However, the great powers at play will never challenge the core structural imperatives of modern commerce. And while green marketing explodes into a multi-trillion-dollar industry, the planet is demonstrably losing the fight. It’s a horrifying disconnect that requires far more than mere scepticism; it demands moral outrage and systemic accountability.

The world is now awash in pledges, certifications, and sustainable packaging, but simultaneously, global warming accelerates, biodiversity plummets, and the core structural flaws of modern commerce remain utterly unchallenged, a tragic farce demanding immediate scrutiny. The intellectual history of this conflict is clear, stretching back to the classical economic thinkers.

The modern notion that capitalism harbours the seeds of its own ecological destruction was identified by thinkers ranging from Thomas Malthus in the eighteenth century to Karl Marx in the nineteenth, thinkers who recognised the collision between growing consumption and the limited capacity of productive land.

Marxists later extended this argument, pointing to the indispensable necessity of capitalism to continually accumulate capital and generate growth if it is to remain viable, coining the concept of the growth imperative. This analysis leads to a stunning indictment of the entire premise of eco-commerce, recognising it as an impossibility theorem, a theoretical contradiction where an economic system that requires perpetual economic growth attempts to function on a spherical planet with finite resources.

The system knows only one core command: accumulate, accumulate, a principle that operates as its Moses and the prophets, and breaking with this fundamental law requires questioning the entire structure of capital itself.

The fundamental conflict resides in the profit motive. We expect big businesses and high-net-worth individuals to be bound by law, ethics, and customary societal rules. However, the primary goal of all businesses is revenue generation, profits, and a surge in stock prices.

With this target at odds with the collective welfare of society, corporations are often more than willing to flout the rules to gain an unfair advantage over the competition and to keep board members happy.

Racket of labels and loopholes

If eco-commerce were a genuine solution, we would be seeing a systemic reduction in environmental damage commensurate with the financial investment pouring into sustainable branding, but what we see instead is an epidemic of deceptive communication known as greenwashing. The United Nations defines this practice not just as mild exaggeration, but as promoting false solutions to the climate crisis that actively distract from and delay concrete, credible action.

Corporate tactics are purposely vague, employing non-specific language about operations or materials, or applying intentionally misleading labels like “green” or “eco-friendly,” which lack standard definitions and can be easily misinterpreted by consumers and investors alike.

They frequently emphasise a single minor environmental improvement while systematically ignoring other major impacts, such as a product made from recycled materials produced in a high-emitting factory that pollutes nearby waterways.

This epidemic of corporate dishonesty is mapped across the highest echelons of global commerce, revealing a truly systemic problem. We have seen Shell engaged in gaslighting the general public regarding its emissions, and HSBC forced to address misleading climate advertisements. Fast fashion giant H&M has faced intense scrutiny for insincere sustainable fashion claims, while Coca-Cola remains consistently accused of green marketing despite its status as the world’s largest plastic polluter.

This roster of shame, which also includes Windex, Ryanair, and Unilever, demonstrates that the problem resides not in isolated misconduct but in the institutional structure of corporate communication, where deception is a necessary tool for maintaining the illusion of responsibility while pursuing the unrestricted profit motive.

We were told that voluntary corporate standards and certifications were the cure for this greenwashing deception, weren’t we? But let’s be honest. These systems have failed and become part of the disease. They’ve gone rotten!

Take certifications like B Corp. They were supposed to signal a deep, genuine commitment to social and environmental performance. Yet how easily can companies highlight minor, utterly insignificant improvements? This process is a joke, leading critics to rightly accuse the whole movement of monumental greenwashing and diluting the very values they claim to champion.

Why does this happen? The assessment process relies heavily on self-reporting. This makes it ridiculously susceptible to manipulation, and objectivity is completely missing. Consequently, many people now see B Corp as nothing more than a simple marketing tool, not a solemn commitment to profound purpose. Is that what accountability looks like? I don’t think so!

This systemic weakness is mirrored in the failure of Voluntary Sustainability Standards, or VSS, in supply chains. While VSS hold theoretical potential to reduce negative externalities, such as reducing water use or greenhouse gas emissions in sugarcane production, their implementation fails because incentives are insufficient to cover the costs of criteria compliance.

Corporate lobbyists are acutely aware of these limitations and actively push for these voluntary reporting models precisely because history has shown them to be ineffective, allowing companies to avoid legally binding obligations and shift focus away from abuses, reducing compliance to a mere “tick-the-box” exercise.

Perhaps the most cynical iteration of this voluntary deception is the Great Carbon Shell Game, the widespread failure of voluntary carbon offset programmes. The crisis of confidence in these programmes is now overwhelming, fuelled by serious investigations showing that most of the world’s largest offset projects fail to deliver promised climate benefits, rendering the nearly two billion dollars attracted by these programmes in 2023 largely ineffective for stabilising global temperatures.

But the failure of offsets extends beyond faulty climate accounting. It is a profound ethical failure directly linked to environmental injustice. These projects, intended to allow polluters in the North to continue emitting, have resulted in the alleged forced displacement of indigenous communities from their land, with reports of communities being forced out of areas like Cordillera Azul National Park without receiving compensation.

This horrifying dynamic has created a situation where indigenous groups are now studying carbon market regulations to avoid becoming the prey of “carbon pirates,” revealing that green finance has become a new, sophisticated mechanism for resource theft.

The system intended to mitigate emissions in one part of the world is actively generating severe human suffering in another, a classic case of externalising costs onto the vulnerable and internalising profits for the wealthy.

Failure of market solutions

The true measure of eco-commerce lies not in its advertising budgets or the volume of its glossy reports but in its effectiveness against raw ecological data. The data reveals a terrifying disconnect between market momentum and planetary reality. Today, the world’s publicly traded companies account for trillions of dollars of market capitalisation, and environmental, social, and governance principles (ESG) have been heavily integrated into investment strategies.

Yet despite this massive financial and corporate momentum, current climate efforts are categorically not keeping pace with rising risks. The gaps in both the ambition and implementation of climate commitments are vast, leaving the projected warming far above the necessary safe limits, ranging dangerously between 2.1 and 2.8 degrees Celsius, a prognosis that guarantees continued catastrophe.

Let’s take deforestation, for example. Despite over 100 countries formally pledging to reverse global deforestation by 2030 at the COP28 climate summit, the world is moving in the catastrophic opposite direction. The fact that in 2024 deforestation rates were a staggering 63% higher than the trajectory required to meet the critical 2030 target is telling of where we stand as a species on the matter.

The loss of tropical primary forest, the world’s most critical ecosystem for biodiversity and carbon storage, occurred at an astonishing rate of 18 football fields per minute in 2024, nearly double the rate observed in 2023.

