Decarbonization scenarios by BP, Royal Dutch Shell, and Equinor are inconsistent with Paris Agreement’s aims for a clean and livable Earth.

This is the conclusion of a new study that shows how the global decarbonization scenarios proposed by these energy companies indicate slowed reductions in fossil fuel consumption and risk overshooting crucial climate goals. The findings of the study, which were led by the research organization Climate Analytics and included contributors from Imperial College London, were published today in Nature Communications.

Various organizations in the public, private, and academic sectors work together to create scenarios that predict future energy demands and the associated emissions. These scenarios help governments and other organizations plan globally in order to calculate how quickly certain industries must reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

The scenarios are constructed by estimating future energy demands across several economic sectors, such as agriculture and manufacturing, and then extrapolating the energy sources, such as fossil fuels, nuclear power, or renewable electricity, that would be required to meet those demands. The projected energy mix is then utilized to make an estimate of the resulting carbon emissions.

In recent years, fossil fuel firms have attempted to include decarbonization goals and the consequent climatic implications in their own projections of future global energy consumption.

However, the underlying presumptions of the scenarios used to support their claims of compliance with the Paris Agreement are not always obvious. Because of this, it is challenging to compare them to scientifically developed scenarios, like those employed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Researchers have now analyzed six institutional scenarios released between 2020 and mid-2021, estimated the temperature results for these scenarios, and mapped these temperature outcomes to the aims of the Paris Agreement using an open-source methodology and clear set of criteria.

The scenarios include two created by the International Energy Agency (IEA) and four by the oil giants (two each from BP, Royal Dutch Shell, and Equinor) (IEA). Most of the examined scenarios are classed as ‘Lower 2°C pathways’ (pathways that keep peak warming below 2°C with a 66% likelihood or above).

“Most of the scenarios we evaluated,” according to Dr. Robert Brecha, co-lead author of the study from Climate Analytics, “would be classified as inconsistent with the Paris Agreement as they fail to limit warming to ‘well below 2 ̊C, let alone 1.5 ̊C, and would exceed the 1.5 ̊C warming limit by a significant margin.”

Equinor’s “Rebalance” scenario has a peak warming of 1.73°C above pre-industrial levels in 2060, BP’s “Rapid” scenario peaks at 1.73°C in 2058, Shell’s “Sky” scenario peaks at 1.81°C in 2069, and the IEA’s “sustainable development scenario” (SDS) peaks at 1.78°C in 2056. Since even a few tenths of a degree can make a difference, BP’s Net Zero scenario would result in a median peak warming that is incompatible with the Paris Agreement standards.

Only the Net Zero 2050 scenario from the International Energy Agency (IEA) meets the criteria for consistency with the Paris Agreement that the study’s researchers used.

“Even temporarily exceeding the 1.5°C warming would lead to catastrophic impacts and severely weaken our ability to adapt to climate change,” added Bill Hare, CEO and Senior Scientist at Climate Analytics.

It’s encouraging that institutions with a history of relying on fossil fuels are making preparations for the impending switch to clean energy, according to co-author Dr. Robin Lamboll of the Centre for Environmental Policy at Imperial.

“However, it’s important that we don’t allow oil companies to mark their own work when providing suggestions for how the world can transition away from fossil fuels in a way that meets the Paris Agreement. It’s also important to be aware of these biases when databases of scenarios like this are used to frame what is possible and what is ‘radical’ in terms of climate goals.”

Along with temperature results, the authors evaluated which aspects of the anticipated energy systems make a specific scenario comply (or not comply) with the Paris Agreement. They forecast unusually high coal and gas use even though the development of renewable energy sources is similar to that in other scenarios that satisfy the goals of the Paris Agreement.

The analysis demonstrates that reforestation is not enough to fully offset the emissions from coal consumption in the scenarios considered. Dr. Lamboll asserted: “Although protecting existing forests and afforesting more regions is good, in a world of limited land and increasingly challenging growing conditions, it is unwise to rely too heavily on forests to save us from continued use of fossil fuels.

“Furthermore, coal use is particularly noxious for health reasons quite unrelated to climate change, and should not play a role in our future even if we can grow forests or deploy negative emissions technologies to counteract the carbon.” 

Institutional assessments have generally been vague about climate outcomes, according to Dr. Matthew Gidden, co-author of the study from Climate Analytics. “Our study provides a direct line of sight from pathways to temperature. Governments should use these tools to carry out a robust assessment of the energy-system transformation to meet the Paris Agreement goals.”

Image Credit: Getty

You were reading: Big Oil’s Fossil Fuel Plans Are Inconsistent With The Paris Agreement