↓
 

PLEA Network

Climate change information and resources for change

  • PLEA Network
  • Addiction to Growth
    • Steady State Economy
    • Universal Basic Income
    • The Law vs Politics
  • The Science
    • Impacts Observed & Projected
    • All Things Carbon and Emissions
    • BOM Updates
    • Antarctica
  • Global Cooling – Plan B??
  • Fairyland of 2 degrees
  • Denial and the Political Agenda
  • Mainstreaming our changing climate
  • Population & Consumption
    • People Stress
    • Food & Water Issues
    • Equity & Social Justice
    • Ecosystem Stress
    • Security & Conflict
  • Global Action/Inaction
    • IPCC What is it?
    • Paris COP21 Wrap-up
  • Australian Response / Stats
    • Federal Government – checking the facts
  • Communication
    • Resource News Sites
  • The Mitigation Battle
    • Fossil Fuel Reduction
  • Adaptation & Building Resilience
    • Downsizing Plan B
    • City Basics for Change
  • Ballarat Community
    • Regional Sustainability Alliance Ballarat
    • Reports & Submissions
  • Brown Hill Community FireAware Network
    • FireAware Network – Neighbourhood clusters
    • FireAware Network – Understanding risk
    • FireAware Network – Be prepared
    • FireAware Network – Role of council and emergency services
    • FireAware Network – Resources
  • The Uncomfortable Corner
  • Archive Library
    • Site Topics Index
    • Links Page for Teachers
  • Climate Change explained in one simple comic
Home→Tags oil - Page 6 << 1 2 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 16 17 >>

Tag Archives: oil

Post navigation

← Older posts
Newer posts →
PLEA Network

9 November 2016, Energy Post, Oil companies’ climate initiative lacks initiative. The Oil and Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI) formed by ten of the world’s largest oil companies including Shell, BP, Total, Statoil and Saudi Aramco, has announced it will spend $1 billion over the next ten years “to accelerate the development of innovative low-emission technologies”. According to Stuart Haszeldine, Professor of Carbon Capture and Storage, at the University of Edinburgh, this is “small change compared to the size of the problem. This looks like trying to tell us that the climate problem is still best handled by denial, over-analysis, and under-activity.” Article courtesy of the Energy and Carbon blog. When is $1 billion not a lot of money? Answer one, when you are trying to save the human species from global self-destruction. Answer two, when it is split 10 ways, and then again 10 ways. In an announcement timed to coincide with the entry into force last Friday of the COP21 Paris Climate Agreement, 10 of the world’s largest international oil and gas producers announced a $1billion fund to help protect the earth’s climate. The OGCI (Oil and Gas Climate Initiative) was formed in January 2014, led by the CEO’s of six multinational oil and gas companies (1). Its self-stated ambition was to “catalyse meaningful action and coordination on climate change …. provide a full spectrum on what the sector what the sector is prepared to do, collaboratively, going forward”. The defining moment of the UN Climate Change conference in Paris last December has now passed, the agreed text has been scrutinized, pored over, analysed – and then ratified by the political leaders of more than 190 nations. It is clear that the intended national emissions reductions (INDCs) offered in Paris are voluntary and non-enforceable. It is also clear that even if the INDCs were delivered in full, then the world is on track for 3.7C or greater warming, not 2C or an aspirational 1.5C. And if nothing new happens, the world is already operating the hydrocarbon combustion equipment which can take warming beyond 6C by 2100. This group proudly proclaims that they are responsible for 20% of global oil and gas production, so we should expect something big, commensurate with the size of the problem, right?  Wrong. Read More here

