TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Gas boom risks 'perfect storm' for climate, economy: Report
Capital expenditure on liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities has surged from US$82.8 billion to $196.1 billion over the last 12 months, according to a report by Global Energy Monitor.
Change Size
Two workers are involved in a discussion at the Badak liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant in Bontang, East Kalimantan in this undated photo. Capital expenditure on liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities has surged from US$82.8 billion to $196.1 billion over the last 12 months, according to a report by Global Energy Monitor. (Courtesy of/badaklng.co.id)
G
lobal natural gas capacity under construction has doubled in a year according to new analysis that warned Tuesday the investment boom in the world's fastest-growing fuel risks a "perfect storm" of climate chaos and stranded assets.
Capital expenditure on liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities has surged from US$82.8 billion to $196.1 billion over the last 12 months, according to a report by Global Energy Monitor.
Following a string of divestment from high-profile LNG funders, the report warned that at least two dozen projects were recently cancelled or are in serious financial difficulty.
"LNG was once considered a safe bet for investors," said Greg Aitken, research analyst at Global Energy Monitor.
"Not only was it considered a climate-friendly fuel, but there was substantial governmental support to make sure that these mega-projects were shepherded to completion with all the billions they needed.
"Suddenly the industry is beset with problems," Aitken said.
As the coronavirus pandemic squeezes investors and a growing social movement against new gas projects gathers pace, the report said troubled projects were facing a range of difficulties in sustaining finance.
In the past year Berkshire Hathaway and the governments of Sweden and Ireland were among financiers to drop several billion dollars worth of gas project funding, it noted.
'Economically unsound decision'
While its proponents push LNG as a "bridge fuel" because it is less polluting than coal, a new gas-fired power plant has roughly the same environmental impact as a new coal plant, given the leakage of methane throughout the supply line.
Methane is dozens of times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide over a 100-year time scale.
The landmark 2015 Paris climate deal enjoined nations to limit global temperature rises to "well below" two degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) over pre-Industrial Revolution levels.
The accord also commits countries to work towards a safer warming cap of 1.5 degrees Celcius.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the safest and surest way to reach the 1.5 degrees Celcius goal would require a 15 percent decline in gas use by 2030 and a fall of 43 percent by 2040.
Global Energy Monitor said that any new gas infrastructure "directly contradicts the Paris climate goals".
The European Investment Bank (EIB) – the world's largest multilateral lender – said last year it was ceasing funding for nearly all new fossil fuel projects.
EIB vice-president Andrew McDowell said investing in new LNG capacity "is increasingly an economically unsound decision".
"We need to take advantage of opportunities that put us firmly on the path to reaching net-zero by 2050 whilst securing more jobs in the short and long term," he told AFP.
"This will undoubtedly be challenging, and it can't be instant. But it must happen."
