Two really important points have troubled me in the past months and given growing challenges and issues relating to the energy transition.

The failure of CoP26 lingers very heavily and now as we are caught up in the Russian- Ukrainian war we are seeing so many reverses on pledges made in Glasgow or simply waiting to see where this crisis will take us all.

It seems to be that the lack of positives is presently being defeated with all the negatives I have been recently reading about in disruption, energy risks and the growing energy crisis. A level of panic is setting in. It does seem we are losing real momentum on reducing carbon emissions as we fall back on fossil fuel supplies.

At the UN’s Cop26 climate summit in November 2021, after a quarter-century of annual negotiations that as yet have failed to deliver a fall in global emissions, countries around the world finally included the word “coal” in their concluding decision. That is now back on the agenda, with old coal mines even being reopened.

Even this belated mention of the dirtiest fossil fuel was fraught, leaving a “deeply sorry” Cop president, Alok Sharma, fighting back tears on the podium after India announced a last-minute softening of the need to “phase out coal” to “phase down coal”.

The really shocking failure at CoP26 was this.

But there was no mention of oil and gas in the Cop26 final deal, despite these being responsible for almost 60% of fossil fuel emissions.

Since then Energy has gone into shock from the Russian war

The stories of the bonanza in extra cash flooding into the big oil companies, the opening up or extending of oil field options and the recent reveal through work undertaken by the Guardian about the carbon bombs set to trigger catastrophic climate breakdown is making us believe how great a danger the plans of oil and gas companies pose to the climate as they retake their leadership role.

Research shared exclusively with the Guardian has identified the Cabo Delgado development as one of 195 carbon bombs, which – unless stopped – will drive catastrophic climate breakdown around the world. These are very distressing reading.

The term carbon bomb has been widely used in climate circles for the past decade to describe large fossil fuel projects or other big sources of carbon.

The new research sets a specific definition: projects capable of pumping at least 1bn tonnes of CO2 emissions over their lifetimes.

According to the article, it is chilling what is possibly planned

Details of the projects being planned are not easily accessible but an investigation published in the Guardian shows:

• The fossil fuel industry’s short-term expansion plans involve the start of oil and gas projects that will produce greenhouse gases equivalent to a decade of CO2 emissions from China, the world’s biggest polluter.
• The fossil fuel industry’s short-term expansion plans involve the start of oil and gas projects that will produce greenhouse gases equivalent to a decade of CO2 emissions from China, the world’s biggest polluter.
• These plans include 195 carbon bombs, and gigantic oil and gas projects that would each result in at least a billion tonnes of CO2 emissions over their lifetimes, in total equivalent to about 18 years of current global CO2 emissions. About 60% of these have already started pumping.
• The dozen biggest oil companies are on track to spend $103m a day for the rest of the decade exploiting new fields of oil and gas that cannot be burned if global heating is to be limited to well under 2C.
• The Middle East and Russia often attract the most attention in relation to future oil and gas production but the US, Canada and Australia are among the countries with the biggest expansion plans and the highest number of carbon bombs. The US, Canada and Australia also give some of the world’s biggest subsidies for fossil fuels per capita.
• The dozen biggest oil companies are on track to spend every day for the rest of the decade $103m

If the projects go ahead, they will blow the world’s rapidly shrinking cap on emissions that must be kept to enable a livable future – known as the carbon budget.

A further study led by Kjell Kühne from the University of Leeds in the UK and published in the journal Energy Policy, found that just a few months after many of the world’s politicians positioned themselves as climate leaders during the Cop26 conference in Glasgow, they were giving the green light to a massive global expansion of oil and gas production that scientists warn would push civilization to the brink.

In this report by Kühne it is suggested there are 425 fossil fuel projects with >1 Gt CO₂ potential emissions globally. This is staggering.

What really disappointed me, and alarms me even more, was the final comments in this piece from the Guardian on the carbon bombs.

“The world is in a race against time,” said Guterres, the UN Secretary_general. “It is time to end fossil fuel subsidies and stop the expansion of oil and gas exploration.”

Reflecting on the war in Ukraine, he said: “Countries could become so consumed by the immediate fossil fuel supply gap that they neglect or knee-cap policies to cut fossil fuel use. This is madness. Addiction to fossil fuels is mutually assured destruction.”

The Guardian article closed with this “Will the world’s governments act to close the book on the oil companies’ giant climate gamble? Will richer countries, historically most responsible for emissions, support a just transition for developing countries on the frontline of the escalating crisis?

