Hoeveel fossiele brandstoffen ongeëxploiteerd om onder 1,5 °C temperatuurstijging te blijven?

[Revisor]

Bron: Flickr

Bond Beter Leefmilieu

Cruiseschepen stoten 10x meer zwavel uit dan alle auto’s in Europa

woensdag 5 juni 2019 15:47

De grootste aanbieder van luxecruises ter wereld, Carnival Corporation, stootte in 2017 aan de Europese kusten bijna tien keer meer zwaveldioxide (SOx) uit dan alle 260 miljoen Europese auto’s. Dat blijkt uit een nieuwe analyse van de Europese organisatie voor duurzaam vervoer Transport & Environment.[1] Royal Caribbean Cruises, wereldwijd de tweede grootste, komt op de tweede plaats en is nog steeds vier keer zo erg als de Europese autovloot. SOx-emissies vormen sulfaataërosolen die schadelijk zijn voor de luchtwegen en bijdragen aan de verzuring van het milieu op het land en onder water. [2]

Laurien Spruyt, expert klimaat en mobiliteit bij Bond Beter Leefmilieu, verklaart de cijfers:“Cruiseschepen zijn gigantisch en gebruiken een van de vuilste brandstoffen. Steden doen tegenwoordig meer en meer om vervuilende wagens te bannen, met goede reden. Intussen geven ze cruisebedrijven een vrijgeleide, terwijl de enorme hoeveelheid giftige dampen van hun schepen schade toebrengt aan de gezondheid van de mensen aan boord en in de steden waar ze aanmeren. Dit is niet langer aanvaardbaar.”

En dat terwijl de technologische oplossingen om cruiseschepen schoner te maken voorhanden zijn, zegt Laurien Spruyt van Bond Beter Leefmilieu: “Walstroom kan helpen om de uitstoot in de havens te verminderen, batterijen zijn een oplossing voor kortere afstanden en waterstoftechnologie kan ook de grootste cruiseschepen aandrijven. De cruisesector is blijkbaar nog niet bereid om die overstap vrijwillig te maken. Daarom hebben we overheden nodig om hun verantwoordelijkheid te nemen en normen voor nuluitstoot op te leggen.”

In Europa

In absolute termen zijn Spanje, Italië en Griekenland, op de voet gevolgd door Frankrijk en Noorwegen, de Europese landen die het meest blootgesteld worden aan SOx-vervuiling doorcruiseschepen. Barcelona, Palma de Mallorca en Venetië zijn de Europese havensteden die de grootste impact kennen, gevolgd door Civitavecchia (Rome) en Southampton. Deze landen krijgen het meest te maken met vervuiling door cruiseschepen omdat het belangrijke toeristische bestemmingen zijn, maar ook omdat ze minder strenge zwavelnormen hebben voor scheepsbrandstof. Dit laat cruiseschepen toe om de vuilste, meest zwavelhoudende brandstof te gebruiken aan de hele kustlijn van deze landen.

Europa moet zo snel mogelijk een nuluitstoot in havens instellen. Dit kan dan uitgebreid worden naar andere types schepen. Het rapport van T&E raadt ook aan om lage-emissiezones op zee, die momenteel enkel bestaan in de Noordzee, de Baltische Zee en het Engelse Kanaal, uit te breiden naar de overige Europese zeeën. Verder adviseert het rapport om NOx-emissies van bestaande schepen te reguleren. Momenteel geldt voor hen een uitzondering wat betreft de NOx-normen die gelden in lage-emissiezones. De uitstoot van NOx (dat net als SOx bijdraagt aan de luchtvervuiling) en van CO2 (dat bijdraagt aan de klimaatverandering) van het autoverkeer in de EU is nog steeds veel hoger dan die van cruiseschepen.



[1] In 2017 waren er meer dan 260 miljoen personenwagens geregistreerd in de EU, Noorwegen, IJsland, Montenegro en Groenland.

