Recent developments in climate change initiatives have seen the rise of contentious projects, such as cross-border pipelines intended for green hydrogen that can also transport natural gas, and the use of sustainable aviation fuel, which may pose risks to forests. These projects, often supported by fossil fuel corporations, have been criticized as “false solutions” to climate change.
A recent study published in the journal Energy Research and Social Science examines this trend, highlighting projects that have led to environmental injustices like air pollution or the loss of income for local communities. The research, conducted by the Institute of Environmental Science and Technology at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ICTA-UAB) and the University of Sussex, reviews 48 environmental conflict cases worldwide from the Global Atlas of Environmental Justice (EJAtlas).
Examples include Norway’s Trollvind offshore wind farm, aimed at decarbonizing power for oil and gas fields, partnerships between U.S. fossil fuel companies and the dairy industry to produce biogas from manure, and a proposed tree plantation by TotalEnergies in the Republic of Congo, where locals have reportedly been barred from accessing their farmland.
“House of cards”: Verra used junk carbon credits to fix Shell’s offsetting scandal
The researchers assert that these “false solutions,” which encompass large-scale carbon offsetting projects that have faced criticism, bolster the political and economic power of the industries responsible for the climate crisis, thereby hindering the global energy transition.
Climate Home News interviewed Freddie Daley, co-author and research associate at the University of Sussex’s Centre for Global Political Economy, about the study’s outcomes and its implications for climate policy.
Interview Insights
Q: What prompted your exploration of these “false solutions” to the climate crisis?
A: The research is a reaction to the fossil fuel industry’s portrayal of these technologies as solutions, despite our aim for a sustainable planet. We urge governments to scrutinize what they subsidize, given the urgency to reduce emissions, create sustainable livelihoods, and meet the needs of affected communities.
The study began in response to oil majors positioning themselves as part of the solution to climate mitigation through sustainability and net zero claims, prompting us to analyze how fossil companies could genuinely contribute to the solution.
Q: What did your study uncover about “false solutions”?
A: The term “false solutions” has been used by Indigenous and frontline communities for years, but it lacks formal engagement in academic literature. We aimed to categorize and redefine these solutions by analyzing data from the EJ Atlas across various technologies, including hydrogen, carbon offsets, and biofuels.
We discovered that renewable energy projects causing conflicts often supported fossil fuel operations, using solar panels or wind turbines to power rigs. This pattern was intriguing, as utility-scale renewables operated by fossil fuel firms were also examined.
Although fossil fuel companies’ renewable production remains minimal, these projects serve to legitimize fossil fuel expansion. We also analyzed governmental roles, noting that these firms often use technologies like carbon capture and hydrogen to secure public subsidies.
Is the world’s big idea for greener air travel a flight of fancy?
Our findings across all cases indicate that these projects do little to cut emissions, create environmental conflicts, and delay necessary energy transition.
Q: Can fossil fuel companies use all available climate solutions to reduce emissions during the transition away from coal, oil, and gas?
A: While technologies like hydrogen and carbon capture may be crucial, current projects are not delivering significant results. Fossil fuel expansion should not rely on the premise that future technologies will negate emissions.
Recent reports, such as a Financial Times article, reveal that many oil majors are canceling hydrogen projects due to scalability issues. Despite having capital and expertise, these companies are not pursuing these solutions, prompting questions about hydrogen’s viability.
Clean hydrogen hype fades as high costs dampen demand
Similarly, many carbon capture projects, despite receiving substantial public subsidies, are being scaled down. As the energy transition enters its critical phase, we must assess these technologies’ effectiveness on both individual and aggregate levels.
Q: Do high-carbon industries need government subsidies to develop technologies for combating climate change?
A: I believe the energy transition requires public funding and coordination. States must guide investments and prioritize technologies that significantly impact emissions and enhance welfare, such as heat pumps and home insulation in low-income areas.
Comment: The battle over a global energy transition is on between petro-states and electro-states
Investing in carbon capture and storage pilots for companies like BP and Shell is less effective. This ongoing relationship between big businesses and governments must be scrutinized in the context of energy transition, as these companies are not transitioning at the necessary pace.
For instance, data shows that oil and gas companies own only 1.42% of operational renewable projects globally and only 0.13% of their primary generation is renewable. They have the resources and expertise but have not acted, raising questions about the need for more public subsidy to maintain the status quo.
This interview was shortened and edited for clarity.
Original Story at www.climatechangenews.com