Don’t bet on coal and oil growth

January 24, 2014

The Greenpeace thermal airship A.E. Bates flies over activists displaying messages for Duke Energy. Banners on the airship read "Duke: Don't Raise Rates for Dirty Energy" and "Cleaner is Cheaper." The message on the ground reads "We want affordable rates & clean air. Be a leader Duke." The flight calls attention to the largest energy supplier in the United State's plans to continue using coal, nuclear and other forms of dangerous energy at great public cost.

© Jason Miczek / Greenpeace

A mind-boggling sum of about $800for each person on the planetis invested into fossil fuel companies through the global capital markets alone. Thats roughly 10 percent of the total capital invested in listed companies. The amount of money invested into the 200 biggest fossil fuel companies through financial markets is estimated at 5.5 trillion dollars. This should be an impressive amount of money for anyone reading this. By keeping their money in coal and oil companies, investors are betting a vast amount of wealth, including the pensions and savings of millions of people, on high future demand for dirty fuels. The investment has enabled fossil fuel companies to massively raise their spending on expanding extractable reserves, with oil and gas companies alone (state-owned ones included)spendingthe combined GDP of Netherlands and Belgium a year, in belief that there will be demand for ever more dirty fuel. This assumption is being challenged by recent developments, which is good news for climate but bad news for anyone who thought investing in fossil fuel industries was a safe bet. Frantic growth in coal consumption seems to becomingto an end much sooner than predicted just a few years ago, with Chinas aggressive clean airpolicies, rapidly dropping coal consumption in the U.S. and upcoming closures of many coal plants in Europe. At the same time the oil industry is also facingslowingdemand growth and the financial and share performance of oil majors isdisappointingfor shareholders. Nevertheless, even faced with weakening demand prospects, outdated investment patterns are driving fossil fuel companies towastetrillions of dollars in developing reserves and infrastructure that will be stranded as the world moves beyond 20th century energy. A good example is coal export developments. The large recent investment in coal export capacity in all key exporter countries was based on the assumption of unlimited growth of Chinese demand. When public outrage over air pollution reached a new level in 2012-2013, the Chinese leadership moved swiftly to mandate absolute reductions in coal consumption, andbannednew coal-fired power plants in key economic regions. Agrowing chorusof financial analysts is now projecting a peak in Chinese coal demand in the near future, which seemed unimaginable just a couple of years ago. This new reality has alreadyreducedmarket capitalization of export focused coal companies. Even in China itself, investment in coal-fired power plants has now outpaced demand growth, leading to drops in capacity utilization. Another example of potentially stranded assets is found in Europe, where large utilitiesignoredthe writing on the wall about EU moves to price carbon and boost renewable energy. Betting on old business models and the fossil-fuel generation, they built a massive 80 gigawatts of new fossil power generation capacity in the last 10 years, much of which is already generating losses and now risk becoming stranded assets. Arctic oil drilling is possibly the ultimate example of fossil companies unfounded confidence in high future demand. Any significant production and revenue is unlikely until 2030, and in the meanwhile Arctic drilling faces high and uncertain costs, extremely demanding andrisky operations, as well as the prospect of heavy regulation and liabilities when (not if) the first major blowout happens in the region. No wonder the International Energy Agency isskepticalabout Arctic oil, assuming hardly any production in the next 20 years. Regardless, Shell has already burnt $5 billion of shareholders money on their Arctic gamble. Those investing in coal and oil have perhaps felt secure seeing the global climate negotiations proceed at a disappointing pace. However, the initial carbon crunch is being delivered by increasingly market-driven renewable energy development, and by national level clean energy and energy efficiency policies such as renewable energy support schemes and emission regulation in Europe, or clean air policies in the U.S. and in China. Global coal demand, and possibly evenoildemand, could peak even before a strong climate treaty is agreed. Investors oftenunderestimatetheir exposure to fossil fuels, particularly indirect exposure through e.g. passively managed pension funds and sovereign debt of strongly fossil fuel dependent states. Assessing exposure,requiringfossil energy companies to disclose and reduce carbon risks, and reducing investments in sunset energy technologies will lead to profitable investment in a world that moves to cleaner and smarter energy systems. Improvingcompetitivenessof renewable energy,growing oppositionto destructive fossil fuel projects, concerns onwater shortageand the imperative of cutting global CO2 emissions all point in the same direction: Governments, companies and investors should all be planning for a world with declining fossil fuel consumption not only because its the right thing to do, but also because it makeseconomic sense.It is the direction the worldwillbe moving to faster than many yet anticipate.

We Need Your Voice. Join Us!

Standard text messaging rates will apply

Want to learn more about tax-deductible giving, donating stock and estate planning?

Visit Greenpeace Fund, a nonprofit, 501(c)(3) charitable entity created to increase public awareness and understanding of environmental issues through research, the media and educational programs.