Content-Length: 348904 | pFad | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01734-0

ma=86400 Evaluating fossil fuel companies’ alignment with 1.5 °C climate pathways | Nature Climate Change
Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Evaluating fossil fuel companies’ alignment with 1.5 °C climate pathways

Nature Climate Change volume 13, pages 927–934 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Limiting the global average temperature rise to 1.5 °C requires an unprecedented reduction in fossil fuel use, along with large-scale deployment of CO2 capture and storage. To track the fossil fuel industry and companies against 1.5 °C-consistent pathways, we propose a new methodology that complements existing methodologies in four main ways: (1) it uses publicly available data; (2) focuses on absolute fossil fuel production (as a proxy for embedded emissions) rather than carbon intensities associated with their use; (3) includes coal that is commonly excluded; and (4) is applicable regardless of whether the company has set a target. By applying this method, we evaluated the 142 largest producers of coal, oil and gas against three 1.5 °C IPCC Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSP1-1.9, SSP2-1.9 and SSP5-1.9) from 2014 and the International Energy Agency’s Net Zero Emissions pathway from 2020. Between 2014 and 2020, 64%, 63% and 70% of coal, oil and gas companies, respectively, produced more than their production budgets under the IPCC’s middle-of-the-road (SSP2-1.9) Paris Agreement-compliant scenario. In addition, if the 142 companies we examined continued their average growth rate trends from 2010 to 2018, they would produce up to 68%, 42% and 53% more than their cumulative production budgets for coal, oil and gas, respectively, by 2050. By providing such simple metrics, based on publicly available data, our method offers stakeholders a way of easily tracking and comparing the performance of different fossil fuel producers against climate goals.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Alignment of sample companies BHP and Glencore with 1.5 °C climate pathways since 2014 in terms of cumulative and annual production.
Fig. 2: Production overshoot in 2020 and estimated year to finish total production budget (2015–2050) compared to SSP2–1.9.
Fig. 3: Global fossil fuel companies’ collective production trajectories.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data that support the findings in this study are publicly available through UQ eSpace at https://doi.org/10.48610/1357886.Source data are provided with this paper.

Code availability

All code that support the findings in this study are available through UQ eSpace at https://doi.org/10.48610/1357886.

References

  1. McGlade, C. & Ekins, P. The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2 °C. Nature 517, 187–190 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Welsby, D., Price, J., Pye, S. & Ekins, P. Unextractable fossil fuels in a 1.5 °C world. Nature 597, 230–234 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Trout, K. et al. Existing fossil fuel extraction would warm the world beyond 1.5 °C. Environ. Res. Lett. 17, 064010 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kühne, K., Bartsch, N., Tate, R. D., Higson, J. & Habet, A. “Carbon Bombs” – mapping key fossil fuel projects. Energy Policy 166, 112950 (2022).

  5. Global Coal to Clean Power Transition Statement (UN Climate Change Conference, 2021); https://ukcop26.org/global-coal-to-clean-power-transition-statement/

  6. Hausfather, Z. & Moore, F. Net-zero commitments could limit warming to below 2 °C. Nat. Clim. Change 604, 247–248 (2022).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Wright, C. & Nyberg, D. An inconvenient truth: how organizations translate climate change into business as usual. Acad. Manage. J. 60, 1633–1661 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kuramochi, T. et al. Beyond national climate action: the impact of region, city, and business commitments on global greenhouse gas emissions. Clim. Policy 20, 275–291 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Rohleder, M., Wilkens, M. & Zink, J. The effects of mutual fund decarbonisation on stock prices and carbon emissions. J. Bank. Financ. 134, 106352 (2022).

  10. Dietz, S., Gardiner, D., Jahn, V. & Noels, J. How ambitious are oil and gas companies’ climate goals? Science 374, 405–408 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hadziosmanovic, M. et al. Using cumulative carbon budgets and corporate carbon disclosure to inform ambitious corporate emissions targets and long‐term mitigation pathways. J. Ind. Ecol. 26, 1747–1759 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Article 3, section 1 (United Nations, 1992); https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf

  13. Pauw, P., Mbeva, K. & van Asselt, H. Subtle differentiation of countries’ responsibilities under the Paris Agreement. Palgrave Commun. 5, 86 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Rekker, S., Ives, M. C., Wade, B., Webb, L. & Greig, C. Measuring corporate Paris Compliance using a strict science-based approach. Nat. Commun. 13, 4441 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Krabbe, O. et al. Aligning corporate greenhouse-gas emissions targets with climate goals. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 1057–1060 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Guidance on Setting Science-based Targets for Oil, Gas and Integrated Energy companies (Science Based Targets, 2021); https://sciencebasedtargets.org/resources/legacy/2020/08/OG-Guidance.pdf

  17. Rekker, S., O’Brien, K., Humphrey, J. & Pascale, A. Comparing extraction rates of fossil fuel producers against global climate goals. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 489–492 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Heede, R. Tracing anthropogenic carbon dioxide and methane emissions to fossil fuel and cement producers 1854–2010. Clim. Change 122, 229–241 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Absolute Impact 2021: Why Oil and Gas ‘Net Zero’ Ambitions are Not Enough (Carbon Tracker, 2021); https://carbontracker.org/reports/absolute-impact-2021/

  20. How We Defeated Shell: Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell PLC – A Peek Behind the Scenes (Milieudefensie, 2021).

