll see. Either way, the current situatio
Re: (Score:1)
While the man is clearly not able to hold office any longer, it doesn't seem likely that any of his handlers are interested in enabling domestic petroleum production. Here's a recent example:
https://www.reuters.com/world/... [reuters.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That's because he's not taking credit publicly like Obama did... but he's still making decisions that are pro-oil. They are disguised by some bullshit didn't-want-to-develop-those-deposits anyway "anti-oil" decisions. Show me the administration opposing fracking (they have approved thousands [foodandwaterwatch.org] of permits which will lead to more of it) and I'll take that assessment seriously.
not intended to feed the troll (Score:2)
Biden was always a neoliberal. As in, "Having or showing belief in the need for economic growth in addition to traditional liberalistic values."
I don't get why the myth that Dems are some far-left party. They're very big into western style welfare capitalism, not unlike the GOP of 50 years ago. Mostly the left-right dichotomy is just a trap, at least when it comes to understanding American politics. As if a single axis is a sufficient metric, let alone a binary this-or-that categorization of political polic
Well (Score:3, Interesting)
Anthracite coal?
Or natural gas?
Anthracite coal?
Or controlled oil production?
While India, China, and the third world are burning peak coal from any source or worse, just openly burning and not only dumping CO2, but ash and other particulates into the environment?
Re: (Score:1)
"The US [first] ... Canada and Russia have the next ... followed by Iran, China and Brazil ... based on how much carbon dioxide is likely to be produced from new developments"
Re: (Score:1)
An American pollutes more CO2 from oil than a Chinese person coal.
On top of that the American also pollutes more CO2 from natural gas than a Chinses person does coal.
But here you are complaining about Chinese coal and defending American gas and oil. Both of which are worse.
Re: (Score:1)
Never mind that the atmosphere is all one giant pool.
No! Those billion and a half guys over THERE are each only putting in X!
Where YOU million guys are putting in X+!
Let us know when you're actually serious.
Re: (Score:1)
You know that's not what was said at all.
But hey, you're a fucking whackjob.
Why should I care what you purport to think?
Re: (Score:1)
No, it's you simply inserting words in the mouth of people and pretending that's the point.
Re: Well (Score:2)
Thatâ(TM)s complete and utter bullshit, but I guess thatâ(TM)s why youâ(TM)re hiding behind AC. Per capita is the only reasonable way to compare. Thatâ(TM)s a reasonable measure to decide whether living standards are the same or whether one culture is being more efficient. Given how much more extreme the weather is China, they almost deserve to emit more per capita so that they can enjoy the same living standards and way of life that Americans do. If you donâ(TM)t like their tot
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Well (Score:4, Insightful)
"We started cutting when the science stopped being theory."
We've known about greenhouse gases for over a hundred years longer than we've done anything about the problem...
Re: (Score:1)
Yet the atmosphere is ONE GIANT POOL!
Who cares if Wan Hung Lo is producing only 1/3rd the output of an American on his allotted rice paddy?
When there's roughly 5x the people and China, AS A WHOLE, is outputting more than the entire by at least a factor of three?
Not to mention all the other crap their dumping into the atmosphere in their incessant burning.
What's harder to breathe?
CO2?
Or ash and toxic chemical vapors?
Re: Well (Score:2)
Here in the UK, we emit a fraction per capita and total that Americans do, so I call bullshit on your argument. Stop looking for excuses why you shouldnâ(TM)t be a better neighbour.
Re: (Score:1)
No child.
You're simply diverting for an important point.
Not THE ONLY important point.
But one you're desperate not to acknowledge.
Re: (Score:1)
No. This is the narrative you're trying to create around the situation so you can feel good about hating Americans.
The US has a much more energy-dense lifestyle.
One that's currently being threatened by foreign actors playing at grassroots bullshit environmental arguments.
Meanwhile you try to compare it to third world countries with lower CO2 output, but lower quality of life, higher particulate emissions, and growing CO2 contributions.
No, you don't get to give these countries "a pass".
You're either serious
Re: (Score:1)
Because you happen to put out half of what I do.
But in AGGREGATE, you and your 1000 buddies....
Re: (Score:1)
Fine. I'll shut up.
It's not worth arguing with you fucking intellectual cripples about this.
You actually think that because some rice paddy farmer outputs less CO2 than I do, I should just shitcan my tech job and farm another rice paddy.
And you can't even post as yourself.|
NOW WHY IS THAT?
Re: (Score:1)
Yet there's five times as many Chinese (and three times as many Indians) and their per-person CO2 footprint is only growing.
