US, Japan, Germany miss G7 fossil fuel goal: Report

  • Market: Coal, Crude oil, Emissions, Natural gas
  • 13/04/23

G7 countries the US, Japan — which is hosting the group's summit this year — Italy and Germany are still lagging behind their commitment to end new direct international public finance for unabated fossil fuels, according to civil society organisations (CSOs) Oil Change International and E3G.

G7 climate and environment ministers reiterated in May 2022 a pledge made by 39 countries at the UN Cop 26 climate conference in 2021, committing to end public financing of unabated coal, oil and gas projects by the end of 2022. The G7 nations are Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK and the US.

Progress has been made in shifting billions in international public finance away from fossil fuels and into clean energy, the organisations said, adding that Canada, the UK and France's new and existing policies "largely meet" the Glasgow and G7 promises.

But Japan and Germany have yet to release policies to meet their commitment, while Italy's policy does not meet the pledge, they added. The three countries, as well as the US, have all missed the 2022 deadline. The US has adopted some guidelines but has not made them public, the two CSOs said.

The G7 has the opportunity to accelerate the energy transition by delivering on their commitment, the CSOs said, adding that the group's climate and energy ministers meeting this weekend in Japan "must reiterate and strengthen" their public financing goal and steer clear of language supporting investments in upstream gas and LNG.

The G7 economies last year added a caveat to the commitment, saying "publicly supported investment in the gas sector can be appropriate" in order to reduce dependency on Russian gas.

Japan is "actively pushing" for investments in LNG this year, although this has been "met with resistance" from the EU, Canada, the UK and the US, the organisations said.

Oil Change International and E3G found that the G7's international public finance for fossil fuels reached at least $73bn in 2020-22, compared with $28.6bn for clean energy over the same period. The brunt of the funding for fossil fuel projects — 82pc — came from export credit agencies (ECAs). The organisations also found that, in 2022-22, 28pc of all G7 energy finance went to gas — $10bn/yr — "more than any other energy sub-sector", with the majority of gas finance going into LNG.

Japan and the US were the top supporters of LNG, providing 47pc and 20pc, respectively, of all of the G7's LNG finance, they said.

A further $8.6bn/yr went to oil and gas projects, they said, while clean energy finance reached $9.5bn in the 2020-22 period.

"Canada, Japan, and Italy provided the most international public finance for fossil fuels between 2020 and 2022, giving an annual average of at least $10.5bn, $6.9bn and $2.9bn, respectively," Oil Change International and E3G said.


Sharelinkedin-sharetwitter-sharefacebook-shareemail-share

Related news posts

Argus illuminates the markets by putting a lens on the areas that matter most to you. The market news and commentary we publish reveals vital insights that enable you to make stronger, well-informed decisions. Explore a selection of news stories related to this one.

News
19/06/24

Australian opposition releases nuclear power plan

Australian opposition releases nuclear power plan

Sydney, 19 June (Argus) — Australia's main political opposition today laid out its nuclear energy plan. It aims to bring the first government-owned reactors on line as early as 2035-37 if it is elected next year. The Liberal-National coalition announced seven locations where small modular reactors (SMRs) or large-scale units could be installed, all in sites hosting coal-fired power facilities that have either closed or are scheduled to close, and each of them would have cooling water capacity and transmission infrastructure. A SMR could start generating electricity by 2035, while a larger plant could come on line by 2037, according to the coalition. "The Australian government will own these assets, but form partnerships with experienced nuclear companies to build and operate them," the opposition's leader Peter Dutton, spokesman for climate change and energy Ted O'Brien and National party leader David Littleproud said in a joint statement on 19 June. The opposition claims the federal Labor government's "renewables-only approach" is expensive and is "failing", while its target of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 43pc by 2030 has become "unachievable". The coalition earlier this month said it would not pursue the target, although it declined to set its own 2030 goal for GHG emissions cuts . Federal energy minister Chris Bowen said the coalition's plan lacked detail, costs or modelling, although the opposition has vowed to engage with local communities while site studies, including detailed technical and economic assessments, take place. The proposed sites are the Liddell and Mount Piper plants in New South Wales; the Tarong and Callide stations in Queensland; the Loy Yang facility in Victoria; the Northern Power station in South Australia; and the Muja plant in Western Australia. Nuclear power generation is prohibited in Australia under federal and state laws, and the Labor government last year ruled out legalising it because of its high costs. The Australian federal government estimates that replacing Australia's coal-fired plants with nuclear would cost A$387bn ($257bn) . The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) late last year said SMRs would not have "any major role" in emission cuts needed in the electricity sector for the country to reach its net zero GHG emissions target by 2050, as costs would be well above those for onshore wind and solar photovoltaic (PV). Nuclear plants would also take 15 years or more to be deployed because of lengthy periods for certification, planning and construction, CSIRO noted. CSIRO last month included large-scale nuclear costs for the first time in its annual GenCost report, saying costs would be lower than those for SMRs but still way above renewables. Estimated costs between A$136-226/MWh could be reached by 2040, compared with A$171-366/MWh for SMRs and A$144-239/MWh for coal-fired power with carbon capture and storage (CCS), but only if Australia committed to a "continuous nuclear building programme", requiring an initial investment in a higher cost unit. "If a decision to pursue nuclear in Australia were made in 2025, with political support for the required legislative changes, then the first full operation would be no sooner than 2040," CSIRO noted. By Juan Weik Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Find out more
News

