[vox_mundi]

Which fossil fuel reserves must stay in the ground to avoid dangerous climate change?

A third of oil reserves, half of gas reserves and over 80% of current coal reserves globally should remain in the ground and not be used before 2050 if global warming is to stay below the 2 C target agreed by policy makers, according to new research by the UCL Institute for Sustainable Resources.

The authors show that the overwhelming majority of the huge coal reserves in China, Russia and the United States should remain unused along with over 260 thousand million barrels oil reserves in the Middle East, equivalent to all of the oil reserves held by Saudi Arabia. The Middle East should also leave over 60% of its gas reserves in the ground.

The development of resources in the Arctic and any increase in unconventional oil - oil of a poor quality which is hard to extract - are also found to be inconsistent with efforts to limit climate change.

"Policy makers must realise that their instincts to completely use the fossil fuels within their countries are wholly incompatible with their commitments to the 2 C goal. If they go ahead with developing their own resources, they must be asked which reserves elsewhere should remain unburnt in order for the carbon budget not to be exceeded."

"Companies spent over $670 billion (£430 billion) last year searching for and developing new fossil fuel resources. They will need to rethink such substantial budgets if policies are implemented to support the 2oC limit, especially as new discoveries cannot lead to increased aggregate production.

"Investors in these companies should also question spending such budgets. The greater global attention to climate policy also means that fossil fuel companies are becoming increasingly risky for investors in terms of the delivery of long-term returns. I would expect prudent investors in energy to shift increasingly towards low-carbon energy sources."

The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2 °C

a–c, Supply cost curves for oil (a), gas (b) and coal (c). d, The combustion CO2 emissions for these resources. Within these resource estimates, 1,294 billion barrels of oil, 192 trillion cubic metres of gas, 728 Gt of hard coal, and 276 Gt of lignite are classified as reserves globally. These reserves would result in 2,900 Gt of CO2 if combusted unabated. The range of carbon budgets between 2011 and 2050 that are approximately commensurate with limiting the temperature rise to 2 °C (870–1,240 Gt of CO2) is also shown. 2P, ‘proved plus probable’ reserves; BTU, British thermal units (one BTU is equal to 1,055 J). One zettajoule (ZJ) is equal to one sextillion (1021) joules. Annual global primary energy production is approximately 0.5 ZJ.

a, c and e compare total production by oil, gas and coal with the AR5 database; b, d and f provide a disaggregated view of production for the TIAM-UCL 2 °C scenario separated by category. Associated gas is gas produced alongside crude oil from oil fields. One exajoule (EJ) is equal to one quintillion (1018) joules.

bbl SCO, a barrel of synthetic crude oil, the oil that results after upgrading the natural bitumen

[dohboi]

We can no longer avoid dangerous cc. The idea that we have some kind of quantifiable 'budget' of further carbon emissions that we can spend it just fantasy. We are already way, way overdrawn.

[Graeme]

This is a very important story which is widely reported. Here is a National Geographic article on same.

Climate Mission Impossible: Scientists Say Fossil Fuels Must Go Untapped

Canada's tar sands need to stay in the ground, the oil beneath the Arctic has to remain under the sea, and most of the world's coal must be left untouched in order to prevent global temperatures from rising more than 2°C, a study released Wednesday says.

The research, unlike other bleak assessments of the world's climate predicament, zeroes in on which regions should halt their production of coal, oil, and gas—and by how much. It comes ahead of climate talks in Paris later this year that aim to broker a new global accord to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

These emissions must remain within a "carbon budget" of about 1,100 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide by 2050 to meet the internationally accepted goal of limiting the rise in temperatures to 2°C (3.6°F) above preindustrial levels, according to the United Nations-led Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. To do that, countries must slash their use of fossil fuels.

Absent a dramatic global policy shift, such as a universal tax on carbon emissions, the study seems to suggest that the 2°C goal is far out of reach.

"These results demonstrate that a stark transformation in our understanding of fossil fuel availability is necessary," says the study, published in the journal Nature, by researchers at University College London's Institute for Sustainable Resources or UCL. (Related: "Scientists: Global Warming Likely to Surpass 2°C Target.")

In addition to abandoning more than 80 percent of current global coal reserves, the researchers say, the world should forego extracting a third of its oil and half of its gas reserves before 2050.