[2] Sofiev, M. et al., (2018) Cleaner fuels for ships provide public health benefits with climate tradeoffs, Nature Communications, volume 9, artikelnummer 406 (2018)

Over Bond Beter Leefmilieu

Bond Beter Leefmilieu is een netwerkorganisatie die Vlaamse verenigingen, burgers, overheden en ondernemingen met hetzelfde doel samenbrengt: de switch maken naar een duurzame, hernieuwbare samenleving op vlak van energie, mobiliteit, circulaire economie, voeding en ruimtelijke ordening.


https://www.dewereldmorgen.be/artike...tos-in-europa/

[Ibrah1234]

Chemische samenstelling van normale omgevingslucht
Stof % van het volume in droge lucht

Stikstof (N2) 78.09%
Zuurstof (O2) 20.94%
Argon (Ar) 0.93%
Koolstofdioxide (CO2) 0.03%
Neon (Ne) 0.0018%
Helium (He) 0.00052%
Methaan (CH4) 0.00022%
Krypton (Kr) 0.00010%
Distikstofoxide (N2O) 0.00010%
Waterstof (H2) 0.00005%
Xenon (Xe) 0.00008%

Read more: https://www.lenntech.nl/lucht-samens...#ixzz5rHsPxLgu

Koolstofdioxide (CO2): 0.03%. Is daar alles niet mee gezegd? Na de industriële revolutie zou je toch denken dat het gehalte CO2 significant zou zijn toegenomen.

[super ick]

Als je stookolie ziet dan snap je niet hoe zo'n stroperig goedje kan dienen als brandstof.

Stookolie wordt eerst voorverwarmd. Dan wordt het dunner. Vaak worden de motoren opgestart met gasolie en als ze warm zijn overgeschakeld op door voorverwarming dun gemaakt stookolie. Zo worden ze ook afgestookt. Anders komt het hele brandstofsysteem vol te zitten met dikke olie. Het is mogelijke het hele systeem te verwarmen met tracing. Nadeel is dat dit weer een elektrische grootverbruiker is. Aan boord van schepen is opstoken en afstoken efficiënter.

Terecht geef je het enorme verbruik aan. Of de cijfers kloppen weet ik niet. Wat wel grappig is dat is dat veel grote schepen tegenwoordig gebruik maken van een zeil en zo tot soms 10% brandstof kunnen besparen.

Aandrijven met kernenergie mag hier niet besproken worden. Dan gaat je kop eraf.

[Olive Yao]

.
Vermogensbeheerder verkoopt deel van belang in Shell door klimaatbeleid

NU.nl dinsdag 9 juli 2019


De grote Britse vermogensbeheerder Sarasin & Partners heeft een deel van zijn belang in de olie- en gasmaatschappij Shell verkocht, laat het bedrijf dinsdag weten in een brief. Het zou gaan om zo'n 20 procent van het belang in de oliemaatschappij.

Reden voor de verkoop is het klimaatbeleid van Shell. Volgens de vermogensbeheerder doet het oliebedrijf onvoldoende om de klimaatdoelen van Parijs te halen.

In de brief schrijft de vermogensbeheerder dat ze het beleid van Shell tot dusver altijd ondersteunde, zeker na de beslissing om de CO2-voetafdruk van het bedrijf terug te dringen.

Bij de presentatie van de toekomstplannen voegde Shell echter geen daad bij woord, schrijft Sarasin & Partners. In plaats van de doelen van Parijs na te streven, bleek in juni juist dat Shell de olieproductie in de komende jaren wil opvoeren naar 4,7 miljoen vaten per dag in 2030. In 2018 waren dit nog 3,7 miljoen vaten.

De vermogensbeheerder gaat specifiek de aandelen van Sarasin-klanten verkopen die de beleggingsstrategie Climate Active volgen. Volgens Financial Times gaat het om 20 procent van alle aandelen die de vermogensbeheerder heeft in Shell, met een totale waarde van zo'n 37,6 miljoen euro.

[Olive Yao]

Je wou beweren dat teerzandexploitatie een significant deel uitmaakt van wereldwijde broeikasgasemissies, of zelfs maar olie-extractie-emissies in het algemeen?

