Should the US Immediately Phase out Fossil Fuels?

“Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. Equally important, however, is the need to ensure access to energy for quality of life and for economic development. It is therefore critically important to address climate change as part of the sustainable development agenda. Ongoing progress in the development of new technologies has brought confidence and hope that these objectives will be met in the energy system. Dramatic price reductions and technological advancement of wind generators and solar photovoltaics have shown that these renewable energy resources can be important players in global electricity systems, and that the long-anticipated breakthrough in cost-effective storage technology would shift primary energy mixes substantially.

These developments have led invariably to an assumption that we are ‘done’ with fossil fuels across the energy system, that there is no need for further development of new resources, and that we have to stop using them as soon as possible. This assumption has also led to a perception of ‘good’ renewables-based technologies in global energy systems today, on the one hand, and ‘bad’ fossil fuels-based technologies, on the other. The reality is that this debate is much more nuanced and requires more thorough investigation. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology and managing methane emissions throughout the fossil energy value chain can help meet ambitious CO2 emission reduction targets, while fossil fuels remain part of the energy system. This will thereby allow fossil fuels to become ‘part of the solution’, rather than remain ‘part of the problem’. All technologies have a role to play in an energy system guided by rational economics.”

“Reliable and affordable energy is critical to our quality of life, and we will need to responsibly harness all forms of energy if we are to meet growing global demand and simultaneously tackle the challenge of climate change.

The choice is not between fossil fuels and renewable energy, but rather, how do we accelerate the growth of renewables while reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the use of fossil fuels…

Last year, for example, we invested 635 million Canadian dollars to develop and deploy technology in this field, including innovations that could reduce greenhouse gas emissions from operations by up to 80 percent. Our Fort Hills oil sands mine uses paraffinic froth treatment technology to cut the greenhouse gas emissions intensity of each barrel of oil produced there to be on par with the average refined barrel in North America.

We also are investing in energy-efficient cogeneration technology to reduce emissions from burning petroleum coke and export low-carbon power to Alberta’s grid so the province can transition from coal-based power generation. This will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2.5 million tons per year, equivalent to removing 550,000 vehicles from the road.”

“Although climate science is calling for the reduction in fossil fuels, I believe the imminent demise of fossil fuels is overstated and the rapid transition to renewable sources of fuels will not solve this existential question. Natural gas is a clean-burning fuel and will be an important part of this energy transition. We will do our part to facilitate this energy transition by promoting natural gas as part of the climate change dialogue and solution.”

“The world is on an unsustainable path. We need a faster transition to a low-carbon energy system and a net-zero-emissions world. The last thing I want is a delay today that results in an abrupt, precipitous course-correction tomorrow. What’s good for the world is good for BP…

But a growing, more prosperous world needs growing quantities of energy, and that includes oil and gas. Today, one billion people lack the energy they need, and renewables alone can’t meet those needs. In fact, the International Energy Agency projects the world could still need nearly 70 million barrels of oil a day in 2040 — and that’s in a scenario consistent with the Paris Agreement goal of keeping any rise in global temperatures well below 2 degrees Celsius. Of course, how we use that oil and gas will change. Electric cars don’t burn petroleum, but they do use plastic in their construction and oil in their lubrication. And gas can be decarbonized.”

“If the world in which we lived were one where alternative energy sources were reliable, constant and even marginally cost-competitive, the question posed above would take on the status of a non sequitur. After all, if alternative energy could survive without taxpayer subsidization, it wouldn’t be an ‘alternative’ energy at all. But it can’t, and so it is. And there’s a good reason for it.

Here are the facts: eighty-five percent of the energy Americans use today to heat their homes, light their lives, and get from here to there come from so-called fossil fuels – power derived from oil, natural gas, and coal. In the space that remains, nuclear energy accounts for almost nine percent of total U.S. energy. Biomass and hydroelectricity claim almost all that’s left. Wind and solar, where art thou? Combined, these two dynamos account for less than one percent of our energy – despite decades of hefty government subsidies spent trying to create them…

So, when you add it all up, the question really boils down to this: Should we immediately phase out ninety-seven percent of the energy we need to survive and prosper, cross our fingers and hope that the most expensive, unreliable, but politically preferred sources of energy will make up the difference?

Sure, why not? As long as we’re all willing to sacrifice our jobs, devastate our economy, surrender the nation’s place in the world, and cash in the quality of life that abundant, affordable energy has provided for us all – in return for little or no environmental benefit – then yeah, let’s do it.”

“Scale is critical in our massive global energy system. The existing oil delivery system is highly efficient and economical, and the cost of rapidly replacing it with alternatives would be prohibitive. A prudent approach demands that we recognize that the massive scale of the global energy system makes rapid change costly and impractical…

While the push for alternatives is important, we must also be mindful that efforts to rapidly promote alternatives could have a ‘chilling effect’ on investment in the oil sector. Growing demand uncertainty increases producers’ perceptions of investment risk. A nightmare scenario would be created if alternative energy supplies fail to meet overly optimistic expectations, while traditional energy suppliers scale back investment due to expectations of declining demand for their products. The prospects of supply constraints would grow along with the potential for higher energy prices and lower economic growth.

Meeting the needs of a growing global population and the aspirations of billions of people in developing countries for greater prosperity, will require an ‘all of the above’ energy strategy. All BTUs are welcome and needed – whether they come from renewable energy, nuclear power or fossil fuels.”

“The belief that alternative fuels can be widely available in the next decade presents a serious challenge to finding realistic short-term solutions [for achieving energy security]…

We’ve said before that we don’t believe there is a magic bullet that will solve our energy challenges. In our view, the solution will require a coherent, comprehensive policy that addresses the full range of possibilities and finds the right balance among the options…

“We need to conserve, and continue improving renewable energy technologies that currently provide just 0.5% of our energy. But at this time renewables are simply too inefficient, expensive and unreliable to permit a shutdown of hydrocarbon-based systems.

Putting ‘social responsibility’ and ‘environmental justice’ in the hands of eco-activists and liberal Democrats is like giving a machine gun to an idiot child. We need definitions that recognize the full spectrum of societal needs, and energy policies that acknowledge life in the real world.”