Gas necessary for Asia, unwise not to invest: Summit


19/06/24
News
19/06/24

Gas necessary for Asia, unwise not to invest: Summit

Singapore, 19 June (Argus) — Asia's LNG market faces many uncertainties, but not continuing to invest in it would be unwise as it is necessary for economic growth, said speakers at the Association of Energy Negotiators' International Energy Summit in Bangkok, Thailand last week. Many countries are increasingly focusing on batteries and renewables as part of their energy transition plans to move away from fossil fuels, but batteries are still far from being commercially attractive from a cost perspective, said Andrew Kirk, vice-president of origination, LNG at conglomerate B Grimm. Batteries may be able to provide a stable solution to the intermittency challenges posed by renewables in some regions, but wealthier countries are failing to acknowledge that developing countries cannot accept the higher costs involved, as well as the massively daunting task of building and installing the required capacity, he said. "We have to separate the aspirational from the unachievable," said Kirk. There is already instability resulting from gas shortages even in more developed economies such as Australia, where the Australian Energy Market Operator has projected a shortage in southern states. The federal government has confirmed the need for a pro-upstream approach in its future gas strategy , and intends to bring on line new gas supplies and make them affordable during the transition. "The timeline we have given ourselves is starting to look disorderly," said Kirk, with reference to net zero targets. Advancements and breakthroughs in battery technology will be made, but the timeframe for this cannot be defined. If policymakers do not consider reversing declining gas production, the next 10-15 years will create more geopolitical uncertainty, he said. Billions of dollars have been spent on current energy systems, said Steve Morrell, senior vice-president of ExxonMobil PNG LNG, adding that it would make more sense to put more gas into the system considering the higher cost of moving to renewables, he added. "Just by replacing coal [with gas], we'll see a 60pc decrease in emissions without any need for breakthrough technologies." said Morrell. If too much emphasis is placed on renewable energy, this will also lead to declining investment in finding new oil and gas resources, said the executive director of the Petroleum Institute of Thailand, Kurujit Nakornthap, which could lead to energy shortages and more volatile energy prices. "The stone age [ended] not because we ran out of stone, so the oil age is not going to [end] because we're running out of oil," said Nakornthap, paraphrasing a famous quote by ex-Saudi oil minister Sheikh Zaki Yamani. Challenges faced by buyers, sellers Gas projects are already at risk of not receiving funding because the current LNG market outlook is unclear, with short-term price volatility, rolling blackouts, power reduction, and uncertainty in supply affecting buyers and sellers, said Morrell. The whole system is very tight at the moment, added Morrell, and alleviating this is dependent on customers, suppliers and governments as LNG is fundamental to global prosperity. But as a buyer, it is difficult to commit to multi-billion dollar long-term sales and purchase agreements (SPAs) when it is uncertain what the regulatory framework is going to be for the next 5-15 years. The tightness in supply indicates a need for more LNG, which in turn implies there is a need for more projects requiring multi-million dollar investments and that are looking for 20-year offtakes. Gas projects need 4-5 years of construction time and can produce for about 20 years. With an uncertain demand outlook and no buyers to take the product, investment decisions cannot be made and projects cannot get off the ground, said Morrell. "Customers are searching for price signals and trying to plan ahead," said Morrell. But he questioned "if they can't plan six months ahead, how are they going to know 15-20 years ahead?" The changing LNG model Buyers also cannot commit to long-term projects if they cannot predict what the energy transition entails, if certain fuels or greenhouse gas (GHG) intensity reductions get mandated, and how that will change the LNG business model. "The [LNG] market is always changing," said Morrell, with the introduction of carbon pricing to encourage GHG reductions creating further uncertainty for buyers and sellers. There are three areas within the current LNG model that will evolve, said Kirk. There are going to be many new buyers in emerging markets as they turn to LNG as a transition fuel. Secondly, the affordability of low-emission LNG may be an issue because some markets are unable to afford the extra costs when they are struggling to even move from a coal to gas-based market. Thirdly, SPAs will evolve and contracts must change to become more flexible. So buyers and sellers need to "act in good faith", said Kirk. But governments and regulators can slow down developments, which can be frustrating for suppliers, said Morrell. There needs to be a realisation that the consumer is paying for incentives and subsidies that the government provides, he said, adding that discussions should move away from 3–5-year political cycles and look at 20 years in the future. By Prethika Nair Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