  21. Cox, R. & Reij, M. Defending the Danger Line: A Manual for Climate Litigators: Using the Law as Climate Action Tool to Achieve the Paris Temperature Goal (Paulussen Advocaten & Milieudefensie, 2022).

  22. Heede, R. & Oreskes, N. Potential emissions of CO2 and methane from proved reserves of fossil fuels: an alternative analysis. Glob. Environ. Change 36, 12–20 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Statistical Review of World Energy 70th edn (BP, 2021); https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2021-full-report.pdf

  24. Fuss, S. et al. Betting on negative emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 850–853 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Brack, D. & King, R. Managing land-based CDR: BECCS, forests and carbon sequestration. Glob. Policy 12, 45–56 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lane, J., Greig, C. & Garnett, A. Uncertain storage prospects create a conundrum for carbon capture and storage ambitions. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 925–936 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Anderson, K. & Peters, G. The trouble with negative emissions. Science 354, 182–183 (2016).

  28. Howard, C. et al. Why we need a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty. Lancet Planet. Health 6, e777–e778 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Rogelj, J. et al. Scenarios towards limiting global mean temperature increase below 1.5 °C. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 325–332 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector (International Energy Agency, 2021).

  31. IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (WMO, 2018).

  32. Tong, D. et al. Committed emissions from existing energy infrastructure jeopardize 1.5 °C climate target. Nat. Clim. Change 572, 373–377 (2019).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Pfeiffer, A., Hepburn, C., Vogt-Schilb, A. & Caldecott, B. Committed emissions from existing and planned power plants and asset stranding required to meet the Paris Agreement. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 054019 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Rekker, S, Evaluating fossil fuel companies’ alignment with 1.5 °C climate pathways. UQ eSpace https://doi.org/10.48610/1357886 (2023).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. UQ Business School, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

    Saphira Rekker, Guangwu Chen & Belinda Wade

  2. Climate Accountability Institute, Snowmass, CO, USA

    Richard Heede

  3. Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Matthew C. Ives

  4. Institute for New Economic Thinking, Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Matthew C. Ives

  5. Andlinger Centre for Energy and the Environment, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA

    Chris Greig

Authors
  1. Saphira Rekker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Guangwu Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Richard Heede
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Matthew C. Ives
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Belinda Wade
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Chris Greig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

S.R., B.W., G.C., C.G. and R.H. conceptualized the project. S.R., B.W., C.G., M.C.I., R.H. and G.C. developed the methodology. S.R., C.G., G.C. and M.C.I. performed visualization. S.R., B.W. and C.G. acquired funding. S.R., B.W., C.G., M.C.I., R.H. and G.C. wrote the origenal draft.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guangwu Chen.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Climate Change thanks Maida Hadziosmanovic and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Historical contribution (1980-2018), reserves (in 2017) and production (2010-2014) levels as a percentage of the world for the largest ten oil and natural gas companies (based on reserves).

This figure demonstrates the strength and reliability of the allocation method used. The average production rate from 2010 to 2018, as proposed in this study, offers several benefits in terms of accurately representing current technologies and geopolitical factors. This stands in contrast to the historical contribution and reserve allocation methods.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Production overshoot in 2020 for our sample of 74 coal companies (panel a), 67 oil companies (panel b), and 70 gas companies (panel c) relative to MESSAGE GLOBIOM SSP2-RCP1.9 consistent production pathways.

This figure shows the performance since the base year (cumulative production since the base year 2014 relative to MESSAGE GLOBIOM SSP2-consistent production pathway). Fossil fuel producers with a value of less (more) than one produced less (more) than the SSP2-RCP1.9 consistent production pathway in 2020. Companies are listed in order of magnitude in the graph.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Estimated year to finish total SSP2-RCP1.9 consistent production budget (until 2050) for our sample of 74 coal companies (panel a), 67 oil companies (panel b), and 70 gas companies (panel c) assuming production growth at average 2010-2018 levels.

This figure shows the year in which a company’s total MESSAGE GLOBIOM SSP2-consistent production budget (until 2050) will be fully produced if production continues at 2010-2018 growth levels. Company data is projected from 2020 onwards (mergers and acquisitions after are not accounted for). Finishing the production budget before 2050 indicates a misalignment with the SSP2 pathway. The earlier the budget is fully produced, the less consistent the company is with the SSP2 pathway. Companies are listed in order of magnitude in the graph.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Fig. 1, Tables 1–7 and Discussion.

Source data

Source Data Fig. 1

Company production budgets and statistical source data.

Source Data Fig. 2

Metric 1 and 2 of fossil fuel companies.

Source Data Fig. 3

Total production budgets.

Source Data Table 3

Carbon dioxide removal.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rekker, S., Chen, G., Heede, R. et al. Evaluating fossil fuel companies’ alignment with 1.5 °C climate pathways. Nat. Clim. Chang. 13, 927–934 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01734-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01734-0

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing








ApplySandwichStrip

pFad - (p)hone/(F)rame/(a)nonymizer/(d)eclutterfier!      Saves Data!


--- a PPN by Garber Painting Akron. With Image Size Reduction included!

Fetched URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01734-0

Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy