Circus comes to town

COP28 is upon us and it is upon us hard. We saw John Kerry arrive for the summit in a private jet, no doubt to save on jet fuel emissions, and we all laughed in an evil way when we saw the images of the snowed-in Munich airport including an alleged plane supposed to fly to Dubai for the event.

Naturally, news outlets have been frantically covering everything coming out of COP. Like the bomb that Sultan Al-Jaber dropped with his statement that there was no science behind the claim hydrocarbons had to be phased out to avoid “catastrophic climate change”, per NPR. That got the climate media up in arms for days.

Or there was Saudi Arabia’s Abdulaziz bin Salman’s shocking answer to a Bloomberg question about whether “his country, the world’s top oil exporter, would be happy to see the [fossil fuels phase down] language added” in a text expected to be produced at COP28. The answer? “Absolutely not.” Like I said, shocking.

Hilarity abounds. Take this headline, for instance: Fossil fuel phase-out among options on COP28 table. Well sure, it’s on the table but is it likely to get off the table and into real life? If I may quote Prince bin Salman, that would be “Absolutely not”.

Per Reuters: “None of the world's major oil and gas-producing countries have plans to eventually stop drilling for those fuels, despite many having pledged to reach net zero emissions, according to data shared with Reuters on Tuesday.” I know, the shocks just keep coming.

Or how about this massive revelation: Oil and gas industry turn up in force at COP28 in Dubai, UN data shows?

You’d think “UN data” means data collected and analysed by some agency in the United Nations, right? Well, you’d be wrong. It is, in fact, “an analysis of UN data by campaign groups,” per the FT. The campaign groups are united in some sort of a coalition with the absolutely wonderful name of “Kick Big Polluters Out”. You’ve got to love it.

So, the KBPO crowd says there are more than 2,450 people affiliated with the oil and gas industry at COP28, which is apparently well beyond acceptable. Who do these 2,450 people include?

Well, again per the FT, “Executives and employees paid by traditional oil, gas and coal companies were included in the tally, along with staff of companies dependent on the industry for revenue, as well as the lobby and trade groups that have publicly supported it.”

Just imagine: there are actual companies dependent on oil and gas for revenue! What an utterly outrageous idea! I apologise for the exclamation marks, got carried away there a bit.

You might think this is pretty funny but, and I quote, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

Canada's climate lobby pushes for oil, gas emissions cap with fashion statement, the Canadian Press informed us on Monday. It’s even more delicious than you probably suspect.

Per the report: “Canada's climate lobby wants its demand for an oil-and-gas emissions cap to go straight to Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault's head.

Dozens of Canada's environmental activists are wandering around the event sites at COP28 in Dubai sporting matching baseball hats with the word "emissions" on the front.

The fashion-statement "emissions caps" have become a must-have souvenir of the global climate talks, though only a couple of hundred exist.”

Words escape me as I’m torn between mourning the demise of actual humour and wishing for someone to make everyone applying for a salaried position sit an exam on the great humour writers of the world. Also, fine them for tarnishing the reputation of humour. And for lame PR.

Moving on to the next joke, we see this: Global carbon emissions from fossil fuels to hit record this year. If I could be bothered to make a poll for COP28 Joke of the Week, this would be one of the strongest contenders, no doubt.

Of course, most have missed the joke and have gone on straight to their regular demonising of the oil and gas industry. What happened to the surge in wind and solar? What happened to the EVs “selling like hotcakes”? Yes, this is something that one FT writer said in all seriousness. How come emissions are still rising, to a record, no less? The silence is deafening.

Meanwhile, those who know how to do their homework and who know they must do their homework are taking pragmatic action. UAE takes big stakes in struggling UK offshore wind market.

It’s not taking a stake in a struggling project, though. It’s taking a stake in East Anglia Tree, which, according to the FT, is at an advanced stage of development. The strike price sealed for the project is less than half the strike price that the UK government promised for the next wind tender but would it stay that low? I wonder, given the government’s passionate determination to build as many wind turbines as it possibly can, whatever the cost.