This single disaster released 3.1 gigatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions, an amount equivalent to more than India’s annual fossil fuel use. This is an accelerating catastrophe driven largely by the profit motive in commodity markets, specifically clearing forests for cattle farming and soy, proving that core resource extraction remains utterly unchecked by the rhetoric of eco-commerce.

The myth of the circular economy further encapsulates the failure to manage basic material flows. This concept is hailed as a cornerstone of sustainable business, yet the hard data demolishes this narrative of material efficiency.

Global plastic production has skyrocketed, more than doubling in the last two decades to reach 460 million tonnes annually in 2019. In stark contrast to this tidal wave of production, only a small share of plastic actually gets recycled, highlighting the colossal gap between corporate commitments and systemic capability, leaving vast quantities of waste to enter the environment.

The inability to scale circularity is a structural and institutional obstacle. The implementation of circular models faces resistance due to ineffective and inadequate government policy, a lack of safety standards for complex technologies like electric vehicle battery recycling, and the high inherent costs of processing waste relative to extracting new materials.

Because the circular economy concept faces structural obstacles and ideological critiques for being dominated by narrow technical and economic accounts, the current model risks depoliticising sustainable growth while delivering highly uncertain contributions to genuine sustainability, masking the necessity of an overall reduction in material throughput.

The implication is devastatingly clear. Corporate momentum is utterly irrelevant in the face of ecological failure, providing quantifiable evidence that the current system is not equipped to solve a problem it is inherently designed to create.

Environmental justice

The global environmental crisis is fundamentally inseparable from the crisis of justice, a reality that the proponents of eco-commerce conveniently ignore. The adverse impacts of environmental degradation are disproportionately borne by the planet’s most vulnerable human beings, exposing how the burden of sustainability is distributed along lines of power and wealth.

Crucially, much of the ecological harm in the Global South is not the result of domestic consumption but is due to export-oriented production and the unsustainable exploitation of natural resources carried out by transnational corporations operating under the profit motive. This dynamic has created a new form of resource exploitation, often termed green colonialism. The necessary rush toward clean energy requires immense resource extraction, from lithium and cobalt to rare earths, leading developers to turn toward marginalised and indigenous land.

These territories are often targeted because they are rich in natural resources and are not currently used commercially, leading to a destructive process now known as green land grabbing. The human cost is staggering. Marginalised populations, primarily indigenous ones, suffer disproportionately, facing the profound loss of land, livelihoods, and cultural integrity.

Furthermore, workers involved in these clean energy supply chains can be subject to excessive working hours, wage withholding, temporary employment, and inadequate pay, simply to fuel the North’s clean transition and maintain its consumption patterns.

How regulation gets gutted

If market solutions are inherently flawed, then the only reliable recourse is mandatory state regulation, yet corporate power has proven adept at dismantling this safeguard, ensuring the unrestricted profit motive prevails. Regulatory failure is routinely linked to the pervasive influence of special interests, a phenomenon known as regulatory capture.

We have witnessed high-profile cases demonstrating this corruption, ranging from financial regulators missing investment fraud and toxic loans while their staff shuttle back and forth between Washington and Wall Street, to energy regulators ignoring the risk of catastrophic oil spills just as their officials were consorting with industry managers. While capture may not be the sole cause of every regulatory failure, it is consistently identified as an active, powerful barrier to regulatory success.

Corporate interests actively exploit this vulnerability by aggressively fighting legally binding climate mandates in favour of the demonstrably failed voluntary models. A recent, shocking case demonstrates the geopolitical scale of this sabotage. The United States and Qatar, two of the world’s largest exporters of liquefied natural gas (LNG), jointly demanded that the European Union (EU) roll back its critical Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive.

The directive would require gas exporters to cut their planet-heating emissions and protect human rights, but the United States and Qatar warned that these binding rules posed an “existential threat” to European economies, a brazen attempt to prevent mandatory climate accountability through direct political pressure.

The lobbying strategy employed by corporations is deliberately multilevel, designed to narrow the scope and weaken the efficiency of legislation. The cynical ultimate goal of this pressure is profoundly destructive, the reasoning being that if EU law is weakened sufficiently, industry can then effectively block stronger, more ambitious national laws in member states.

The strategy establishes a global regulatory floor at the lowest level, which indefinitely stalls necessary structural changes and allows the unrestricted profit motive to justify illegal or immoral business decisions.

Beyond the eco-commerce delusion

The exhaustive evidence presented here leads to a single, unequivocal conclusion. Eco-commerce is a sophisticated mechanism of delay, a system where the growth imperative of capitalism collides violently and catastrophically with ecological limits, producing nothing but policy failure, greenwashing, and systemic injustice.

Relying on voluntary measures, offset schemes, and self-reported standards simply empowers corporations and lobbyists to sabotage regulation, externalise costs onto the global poor, and maintain the destructive status quo. The time for market optimism, polite suggestions, and faith in corporate ethics is long past. The data screams of an impending collapse driven by profit.

If we accept the structural truth that growth is what capitalism fundamentally needs, knows, and does, then truly constraining the economy to remain within ecological safety margins will only hasten its own collapse, forcing us to face the painful reality that sustainability and the current structure of capitalism are incompatible.

The underlying flaw is the relentless pursuit of perpetual economic growth, a structure that sustains itself by extracting surplus through processes of enclosure, commodification, and the cheapening of labour and nature.

The post Green capitalism: A dead end appeared first on International Finance.

Stardust is reportedly planning to conduct outdoor tests in Israel, and a governance report commissioned and now endorsed by the start-up disclosed that the company had initiated the process of filing for “relevant intellectual property” rights.

The report further outlined that the company is “developing and testing both a particle and a dispersal system and plans to upgrade the prototype airborne dispersion system to an operational level, enabling dispersion at the required capacity from a future operational aircraft in the coming year.”

The Convention on Biological Diversity, which Israel has been a party to since 2008, has been issuing a series of decisions relating to geoengineering, including a de facto moratorium because of its implications for biodiversity. The moratorium was reaffirmed by consensus at CBD COP16 in Colombia in October–November 2024, with parties citing concern about the increase in outdoor solar and marine geoengineering experiments.

While the moratorium has an exemption for small-scale research, a commercial factor is a key aspect of determining whether or not a project meets the criteria for this exemption. It now remains to be seen whether Stardust’s experimentation will be “small-scale” or not, because if it is not, then it has all the possibilities of being considered a violation of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

What is geoengineering?

The term represents intentional and large-scale manipulative acts committed on our planet Earth. The term is most commonly discussed in the context of climate change. One such technique, “ocean fertilisation,” is the best-studied technique and is the one that is clearly regulated.

