🚰 The tap or 🧹 the mop?
Welcome back to another edition of The Green New Spiel, covering four exciting topics across the clean solution spectrum in just 3 minutes and 17 seconds. I hope you enjoy it!
🌡 A recent analysis by McKinsey flags the urgent timeframe we have to ramp up carbon capture capacity should we want to stick to the target of keeping global warming below 1.5°C.
🏎 Porsche are cleaning up their supply chain, asking their suppliers to all move to renewable energy or face losing their contracts.
🛢 Getting the oil majors to sell off numerous oil and gas assets might not always be a good thing. Read below to find out why.
🇳🇷 Find out why Nauru, the tiny Pacific nation, is making waves in the mining industry.
Do these topics sound interesting? Fancy receiving The Green New Spiel directly to your inbox? Make sure to sign up below:
📖 The long read:🚰 the tap or 🧹 the mop?
A common metaphor used when discussing how to reduce greenhouse gases is an overflowing bath tub. Should we turn off the tap and cut the source of the problem, or should we grab the mop and start cleaning up?
Personally, I think it feels pretty non-sensical not taking both options seriously: a recent analysis by McKinsey for the Coalition for Negative Emissions confirmed that, to keep warming below 1.5°C, solutions that capture and store CO2 from the existing ‘stock’ of emissions must be employed. Most major forecasted pathways to keeping warming below 1.5°C also include carbon capture in their forecasts; they all agree that mopping up is necessary too.
However, as mentioned in a previous Green New Spiel, we are a long way off from hitting that target, and supposedly we are very short on time too. Yes, more and more carbon capture initiatives are popping up in recent months and the attention is of course very welcome, however, McKinsey’s analysis suggests that we will need to remove a billion tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere by 2025, if the Paris target is to be met, and more than one billion tonnes annually thereafter.
Unfortunately, the current pipeline of projects in development could remove only around 150 million tonnes of CO2 by 2025, a significant shortfall vs what is needed.
Remember, switching off the tap (to the extent possible) and taking out the mop to clean up are both fundamental tools which we need to leverage. We can’t just use carbon capture as a get out of jail free card.
I am currently talking to a few carbon capture companies to better understand what they offer to individuals who are keen to pay to offset their carbon footprint (here the issue of additionality, as mentioned in my recent edition on carbon offsets, is not an issue if the carbon capture plant is run on clean energy sources). Once I have finished those conversations, I will share them with you Spielers, in case anyone else is interested.
🌳 In the meantime however, if you are keen to contribute to reducing your carbon footprint, I would recommend you check out TreeApp - it allows you to plant a tree a day by its partnering with existing NGOs across dozens of countries. It takes less than 40 seconds a day!
Click here to read the Reuters article.
And in other news:
🏎 You better clean up, doo doo doo, because Porsche needs a hand
… and their heart is set on green.
Porsche is pushing its 1,300 suppliers to only use renewable energy in producing its components: they supposedly contribute to 20% of the car maker’s carbon emissions however this percentage is set to rise to around 40% by 2030 due to the increasing electrification of its vehicles.
It applies to any contracts awarded for providing production material for new vehicle projects. Suppliers who are unwilling to switch to certified green energy will no longer be considered for contracts with Porsche in the long term.
Click here to read Porsche’s press release.
🛢 Getting the oil majors to sell off numerous oil and gas assets might not always be a good thing
Large oil companies have been under huge pressure to reduce their environmental impact and sell off a number of oil and gas assets. However, that means that there is a buyer. Most likely a lesser known buyer, maybe a private company or a state run company, which has a much lower level of scrutiny from investors and activists. They are simply moving emissions from one owner to another. This can have unintended consequences for the environment as small players have fewer environmental disclosure obligations and therefore will be able to effectively hide their impact.
In addition, pressure has been predominantly directed at publicly listed oil companies which, according to the IEA, only account for 2% of oil and gas reserves, 15% of production and 10% of estimated emissions from industry operations. National oil and gas companies make up the lion share.
It is true that the asset sales by oil majors have resulted in increased spending by them on renewable energy sources: they are most likely the players with the ability to scale new, clean technologies faster than anyone else.
The total value of oil and gas assets up for sale across the industry stands at more than $140bn, according to the consultancy Wood Mackenzie.
Is this pressure on oil majors right? Should citizens be pushing their governments more? Should oil and gas companies be encouraged to simply take a loss and retire certain assets without selling them on? If you have any thoughts on this or work in the sector I would love to hear from you.
Read the FT article here.
🇳🇷 Deep sea mining may come around quicker than anticipated
The Pacific nation of Nauru may have just caused deep sea mining to become a reality faster than anticipated. Deep sea mining is still arguably a controversial topic for many activists: it is a relatively new industry and hence many are still worried about the unknown potential impacts.
Nauru has however called upon the International Seabed Authority (ISA) - a UN body that oversees the ocean floor - to speed up the regulations that will govern deep sea mining.
It's activated a seemingly obscure sub-clause in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea that allows countries to pull a 'two-year trigger' if they feel negotiations are going too slowly. This starts the clock: if the ISA does not manage to settle the rules for mining within two years, it may issue Nauru with provisional approval to go ahead.
The Metals Company, previously known as DeepGreen, who are partnered with Nauru, argue that deep sea mining drastically reduces the environmental and social impact of EV battery metals, including a reduction of 89% in water usage, 70% in CO2e emissions, 94% in stored carbon at risk and 97% in risk to human life.
Read the BBC article here.
Did you enjoy today’s edition? Do you think any of your family, friends or colleagues would enjoy it too? Click below and invite them to join The Green New Spiel Community!
Thanks for taking the time to read The Green New Spiel and I look forward to seeing you back here next time.
Ciao,
Carlo