Adani merits a website to itself - the claims of Gautam Adani to be making his company carbon negative don't stack up by any stretch of anyone's imagination. Unless you don't count Coal, or perhaps don't count where the Coal is burned. However, it's not difficult to see that increasing activity in coal mining is completely incompatible with carbon reduction - never mind being carbon negative.
check out other companies involved with Adani
Sweden’s AP7 pension fund recently announced it was adding 14 companies to its investment blacklist “for failure to act in line with the Paris Agreement due to large-scale coal operations or oil sands extraction without credible transition plans”.
Adani Enterprises Limited, the Adani Group subsidiary that owns and operates the Carmichael thermal coal mine and rail line in Australia, was one of the companies dumped from AP7’s investment portfolio.
In a damning report looking at the economic, climate and social impacts of Adani’s under-construction Godda coal-burning power station, the Bangladesh Working Group on External Debt, in cooperation with Growthwatch, have called for Adani Power to be tried “for human rights violations and forceful acquisition of land and other natural resources” and the project to be cancelled.
A tip-off received by the #StopAdani campaign has named Lockton Companies as Adani Australia’s new insurance broker, appointed on 29 May 2022. I put this information to Lockton and it has not been denied. A report claiming Marsh is no longer acting as the Carmichael mine’s insurance broker adds credibility to claims of Lockton’s involvement.
and not to forget Adani's cynical sponsoring of the science museum in London. read more here:
press release from reuters on behalf of exxon mobil
HOUSTON, April 19 (Reuters) - Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM.N)estimates there will be a $4 trillion market by 2050 for capturing carbon dioxide and storing it underground, the company said in a presentation on Tuesday. That is about 60% of the $6.5 trillion market the U.S. largest crude producer estimates for oil and gas by then. Read the whole story here
So, are Exxon Mobil saying the oil and gas that is not subject to Carbon Capture will have a value of $2.5 trillion by 2050. Aren't we supposed to have stopped using it by then? But hang on - Carbon Capture (the unproven, non-existing at any scale, technology) will be ubitquous enough by 2050 to mean they can carry on business as normal.
low carbon oil ...... you wouldn't really expect this bunch to say much different,
A new coalmine in 2022 ??
with coal no-one wants; on the way to net zero ...
Lets look at the claims of West Cumbria and their supporters:
The mine is "carbon neutral" : as long as you don't count the 9m tonnes a year from using the coal in blast furnaces.
The coal will support UK steel making. But their documents show 87% is for export; probably even less.
they say it's a specific type of coal..But won't reveal their evidence...and publicly available data says it's too high in sulphur.
they say they can wash the sulphur off. But no details, they would have to put the reject coal back under ground.
now they say it will replace Russian Coking coal. But both UK steel plants have already sourced non-Russian coal. Steel bosses say they don't need this.
And this is a government giving out new licences to drill for gas in the North Sea (which will do absolutely nothing to enhance our fuel security) and Mr Clark's department is considering whether to give planning consent for a new coal mine (for coal which noone in this country wants)
Approving the mine would be deadly, not just because it would allow 25 years more coal mining in the UK at 9 million tonnes of GHG per year. It would also show UK hypocrisy and give other countries a green light to open new coal mines .
Vanguard Asset Management : the largest investor in coal at $86b ;
Standard Chartered Bank : #1 UK bank for coal plant developers;
Javelin Global Commodities : key trader supporting the west cumbria mine;
and our government.
and bp claiming they are helping the country - presumably by making record profits and continuing to drill for oil and gas.
plenty of aiming and planning .... how about real action?
Several UK steel industry leaders have spoken out in recent months to say that they do not need the Cumbrian coal mine. Their priority is decarbonisation of their steel plants, and attracting government help to meet competition from European steel makers who are moving swiftly towards “green steel” and the green hydrogen revolution.
Lord Deben, Chair of the UK Committee on Climate Change has repeatedly said that coking coal use in steelmaking could be displaced completely by 2035. He states that the mine would “increase global emissions and have an appreciable impact on the UK’s legally binding carbon budgets” and that Jenrick’s decision not to call in the Local Planning Authority’s decision to grant planning permission to the mine to 2049 “gives a negative impression of the UK’s climate priorities in the year of COP26”. He also referenced the 6th Carbon Budget pathways for UK steelmaking. He also said that approval of the Cumbria mine would be indefensible
“New UK coal extraction is not needed, especially not new consents that would extract coal for decades. Evidence presented to the Public Inquiry on the Cumbria mine showed that it would increase global emissions, exacerbate climate change, and undermine global efforts to phase out coal”. This mine is planned to produce 2.8 million tonnes of metallurgical coal a year that, using the government’s own conversion factors, would emit 8.8 million tonnes of CO₂ per year when used in blast furnaces to make steel. Supporters claim it would “save” GHG emissions by avoiding imports but a) most of it is for export and b) these savings are only 96,000 tonnes a year. If approved, coal extraction would be permitted until December 2049. Business Energy and industrial Strategy (BEIS )
the tricks and lies of the oil and gas companies
why did COP26 fail? Because of a highly paid network of politicians, lobbyists and investors in the shadows blocking climate action. Putting short term profit before the future of humanity. These people are the biggest threat to our future right now. Watch this video and find out more.
The clean energy claims of BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil and Shell: A mismatch between discourse, actions and investments
Read the original research here
A precis version .....
The long and the short of it is that if we're to stand a hope in hell of keeping anywhere near 1.5° (or under 2°) we have to absolutely 100% stop digging up more. fossil fuels and very quickly stop burning the ones we already have. Simple really - but the oil companies either don't believe that, think they can somehow sidestep it or think some technological fix will appear out of nowhere.