The method deals with adding nutrients to ocean waters to increase the phytoplankton population, with the theory propagating that the plankton will absorb carbon dioxide, just as plants do on land. However, ocean fertilisation has been discredited as a climate change response in the scientific literature. Why? Because it is too risky, the effects on the marine food web are unknown, and there is little evidence to prove successful sequestration.

Both the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and the London Convention on Dumping of Waste at Sea prohibit large-scale, open-ocean and/or commercial ocean fertilisation. Only small-scale, legitimate scientific research is allowed, and that too after the successful completion of environmental assessments.

However, Stardust’s geoengineering goals are more ambitious, developing proprietary geoengineering technology that would help block sun rays from reaching the planet.

The start-up, formed in 2023, has a novel approach to private companies, driving the development and deployment of technologies that experts say could have profound consequences for the planet, while going against the trend of most geoengineering research being led by scientists at American universities and federal agencies, and while keeping public scrutiny out of the picture.

Geoengineering projects, even those led by climate scientists, have previously drawn the ire of environmentalists and other groups. In the words of Ramin Skibba, a space writer whose work covers space science, environmentalists, politics, conflicts, and industry, “Such a deliberate transformation of the atmosphere has never been done, and many uncertainties remain. If a geoengineering project went awry, for example, it could contribute to air pollution and ozone loss, or have dramatic effects on weather patterns, such as disrupting monsoons in populous South and East Asia.”

Geoengineering under scrutiny

Global warming has become a hot topic in the current century. As global temperatures rise, public and scientific sentiments are shifting as well. If those temperature trends continue, governments and private entities may ultimately use geoengineering to alleviate or avoid the worst impacts of extreme weather, including deadly heat waves, firestorms, and hurricanes. Whoever deploys the technology will need to maintain it for decades while pent-up greenhouse gases gradually dissipate or are removed.

“Its approach is novel: Most geoengineering research today is led by scientists in the US at universities and federal agencies, and the work they are doing is more or less accessible to public scrutiny. Stardust is at the forefront of an alternative path—one in which private companies drive the development, and perhaps deployment, of technologies that experts say could have profound consequences for the planet,” Skibba noted.

However, environmentalists are sceptical, as a deliberate transformation of the atmosphere has never been done, and from that angle, geoengineering contains many uncertainties. If a project went awry, for example, it could contribute to air pollution and ozone loss, or have dramatic effects on weather patterns, such as disrupting monsoons in populous South and East Asia.

“Few outsiders have gotten a glimpse of Stardust’s plans, and the company has not publicly released details about its technology, its business model, or exactly who works at the company. But the company appears to be positioning itself to develop and sell a proprietary geoengineering technology to governments that are considering making modifications to the global climate—acting like a kind of defence contractor for climate alteration,” Skibba added.

While Stardust is moving ahead with an experiment that has uncertain implications for biodiversity, a lack of rules and limited oversight gives it an upper hand. A recent report by the company’s former climate governance consultant, Janos Pasztor, called for the venture to increase its transparency, engagement, and communication with outsiders.

However, Pasztor also told Undark that the company did not meet all of his requests.

He continued, “Stardust still needs to implement his recommendations, be as transparent as possible, be available proactively to respond to questions people may have, and also engage with other actors, because they do not, or not yet, have a social license for geoengineering activities.”

Stardust solar research

The company discussed by International Finance is led by its CEO and cofounder, Yanai Yedvab, who is also a former deputy chief scientist at the Israel Atomic Energy Commission, which oversees the country’s clandestine nuclear programme. When Undark tried to reach out to Yedvab, he issued an emailed statement, which read: “Stardust is a startup focused on researching and developing technologies that may potentially stop global warming in the short term. The company is studying and developing safe, responsible, and controllable solar radiation modification, and our goal is to enable informed and responsible decision-making by the international community and governments.”

Yedvab further refused to admit that his company is “secretive,” while adding that the startup is “unwaveringly committed to publishing results as one of the measures to gain public trust.”

While Stardust did not publish any of its research data or reports in March 2025, Yedvab stressed that it would do so once “scientific validation is concluded” on all of its results.

When it comes to solar geoengineering, the most common approach has been flying high-altitude aircraft or balloons to release reflective particles in the upper atmosphere, well above the flight paths of commercial planes. The technique, known as stratospheric aerosol injection, requires deploying tiny, carefully chosen particles in precise amounts. To work effectively, the particles need to be periodically replenished. Scientists have accumulated evidence for this approach by studying natural events that have flung small particles into the atmosphere.

The eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 is a good case study, as sulphur dioxide and hydrogen sulphide generated from this phenomenon hung in the atmosphere and measurably cooled the planet for more than a year.

However, research by a team from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and Columbia University in New York claimed that the sunlight-blocking particles from an extreme eruption would not cool surface temperatures on Earth as severely as previously estimated.

Some 74,000 years ago, the Toba volcano in Indonesia exploded with a force 1,000 times more powerful than the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens. What happened afterwards, and to what degree that extreme explosion might have cooled global temperatures, remains a mystery. When it comes to the most powerful volcanoes, researchers have long speculated how post-eruption global cooling, sometimes called volcanic winter, could potentially pose a threat to humanity.

Previous studies agreed that some planet-wide cooling would occur but diverged on how much. The GISS and Columbia University researchers used advanced computer modelling to simulate super-eruptions like the Toba event. They found that post-eruption cooling would probably not exceed 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) even for the most powerful blasts.

“The relatively modest temperature changes we found, most compatible with the evidence, could explain why no single super-eruption has produced firm evidence of global-scale catastrophe for humans or ecosystems,” said lead author Zachary McGraw, a researcher at NASA GISS and Columbia University.

To qualify as a super-eruption, a volcano must release more than 240 cubic miles (1,000 cubic kilometres) of magma. These eruptions are extremely powerful and rare. The most recent super-eruption occurred more than 22,000 years ago in New Zealand. The most famous example is the eruption that devastated Yellowstone Crater in Wyoming roughly 2 million years ago.

Is deliberately strewing sulphates in the atmosphere a risk worth taking? While some scientists argue that there are indeed risks, they are small in comparison to the health risks from climate change.

“We know that sulphuric acid air pollution causes mortality, and we roughly know how much. There’s more than a century of studies. We’re very unlikely to be wrong about that,” said David Keith, head of the Climate Systems Engineering initiative at the University of Chicago and an advocate of geoengineering research.

Stardust plans to distribute the particles through a machine mounted on an aircraft, according to Pasztor, a veteran climate diplomat and policy expert at the United Nations and elsewhere.

According to Pasztor’s report, the company is engineering the particle and a prototype of the aircraft mount, as well as developing a system for modelling and monitoring the climatic effects. Over the coming year, Pasztor wrote, the company was planning on advancing those technologies and testing those particles in the stratosphere.