Ik geloof niet dat je er veel vanaf weet. Teerzand is goor en ellendig en vooral de locals hebben er veel last van, maar op wereldschaal is de invloed verwaarloosbaar.

We moeten zo snel mogelijk van olie af, in het algemeen.

Ja, dat stel ik, en met de informatie in het hoofdartikel kun je dat gemakkelijk beredeneren.

Gegeven: er is nog maar heel weinig ppm aan ruimte. Elke ppm die we kunnen besparen moeten we bespraren.

Ander gegeven: we kunnen nog niet zonder fossiele brandstoffen.

We moeten kiezen welke fossiele brandstoffen we exploiteren en verbruiken, en welke niet. Natuurlijk moeten we die fossiele brandstoffen kiezen die het minste ppm's kosten. Met exploitatie van vuile fossiele brandstoffen raken de paar resterende ppm's nog sneller op. Die moeten we niet exploiteren.


n. b. De zinnen over ppm's zijn informeel gesteld.

[Olive Yao]

.
Internationaal Energy Agentschap IEA

Net Zero by 2050 – A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector

link naar het rapport met de roadmap

Press release

dinsdag 18 mei 2021

(...)

Building on the IEA’s unrivalled energy modelling tools and expertise, the Roadmap sets out more than 400 milestones to guide the global journey to net zero by 2050. These include, from today, no investment in new fossil fuel supply projects, and no further final investment decisions for new unabated coal plants. By 2035, there are no sales of new internal combustion engine passenger cars, and by 2040, the global electricity sector has already reached net-zero emissions.

(...)

[Attitude]

Een beter klimaat begint niet bij het Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Waterstaat

Alles en iedereen moet wijken voor de belangen van de fossiele luchtvaart

https://joop.bnnvara.nl/opinies/een-...-en-waterstaat

[Olive Yao]

.
News | Environment & Health

Big Oil and conservatives are using Russia’s conflict to call for more drilling

Truthout | By Sharon Zhang, Truthout published February 25, 2022

Republicans, conservative pundits and Big Oil took less than 24 hours after Russia invaded Ukraine to begin advocating for more oil drilling and fracking in the name of supposed energy independence.

As climate journalists Amy Westervelt and Kate Aronoff pointed out on Thursday, news outlets like Bloomberg and conservative commentators like The Atlantic’s David Frum are calling for expanding oil production and fracking in response to the conflict, even though the U.S. is currently already producing near its limit.

“Fracking may be America’s most powerful weapon against Russian aggression,” read an op-ed from a Bloomberg columnist who formerly led a Standard Oil and Koch family funded think tank.

The American Petroleum Institute (API) made a Twitter thread just as Vladimir Putin was announcing attacks on Ukraine. “As crisis looms in Ukraine, U.S. energy leadership is more important than ever,” API wrote, encouraging the White House to lease and permit even more drilling on and offshore.

In an earnings call on Thursday by natural gas exporter Cheniere, CEO Jack Fusco said that the invasion is good for business, Aronoff reported. “It’s tragic what’s going on in Eastern Europe, and it saddens me to see the satellite images on the newscreen that we’ve all witnessed this morning,” Fusco said. “But if anything, these high prices, the volatility, drive even more energy security and long-term contracting.”

Conservative lawmakers also hopped onto the Big Oil cronyism. Far right Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colorado) posted a video saying that the federal government should immediately start producing oil at full capacity and exporting gas to Europe in order to combat inflation. Boebert has close ties to the fossil fuel industry; her husband has made hundreds of thousands of dollars consulting for Texas driller Terra Energy Partners.

Meanwhile, Republicans are saying that Democrats’ “green agenda” and supposed “war on American oil and gas” is to blame for Putin’s invasion – nevermind the fact that Biden approved oil and gas drilling at a higher rate than Trump did in 2021.

It’s extremely cynical to use this moment to encourage expanding fossil fuel production – and thus attempt to worsen the climate crisis – as thousands of people in Ukraine face instability, vicious attacks and uncertainty due to Russian forces. As conservatives and Big Oil attempt to exploit this moment for profit, antiwar activists in Russia and Ukraine are potentially putting their lives on the line to protest the Russian invasion.