Re: Well (Score:2)
They have every right to emit as much CO2 per capita as Americans. Stop hiding behind the total numbers.
Re: (Score:1)
So you only ACTUALLY give a shit about CO2 and the environment so long as you can blame Americans for it....
Good to know...
Re: (Score:1)
Wow. I prefer people not actually have to DIE to "save" the environment.
Wow. I'm such an asshole that way...
Re: (Score:2)
If they are "burning peak coal" then that would mean they are not expanding coal production, instead they must be reducing it so right now is a "peak".
But I agree this certainly is pushing an agenda by selecting gas+oil and ignoring coal in order to get a certain subset of countries.
Re: (Score:2)
> But I agree this certainly is pushing an agenda by selecting gas+oil and ignoring coal in order to get a certain subset of countries.
Thanks for spelling that out.
Re: (Score:1)
Not really.
Remember, it's like "Global Warming".
Every day's a new day!
And "peak" gets redefined every day!
Re: (Score:2)
Consider "peak wood", which happened about 150 years ago in the US, and 200-400 years ago in Europe. It wasn't the point where wood ceased to exist, it was merely the point where wild trees ceased to be so abundant, it was cheap and cost-effective to cut them down and burn them for heat.
Today, we actually use more pounds of wood per year than we EVER used during "peak wood". The difference is, we're no longer cutting down old-growth forests near cities and burning the wood for energy... trees get farmed lik
Still stealing gas and oil from Syria (Score:2)
and plenty of oil fields in the Black Sea so the reasons for all these global wars are pretty clear for everyone to see.
Re: (Score:2)
Russia invaded Ukraine for their oil? China casting eyes on Taiwan for their copious amounts of oil? That's some fancy thinking you got there.
Hmmm... (Score:2)
five "global north countries" -- the US, Canada, Australia, Norway and the UK
Seems legit.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Hmmm... (Score:2)
And yet Russia is among them...
Re: (Score:2)
And so is Australia, which appears to have been firmly entrenched in the south.
It's like saying the global right and including left wing parties.
Re: (Score:2)
https://worldpopulationreview.... [worldpopul...review.com]
https://www.rgs.org/CMSPages/G... [rgs.org]
https://milnepublishing.genese... [geneseo.edu]
https://encyclopedia.pub/entry... [encyclopedia.pub]
Huh...and yet they all include Russia....
Re: (Score:2)
Well duh (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We're not ready due to the efforts of the fossil fuel industry, so we're doing more to support the fossil fuel industry.
Sure sounds like the only reason it's happening is corruption to me.
We will need fossil fuels for another 50 years. (Score:3, Interesting)
I've seen a number of YouTube videos from policy experts that point out how it would take a minimum of 20 years to build all the factories, open up all the lithium mines, and so much else to replace every vehicle on the road today with an electric equivalent. Even then it would take another 10 years for that last batch of hydrocarbon burning vehicles to get worn out to a point that people would be willing to be rid of them for an electric replacement. So, 30 years to zero hydrocarbon burning vehicles in a best case. Well, that is civilian vehicles. The military isn't going to give up on hydrocarbons so easily.
That's 30 years to net zero carbon for transportation, with electricity generation there's a whole different kind of calculation to make.
We have the luxury of putting so many windmills and solar PV arrays on the electric grid because we have stores of energy in natural gas as backup for when a dunkelflaute hits. There's all kinds of talk of energy storage as backup for wind and solar power but it appears that people aren't realizing that fuel is an inherent store of energy. Fuel comes in many forms, such as petroleum and natural gas. We also have uranium to use as fuel. I'll read claims of how nuclear power isn't likely to play any major role in energy in the future because of some reason or another. The thing is that if that door to nuclear power in the future is opened just a crack then expect the door to fly wide open. We will need stored energy to have wind and solar power to be viable. People will find out that uranium is a store of energy, and a store of energy that produces less CO2 per unit of energy than wind or solar. That creates a very powerful motive to have nuclear power in our future energy plans, and not some tiny amount on the fringes.
These same wind, solar, and energy storage advocates will make claims on how nuclear power plants can't be built quickly enough to make any kind of major contribution to future lowered CO2 emissions. Okay then, can someone tell me how quickly we can replace existing fossil fuel power plants with wind and solar? Best case is something like 50 years. Even if it takes 40 years to finish every nuclear power plant project we start it would still be to our advantage to start construction on nuclear power plants 10 years from now. In 50 years the solar panels and windmills we built today will need replacement, and can we maintain this pace of wind and solar development indefinitely to merely keep up with the electric generating capacity we have today? The experts have their doubts.