New Zealand's carbon credit auction fails to clear


19/06/24
News
19/06/24

New Zealand's carbon credit auction fails to clear

Sydney, 19 June (Argus) — New Zealand's second quarterly carbon allowance auction of 2024 failed to clear today, with no bids because prices in the secondary market have been below the regulated auction price floor of NZ$64 ($39). A total of 4,075,700 New Zealand emissions units (NZUs) were left unsold, including 550,700 remaining from the previous auction in March, which sold 2,974,300 units out of the 3,525,000 offered. No company participated in the 19 June auction, which compares with 16 in the previous sale. This was the first time that no bids were received since the auctions started in 2021. All available units will be rolled over to the next auction on 4 September. The secondary market closed at NZ$49 on 18 June, the New Zealand Stock Exchange (NZX) and European Energy Exchange (EEX) — which jointly operate the country's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) auction — disclosed on 19 June. Prices fell below NZ$45 and neared one-year lows at the end of May, then recovered to around NZ$55 in early June before falling back again, according to data from trading platforms emsTradepoint, CommTrade and Carbon Match. Policy uncertainty and an increasing oversupply have been affecting NZU prices in recent months. New Zealand's government has until September to decide whether it will follow advice from the country's Climate Change Commission (CCC) to reduce auction volumes to address the oversupply. "If there is no announcement on CCC recommendations before the September auction then that will also likely see no sales," said NZX-listed investment fund Carbon Fund's managing director Paul Harrison. All auctions of 2023 failed, with a total of 23mn unsold units being cancelled as a result. By Juan Weik Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