Of course, the real world is on a very different trajectory. The International Energy Agency has projected that the world's total carbon budget will be exceeded ten years earlier than the 2050 benchmark. The demand for energy, and therefore for fossil fuels, continues to grow.

The study also casts a shadow on carbon capture and storage (CCS), hailed as the technology that will let us have our fossil fuels and burn them too by reducing smokestack emissions. According to the analysis, CCS would allow only a relatively small increase—at most 6 percent—in the amount of fossil fuel that could be burned while still preventing catastrophic warming.

Study co-author Paul Ekins contends that the cookies in that jar will go stale, as leaders begin to take climate change more seriously and enact policies that will make fossil fuels far less profitable.

"There's some deeply irrational economic behavior going on here," Ekins says of energy companies that put "hundreds of billions of dollars into finding fossil fuel resources which, actually, they are not going to be able to exploit." He believes that in the long term, a greater focus on climate goals will make fossil fuel investments increasingly risky.

Ekins says the recent plunge in oil prices, which dipped below $50 a barrel this week, was a double-edged sword: On the one hand, low-carbon sources become even more expensive compared with fossil fuels. On the other, low oil prices give a boost to the global economy that could make renewables more affordable. (Related: "Another Reactor Closes, Punctuating Reality for U.S. Nuclear Power.")

"What would be ideal," he says, would be to "use the opportunity of this fall in the oil price to start instituting a global carbon tax, which would take some of the volatility out of the prices."

nationalgeographic

[Graeme]

Not a chance unless admin and mods want to ban me. I need to counter fossil fools and anarchists.

[dohboi]

Keep blogging, G.

Humans have to do a lot of talking before deciding to do something, so it's a critical function for any endeavor.

Already, major banks are starting to not fund ff energy projects, activists have stopped coal plants from being built, carbon markets (yeah, they're not perfect, of course) keep springing up, people are taking their money out of ff investments...there are all sorts of ways that people have been and will be impeding the use of ffs. As renewables develop and undercut the price of various sorts of ff, there will be economic pressure to move away from some of the dirtiest and least efficient sources. Eventually, national and world governments will get into the act, but they are usually the last to come around in any movement.

Of course, all of this is too little too late to avoid dangerous cc, which is already crashing down around our heads. But they are not nothing.

"You are burning ff with your posts" Good try, p. Very tiny quantities, perhaps, but ridiculously small amounts, really.

[Graeme]

Pstarr, You don't anything about NZ. Didn't you know we use hydro? Especially where I live and the utility I use.

D, The next few years even this year (e.g. Paris) is critical. I think there is still time to stop catastrophe CC provided the world keeps 80% of FF in ground!!! Obama is going to stop KXL; the first action by an American President to stop a FF project. The next election in your country is also important. Can't wait to see who wins because the outcome will affect the world.

[dohboi]

As I opined elsewhere, the next US pres. election may be in the hands of the Saudis!

(Oh, oh--that probably means it will be Jeb Bush, since that family has been such long-time close friends with the royal family! I wonder what it's like to be in a family that has a country named after it. Maybe Jeb will change our's to The Bush States of America! )

[Graeme]

It will be a vitally important election. Actually we don't know yet who will be running.

[Graeme]

No but the situation has changed now. You now know from the title of this that 80% of FF must stay in ground. The energy policy of the new administration could determine our fate. For the USA, that's 92% of coal.

[dohboi]

Pstarr, you sound amazingly like my communist relatives who, no matter what problem you bring up, say, "Don't worry. As soon as The Revolution comes, all will be taken care of."

Supposedly we have been on the peak plateau for about 10 years now, yet carbon emissions are higher than ever.

[GHung]

A purely academic discussion; ain't gonna happen. Leaving fossil fuels in the ground at scale equals millions (billions?) dead people. That's the nature of overshoot. There's no way out of this that works for humanity, or most of it, and most other GLCs.

[dinopello]

[Subjectivist]

It would require a civilization ending event for humans to significantly slow or stop burning fossil fuel. Just saying.

[SeaGypsy]

Keep talking by all means Graham.

NZ is in an amazing situation regarding energy. Only transport fuels are still at issue, with close to 90% electric supply already renewables, has to be the best current energy situation in the world, taking a long term view. On top of this, Tolkienesque landscape, no threat of starvation or unfriendly neighbors, substantial reconciliation with indigenous ZMaori. You & AD are close to paradise.

Perhaps it is this closeness to paradise & isolation which permits & nurtures ambitious idealogues?