On top of the need to maintain our production of oil and gas for another 50 years during this transition we need to recognize that the experts point out the need for nuclear power. There's IPCC reports pointing out the need for nuclear power, the same people that are making the most convincing reports of the threat global warming poses from CO2 emissions. I can post links to these reports but they are easy to find by anyone looking for them as they are hardly some deeply held secret.
Uranium is stored energy, and we need energy storage to make wind and solar power viable. If people plan to use batteries for energy storage on the grid instead of uranium then expect even greater supply problems for raw materials to make those batteries since we need batteries in EVs. Synthesized hydrocarbons would certainly help in many ways on speeding up the transition from fossil fuels but if people want to maintain that the internal combustion engine needs to go then we should still plan on needing oil and gas for the next 50 years.
Re: (Score:2)
"The military isn't going to give up on hydrocarbons so easily." The U.S. military at least is trying to ditch hydrocarbons. They are a royal pain the ass to supply for any operation. They require a global infrastructure that the U.S. doesn't control. They cannot ditch them fast enough.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The U.S. military at least is trying to ditch hydrocarbons.
I don't believe they are. They may be trying to be rid of any reliance on petroleum but not hydrocarbons. That is a very important distinction.
They are a royal pain the ass to supply for any operation. They require a global infrastructure that the U.S. doesn't control. They cannot ditch them fast enough.
If this is true then perhaps you could tell me what the US military plans to replace them with. I doubt they are planning to replace hydrocarbons with batteries.
The US Navy has been working on a means to synthesize hydrocarbon fuels using seawater as the raw material and nuclear fission to power the process. This is still a hydrocarbon but it is not reliant on gl
Re: (Score:2)
... we have politicians in office of a certain political party that doesn't like...ideas the opposing party came up with. What they do like is winning elections.
This effectively describes both sides of The Party.
What each side doesn't like is mostly irrelevant except for the "ideas the opposing party came up with."
Gotta keep people rooting for (and voting for) "their" team, don't you know?
What is BS is the assumption of FUEL (Score:1)
Right now, this is another red herring being put out by the far left marxists hoping to cause chaos while ignoring AGW.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
YAY! (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want the developed world to stay solvent and one the developing world to develop then moves like this are crucial. Also ending anti-nuclear hysteria. Renewables? On the order of $6 trillion for just the renewable energy equipment and installation in the US without additional obvious costs. An estimate 10x that to do renewables worldwide. When the world is still not recovered from the disastrous COVID measures and is being further damaged by the Russia sanctions and ESG gone made when it comes to all important things like farming, energy, fertilizer we simply cannot afford the costs even if you believe it is necessary any time real soon (ti ISN'T). Net Zero 2030 is a very cynical and dangerous to human flourishing push.
Re: (Score:3)
The U.S. just spent $23 Billion on global warming induced natural disasters, and the year isn't over yet. With enough investment in hyrdrocarbons, I'm sure the U.S. get crack $50 Billion shortly and be well on their way to $100 Billion. Thems some mighty expensive red herrings.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Err....exactly which ones of these are directly and scientifically linked to global warming?
Hate to break it to you, but bad weather and forest fires have been around for a LONG time....even before the Industrial Revolution.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I've often thought it would make a great drinking game to take a shot every time NPR says climate change, but you would succumb to alcohol poisoning before the hour was up.
I went to the source (Score:5, Insightful)
It's impossible to take this report seriously. It's absolutely awash in histrionics, horrible leaps in logic, judgment, and unnecessary labeling. Even calling it a "report" rubs me the wrong way. "Planet Wrecker Countries", "Planet Wrecker in Chief" - good lord. It's a good indicator than you can probably stop there. But if you must continue... It's just a shitty environmental puff piece.
https://priceofoil.org/content... [priceofoil.org]
I'm not a fossil fuels booster. I'm a believer in human-centric climate change. I think we have a lot to do. But paying attention to this crap is doing a disservice to the people who are serious.
Re: (Score:2)
Report from some random activists, printed in rag. (Score:3)
The Guardian makes it clear when you open their site that they aren't doing journalism, they're doing political advocacy. In other words, propaganda.
My kids ate junk food (Score:1)
We _are_ leading (Score:2)
The US accounts for more than a third of the expansion of global oil and gas production planned by mid-century, despite its claims of climate leadership, research has found.
As many have said before me, replacing coal, charcoal, wood, and dung with natural gas is leading on effective reductions in CO2 emissions and improving human welfare.