“Energy security can only be achieved by rapidly and equitably phasing out fossil fuels and transitioning to renewable energy, not locking in deadly fossil fuels and lining the pockets of oil and gas executives,” said one critic.
Since Group of Seven leaders on Saturday put out a wide-rangingĀ communiqué from a Japan-hosted summit in Hiroshima, climate action advocates from G7 countries and beyond have blasted the statement’s support for future investments in planet-heating gas.
The statement comes after G7 climate, energy, and environment ministers wereĀ criticizedĀ for theirĀ communiqué from a meeting in Sapporo last month as well asĀ protestsĀ around the world this week pressuring the summit’s attendees to ditch fossil fuels and “deliver a clear and just renewable energy agenda for a peaceful world.”
To meet the 1.5°C goal of the Paris climate agreement, the new statement commits to “accelerate the phaseout of unabated fossil fuels so as to achieve net-zero in energy systems by 2050 at the latest” along with “the elimination of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies by 2025 or sooner.”
“The G7 must stop using fossil fuels immediatelyāthe planet is on fire.”
The statement also highlights that last year, G7 nationsāCanada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United Statesāpledged to end “new direct public support for the international unabated fossil fuel energy sector, except in limited circumstances,” though as recent analysisĀ shows, some are breaking that promise.
The communiquĆ© then endorses liquefied natural gas (LNG) as a solution to “the global impact of Russia’s war on energy supplies, gas prices and inflation, and people’s lives,” referencing the invasion of Ukraine:
In this context, we stress the important role that increased deliveries of LNG can play, and acknowledge that investment in the sector can be appropriate in response to the current crisis and to address potential gas market shortfalls provoked by the crisis. In the exceptional circumstance of accelerating the phaseout of our dependency on Russian energy, publicly supported investment in the gas sector can be appropriate as a temporary response, subject to clearly defined national circumstances, if implemented in a manner consistent with our climate objectives without creating lock-in effects, for example by ensuring that projects are integrated into national strategies for the development of low-carbon and renewable hydrogen.
“The G7 energy outcome correctly diagnoses a short-term need for energy security, then promotes a dangerous and inappropriate lock-in of fossil gas that would do nothing to address this need,”Ā respondedĀ Collin Rees, United States program manager atĀ Oil Change InternationalĀ (OCI). “Energy security can only be achieved by rapidly and equitably phasing out fossil fuels and transitioning to renewable energy, not locking in deadly fossil fuels and lining the pockets of oil and gas executives.”
After accusing the summit’s attendees of “using the war as an excuse,” deflecting blame for current conditions, and neglecting Global South countries disproportionately suffering from the climate crisis, Max Lawson, head of inequality policy at Oxfam,Ā declaredĀ that “the G7 must stop using fossil fuels immediatelyāthe planet is on fire.”
Shame on the #G7 šŗšøš¬š§š«š·šØš¦š©šŖš®š¹šÆšµ
— Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative (@fossiltreaty) May 20, 2023
In their official communique released today, they frame fossil gas as "important" & "appropriate" &Ā even called for expansion.
Fossil fuels are the top cause of the climate crisis.
It's time for a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty. pic.twitter.com/k3lPR76bMO
Greenpeace International global climate politics expert Tracy Carty also demanded a swift end to fossil fuels,Ā chargingĀ that “G7 leaders’ endorsement of new fossil gas is a blunt denial of the climate emergency” which dooms “current and future generations.”
Gerry Arances, executive director of the Philippine Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development, similarly argued that “the endorsement of increased LNG deliveries and investment in gas in the G7 communiquĆ© is no mere backslidingāit is a death sentence being dealt by the G7 to the 1.5°C limit and, in consequence, to the climate survival of vulnerable peoples in the Philippines, Southeast Asia, and across the world.”
“Unless they genuinely put forward the phaseout of all fossil fuels, Japan and all G7 nations spout nothing but lies when they say they have aligned to 1.5°C,” he continued. “They cannot claim to be promoting development while subjecting our people to decades more of pollution and soaring energy prices. We reject this notion of a development powered by fossil fuels.”
Looking to the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28) planned for later this year, Arances added that “Japan and G7 leaders should already be warned that civic movements will not tire in pushing back against fossil fuels and false solutions and in demanding a renewable energy transition.”
“Civic movements will not tire in pushing back against fossil fuels and false solutions and in demanding a renewable energy transition.”
Other campaigners also specifically called out the Hiroshima summit’s hostāincluding Ayumi Fukakusa, deputy executive director atĀ Friends of the EarthĀ Japan, who asserted that the countryĀ “has used the G7 presidency to derail the global energy transition.”
“Japan has been driving the push to increase gas investments and has been promoting its so-called ‘green transformationā strategy,” Fukakusa said of a “greenwashing scheme” featuring hydrogen, ammonia, nuclear, and carbon capture and storage technologies.
OCI Asia program manager Susanne Wong agreed that given the nation’s promotion of gas expansion and technologies to prolong the use of coal, “this year’s G7 is revealing Japan’s failure of climate leadership at a global level.”
“Activists mobilized 50 actions across 22 countries this week to demand that Japan end its fossil fuel finance and stop driving the expansion of gas and other fossil-based technologies,” Wong added. “Japan will continue to face intense international scrutiny until it stops fueling the climate crisis.”
Shame on Canada & other #G7 leaders for caving to the narrow financial interests of fossil gas companies
— Julia Levin (@lev_jf) May 20, 2023
The world is burning and our leaders keep dumping more fuel on the fire https://t.co/j2aPHx24AB
Groups from other G7 countries also called out their political leaders. Petter LydĆ©n, head of international climate policy at Germanwatch, said, “Most likely, the German chancellor, Olaf Scholz, has been a driving force behind the weak language on gas, which is a serious blow to Germany’s international credibility on climate.”
Citing sources familiar with summit negotiations,Ā The New York TimesreportedĀ Saturday that “Britain and France fought the German effort” while U.S. President Joe Biden was caught between defending his climate agenda and “aiding other United States allies intent on increasing their access to fossil fuels.”
OCI’s Rees said the that “this betrayal continues a disturbing turn by President Biden and Chancellor Scholz from rhetorically committing to climate leadership to openly boosting fossil fuel expansion. History will not look kindly on world leaders who accelerate the pace of fossil fuel buildout in the face of worsening climate crisis.”
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
DonateRelated Posts
No related posts.