In his emailed reply to Undark, Yedvab confirmed that they are working on the technologies and that experiments would be done in a “contained, non-dispersive manner,” meaning that its particles would not be strewn over a wide area.

While reiterating Stardust’s commitment to publishing information about any such outdoor geoengineering tests, the CEO further added that the company has not performed any such outdoor experiments, but has done “a few outdoor aerial checks.” That meant that they have tested their dispersal system “under flight conditions,” but they haven’t yet scattered their aerosols in the atmosphere.

According to Yedvab, Stardust is now testing nonsulfate particles. He continued, “The ability to tailor particle properties to meet a broad set of requirements—safety, effectiveness, cost, and dispersibility—is a key advantage of our approach, giving it a distinct edge over sulphates and other candidate particles.”

Doubts still remain

While the concerns around Stardust’s work may seem justified to some extent, there are no international rules or treaties that put obvious limits on experiments like geoengineering, which could affect billions of lives. Pasztor is advocating for a rule-based order in which more informed experts and stakeholders will be involved in decision-making before the experiment proceeds.

He also believes Stardust has a moral obligation to inform the public about what it is doing and ensure it is receiving input from a wide variety of groups before tinkering with the planetary thermostat. In fact, he stated that Stardust agreed to publish a public website, including a copy of Pasztor’s report, and to develop a voluntary code of conduct.

This would have publicly laid out how they intend to conduct their research and development, including agreeing not to be involved in large-scale implementation, which would instead be under the purview of government agencies. Pasztor expected Stardust to publish this information in September 2024 or soon afterwards. However, the whole plan was “delayed.”

In February 2025, Undark’s website emerged with only three sections to display: Home, Our Principles, and Contact Us. The site also has links to Pasztor’s report and lists seven principles, including “prioritising safety and scientific integrity,” publishing “unfavourable results as well as favourable ones,” and “supporting comprehensive regulation of this emerging field.”

Stardust, however, has not yet released a code of conduct, despite Yedvab stressing that the company complies with all applicable governmental and international regulations.

Stardust’s global role

In Stardust’s portfolio of technologies, Yedvab added, they “could be deployed following decisions by the US government and international community,” suggesting that the startup’s prospective clients will be governments. Even experts believe that Stardust will become a go-to provider for countries considering geoengineering.

The company is attempting to patent its geoengineering technology.

“We anticipate that as US-led geoengineering research and development programmes advance, the value of Stardust’s technological portfolio will grow accordingly,” Yedvab wrote.

Pasztor’s report, however, states that if governments decide not to pursue geoengineering, investors “risk not receiving a return on their investment.”

Other experts have also questioned Stardust’s conduct so far. Among them is Shuchi Talati, founder of The Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering, a Washington–based nonprofit: “When it comes to principles of governance, like transparency and public engagement, they’re not adhering to any of them. Pasztor’s report is the only public thing we know about them.”

In Talati’s opinion, the lack of transparency could have consequences for the company, as Stardust’s approach may spark conspiracy theories about what a “secret Israeli company” is doing, and, down the road, it will be much harder for people to trust Stardust.

People at Friends of the Earth, an environmental group that has long dismissed geoengineering as a “dangerous distraction,” echo Talati’s concerns and go further with their critiques of Stardust.

“I don’t think it’s compatible to have venture capital funding and to be committed to scientific ideals,” said Benjamin Day, FOE’s senior campaigner on geoengineering.

He believes the problem lies in Stardust’s engineers having a vested interest in finding that stratospheric geoengineering can and should be done.

“If governments choose to use geoengineering, they may become heavily dependent on Stardust if they’re ahead of the competition, of which there currently is none. There’s no private market for geoengineering technologies. They’re only going to make money if it’s deployed by governments, and at that point they’re kind of trying to hold governments hostage with technology patents,” Benjamin Day added.

Talking about government-level projects, the United States government is developing an early warning system that could detect geoengineering in the stratosphere. Furthermore, deploying geoengineering means using and monitoring it for as long as a century, while any abrupt adjustment or end of that deployment could be disruptive, with “termination shock” potentially triggering dangerous global warming within months.

“Geoengineering research has long been entangled with national defence,” said Kevin Surprise, a professor of environmental studies at Mount Holyoke College who studies the economics and geopolitics of geoengineering.

“Some of the first geoengineering papers in the late 1990s came from institutions with Pentagon ties, like Lawrence Livermore National Lab and the Hoover Institution. High-profile geoengineering meetings with the George W Bush administration and the Council on Foreign Relations, as well as a mention in a Department of Defence report, soon followed, and the CIA reportedly funded the first geoengineering report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Because of the long-standing connections between geoengineering research and development, the military, and Silicon Valley, Surprise argues, Stardust shouldn’t be viewed as a rogue actor. This isn’t out of the blue,” he noted.

In Stardust’s case, they’ve received an estimated $15 million in venture capital funding, mainly from Awz Ventures, a Canadian-Israeli VC firm, in addition to a small investment from SolarEdge, an Israeli energy company. Despite the startup claiming that it has received no monetary help from the Israeli Defence Ministry, Awz’s partners and strategic advisers have strong ties to Israeli military and intelligence agencies, as well as the CIA and FBI, according to its website. Awz also invests in AI-based surveillance and security tech in Israel, such as through the company Corsight, which has provided facial recognition technology for Israel’s war in Gaza.

“Defence scholars and security experts don’t see geoengineering technology as a potential weapon, but they do view it as something a government might use for its advantage, and as something that would disrupt international relations,” said Duncan McLaren, a researcher with the Institute for Responsible Carbon Removal at American University.

The post Stardust & Geoengineering: A rising debate appeared first on International Finance.

According to Rystad Energy research, flaring emissions from global upstream oil and gas production increased by 7% from 2022 to 2023. While upstream activities emitted about 1 gigatonne per year of carbon dioxide (CO2) in total, flaring contributed around 30% of those emissions in 2023, assuming 98% flaring efficiency on average.

“Flaring reduction is considered a low-hanging fruit for oil and gas companies trying to reduce their carbon footprint. However, this recent uptick underscores the challenges facing the industry, particularly in key producing countries such as Russia, Iran, and Iraq,” the study noted.

What causes gas to flare?

Despite being inefficient and harmful, flaring is still used today as a relatively safe way to dispose of the related gas from oil extraction. Using related gas frequently necessitates economically viable markets for businesses to invest in its capture, transportation, processing, and sale.

For safety reasons, flaring can be necessary. Oil and gas extraction and processing involve handling extremely high and variable pressures. An explosion could result from an abrupt or significant increase in pressure during crude oil extraction.

