theguardian.com
\$213 Billion Gas Investment Risks 10 Gigatonnes of Emissions by 2030
A \$213 billion investment in new gas terminals could release 10 gigatonnes of greenhouse gases by 2030, equivalent to the annual emissions of all the world's coal plants, driven by increased global demand and the war in Ukraine, threatening global climate targets despite banks' net-zero commitments.
- What are the immediate consequences of the \$213 billion investment in new gas terminal projects on global greenhouse gas emissions?
- A recent report reveals that large banks have invested \$213 billion in gas export and import terminal projects, potentially releasing 10 gigatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030—nearly matching annual emissions from all global coal plants. This surge in LNG projects, fueled by the shift from coal and the Ukraine war, increases global export capacity by 7% and import capacity by 19%.
- How do the increased LNG import and export capacities resulting from the new projects impact global efforts to transition to renewable energy?
- The expansion of LNG terminals, with 156 new projects planned by 2030, contradicts global climate targets. This increase in supply risks depressing fossil fuel prices, potentially hindering the transition to renewable energy sources and jeopardizing efforts to limit global temperature increases. The International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts a 50% growth in LNG capacity by 2030, exceeding projected demand.
- What systemic factors allow for continued investment in LNG projects despite their incompatibility with global climate targets, and what are the potential long-term effects of this discrepancy?
- Despite banks' net-zero targets, the lack of specific policies on LNG financing allows continued investment in these projects. The resulting gas glut could drastically reduce gas prices, making renewable energy less competitive and potentially locking in fossil fuel dependence for decades. This underscores a critical gap between stated climate commitments and actual investment practices, risking a catastrophic increase in greenhouse gas emissions.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The headline and introduction immediately establish a negative framing, highlighting the "climate bomb" threat. The repeated use of strong negative language ("damaging than coal," "future climate bombs") throughout the article reinforces this negativity. This framing might influence the reader to view gas projects overwhelmingly negatively, without providing room to consider mitigating factors or alternative perspectives.
Language Bias
The article uses loaded language such as "climate bomb," "damaging," and "future climate bombs" which carry strong negative connotations, creating a biased narrative against gas projects. Neutral alternatives could include "significant greenhouse gas emissions," "environmental impact," or "potential climate risks." The repeated emphasis on the negative consequences without balancing this with the potential benefits is also a form of linguistic bias.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the negative impacts of new gas projects, quoting climate groups and the IEA, but omits perspectives from the gas industry or governments that might defend these investments. It does not explore potential benefits or counterarguments, which could include energy security and bridging the transition to renewables. While the article mentions banks setting net-zero targets, it doesn't delve into the complexities of these targets or explore potential justifications for investment in LNG despite them. The omission of these counterpoints could create a skewed understanding of the issue.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the issue as either "climate bomb" (new gas projects) or "Paris Agreement in danger," oversimplifying the complex interplay between energy needs, economic development, and climate action. It neglects a spectrum of options and intermediate solutions.
Sustainable Development Goals
The report highlights that the planned gas projects could lead to a massive increase in greenhouse gas emissions, potentially exceeding the annual emissions of all the world's coal plants. This directly contradicts the goals of the Paris Agreement and efforts to limit global warming as outlined in SDG 13.