PLEA Network

5 September 2016, Renew Economy, One small gain for battery storage, one big win for fossil fuel industry. Australia’s principal policy maker for the energy markets has waved through a rule change that could accelerate the use of battery storage to provide grid stability as more renewables enter the market. But the rule maker has shocked participants with another decision that may reinforce the dominance of the big fossil fuel utilities. The Australian Energy Market Commission late last week made two rulings that it was first asked to consider way back in 2012 (such is the glacial pace of change in Australian regulatory circles) but which seen as critical as more wind and solar enter the market and old fossil fuel generators are phased out. One of the rulings was good news and largely expected: The AEMC said it would allow “unbundling” of ancillary services for the grid – which provide fast-acting balancing responses following a “contingency” event, usually the unexpected loss of a large thermal generator. This means that these services, known as FCAS, can now be more easily provided by more players, and not just the big generators, which currently control the supply (and thus the price) of FCAS services. Allowing new players like batteries and demand response loads should increase the supply of FCAS, and lower market prices. That ruling was largely uncontroversial and expected, with any opposition by incumbents lukewarm at best. The second ruling, however, has stunned some participants in the industry, because it effectively limits the amount of battery storage and new ideas – such as aggregating power plants in homes – by leaving it in the control of the major players. The proposal was to create a “demand response” mechanisms in the spot market to respond to times of high load, and high electricity prices, as were experienced in South Australia and other states in recent months, and which used to be frequent years ago, and may well become regular again as gas prices rise. Read more here

PLEA Network

22 August 2016, Renew Economy, Gas bubble looms as energy ministers baulk at zero emissions target. State and federal energy ministers hailed progress they made in their COAG Energy Council summit late last week, but they may have condemned Australia to another great big investment bubble – this time in gas infrastructure. The meeting of ministers – brought forward by the apparent energy “crisis” in South Australia – resulted in a couple of promising steps that may help contain price surges of the type seen in recent months, but it seems to have ducked action on the critical issues. On the plus side, there is the creation of two new gas trading hubs that might improve transparency into a notoriously opaque market, and the potential for a new electricity inter-connector linking NSW and South Australia to be bought forward. But elsewhere, not a lot of tangible progress was made. The ministers baulked at calls to write zero net carbon emissions into the electricity market goals, despite that being implicit in the Paris climate goals that Australia has signed up to.And if the energy ministers did avoid turning the meeting into an anti-renewable jihad – as they were lobbied to do and might have been tempted under a previous federal energy minister – they did come face to face with some of the significant barriers to the rapid transition to a low emissions grid that they profess to support. One such example came from the Australian Energy Market Operator, whose chairman Anthony Marxsen stunned the audience on Friday when he suggested during a presentation that battery storage technology could be up to 20 years away from making a commercial contribution. Some dismissed this as garbage and a plug for the gas industry. AEMO is 40 per cent owned by industry “players”. Another is the painfully slow progress from the main policy maker, the Australian Energy Market Commission, which has been dragging out crucial rule changes most people believe are essential to moving to new technologies. Read more here

PLEA Network

28 June 2016, DESMOG, Obama Admin Approved Over 1,500 Offshore Fracking Permits in Gulf of Mexico and Mainstream Media Has Ignored It. On June 24, the independent news website TruthOut broke a doozy of a story: the Obama Administration has secretly approved over 1,500 instances of offshore hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) in the Gulf of Mexico, including during the Deepwater Horizon offshore spill disaster. Albeit released on a Friday, a day where many mainstream media reporters head out of the office early and venture to late-afternoon and early-evening Happy Hour specials at the bars, the TruthOut story has received deafening silence by the corporate-owned media apparatus. Google News, Factiva and LexisNexis searches reveal that not a single mainstream media outlet has covered the story. TruthOut got its hands on the story via documents provided by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). CBD explained inpress release that they “obtained the information following an agreement that settled a lawsuit challenging the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement’s failure to disclose documents regarding the scope of offshore fracking in the Gulf under the Freedom of Information Act.” CBD also has published a list of all of the instances of offshore fracking in the Gulf of Mexico provided to it by BOEM, both inlist-form and in visual map form. Read More here

Post navigation

← Older posts
Newer posts →

Tags

Agriculture animal response Antarctica Arctic Attribution Bioenergy Bushfire carbon capture coal Community consumption Denial Drought Economy Emissions Extreme Events Fed Govt forest response gas geoengineering groundwater health insurance Legal Action Local Action Migration native forests New Technology nuclear oceans oil Renewables RET scheme State Govt subsidies trade agreements UNFCCC United Nations Waste Management water
©2026 - PLEA Network - Weaver Xtreme Theme
↑