TO DRILL OR NOT TO DRILL: Surging oil prices will test the resolve of companies to cut back on drilling .... Read all about it here
We believe that climate change risks warrant action and it’s going to take all of us — business, governments and consumers — to make meaningful progress."
Saudi Armco's claims:
We embrace our role to find carbon management solutions
Such as the Circular Carbon Economy
to provide the direction for a sustainable future
powering a more sustainable future
Aramco is the state-owned Saudi Arabian oil and gas company. Aramco is the world’s largest corporate greenhouse gas emitter. It is estimated to be responsible for over 4% of the entire world’s GHG emissions since 1965. Aramco’s 98.5% owner, the Saudi Arabian government, has a long history of fighting efforts to tackle climate change.
The company is led by CEO Amin bin Hasan Al-Nasser and in 2020 Forbes reported its sales at $329.8 billion. In 2019, 1.5% of Aramco was listed on the Saudi Arabian stock exchange, raising $25.6 billion,and valuing the company as worth about $1.7 trillion - the largest company in the world.
It was estimated in 2019 that Saudi Aramco plans to produce and sell the equivalent of 27 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide between 2018 and 2030. This is an enormous amount, equivalent to 4.7% of the total “carbon budget” that the IPCC estimated the entire world had left in 2018 for a 50% chance of meeting the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C goal. According to the IPCC, a 66% chance requires shrinking the global carbon budget by almost 30%.
BP's Hamble-le-Rice terminal has been blocked by Extinction Rebellion protesters in a demonstration against greenwashing.
The bar is set pretty low for Oil and Gas companies - along with their products they pump out an astonishing series of misinformation and lies about what they have been doing, and what they continue to do. If you read the sustainability statements on their website you might thing they were cleaner than clean - no obvious claims about increasing shareholder value .... and yet ....
Extinction Rebellion has today said enough is enough . In blocking the BP terminal they said it was protesting about what it called industry greenwashing – misleading people into thinking oil and gas was environmentally sound.
The group called on the UK industry regulator, the Oil & Gas Authority (OGA), to end its policy on Maximum Economic Recovery of oil and gas. It also said the OGA should stop issuing new exploration and production licences.
The upcoming G7 talks in Cornwall later this month should agree to replace fossil fuel extraction with a transition that protects the world’s most vulnerable people, the group added.
Canadian Natural Resources, Cenovus Energy, Imperial, MEG Energy and Suncor Energy formally announced today the Oil Sands Pathways to Net Zero initiative. These companies operate approximately 90% of Canada’s oil sands production. The goal of this unique alliance, working collectively with the federal and Alberta governments, is to achieve net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from oil sands operations by 2050 to help Canada meet its climate goals, including its Paris Agreement commitments and 2050 net zero aspirations. Read more here
Too little too late - Reading the energy companies statements you could almost start to feel that they meant it.
But ... Carbon Net Zero is a seriously compromised strategy and it would certainly be interesting to know more about what they are actually up to. Are they, for example, continuing to produce heavily polluting Tar Sands Oil and invest in a forest somewhere else in the world?
Read this report from Friends of the Earth and others which highlights the nonsense and unbelievable Greenwash coming from these people.
"ExxonMobil is committed to operating our businesses in a responsible and sustainable manner, supplying high-quality products while working to minimize environmental impacts and climate change risks.
Few would disagree that one of the most urgent societal challenges we face today is addressing the risks of climate change. How we meet the world’s demand for the energy necessary for economic growth while mitigating the long-term impact on our environment is key to our sustainable future."
Darren Woods, Chairman and CEO ExxonMobil UK says:
Activists praised ExxonMobil's shift in tone, which showed the company no longer seeks long-term oil and gas production growth and said it would use any extra cash to reduce debt rather than boost drilling. But critics noted the plan falls short of European rivals such as Royal Dutch Shell and Total, which have set targets to reach net-zero carbon emissions and invested in renewable energy.
ExxonMobil's plan "risks continued long-term value destruction," said Engine No.1, an activist investor group that focuses on climate change, has nominated four directors to the company's board.
At the heart of the company's emerging climate strategy is CCS, which captures emissions from industrial sources including refineries and chemical plants and injects them deep into geologic formations for permanent storage. ExxonMobil has planned $3 billion in new CCS investments over the next five years.
But its plans also include a 2021 capital budget of between $16 and $19 billion, with heavy oil and gas upstream investments in the US Permian Basin, as well as in Guyana and Brazil.
Mark Carney, the ex-governor of the Bank of England and climate adviser to Boris Johnson, recently described his $600bn Brookfield Asset Management portfolio as “carbon neutral”, despite investing in fossil fuels. Carney said: “The reason we’re net zero is that we have this enormous renewables business.” He went on to claim that renewables avoid carbon emissions that would otherwise have happened, so they “offset” his investments in fossil fuels. This is not net zero. It is an accounting trick. Emitting carbon at the same time as building solar capability does not equal zero emissions overall. Offsetting needs to be used to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, to counter difficult-to-remove emissions, and not just be an enabler of business-as-nearly-usual. Read more here
Chevron Corp. is misleading consumers about its efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, environmental groups said in what they described as a first-of-its-kind complaint filed with the Federal Trade Commission. Chevron’s pledge of “ever-cleaner energy” amounts to so-called greenwashing because it hides the reality that the company’s production plans may end up increasing absolute emissions, according to Global Witness, Greenpeace USA and Earthworks. Ads touting the oil giant’s environmental record and investments in clean tech disguise its role as one of the world’s biggest corporate polluters, the nonprofit groups say. The complaint comes just days after Chevron announced a strategy centered on “higher returns, lower carbon.”