They go on with “Would strong, immediate action lead to a financial crash, as billions of dollars are wiped off the value of some of the world’s biggest companies? Or will more steady but concerted action wean us off fossil fuels rapidly, close the oil companies’ cash machine and lead us into a clean energy future with a liveable climate? Only time will tell. But, unlike oil and gas, time is in very short supply.

Guterres said: “Fossil fuel interests are now cynically using the war in Ukraine to lock in a high-carbon future.”

He commented “The 1.5-degree goal is on life support. It is in intensive care. And we must tell it like it is”

This brings me to the second area that has been troubling me and picking up on this point “we must tell it like it is“

The truth is we are not telling it like it is, the truth is being drowned out or lost in a sea of data, reports or alternative positions that are simply a struggle to comprehend and find the “path of truth”.

A stark report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world’s leading authority on climate science. “[This report] is a code red for humanity,” Guterres said. The IPCC states carbon emissions must fall by half by 2030 to preserve the chance of a liveable future, yet they show no sign of declining.

Investing in new fossil fuels infrastructure is moral and economic madness.

The big question for me is where do you start “telling it like it is?” If the CoP and UN seem powerless to stop the reliance on fossil fuels who can?

This climate hypocrisy starts in making sure we address historic injustices over emissions, including the carbon footprint of the wealthy, whose lifestyles have contributed most to global warming.

Climate change is predominantly impacting those who’ve done the least to contribute to carbon pollution and who have the least resources to deal with it because they are living below the poverty line.

Then there are warnings of carbon inequality. Politicians need to level with voters on what the transition to net-zero will mean for the way we live. They are avoiding this at present.

There’s potential for a public and political backlash over issues of unfairness, which could damage trust and ultimately the wider transition to net-zero (removing as many emissions as we produce).

Everywhere you look we have a high impact potential all lives will be affected by an entire economic, and societal shift and transition that we need to make.

We are going to see even more the global south will bear the biggest brunt of economic impacts from rising temperatures, with those on lower incomes more vulnerable to the likes of floods, drought and extreme heat.

The constant storms, floods, and heatwaves are coming faster than ever it seems, causing loss of livelihoods, suffering, disruption and devastation, were our Scientists working on the various IPPC reports being far too cautious and the concerns they mentioned for the future are actually now in the present?

The drive towards net zero could mean higher prices for food and energy, which will have a greater impact on the poor. Measures presently designed to encourage cleaner, greener living might exacerbate existing socio-economic divisions and derail the drive towards a net-zero world.

So how can we tell it like it is?

Everywhere I look, I read stories and reports of a really troubling future
Alok Sharma, the UK cabinet minister who presided over Cop26, summed up the agreement soon after as one that was “on life support”. He wrote in the Guardian: “The 1.5C limit lives. We brought it back from the brink. But its pulse remains weak.”

We are seeing that Putin has shown he is prepared to weaponize that dominance for his own ends, whatever the consequences on food, raw materials and especially on fossil fuels.

Do I share this (simplistic view) from Fatih Birol?
There are three clear answers to this energy crisis, according to Fatih Birol, executive director of the International Energy Agency, and one of the world’s foremost energy economists: countries must seek to replace Russian fossil fuels in the short term by squeezing more out of their current supplies.

Urgent measures, such as turning down thermostats, imposing speed limits on cars and installing home insulation, must be taken to cut down on demand. And renewable energy must be ramped up fast by removing barriers such as planning problems and grid connections.

“I believe we have the chance to make this a historic turning point, towards a cleaner and more secure energy system,” said Birol. “This is the first time I have seen such momentum behind the change in the energy sector.”

My position today

I do not buy this optimism at all. Since CoP26 I have become such a pessimist it has stopped me in so many ways, I have lessened my time on research, reading reports, and writing (optimistic) articles and generally feel I have been in a “deep funk” over the current Energy Transition.

Can i get back to an optimist? I want too

I want to offer real value and understanding of the positives behind the energy transition. I want to tell better stories of progress, I want to build the narratives and business cases to shift our present.

My task is to push past all the negativity and often heartbreaking stories caused by bad management, greedy companies, and weak governments all not doing enough for a growing problem that dwarfs Corvid, Putin’s War and the present economic uncertainties where inflation is back, creating havoc and uncertainty and further disruption.

Transitioning to a different Energy system is monumental. We are allowing it to slip away and if so, our future as humans able to function on this planet.

We need the good stories, the successes, the pointers towards promise and breakthroughs. I want to tell them, not constantly get drowned out by a climate and fossil fuel crisis.

I hope we get through this present time, it is a time of great danger and peril.