Mexico GHG program still in limbo: MexiCO2


18/06/24
News
18/06/24

Mexico GHG program still in limbo: MexiCO2

Houston, 18 June (Argus) — Despite Mexico's election of a new president with a background in climate science, it is not clear if the new leadership will revive a stalled national emission trading system (ETS), according to one of the country's top carbon market advocates. President-elect Claudia Sheinbaum, the candidate for the ruling Morena party, won the 2 June election to succeed President Andrés Manuel López Obrador. But it is unclear, ahead of her inauguration on 1 October where Sheinbaum will land on wrangling the emissions program and the country's climate commitments and goals, says Eduardo Piquero, chief executive of MexiCO2, a carbon market advocate and a subsidiary of Mexico's stock exchange. "The only hint we've had so far is during some presidential debates, she mentioned she was very keen on climate change and was going to act on Mexico's commitment," Piquero said. Mexico launched a pilot ETS in 2020, with plans to launch a formal national program in 2022. The pilot-phase covered facilities in the energy and industrial sectors that emitted more than 100,000 metric tonnes of CO2 per year, which received allowances at no cost. More than two years after the expected launch of a national market, a formal rollout remains in limbo, primarily because of a lack of action by the government under López Obrador, who Piquero credits with dismantling much of the program along with Mexican environment ministry Semarnat, which oversaw the program. Putting the program and Semarnat back together could take between 2-3 years, Piquero says. Sheinbaum, the former mayor of Mexico City and a climate scientist, has not yet said what her plans are, if any, for a federal emissions trading scheme. A federal ETS will also require new legislation, given the pilot expired after 36 months, and regulators will need to convince major covered participants such as state-owned oil and gas company Pemex and power producer CFE to take part in the official program. The government will also need to reconcile how the ETS will work with the country's state and local programs, such as state carbon taxes in Durango, Guanajuato, San Luis Potosi, Querétaro, Zacatecas, Tamaulipas, and Estado de México, along with others in-development. Currently, Mexico has a goal of a 35pc reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030 from a 2000 baseline. Despite a lack of policy specifics, Sheinbaum pledged to deliver on commitments of her predecessor for items like infrastructure development in southeast Mexico for new natural gas and gas-fired power generation — moves that may not support resumption of the ETS and limiting the nation's emissions. "The only way Mexico can measure and control its emissions is through an ETS," Piquero said. Sheinbaum is set to announce government appointments this week, which would include her choice to head Semarnat, a choice that will color discussions on the future for the ETS program. Piquero expects the job will go to one of two candidates: Marina Robles García, secretary of the environment of Mexico City, or Jose Luis Samaniego, a division chief with the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. By Denise Cathey Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

Phillips 66 targets high Rodeo runs


18/06/24
News
18/06/24

Phillips 66 targets high Rodeo runs

Houston, 18 June (Argus) — Low-carbon feedstock and sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) opportunities will support strong run rates from Phillips 66's converted renewables plant in Rodeo, California, this year, chief executive Mark Lashier said today. The outlook heralded a high output from the converted Rodeo refinery ramping up toward 50,000 b/d of renewable diesel capacity by the end of this month, despite historic lows in state and federal incentives for the fuel. "Where we are today, economically, yes, the credits are kind of compressed, but feedstocks are lower than we anticipated as well," Lashier told the JP Morgan Energy, Power & Renewables conference. "We still see good economic incentives to run and run full." The US independent refiner had started up pre-treatment units at the plant to begin processing lower-carbon feedstocks for renewable diesel in July and August, he said, consistent with previous guidance. "That's how you really make money in these assets — you get the lowest-carbon intensity feedstocks at the best value and process them through the hydrocrackers," Lashier said. " The facility would also bring online 10,000 b/d of renewable jet fuel blendstock production supporting 20,000 b/d of blended sustainable aviation fuel, a product Phillips 66 had not targeted in the initial concept for the site, he said. Both state and federal incentives to supply renewable diesel along the west coast have fallen as the fuel inundates those markets. Renewable diesel alone made up roughly 57pc of California's liquid diesel pool and generated 40pc of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) credits in the state's market-based transportation fuel carbon reduction program by the end of last year. The supply of lower-carbon fuels, led by renewable diesel, to the west coast LCFS markets have outstripped demand for deficit-generating petroleum fuels and led to growing reserves of available credits for compliance. California amassed more than 23mn metric tonnes of credits by the end of last year — more than enough left over after satisfying all of the new deficits generated last year to offset them a second time. The volume of unused credits has sent their price tumbling to nine-year lows. Oregon and Washington credits, which are needed for similar but distinct programs in those states, have similarly dropped as renewable diesel supplies spread out along the west coast. Gasoline consumption generates almost all new deficits in California. Year-over-year demand for the fuel nationwide has fallen below expectations this spring, Lashier said. "We are not really seeing things pick up like a lot of us expected to," he said. Lower-income customers struggling with higher costs on everything they buy may have forgone vacations, he said. The drop in broader buying power meanwhile had rippled through diesel consumption, he said. "As we move towards more expensive energy sources, that's the part of the economy that gets squeezed as well," Lashier said. "Hopefully we move through that and reverse and that part of the economy can pick up as well as the higher end of the economy." By Elliott Blackburn Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Generic Hero Banner

Business intelligence reports

Get concise, trustworthy and unbiased analysis of the latest trends and developments in oil and energy markets. These reports are specially created for decision makers who don’t have time to track markets day-by-day, minute-by-minute.

Learn more