Although uncommon, oil and gas-related industrial mishaps can cause hazardous, catastrophic, and protracted fires that are challenging to contain and manage. By burning any extra gas, gas flaring enables operators to depressurise their machinery and control erratic and significant pressure fluctuations.
Technical and economic factors

Oil fields are frequently found in isolated, difficult-to-reach locations. In addition to being difficult to access, these locations might not consistently yield significant quantities of usable associated gas. This can make moving related gas to a processing and use location logistically and financially difficult.

If oil production sites are small and spread out over a wide area, the cost of capturing and using the accompanying gas is often considered too high, so the gas is usually flared. The local geology will occasionally permit the conservation of gas through re-injection back into the reservoir where its use is impractical. Nevertheless, even with recent technical advancements, this is not always possible.

Sometimes a nation’s rules and regulations may make it difficult or even prohibit businesses from commercialising associated gas, even when it is technically and economically possible to capture and use it. For instance, even when a business has obtained the rights to extract oil, it might not be able to use the gas produced during extraction. In other cases, regulations might not outline the commercial handling of related gas. As a result, there is legal uncertainty over the proper processing of related gas. Furthermore, laws that penalise businesses for flaring gas might not always succeed in stopping the practice, particularly if flaring and paying a fine is more profitable than capturing and selling the gas.

To stop frequent flaring and ensure that the related gas is put to good use, GFMR collaborates with governments to help develop appropriate laws and policies.

Effects on the environment

About 148 billion cubic metres of gas were burned in 2023 by thousands of gas flares at oil-producing facilities worldwide. Each cubic metre of associated gas flared produces roughly 2.6 kilogrammes of CO2 equivalent emissions (CO2e), or more than 350 million tons of CO2e annually, assuming a “typical” composition of associated gas, a flare combustion efficiency of 98%, and a Global Warming Potential for methane of 28.

According to the “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,” the inefficiency of flare combustion produces methane emissions, a major cause of global warming that is especially potent in the short to medium term, since over 20 years methane is more than 80 times stronger than carbon dioxide as a warming gas.

The yearly CO2 equivalent emissions have risen by about 80 million tonnes as a result. Naturally, flaring is completely inefficient and far easier to prevent than many other kinds of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Utilising the gas could be beneficial and might even replace more polluting fuels like coal and diesel, which produce more pollutants per unit of energy.

In addition to greenhouse gas emissions, gas flares can generate black carbon, also referred to as soot. Even though black carbon only stays in the atmosphere for a few days or weeks, it has a significant, if short-term, impact on the climate.

It is created when fossil fuels are not completely burned. In the Arctic, where black carbon deposits are thought to accelerate the melting of snow and ice, this is particularly concerning. According to research by the “European Geosciences Union,” gas flaring emissions could be responsible for almost 40% of the Arctic’s yearly black carbon deposits.

The health risks

Communities surrounding oil fields suffer greatly from gas flaring, the burning of excessive natural gas during oil extraction.

Among the several harmful pollutants the process generates are particulate matter (PM), nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulphur dioxide (SO2), benzene, black carbon, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Extended exposure to these toxins has been linked to cancer, pregnancy issues, respiratory disorders, cardiovascular problems, and other major medical conditions. Gas flaring’s health hazards disproportionately affect the elderly, children, and individuals with pre-existing medical conditions, among other vulnerable populations.

The aggravation of respiratory ailments is among the most immediate and obvious consequences of gas flaring. Large amounts of fine particulate matter (PM2.5), nitrogen oxides, and sulphur dioxide produced by burning natural gas all worsen air pollution and compromise lung health. Small enough to pass deep into the lungs and even into the bloodstream, PM2.5 particles cause inflammation, chronic bronchitis, and aggravation of illnesses, including asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Studies have linked high levels of PM2.5 to higher rates of emergency room visits and hospitalisations for respiratory problems in exposed communities. A 2021 study found that hospital admissions for respiratory-related diseases rose 0.73% for every 1% rise in flaring gas emissions. Additionally, nitrogen oxides can aggravate airways, lower lung capacity, and increase the risk of respiratory infections.

Furthermore, contaminants released during gas flaring greatly compromise cardiovascular health. Specifically, fine particulate matter has been associated with stroke, hypertension, and heart disease. These particles aggravate oxidative stress and systemic inflammation when inhaled, which can damage blood vessels and raise the risk of clot development. Long-term gas flaring-related air pollution exposure raises the risk of heart failure, arrhythmias, and heart attacks.

Sulphur dioxide, another pollutant produced during gas flaring, is known to have immediate cardiovascular effects, especially in those with pre-existing heart diseases. Studies have indicated that rises in SO2 levels correspond with increases in hospital admissions for heart attacks and strokes.

Additionally, benzene and other VOCs help form ground-level ozone, which has been linked to higher blood pressure and other cardiovascular symptoms.

Extended exposure to carcinogens, including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX chemicals), increases the risk of cancer in communities near gas flaring sites. Particularly, benzene is a well-documented carcinogen directly linked to leukaemia and other blood diseases.

For instance, Basra, Iraq, where significant gas flaring occurs, has seen a sharp increase in cancer rates. The area recorded a 20% rise in cancer diagnoses between 2015 and 2018, a trend attributed to extended exposure to benzene and other harmful pollutants. Similarly, research conducted in the Niger Delta, one of the most severely impacted areas worldwide, has revealed increased leukaemia and other cancer rates in areas close to oil drilling facilities.

Another class of carcinogens generated during gas flaring, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), can attach to DNA and induce mutations, causing cancer. By either direct inhalation or skin absorption, these toxins raise the likelihood of lung, liver, and other organ malignancies.

Adverse birth outcomes are far more likely for pregnant women living near gas flaring sites. Studies have connected low birth weights, preterm births, and birth abnormalities to air pollution from flaring. Pollutants such as VOCs and fine particulate matter can cause placental inflammation, disrupting fetal development and raising the risk of pregnancy problems.

Pregnant women living within three miles of oil and gas flaring facilities had a 50% higher risk of delivering prematurely, according to a study in Texas, than those living further away. Furthermore, benzene exposure is linked to a higher risk of stillbirths, spontaneous abortions, and developmental abnormalities in children.

Beyond pregnancy problems, gas flaring pollutants can also affect reproductive health. Heavy metals and endocrine-disrupting agents released during flaring can interfere with hormone production, leading to irregular periods, lower fertility, and a higher risk of miscarriages.

New studies point to strong neurological and cognitive consequences from gas flaring-related air pollution. Children with neurodevelopmental disorders, including lower IQ levels, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and autism spectrum disorders, have been linked to prolonged exposure to hazardous substances, including benzene, lead, and other heavy metals.

High levels of air pollution from flaring have been linked to cognitive decline, increased risk of neurological disorders, including Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, and higher rates of depression and anxiety among adults. Long-term cognitive and emotional problems can result from brain cell damage and impaired neurotransmitter activity caused by toxins.

