Front Burner - How ‘carbon bombs’ could blow up climate action

Episode Date: May 24, 2022

A new investigation from the Guardian’s climate journalists shows that oil and gas investment continues globally on 195 projects that would each release more than one gigaton of carbon if the reserves were fully exploited. This, despite the fact that scientists say 60 per cent of oil and gas reserves will need to stay in the ground if we want to avoid heating the Earth by 1.5 C. If you add up all of the carbon that could be released from these oil and gas “carbon bombs,” Canada is in sixth place as one of the worst potential polluters. We’re home to nine sites that could release more than 27 gigatons of carbon. Canada is also home to three coal carbon bombs. Damian Carrington is the environment editor of the Guardian. He says the ongoing investment in these projects reveal an oil and gas industry that does not believe the world will achieve its climate goals.

In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. This is a CBC Podcast. Hi, I'm Jamie Poisson. This April, after the UN's latest climate change report came out, Secretary General Antonio Guterres came out swinging against the companies and governments whose words on climate didn't match their actions. Simply put, they are lying.

And the results will be catastrophic. Investing in new fossil fuel infrastructure is moral and economic madness. These investments, they're significant. We know the clock is ticking when it comes to taking action on the climate crisis. Scientists say 60% of the oil and gas reserves will need to stay in the ground if we want to avoid heating the earth by 1.5 degrees Celsius. But a new investigation from The Guardian shows that despite this, oil and gas companies are still exploring, extracting, and producing. And some of that work is on sites that are so big they could actually blow us right

out of the water of our Paris targets. They're called carbon bombs. Sites and projects calculated to release at least one gigaton of carbon if they're developed to their full potential. Damian Carrington is the environment editor of The Guardian, and he's joining us today. Hi, Damian. Thank you very much for being here. Thanks for having me. So a carbon bomb, I know, can be any huge emitting project, including coal production. But you started thinking about these oil and gas carbon bombs when you were at COP26 in Glasgow last year. And can you tell me about what happened there and how that led you to this investigation? Of course, yeah, there was quite a dramatic

moment at the end of COP26. You imagine two weeks of being trapped in this big convention centre, everybody's absolutely exhausted, trying to get the sort of final text of the agreement. And Alok Sharma, who was the president of the COP, a British minister, had to announce that some language around coal had been watered down. And he was basically on the verge of tears. He was very emotional at the strain and stress of all of this. I also understand the deep disappointment. But I think, as you have noted, it's also vital that we protect this package.

Yeah, that really caught our attention. And they were talking about coal, which for the first time ever had been mentioned in a UN Climate Summit agreement, first time in 25 years of the whole thing. You know, so that was pretty remarkable. It had been watered down from phasing out coal to phasing down coal. And the countries behind this, you know, watering down were India with China behind them

so of course they got a lot of criticism for you know trying to stand in the way of climate action but what we realized was about 60% of emissions around the world come from oil and gas and some of the very biggest oil and gas producers like United States and Canada's we'll come to talk to in a moment, I'm sure, were not really getting any attention at all. And in fact, some of those countries were putting themselves forward as being climate leaders. This is an important time, and it requires important measures. That's why Canada and Canadians have been stepping up here at COP26. On emissions, we've committed to put a cap and begin to cut emissions from oil and gas production.

We're the first major oil and gas producing nation to do that. And that seemed a bit strange to us. And it also seemed to us that there was this chance of this incredible paradox whereby we knew that most oil and gas reserves had to stay on the ground. And yet the big oil and gas companies seem to be trying to explore for far more than could ever be safely exploited if we want to have a livable climate. So we thought we should have a dig into that as well. So obviously, the big part of your investigation was identifying how many carbon bombs we could be looking at here. And a lot of this was from a paper in the journal Energy Policy, right?

