THE CARBON WAR

Doom, boom, or bust 75
Energy demand growth, in our view, will lead to fossil fuels continuing to play
a major role in the energy system – accounting for 40-60% of energy supply
in 2050 and beyond, for example. The huge investment required to provide
energy is expected to require high energy prices, and not the drastic price drop
envisaged for hydrocarbons in the carbon bubble concept.”
They leave a major hostage to fortune by admitting they need high energy
prices to justify investment in their vision. It would be interesting to watch
Shell react if oil prices drop.
There are other gaping holes in their argument. Carbon Tracker does not
think that fossil fuel assets can only be stranded by a low oil price, as would be
obvious to anyone who read our reports. High prices can strand assets just as
well as low prices, in a world of such fast-falling alternative-energy prices. So
too can carbon emission and air pollution legislation, which will be necessary
to avoid catastrophic rises in global temperatures.
As for relying on climate negotiators to achieve nothing of note for decades,
while fossil fuels barrel on providing the majority of the world’s energy, how can
Shell dismiss the risk of a different outcome? What a huge assumption to make
that the destabilisation of the climate system, so evident for those with the eyes
to see it today, will not at some point trigger a survival reflex in society. What
an insult to the hundreds of climate negotiators from the dozens of countries
who are acting in good faith at the climate negotiations, trying to find ways to
agree and enforce emissions targets.
Shell’s response to our oil report is very similar to ExxonMobil’s in its
contempt for the climate negotiations and their prospects.
Today we see unsurprising evidence that oil companies have been colluding.
The industry association IPIECA, speaking for many companies, publishes
a “fact sheet” on its website echoing the main points made by ExxonMobil and
Shell in their responses to Carbon Tracker’s work.
The members of the “doom, boom, or bust” panel take turns to set out
our stalls. Wim Thomas has an interesting spin on the Shell party line. Solar
will indeed become the world’s dominant energy source, he says. By 2070. By
then, we will still need a lot of carbon capture and storage to handle all the
fossil fuels we will be using. There will be lots of gas consumption still.
In the discussion, steered by Pilita Clark quickly to the heart of the issue,
I find myself in a situation I have never been in before in these four-person
panels. I am part of a majority side, contesting a minority of one. Normally it
is me who is the minority of one.