363 #ClimateAction #Amazon #Petition #350
[1]Apart from all the usual existential threats to "the lungs of the world" * there is a new very dangerous threat: drilling for natural gas. They call it clean, and they are partly right. A natural gas plant is cleanER than a coal plant. But it's still burning dino's and producing CO2.
There is an added danger to it, though: searching for and drilling for LNG and the transport causes massive leakage of methane. A gas that's almost 6 times more devastating to the climate than CO2. Directly and very much worse for the vast and diverse ecosystem of a rainforest
Changes in the energy market made searching and drilling for LNG much more profitable, and propagating LNG as "clean[er]" makes investing even more profitable.
About the petition:
STOP FUNDING AMAZON DESTRUCTION
#Citibank, #JPMorganChase, #ItaúUnibanco, #Santander, #BankOfAmerica and #HSBC have poured at least USD $20 billion into fossil fuel projects in the Amazon. These six banks alone are behind half of all the funding towards destructive oil and gas exploration in the rainforest.
They have promised to take action for the climate, preserve biodiversity and protect human rights. But in reality, their money is the driving force behind the destruction.
They are funding drilling which is threatening to turn the Amazon into a dry savannah. Their money is behind the threats faced by Indigenous and traditional communities there.
We cannot accept that these banks profit from claiming to be sustainable but do the opposite.
Sign the petition to demand they end investments in oil and gas exploration in the Amazon.
https://act.350.org/go/419209?t=8&akid=409015%2E4749031%2EyqUTl-
For the full petition text see:
363 #ClimateAction #Amazon #Petition #350
[2]* has it occured to you that 'we' don't name the Amazon like that since decades?
An Amazon free from oil and gas
Out of the more than $20 billion invested, 46% of all direct financing for oil and gas exploration in the Amazon comes from just six banks: Citibank, JPMorgan Chase, Itaú Unibanco, Santander, Bank of America, and HSBC.act.350.org
Lo, thar be cookies on this site to keep track of your login. By clicking 'okay', you are CONSENTING to this.
Global Repercussions
in reply to JdeB • • •#business as usual is leading to #disaster.
There are still hundreds of billions of dollars of planned investments for fossil fuels. Not because renewables are not technically or financially viable, but because estimates are the fossil fuel investments will have higher returns on investment.
JdeB
in reply to Global Repercussions • • •Maybe that's where capitalist financing has gone wrong. Buying shares used to be partaking in the risk of an enterprise, but it shifted to being safe like a bank. The real risks are now taken in speculating on a non-tangible economic values.
Global Repercussions
in reply to JdeB • • •Yes, the investment decisions are driven by the financial equations. Is why I made the reference to cost externalisation.
The current equations do not include cost of climate related damage to other parties. A price largely born by Insurers and being distributed to policy holders and insurance company shareholders.
The financial equations need to be re-assessed as the Insurance companies are required to recoupe this money from those responsible for the losses. To date they haven't been doing that, but rhings can change.
Will they?
How do we ensure that they do? Or, die trying.
Here's how some financial boffins are currently discussing the issue. I've included edited highlights from the article.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/07/12/just-stop-oil-bp/
Comment
**Just Stop Oil was right about BP all along**
BP’s Faustian pursuit of profit has taken it from green darling to arch-villain
Ambrose
... show moreYes, the investment decisions are driven by the financial equations. Is why I made the reference to cost externalisation.
The current equations do not include cost of climate related damage to other parties. A price largely born by Insurers and being distributed to policy holders and insurance company shareholders.
The financial equations need to be re-assessed as the Insurance companies are required to recoupe this money from those responsible for the losses. To date they haven't been doing that, but rhings can change.
Will they?
How do we ensure that they do? Or, die trying.
Here's how some financial boffins are currently discussing the issue. I've included edited highlights from the article.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/07/12/just-stop-oil-bp/
Comment
**Just Stop Oil was right about BP all along**
BP’s Faustian pursuit of profit has taken it from green darling to arch-villain
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
12 July 2024 • 8:01am
"BP has bet on booming global demand for oil and gas as far out as the late 2030s Credit: Leon Neal/Getty Images Europe
BP has taken an enormous risk by betting the farm on booming global demand for oil and gas as far out as the late 2030s, and retreating drastically from renewables and clean-tech investment.
Bluebell Capital Partners and other powerful shareholders have been demanding a return to the core business of drilling. But cutting out the green crap – to borrow a phrase – reduces BP to a bit player in the biggest economic growth story of our age.
Clean tech is now attracting $1.8 trillion a year of eager money from hedge funds, private equity, and the wealth industry, dwarfing the oil and gas drillers three times over.
Big money has switched from old oil to clean tech
The company is not alone in drinking deep from this heady brew. Goldman Sachs now expects oil demand to keep growing until 2034, perhaps even peaking at 113m b/d in 2040 as if there were no such thing as climate accords, and no arms race between China and the West for clean-tech supremacy.
Where you stand on this analysis depends on what you think is going on in China, and whether you think technology change will be slow and linear, or lightning-fast and non-linear as the best research labs in the world put massive resources into breaking the old order.
Xi Jinping is determined to prove BP wrong. China is straining every sinew to break dependence on seaborne imports of crude – and LNG gas – that could face a US naval blockade in a future showdown.
China’s oil producer Sinopec said in May that the country’s switch to electric cars and trucks is moving so fast that the oil demand will plateau as soon as 2026, much earlier than previous estimates. It will go into irreversible decline by the end of this decade.
The switch to EVs could go exponential as new LMFP batteries slash costs towards $60 kWh and push standard ranges towards 500 miles. Energy analysts RMI are forecasting that EV sales will hit 90pc in China by 2030, with spillovers through its satellites in Asia.
Markets are celebrating BP’s brown bacchanal, but markets are fickle and regulatory politics can turn fast. For all the talk of an anti-green backlash, the “fossil firsters” in Parliament have just been decimated by British democracy. They could fit in a kitchen with Nigel Farage.
Paul Donovan, chief economist at UBS Global Wealth Management, said the new generation taking charge of large family fortunes and wealth funds is not as blasé about ecological vandalism as the last cohort. They care about clean investment and will soon control the “whole pot of money”.
I have long argued that one must distinguish between good and bad actors in the oil industry, and that BP, Shell, Total, or Equinor were among the angels getting on with the task of the energy transition. They were recycling at least some of their cash flow into green tech. They had deep pockets and the engineering skills needed to decarbonise at scale. I cannot claim that about BP any longer. The jury is out on Shell.
Just Stop Oil always said it was wishful thinking to imagine that the oil incumbents could ever be part of the solution. I hate to say that may have been right all along."
Just Stop Oil was right all along about BP
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard (The Telegraph)