And Kiela Kuna, who is one of the authors, spoke to our producer last week. So what we did in the study is to look at how many reserves there are in a certain project. In the case of oil and gas, it's oil and gas fields. We're looking at how many reserves are in the ground. We're relying on estimates by industry experts on how much is extractable. And then we assume that all gets extracted and burned and look at how much CO2 would be emitted. And anything that has the potential to emit more than a billion tons of CO2 gets included in the list. He explained how they looked at sites over one gigaton of potential CO2 emissions starting in 2020,

so not even including reserves that were already extracted from longstanding projects. If the companies try some, you know, trickery with saying, oh, we will only look at, you know, our own trucks and our own operations, but we will not account for the, you know, the end user burning the product. You know, that's their way of doing their green PR and trying to, you know, sell themselves as green while they're not. But in our case, we just look at how much oil and gas and coal it is, if you burn it, how much CO2 it generates. We don't look at who burns it, when, how, it's just, you know, the emissions bottom line. And they found 119 ongoing oil and gas projects and 76 new oil and gas projects made the list. So

how did you react when you got those numbers? It's really quite astounding. I know it is. It's shocking, you know, to put it simply. So we've been working with those researchers for a while and they shared their findings with us. But yeah, 195 carbon bombs, because when you added up all the carbon emissions that would come from the oil and gas, if those bombs were fully exploited, and as you say, most of them are already on the way, was about 650 gigatons of CO2. And the IPCC, the World Climate Scientists Report that came out recently recently put the carbon budget at 500 gigatons in order to have a decent chance of keeping temperatures below 1.5 c so just oil and gas alone you know on these projects was going to blow that that target forget about you

know deforestation and all the other things which cause emissions so again you know that looked pretty striking to us. Who are the worst offenders in these 195 carbon bomb projects? the United States, apart from the Trump years, talking about themselves as being leaders. And yet they're by far the biggest in terms of carbon. Saudi Arabia is not so much of a surprise, or Russia. But Canada is going to be surprising to some with a pretty large number, nine carbon bombs, which adds up to more or less 27 gigatons. And just for scale, like that 27 gigatons of carbon is about 40 years of canada's annual emissions today and the reason the reason that's scary is because the world's climate scientists

have already told us that we have to half global emissions by 2030 um in order to have a good chance of 1.5 so you can see that everything's pointing in the wrong direction could you give me an example of like one or two of these um bombs in canada sure so the biggest um is the montney play um it's in british columbia and alberta um and that adds up to almost 14 gigatons just by itself so that's about 20 years of can Canada's annual emissions as they stand at the moment. We only looked at the oil and gas ones. But the second biggest carbon bomb is the Murray River coal mine. And then the third is Spirit River, which is an oil and gas project as well. Wow. You know, you talked before about the United States positioning themselves as a climate leader, but Canada does too as well.

And what do you make of how the country is positioning itself and then the fact that it has these major projects on the go? Yeah, well, there's, you know, for countries which are both, you know, take climate seriously, but also are host to very large reserves of fossil fuel. There's a dilemma there. And certainly before the pandemic at the UN climate summits, I remember seeing Catherine McKenna, who was the former environment minister there,

launching a coalition to phase out coal. So phasing out coal is not that big a deal for Canada because you don't have that much of it. But I remember when I was trying to ask her about tar sands, she wasn't so keen to talk about it. So there's definitely a problem there. And I think that's the thing that hopefully our investigation shed some light on is that oil and gas has sort of slid under the radar a bit. Everyone's been focused on coal, and quite rightly,

that's the most polluting fossil fuel. But oil and gas is still an enormous problem and then that brings in you know countries which we aren't necessarily always thinking of like the US, Canada and Australia to some extent in terms of you know dealing with climate change. Do you think that there's a problem here in how we focus on big polluters? So much of the heat is focused on Russia, India, China, the Middle East. And do you think that that that that focus is is appropriate absolutely as i say coal yeah has to go uh and that's fine and china and india are big users of those um but in a way that argument's almost done you know what we're really worried about now is um

what happens with oil and gas and that hasn't been talked about because the the focus has been um deflected. And time is unbelievably short. We've only got a few years to start turning these things around. But another part of our investigation showed that the 12 biggest oil and gas companies in the world are planning to spend over $100 million a day until 2030 on projects that aren't compatible with keeping temperatures well below 2C, which is what the world's governments have agreed to. So, you know, the situation is very far from