Experts say that there’s not much that President Joe Biden can do to control gas prices and that there’s little connection between oil production and gas prices.

Rather, oil and gas companies have already been making record profits by taking advantage of inflation and economic uncertainty, causing President Joe Biden and other Democrats to probe whether or not companies are breaking antitrust laws in order to pad their pockets. Indeed, in remarks on Thursday, Biden urged oil and gas companies to “not exploit this moment to hike their prices to raise profits.”


https://truthout.org/articles/big-oi...more-drilling/

[Olive Yao]

.
It’s time to nationalize Shell. Private oil companies are no longer fit for purpose

Johanna Bozuwa and Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò, The Guardian maandag 7 juni 2021


Failing, heavily subsidized private oil companies enjoy the profits of oil extraction while the rest of us pay in tax dollars, human rights abuses, and an unlivable climate

It has been a bad month for big oil. A Dutch court just ruled that Shell must cut its carbon pollution by 45% by 2030. The court’s decision has rightly been celebrated: it is a much more stringent requirement than the ineffective regulations imposed to date. Meanwhile, shareholders are waging rebellions at various oil giants – ExxonMobil shareholders won two seats on the board to pressure the oil company towards a greener strategy, and shareholders at Chevron and ConocoPhillips passed nonbinding resolutions pressuring the companies to disclose their lobbying efforts and emissions amounts.

Private oil and gas companies are finally up against the wall. Shell has promised to appeal the Dutch court decision, but oil prices went negative last year and put companies on bankruptcy notice, and last week the International Energy Agency said to stop digging. Politicians have floated the idea of oil and gas magnates becoming “carbon management companies” as a way for those companies to have a “future in a low-carbon world” while retaining control over oil, gas, and profit in a planet increasingly aware of and hostile to their emissions-generating activity.

But as far as the Dutch court’s ruling or the new bout of shareholder activism goes, neither go far enough. Nor should Shell be turned into a “carbon management company”. Like all private oil companies, Shell should not exist.

Oil and gas companies are a political structure: they possess private, authoritarian dominion over the pace and volume of oil and gas production, and thus of important determinants of global emissions. These emissions and their consequences do not respect any sort of public/private distinction, nor borders, nor the rights to clean air or clean water. For decades, private oil companies have intentionally and recklessly obscured their role in the destruction of countless local environments as well as their role in the global climate crisis.

Private oil companies have propped up an ever-failing business on a complex system of national and international government subsidies, all of which function to privatize the benefits of oil and gas production while socializing its financial, environmental, and social costs – making the public pay in tax dollars, human rights abuses, and an unlivable climate. Now that these companies fear being left behind by a changing political context, their public relations strategy is to insist to a public increasingly aware of the dire need to stop carbon emissions that there is still a place for private oil companies in a “green” world.

There is a role for the workers, their skills and knowledge, and the equipment and infrastructure of oil and gas companies. But there is no longer a role for companies or profit-seeking as an organizing principle of this aspect of human society – not if we want to continue to have human society.

Under continued private management, the most likely scenario is that Shell delays and defers action as long as the company can get away with it, shedding workers without a safety net and leaving extraction sites polluting. Similarly, the success of the small shareholder “coup” at ExxonMobil likely has less to do with genuine desire to save the environment and more to do with the company’s billions in back to back quarterly losses.

But winding down a major industry shouldn’t be constrained by the need to make money. Governments like the Netherlands could better follow through on mandates to reduce emissions if they held control over oil companies themselves. It is time to nationalize big oil.

Public ownership, by itself, does not guarantee that we will fully replace oil and gas with renewable energy in time to avert the worst impacts of the climate crisis. As detractors to public ownership often note, three-quarters of the world’s oil reserves are already owned by states rather than private companies, which are far from immune from corruption. But we don’t advocate public ownership because it is a magic bullet – we advocate it because it is our only shot.

The profit math is just as clear as the climate math: corporations exist to generate profit and enrich shareholders, both of which require them to produce their product. No amount of shareholder activism can possibly do better than slowing or attenuating the rate at which corporations pursue this basic mandate. “Market-based solutions”, in this case, are a contradiction in terms: the market is the problem.

