World’s top fossil-fuel bosses deride efforts to move away from oil and gas

[AE-NMidlands]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... GTUK_email

Executives at Texas summit claim clean-energy transition is failing and say world should ‘abandon the fantasy’ of fossil-fuel phaseout

The bosses of the world’s leading oil and gas companies have poured scorn on efforts to move away from fossil fuels, complaining that a “visibly failing” transition to clean energy was being pushed forward at an “unrealistic pace”.
The oil executives, gathered at the industry’s annual Cera Week conference in Houston, Texas, have taken turns this week to denounce calls for a rapid phase-out of fossil fuels, despite widespread acknowledgment within the industry, as well as scientists and governments, of the need to radically reduce planet-heating emissions to avoid the worst effects of the climate crisis.

“We should abandon the fantasy of phasing out oil and gas, and instead invest in them adequately,” said Amin Nasser, chief executive of Saudi Aramco, the world’s largest oil company, to applause in the room.
Nasser dismissed projections by the International Energy Agency (IEA) that global demand for oil and gas will peak by 2030, claiming that rising energy costs mean that people will require “the importance of oil and gas security” rather than shift to renewables.
“In fact, in the real world, the current transition strategy is visibly failing on most fronts,” Nasser added, criticizing solar, wind and electric vehicles for what he said was a minimal impact in cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
etc.

What world do these people live in? Or does their self-interest blind them to any of the evidence or facts and developments that the rest of us see and are experiencing?

[Ken]

the global oil industry earned $4 trillion in 2023, or a staggering $10 billion per day.

Electric vehicles represent an existential threat to the $4 trillion oil industry which has responded in recent years with a global propaganda campaign to slow the transition to to EVs in order to protect their monopoly on global transport energy supply chains.

From the oil industry’s perspective, they can theoretically pay charlatans, shock jocks and PR spin doctors hundreds of millions of dollars to sow misinformation about EVs into the public discourse and if it delays the uptake of EVs by a single day, it’s paid for itself.

[Moxi]

I consider the fact that they are willing to come out publicly and embarrass themselves with blatant lies and expressions of self interest as a sign that its starting to hurt their bottom line, looking forward to seeing more of this type of thing as they lose their margins.

Moxi

[dan_b]

It's great when they say the quiet bit out loud isn't it.


This graph will make interesting viewing over the coming years.

https://www.racfoundation.org/data/volu ... me-by-year

[Mart]

Sadly, I think some will say anything if it helps them with their business or career.

Comments in this recent article, really annoyed me:

UK government accused of trying to ‘stoke culture war on climate issues’

Rees-Mogg said the government’s plan to call for more investment in gas power projects was “a good first step against the net zero obsession” but called on the government to go further.

“We have become fundamentally uncompetitive because of this green obsession,” he told the Commons. “We want cheap electricity, and we should have gas and we should have coal and we should postpone net zero indefinitely, because we are only 1% of global emissions, we are making no difference and the US economy is growing consistently faster than ours because of cheap energy.”

Net zero, should be an obsession (within reason). Cheaper energy, energy security, better balance of payments, cleaner air, and so on, and so on. And I've had a right guts full of the 1% argument. Totals are made up of smaller percentages, every 1% counts. Plus the UK has ~1% of the world population, so 1% emissions confirms our need to act as hard as everyone else, not excuse us.

PS. Just to say, this isn't about politics. It's about a small number of people (in any public role), who will lie and mislead, to benefit themselves.

[AE-NMidlands]

PS. Just to say, this isn't about politics. It's about a small number of people (in any public role), who will lie and mislead, to benefit themselves.

Which chimes in with a spy thriller I just read, https://cheslive.koha-ptfs.co.uk/cgi-bi ... ber=670673 had a very complimentary review in Private Eye, and was almost ignored in the mainstream press. Go figure, as they say.
(also, by coincidence, a book a friend has just lent me called "Chums."

[openspaceman]

Plus the UK has ~1% of the world population, so 1% emissions confirms our need to act as hard as everyone else, not excuse us.

A quick calculation shows you are about right, so a highly developed nation with ~1% of the world population producing 1% of the CO2 emissions looks like a good result to me, setting aside we export emissions by importing so much in goods. Of course a big majority of the world population are too poor to cause much CO2 emissions.

That said all countries compete for economic dominance and unilateral actions to curtail emissions will lead to a fall in relative wealth (which we have been seeing since the 1920s compared with the USA).

[Ken]

As long as politicians need to get elected they will say and do silly things.

As long as business wants to make money they will ignore them and do what makes money.

The genie is out of the bottle and RE now makes sense at every level but it is difficult just to laugh off these stupid Eaton boys.

I cannot believe there is a market for any other than peaker plants which for new ones will be cheaper OCGT which will be paid in effect to be on standby. It does not matter if they hardly run as they then cannot do much pollution.

The Gov can make sweet noises to the anti RE (to get their vote) knowing full well they will never happen because the business case does not add up.