Additionally, gas flaring emissions aggravate dermatological and ophthalmological problems. Skin irritation, rashes, and allergic reactions can result from sulphur oxides and other acidic pollutants. Fine particulates, such as black carbon, can severely irritate the eyes, induce redness, and increase susceptibility to infections. Prolonged exposure might worsen chronic skin disorders, including psoriasis and eczema.

Although gas flaring poses hazards to all exposed populations, some groups are more sensitive than others. Children’s lungs and immune systems are still developing; hence, they are more vulnerable to neurodevelopmental problems, asthma, and respiratory infections.

Elderly populations, especially those with prior heart or lung conditions, have a higher risk of hospitalisation and early death due to air pollution. Low-income neighbourhoods suffer most from gas flaring-related health issues, as they often lack access to sufficient healthcare and live near oil drilling sites.

Stricter regulations and enforcement of policies to reduce emissions are urgently needed due to the significant health risks associated with gas flaring. While oil firms could invest in greener methods to capture and use related gas rather than flaring it, governments must enforce strict air quality standards.

Reducing the impact of gas flaring on sensitive populations also depends on public health campaigns, medical monitoring of affected communities, and improved healthcare access. Moreover, international initiatives like the World Bank’s “Zero Routine Flaring by 2030” project must be reinforced to ensure that oil-producing countries commit to ending routine flaring. Inaction has severe health consequences, so immediate intervention is required to safeguard the well-being of millions of people globally.

The health hazards of gas flaring are severe and diverse, affecting respiratory, cardiovascular, reproductive, neurological, and dermatological health. Communities living near flaring sites suffer disproportionately, with higher rates of cancer, birth problems, and chronic illnesses. Scientific evidence is clear: gas flaring is a public health risk that requires prompt and sustained action from governments, businesses, and international agencies. Reducing flaring and transitioning to greener energy sources can significantly improve global public health and environmental sustainability.

Finding redressals

Oil producers have the option of using associated gas productively or re-injecting it. The cost of stopping all routine flaring could exceed $100 billion, and operators frequently face significant challenges in capturing, treating, storing, transporting, and commercialising related gas.

Reaching economies of scale is crucial to the conventional method of using flare gas, which involves gathering related gas and transferring it via pipeline. To be profitable, operators typically need to collect significant amounts of associated gas from multiple flare sites, preferably close together, and then build the infrastructure required to market the gas—for example, to produce electricity and expand energy access.

However, there are several approaches to addressing routine gas flaring. Governments can implement efficient laws and policies to promote and incentivise reductions in gas flaring in the interim.

The potential for associated gas use has also increased significantly in recent years due to advancements in small-scale gas utilisation technologies. Not all of these technologies are cost-effective, and many depend on fuel prices and end-product values.

Although costly to install, integrated compressed natural gas systems, truck-mounted liquefied natural gas plants, and small power generation units are often good alternatives to flaring.

Positively, the amount of associated gas flared has dropped by 11% since 1996, despite an approximate 28% rise in oil production. The growing decoupling of the historical link between oil production and gas flaring indicates progress in the oil industry.

Many oil field operators who flare associated gas are investing in ways to reduce flaring. Numerous companies have also committed to ending routine flaring.
The Zero Routine Flaring by 2030 (ZRF) initiative, launched in 2015 by the World Bank and the UN Secretary-General, commits governments and oil companies to ending routine flaring of gas in existing legacy flaring operations as soon as possible and no later than 2030.

Gas flaring represents a profound and ongoing environmental and public health challenge, squandering valuable natural resources while contributing significantly to greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, and climate change. The practice imperils vulnerable populations, exacerbating respiratory, cardiovascular, neurological, reproductive, and dermatological health outcomes, particularly among children, the elderly, and low-income communities.

Although technical, economic, and regulatory obstacles complicate the full utilisation of associated gas, innovative solutions, policy interventions, and small-scale technologies demonstrate that substantial reductions are achievable. Global initiatives like the “Zero Routine Flaring by 2030” project highlight the path forward, highlighting the urgent need for coordinated action. Mitigating gas flaring is a critical step toward safeguarding human health and ensuring sustainable energy futures worldwide.

The post Gas flaring: A hidden public health threat appeared first on International Finance.

The IPCC report set extremely aggressive goals to meet 1.5°C of global warming, including a reduction of global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions by roughly 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 and a net zero emission level by 2050.

It is undeniable that social and corporate changes as well as emissions reductions in all sectors are necessary to keep global warming to 1.5°C. The National Climate Assessment arrived at similar conclusions and recommended steps to lower risks through emissions mitigation and adaptation, albeit with a more constrained scope because it concentrated its findings on the United States. Despite the negative effects of climate change and global warming, these findings demonstrate that much work remains to be done.

Experts say, an enormous amount of money must be invested in order to accomplish such a structural transformation.

According to the IPCC report, $2.4 trillion in clean energy will be required annually through 2035, and $1.6–$3.8 trillion in supply-side energy system investments will be required annually through 2050. This amounts to $51.2 and $122 trillion in energy-related investments alone.

The financial sector, which is the foundation of the actual economy, is anticipated to play a crucial role in supplying the required financial resources in light of the substantial investment needs. Also, in order to provide credit to households and individuals and to meet the financial needs of the private sector, the banking industry plays a crucial role.

Additionally, the banking industry is essential to a nation’s efforts to adapt to climate change and strengthen its financial defences against related hazards. By redistributing funding to sectors that are sensitive to climate change, banks can lessen the risks related to sustainability and climate change, lessen their effects, help businesses adapt to the changing environment, and promote recovery.

The financial system is being impacted by climate change due to its extensive effects on all industries and regions, as well as the high degree of certainty that risks will materialise and have unavoidable repercussions if action is not taken now. Nonetheless, the current asset valuation does not fully evaluate and account for the risks associated with climate change. In order to finance the shift to a green economy, banks must unlock private investment, balance supply and demand while taking into account all potential risks, and assess projects from both an economic and environmental standpoint. The majority of banks still have very small green portfolios, despite the fact that some have shown leadership in financing climate or green projects.

According to estimates from the International Finance Corporation (IFC), in 2016 the total amount of green loans and credits extended by developing country banks to the private sector was roughly $1.5 trillion, or roughly 7% of all claims made by emerging market banks against the private sector. The failure of banks to incorporate environmental and climate change risks into their risk management systems and strategies, as well as the absence of the required regulatory and supervisory framework, led to this result.

Additionally, obstacles at the sectoral and institutional levels make it frequently difficult to meet the necessary investment under the current financial framework. As a result of the absence of a regulatory and supervisory framework, more central banks and regulators globally are realising their responsibility to address climate change and environmental risks that the banking and financial industry faces and are taking appropriate action.