being where it needs to be. We're talking about coal, but Russia and the Middle East, they're also the sites of major oil and gas projects that could really put our goals at risk, right? And can you give me some details on that, what those projects can mean for our continued survival? So in terms of the carbon dioxide that can come from these carbon bombs, most of which are already started, the United States is the biggest by some way, followed by Saudi Arabia, Russia, and then Qatar. And things, when you add up all 195 of them, if they're all exploited, that pushes us well beyond 1.5 degrees. And that's into a world with more droughts, more floods, no coral reefs, and suffering for many people.

So right now, we're in the middle of a climate emergency. And even the International Energy Agency has said we don't need any new oil and gas projects. So investing in these projects means that you are betting on keeping going with extracting more and more fossil fuels over the next couple of decades. In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization. Empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. Hi, it's Ramit Sethi here. You may have seen my money show on Netflix. I've been talking about money for 20 years.

I've talked to millions of people and I have some startling numbers to share with you. Did you know that of the people I speak to, 50% of them do not know their own household income? That's not a typo. 50%. That's because money is confusing. In my new book and podcast, Money for Couples, I help you and your partner create a financial vision together. To listen to this podcast, just search for Money for Couples. I help you and your partner create a financial vision together. To listen to this podcast, just search for Money for Couples. You'd think that there would be some serious risk aversion to starting these new projects when so many government leaders are talking about reducing emissions. And so why do you think that we're still seeing these projects move forward?

It's a really good question. And for the absolute right answer, you'd have to ask the bosses of the companies who are making these big bets. But, you know, from my point of view, it is hard to understand how, you know, all the governments in the world sign up to agreements and say, yes, we're going to be net zero by 2050 but these projects are not compatible with it so you know one way to think about it is that these companies are making a very big bet that we're not going to be net zero by 2050 and that all their oil and gas projects can come to fruition and produce all the oil and gas that they want and they'll you know presumably make lots of money back on those investments but at the same time time will have blasted through the temperature targets, which are intended to keep the climate livable.

So it's a very strange situation. Right. So basically what you're saying here is that these companies think that the governments are going to fail, that they're not going to make these targets. Yeah, that's the only real way to understand it. I find it hard to see another way how it can be. I mean, gambling is in the nature of oil and gas companies, right? It's a risky business. It costs a lot of money to go drilling, and you don't always find what you want to find. So they're used to spending billions of dollars on things in the hope that some of them pay off.

But as we see now with very high oil and gas prices, when they do pay off, oh boy, they really pay off. Oil and gas companies have made hundreds of billions of dollars this year alone. Why are the governments allowing these projects? So there's a couple of reasons, I'd say. One is that, as I say, the attention hasn't really been focused on oil and gas so much. Another reason is that some of the biggest oil companies in the world are government-owned, like Saudi Aramco, like Qatar Gas. And so the government and the oil and gas industry are one and the same thing.

And in many of those countries, the national budget absolutely relies on the revenues from those oil and gas products. So, you know, it's pretty tough for them to take the decision to turn that down. The other side of it is that from the international companies, you know, the big public ones, they have spent a lot of money, you know, lobbying governments over very many years, they're big employers, they have a lot of political power. So I think all those things have led to us being where we are today. Have you been able to speak with any of the oil and gas executives from the private companies like how do they how do they defend these investments? Yeah well it's a good question and of course I think we mentioned about 15 companies in our investigation.

So, of course, we wrote to all of them and asked them if they wanted to reply. Only a handful did. Most of them didn't respond at all. A couple like Saudi Aramco said no comment. But companies like Exxon and Shell and ConocoPhillips sort of pointed us to their sustainability plans, which a lot of them talked about reducing emissions from their own operations. But, of course, that doesn't do anything about the emissions from the products that they sell, the oil and gas. They also pointed to their sort of investments, growing investments in renewable energy.