If we are to limit climate change, we have to take the very unprofitable step of virtually eliminating emissions. There is no way to square the pace and depth of needed emissions reductions with the dictates of profit-seeking – Shell’s best scientists have already tried and failed. Government organizations, which respond to more interests than just those of financial profit, are our only recourse. What’s more, companies like Shell or ExxonMobil nationalized today would be taken on with an express mandate to wind down their assets – not to line the coffers of the national government.

This means governments would manage companies’ decline based on social benefit. They could hire Shell’s workers to reverse their infrastructure to lower or even put carbon back into the ground rather than extract it for profit. For instance, workers could retool their skills on offshore oil rigs to build offshore wind production. With what little carbon production there is left, government should decide the most equitable way to distribute that oil and gas and limit harm as much as possible. Even considering responsibilities beyond profit, countries with nationalized production, especially in the Global South, will need good reason to strand the fossil fuel assets that have paid for much of the world’s wealth – especially in countries that are dependent on extraction for public revenue. Debt cancellation, as proposed by the Latin American Ecosocial Pact of the South, could allow oil-dependent countries to build less destructive forms of energy and continue to fund needed social services. Moving this much political and financial capital will be a big task; if we don’t have institutions up for the job, we should make them.

This is also an opportunity to help communities that have been subject, in some cases for decades, to the nasty side-effects of extraction – from Groningen’s fracked-gas earthquakes to Ogoniland’s water contamination – and support them in building a new sort of economy.

Divorcing profit incentives from energy doesn’t only need to be a play for ending fossil fuels. It is an opportunity to build out of an extractive and private supply chain something entirely different – an energy system for the decades to come. Public, community-level control over new renewable energy could also be critical to creating and maintaining an energy system that treats access to clean energy as a human right, supports all families (not just the white and rich) in facing the extreme weather events that may become more and more frequent, and confronts wealth extraction head-on.

Nationalization is the best shot the world has got to decommission a recalcitrant industry in time to stave off climate disaster. And it is an opportunity to build something better in its place.


Johanna Bozuwa is the Co-Manager of the Climate & Energy Program at the Democracy Collaborative

Olúfẹ́mi O Táíwò is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Georgetown University

[Olive Yao]

.
Fight climate emergency by nationalizing US fossil fuel industry, says top economist

Jessica Corbett, Common Dreams zaterdag 8 april 2022


"If we are finally going to start taking the IPCC's findings seriously, it follows that we must begin advancing far more aggressive climate stabilization solutions than anything that has been undertaken thus far," writes Robert Pollin.

In the wake of a United Nations report that activists said showed the "bleak and brutal truth" about the climate emergency, a leading economist on Friday highlighted a step that supporters argue could be incredibly effective at combating the global crisis: nationalizing the U.S. fossil fuel industry.

Writing for The American Prospect, Robert Pollin, an economics professor and co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, noted the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and high gas prices exacerbated by Russia's war on Ukraine.

"If we are finally going to start taking the IPCC's findings seriously," Pollin wrote, "it follows that we must begin advancing far more aggressive climate stabilization solutions than anything that has been undertaken thus far, both within the U.S. and globally. Within the U.S., such measures should include at least putting on the table the idea of nationalizing the U.S. fossil fuel industry."

Asserting that "at least in the U.S., the private oil companies stand as the single greatest obstacle to successfully implementing" a viable climate stabilization program, Pollin made the case that fossil fuel giants should not make any more money from wrecking the planet, nationalization would not be an unprecedented move in the United States, and doing so could help build clean energy infrastructure at the pace that scientists warn is necessary.

The expert proposed starting with "the federal government purchasing controlling ownership of at least the three dominant U.S. oil and gas corporations: ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips."

"They are far larger and more powerful than all the U.S. coal companies combined, as well as all of the smaller U.S. oil and gas companies," he wrote. "The cost to the government to purchase majority ownership of these three oil giants would be about $420 billion at current stock market prices."