For instance, in order to support the shift toward a sustainable economy and to aid in the analysis and management of climate and environmental risks within the financial sector, a consortium of central banks and supervisors established the Networking for Greening the Financial System (NGFS) in 2017. Simultaneously, an increasing number of banks, particularly private sector commercial banks, have begun to go green with their operations. This has involved incorporating risks related to the environment and climate change into their risk management systems and strategies, as well as introducing green financial products to broaden their business reach.

Overview of green banking

The definition of ‘green banking’ is not agreed upon by all parties, and it differs greatly between nations. Some organisations and researchers, however, made an effort to define it differently. Green banking is an umbrella term for policies and procedures that make banks sustainable in terms of the economy, the environment, and society, according to the Indian Institute for Development and Research in Banking Technology (IDRBT), which was founded by the Reserve Bank of India.

Green banking combines social and environmental responsibility with first-rate banking services; it is comparable to ethical banking, which is centred on environmental protection. Green banking, as defined by the State Bank of Pakistan, is the promotion of eco-friendly practices that help banks and customers lower their carbon footprints.

Since green banking addresses banks’ social responsibility for environmental protection, it can also be referred to as social or responsible banking. This shows how social and environmental issues frequently intersect. In general, social banking is defined as using banking to address some of the most important issues of the day and to try and improve people’s lives, the environment, and culture. In a similar vein, responsible banking involves banks making a firm commitment to sustainable development and incorporating corporate social responsibility into all aspects of their business operations.

Lastly, green banking can be thought of as a subset of sustainable banking, which focuses more on social and environmental aspects. A network of independent banks and banking cooperatives, the Global Alliance for Banking on Values (GABV) has as its common goal the use of finance to promote sustainable social, economic, and environmental development.

GABV has supported sustainable banking principles, which include a triple-bottom-line approach (focusing on social, environmental, and financial aspects) at the core of the business model, a community-based foundation, and open and inclusive governance. There are a lot of definitional and conceptual overlaps, which can be somewhat confusing. To make the scope and definitions a little clearer, UNEP provided a good comparison of respective definitions of green vs. sustainable vs. socio-environmental. Green finance includes climate and other environmental finance but leaves out social and economic aspects; in contrast, sustainable finance is the most inclusive concept, according to UNEP, and includes social, environmental, and economic aspects.

The IPCC correctly stated in 2001 that there is insufficient scientific data to determine how climate change will impact the banking industry. Despite the lack of conclusive scientific data, regulators, central banks, and academic institutions have been examining the financial risk and stability implications of climate change.

The Bank of England’s Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) has identified physical and transitional risk factors as the two main financial risk factors linked to climate change. First-order risks resulting from climate and weather-related events, including heatwaves, droughts, floods, and sea level rise, put human and natural systems at risk. Experts say, physical risks can lead to higher credit risks and financial losses by impairing asset values.

The post The green banking blueprint appeared first on International Finance.

“Oil demand is expected to be supported by resilient global GDP growth, amid continued improvements in economic activity in China,” OPEC said in its regular monthly report on the oil market, Arab News reported.

The demand in the industrialised countries that make up the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is predicted to rise by 0.3 million barrels per day to an average of 46.1 million barrels per day, which is still less than the record set in 2019.

Demand is expected to increase by 2 million barrels per day on average to 58.3 million barrels per day in non-OECD countries.

The predictions coincided with the first-ever explicit call at a COP global climate conference for a progressive reduction in the use of fossil fuels, the primary cause of global warming.

By science, COP28 advocates for a “transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly, and equitable manner, accelerating action in this critical decade, so as to achieve net zero by 2050.”

The Paris Agreement, which set the goal of maintaining the rise in global temperatures at 1.5C, was reached eight years after the world experienced its hottest year ever.

Meanwhile, it is anticipated that tensions will run high in the COP28 climate conference negotiations as a result of the disclosure of the contents of a leaked letter from the secretary-general of the Organisation of OPEC, requesting that its members reject any mention of doing away with fossil fuels.

All 13 OPEC members as well as a few other economies that rely heavily on fossil fuels received a letter from Secretary General Haitham Al Ghais, Reuters reported.

The post OPEC can see healthy growth in 2024 appeared first on International Finance.

Temperatures are hitting record levels across the globe. This trend is a combination of many factors—concentration of population, rabid levels of consumption and less regard for its aftereffects. Often, there is not any room left in the economy and infrastructure to fill in the gaps. Put it simply, rising heat levels have significant effects in countries all across the planet.

In the case of poor, undeveloped and still-developing nations though, the effects can be drastic. Since access gaps in these areas tend to be the largest—excess heat can jeapordise the health, safety and the entire way of life in these regions. They can also cause critical damage to their social and psychological fabric and cause irreparable harm to their existence. It may be a cruel act of nature but it’s true. Climate change tends to hit poor countries the hardest.

A research conducted by Luke Harrington, a climate researcher at the University of Oxford, UK found that large parts of India and almost all of South America are likely to experience changes directly attributable to global warming early on, after a 1.5% increase in global temperatures. In contrast, mid-latitude regions, where most greenhouse gases are produced will not see these changes till the temperature rise hits 3% or so. 

Sustainable Energy for All (SEforALL) Sustainable Energy for All (SEforALL) released Chilling Prospects: Providing Sustainable Cooling for All—which was the first ever report that quantified the growing risks and assessed the opportunities of the global cooling challenge. After analysing around 52 vulnerable nations across the globe, it postulated that an overall of 1.1 billion people among them faced cooling risks—out of which 470 million people lived in poor rural areas that have no access to food and medicine. The remaining 630 million people lived in even hotter, poorer slums, that have little or no cooling to protect them against extreme heatwaves. The report also found nine countries to have the largest populations facing significant cooling access risks. These included countries like India, Bangladesh, Brazil, Pakistan, Nigeria, Indonesia, China, Mozambique and Sudan.

It wasn’t just the poorest populace though. The growing middle class in the country, comprising of 2.3 billion people, also represented a different kind of cooling risk. They only had access to limited purchasing options—which meant that they were only able to buy less expensive and less efficient cooling devices—which meant that there may be a spike in global energy demand that can have a profound impact on the climate.

Hence, maintaining a cooling process is a vital part of the human ecosystem. It is important to fight rising temperatures with appropriate countermeasures that bring a measure of stability to the natural environment. Put it simply, we need cooling. It underpins the ability of millions to escape poverty, to keep children healthy, food nutritious and overall keep the way of life stable and productive. There is a collective need for humanity to discover emergent solutions that balance out the extremities of the slowly-changing environment. Cooling also has effects on a country’s economy. Since previous research has indicated that work-hour losses in countries can vary from 2%-12% due to excess heat—efficient cooling can help make up for those numbers.