But, again, for most companies, it's a very small fraction of the investments that they're making overall with most of it going into oil and gas um petrobras the brazilian company you know kind of engaged with us and sent us some some specific answers um and their argument was really that they think they can produce oil and gas cheaper and more cleanly than other companies and so when the last barrel comes to be sold we hope at some point in the future they're going to be the one supplying it but of course all the companies think that so you know when you add up all the plans of all the companies that's how you get to this enormous carbon bomb explosion which we can't afford to let happen I wonder how the war in Ukraine is changing the equation here, if at all. I think it's too early to tell, but it's pushing in two directions at once.

I think it's too early to tell, but it's pushing in two directions at once. So the first direction is that it's pushed up oil and gas prices, which of course makes it more tempting for oil and gas companies to invest in new projects. It's also encouraged countries to try and increase oil and gas supplies from outside of Russia. We're choking Russia's access. Governments imposing stiff sanctions on Russia. In Canada, a ban on the small amount of oil imported from the country. Russia's energy exports a prime target for the West.

Germany cancelled a major natural gas pipeline from Russia. Many European countries looking for alternatives to Russian energy. A need Alberta's premier is eager to fill. So, you know, those are sort of negative from a climate point of view, at least. But in the longer term, it goes in the other direction. So countries in Europe, for example, Germany, which is a big country and very reliant on Russian gas, is trying to work really hard and very quick to get off Russian gas by increasing efficiency of homes and increasing the rollout of renewable energy. So that's a bit of a longer term project. But I think where the balance ends up between the extra fossil fuel that gets produced

from those short term pressures against the fossil fuel reduction use in the longer term, we don't really know at the moment. It's too early to tell. But it's certainly shaking things up. And Russia is a big producer. It produces about 20% of the world's oil and gas. But, of course, 80% is a much bigger number, and that's the rest of the world.

So, you know, I don't think what's happening in Ukraine is going to change this crazy situation we're in overall, which is that, you know, we're on track to produce way more oil and gas globally than we can afford to burn. What do you think it would take to stop these projects that we, as you just said, can't afford to have go forward? It's a good question. I if i um had the answer then um i'd probably be un secretary general or something but um i think you know government's going to have to make these difficult decisions and they're going to have to start working now about how do they exit from licenses that they may already have granted or production that's already happened um but in order

for governments to um make those choices, to be bold and decisive in that way, they have to feel the pressure from people. That's my personal feeling. I think that the pandemic stopped the global youth protests which had been really powerful I think up until the pandemic struck and they're starting to come back now but I think until people really raise their voices, I'm not sure politicians will act with the urgency required. An environment minister once said to me that, you know, Damien,

I need a million people on the street to be able to go into my government meetings and say, we've got to do something about this now um and i think perhaps that might be what it takes damien thank you so much that was really great if not uh slightly depressing or or very depressing um but that was great thank you for coming on i mean i suppose like when people when people you know when people say to me it's depressing i mean it's it's not too late. We're running out of time really fast, but it's not too late just yet. There's still a path, there's still a window.

If we act quickly, if people have resolve all the way through from governments and companies down to communities, we still can limit climate change to you know well we can still avoid the very worst of it um and the other thing is that every every bit's worth fighting for you know it isn't um a switch that flicks we don't go from you know happy climate today to climate horrors tomorrow with the flick of a switch it's a it's a gradual process and so you know everything every small thing that everybody does and building up all the way to the big things that people do, everything that can be done reduces the suffering

that we'll see in the world, that bit. So the fight will never end to try and limit climate change. And I don't know if that's any cheerier, but it's not hopeless. That's what I'm trying to say. All right, that is all for today. You can read more about how we solve the climate crisis and where we go from here if you go to cbcnews.ca slash climate.

And if you've listened this far, maybe give us a follow on social. We're on Twitter at FrontBurnerCBC and on Instagram at CBC Podcasts. I'm Jamie Poisson, and we'll talk to you tomorrow. For more CBC Podcasts, go to cbc.ca slash podcasts.