Emphasizing that the aim of private firms "is precisely to make profits from selling oil, coal, and natural gas, no matter the consequences for the planet and regardless of how the companies may present themselves in various high-gloss, soft-focus PR campaigns," Pollin posited that "with at least ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips under public control, the necessary phaseout of fossil fuels as an energy source could advance in an orderly fashion."

"The government could determine fossil fuel energy production levels and prices to reflect both the needs of consumers and the requirements of the clean-energy transition," he explained. "This transition could also be structured to provide maximum support for the workers and communities that are presently dependent on fossil fuel companies for their well-being."

Pollin pointed out that some members of Congress are pushing for a windfall profits tax on Big Oil companies using various global crises—from Russia's war to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic—to price gouge working people at the gas pump. The proposal, he wrote, "raises a more basic question: Should the fossil fuel companies be permitted to profit at all through selling products that we know are destroying the planet? The logical answer has to be no. That is exactly why nationalizing at least the largest U.S. oil companies is the most appropriate action we can take now, in light of the climate emergency."

The economist highlighted the long history of nationalizing in the United States, pointing out that "it was only 13 years ago, in the depths of the 2007–09 financial crisis and Great Recession, that the Obama administration nationalized two of the three U.S. auto companies."

In addition to enabling the government to put the nationalized firms' profits toward a just transition to renewables, Pollin wrote, "with nationalization, the political obstacles that fossil fuel companies now throw up against public financing for clean energy investments would be eliminated."

Nationalization "is not a panacea," Pollin acknowledged. Noting that "publicly owned companies already control approximately 90% of the world's fossil fuel reserves," he cautioned against assuming such a move in the U.S. "will provide favorable conditions for fighting climate change, any more than public ownership has done so already in Russia, Saudi Arabia, China, or Iran," without an administration dedicated to tackling the global crisis.

Pollin is far from alone in proposing nationalization. Writing for Jacobin last month, People's Policy Project founder Matt Bruenig argued that "an industry that is absolutely essential to maintain in the short term and absolutely essential to eliminate in the long term is an industry that really should be managed publicly."

"Private owners and investors are not in the business of temporarily propping up dying industries, which means that they will either work to keep the industry from dying, which is bad for the climate, or that they will refuse to temporarily prop it up, which will cause economic chaos," he wrote. "A public owner is best positioned to pursue managed decline in a responsible way."

In a piece for The New Republic published in the early stage of the pandemic a few years ago, climate journalist Kate Aronoff—like Pollin on Friday—pointed out that nationalization "has a long and proud tradition of navigating America through times of crisis, from World War II to 9/11."

As Aronoff—who interviewed New College of Florida economist Mark Paul—reported in March 2020:

In a way, nationalization would merely involve the government correcting for nearly a century of its own market intervention. All manner of government hands on the scales have kept money flowing into fossil fuels, including the roughly $26 billion worth of state and federal subsidies handed out to them each year. A holistic transition toward a low-carbon economy would reorient that array of market signals away from failing sectors and toward growing ones that can put millions to work right away retrofitting existing buildings to be energy efficient and building out a fleet of electric vehicles, for instance, including in the places that might otherwise be worst impacted by a fossil fuel bust and recession. Renewables have taken a serious hit amid the Covid-19 slowdown, too, as factories shut down in China. So besides direct government investments in green technology, additional policy directives from the federal level, Paul added, would be key to providing certainty for investors that renewables are worth their while: for example, low-hanging fruit like the extension of the renewable tax credits, now on track to be phased out by 2022.

While Pollin, Bruenig, and Aronoff's writing focused on the United States, campaigners are also making similar cases around the world.

In a June 2021 opinion piece for The Guardian, Johanna Bozuwa, co-manager of the Climate & Energy Program at the Democracy Collaborative, and Georgetown University philosophy professor Olúfẹ́mi O Táíwò took aim at Royal Dutch Shell on the heels of a historic court ruling, declaring that "like all private oil companies, Shell should not exist."

"Governments like the Netherlands could better follow through on mandates to reduce emissions if they held control over oil companies themselves," the pair added. "It is time to nationalize Big Oil."