All of that may sound simple but it’s not. Just like any other procedure, the cooling process in itself taxes the environment. It in itself requires the need for available resources that it unfortunately has no other choice, but to borrow from the environment itself. In fact, cooling was estimated to be responsible for about 10% of global warming overall—and that number is growing higher in rank each day. The research and development of sustainable cooling, which is done in both developed and developing nations—also drains resources. As William Saletan wrote in his article The Deluded World of Air-Conditioning, for Slate magazine : “From a cooling standpoint, the first transaction is a wash, and the second is a loss. We’re cooking our planet to refrigerate the diminishing part that’s still habitable.”

Still, finding solutions to problems, and by extension—better alternatives to the existing ones, is what constitutes progress. Sustainable methods of cooling also form a big part of design thinking towards sustainability. No matter how great a system is, it can always be bettered. Tim Brown, creator of Design Thinking—and the founder of IDEO, defines it as : ““A discipline that uses a designer’s sensibility and methods to match people’s needs with which is technologically feasible and what a viable business strategy can convert into customer value and market opportunity.” If the work towards sustainability gets more complex and challenging each day, so should the thoughts and ideas behind it be more radical. 

This sort of free-form, considerate and innovative thinking was encouraged in the Chilling Prospects report—which issued an urgent call-to-action and specific recommendations to government policy-makers, business leaders, investors and to the civil society towards sustainable cooling solutions for all. The report was developed by the ‘Cooling for All Initiative’, which developed it along with contributions from the Global Panel on Access to Cooling. The report was made to draw attention to the three internationally agreed goals. Namely the Paris Climate Agreement, the Sustainable Development Goals and the Montreal Protocol’s Kigali Amendment.

The recommendations included measuring gaps in access to cooling in their countries to various government policymakers ; collaboration on both economic opportunities and sustainable options to business, government and finance sectors; engagement and cooperation to manufacturers to develop products to meet needs of those without access to cooling; and finally embracing of innovation and free-thinking to stakeholders to introduce a more holistic approach in their work. Chilling Prospects was being launched during this week’s United Nations High-Level Political Forum, which is reviewing progress towards several of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including SDG7—access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all. Meeting these growing cooling demands with clean, sustainable options for the entire world, will help support global energy goals.

The post Simmering temperatures, dwindling quality of life have we reached a critical point? appeared first on International Finance.

Environmental activists have been trying to prevent activities that will mutate the planet in more ways than one. Some of the jarring examples include regular plastic use, global warming, climate change and release of waste from farm and poultry operations, which have led to species extinction, estuary pollution and quick melting of Greenland’s ice.

The last few years have witnessed disasters that remind us it’s time to stop going back to our old habits.

Here are a few tips you can follow for a better environment:

• Organise a carpool with co-workers or use a rideshare app (Even the most health-conscious decision to ride a bike can make a difference.)
• Switch to energy-efficient light bulbs that will not consume excess electricity
• Focus on digital facilities to run payments, read e-Books, extract bank statements and receive travel tickets
• Unplug devices at night to maximise energy efficiency and lower output
• Ensure to have plants at home in order to regulate temperature and keep the air clean

The post Earth Day calls human-induced disasters irreversible appeared first on International Finance.

Shell CEO Ben van Beurden says: “Understanding what climate change means for our company is one of the biggest strategic questions on my mind today.  In answering that question, we are determined to work with society and our customers.  We will help and inform and encourage progress towards the aims of the Paris Agreement. And we intend to continue to provide strong returns for shareholders well into the future.”

The report contains Shell’s principal response to the recommendations of the Financial Stability Board’s Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures and demonstrates the company’s near- and mid-term financial and portfolio resilience, even against its recently-published and most rapid energy transition scenario, known as Sky.  It also explains how Shell’s capacity to adapt to the transition should allow it to thrive in the longer term by supplying the types of energy customers will need over the coming decades.  For Shell, this means that the company will still sell the oil and gas that society needs, while preparing its portfolio to move into lower-carbon energy, when this makes commercial sense.

Shell’s strategy, global portfolio and strong financial framework provide the ability to thrive through potential changes in the energy system to 2030. Every year the company assesses its portfolio under different scenarios, including prolonged low oil prices. In addition, Shell ranks the break-even prices of its assets in the Upstream and Integrated Gas businesses to assess their resilience against low oil and gas prices. These assessments indicate a low risk of stranded assets in the current portfolio. As of 31 December 2017, Shell estimates that around 80% of its current proved oil and gas reserves will be produced by 2030, and only 20% after that time.

In the medium term, Shell will grow its business in areas it expects to be important in the energy transition, while reducing costs and improving its CO2-intensity performance. The company is expanding in the power market as it expects the energy system to increasingly electrify, and it is adjusting its businesses to meet changing demand in different countries. This includes investments in areas such as wind generation in the Netherlands, supplying power to retail customers in the UK and offering hydrogen refueling and electric-car charging.

Longer term there is great uncertainty in how the energy transition will unfold, but Shell believes its strategic flexibility will allow it to adapt in step with society. Shell has previously announced its ambition to reduce the Net Carbon Footprint of the energy products the company sells by around half by the middle of the century in alignment with society as it moves towards implementing the Paris goals.  Critically, this plan covers the full energy life cycle of the company’s products, making it unique in the energy industry. It includes not only emissions from the production of energy products, but also those from the consumption of Shell’s products by its customers, where around 85% of the emissions associated with the company’s energy products occur. Progress will be reviewed every five years to ensure it is in-step with society’s progress towards the Paris goal of limiting global warming.

The post Shell publishes new report on strategy for energy transition appeared first on International Finance.

The industry hasn’t issued complaints against the measure because policymakers of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and UK Prime Minister Theresa May have specified they will get rid of coal in the next 10 years, that will in turn will help to get rid of greenhouse gases as a whole. The policymakers have promoted measures that will possibly maintain the cost of pollution on an upward curve through 2030.

The companies that are responsible for generating massive amounts of pollution have started implementing the measure to curb pollution. While companies like Volkswagen and RWE are inclining towards renewables, some are stocking coal before the price surges.

“For a five-year-plus period, this market was in the desert,” said Per Lekander, a fund manager at Lansdowne Partners UK LLP in London, “What’s happened over the past five months is the investment community is getting behind it again and putting on positions.”

“We are very much in favour of the European Emissions Trading System,” said Klaus Schaefer, chief executive officer of the German power generator Uniper SE, “In order to deliver the CO2 reductions that we all agreed to in Europe, you will have to see higher prices.”

The post Europe to entirely wipe out carbon emissions in the next decade appeared first on International Finance.