Either that, or the UAE doesn’t care if it loses a few hundred million dollars if that would later let it say “We tried. It didn’t work. See?” I wouldn’t put it past them. It would be the natural thing to do if you have the money to spare.

The UK, by the way, is not the only passionate government about wind as other Governments take action to keep offshore wind projects on track.

The action in question as you’d no doubt be shocked to learn is, courtesy of Reuters, governments deciding to “pay up to revive offshore wind farm developments after rising costs put at risk multiple projects that are needed to help them cut emissions and reach climate targets.”

Do not even think about asking “What happened to cheap wind?” This is not the sort of question that is allowed in polite political circles and, yes, I realise the irony but can do nothing about it.

In this context of eager governments doing their absolute best (with their voters’ money) to keep the transition on track, it is particularly, shall we say, entertaining that UK likely to miss Paris climate targets by wide margin, analysis shows. Be warned: clicking on that link will take you to The Guardian. But do you really need to click it? I thought no.

The UK may be failing in its climate change crusade but EVs are doing just great. Don’t believe me? You shouldn’t. Believe this: How electric vehicles are accelerating the end of the oil age. I mean, if you feel like it.

Apparently, EV sales are soaring so high, peak oil demand is in sight… according to “an energy modeler” at that bastion of fact, the IEA.

"The game-changer has been the policy support for the shift to electrification quite substantially reducing oil demand from transportation sector, which has been the key driver of global oil demand growth," that modeler, Apostolos Petropoulos told Reuters.

This is an employee of an agency that just said oil demand continues growing, set to hit a new high this year. How this squares with a substantial reduction from EVs I have no idea. But I suppose it sounds right so he said it.

Incidentally, did you know that the IEA has consistently underestimated global oil demand for more than a decade, to the tune of 820,000 bpd? Well, it appears that it has, per a duo of contrary, fundamentals-focused investment managers. As they say, “If the IEA’s error were a country, it would be the world’s 21st largest oil consumer.”

You think that’s peak delusion? Sadly, you’re wrong again. Look at this: EU should join Africa on WTO reform to counter China -IW study

The IW from the headline is the German Economic Institute, “which is financed by prominent German business associations and carries weight among Berlin policymakers,” per Reuters.

That entity is advising the EU to join forces with African countries to press the World Trade Organization for subsidy rule changes that have apparently worked in China’s favour so far.

In other words, the IW advises former African colonisers to team up with their former colonies and rise against the country that has been pouring billions into those same colonies for years now, building mines and roads, and making friends while the EU has been squeaking about emissions and how they’re more important than poverty.

All this at a time when negative sentiment towards Europe and the West as a whole is on a marked rise in Africa. Yeah. That force-joining should work just fine, I’m sure. Anything for those supply chains getting built from scratch but in two years if possible, thank you.

The idea is actually cunning. African countries want WTO reforms that support developing countries, allowing them local content rules and suchlike. The IW authors propose, among others, that the EU joins Africa in calls for reforms on the expectation that China might block said reforms and, as a result, antagonise Africa.

That’s cunning, sure, but you know what there’s no mention of? What the U.S. might do in response to the EU’s hypothetical push for subsidy reforms. I mean, the EU clearly has a problem with the IRA, too. Imagine the brilliant idea ending up antagonising the one country the EU absolutely doesn’t want to antagonise.

It truly is a circus and it’s free. Unless you count the psychological damage. And the bill for all those subsidies. Oh, and the global carbon market in the making. Did you know there’s a proposal to fund a new transmission line in Uganda with a special loan including carbon credits? No? Well, there is.

The proposal comes from a company named Seagrass, which is the carbon-trading subsidiary of E.ON and which has proposed that international investors fund half of the $45 million needed for the new line with a loan that would carry a lower interest rate but will compensate that with carbon credits. No joke. Alas.