Tag: fossil fuels

Green Tau Issue 97

3rd November 2024

Is the National Trust Walking the Talk?

The National Trust is the UK’s largest conservation and environmental protection charity with between 6 and 7 million members and is custodian of just under 260,000 hectares of land. One of its two overarching strategic priorities is its ambition of reaching net zero emissions by 2030. It has already met its target of creating and restoring 25,000 ha of new wildlife habitats and is working towards 50% of Trust land being nature friendly, by 2025. It also aims to plant 20 million trees by 2030.(1)

Recognising the scale of  the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss, and that neither of these recognises boundaries in terms of either cause or effect, the National Trust collaborates with other bodies such as the RSPB and WWF. This trio has produced the  The People’s Plan for Nature and the Save our Wild Isles campaign. The National Trust has joined many more groups in supporting events such as the Restore Nature Now March and the March for Clean Water.

Surely the National Trust can be said to be walking the talk? 

And yes in so many ways they are, but to quote the UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, we must do ‘everything, everywhere, all at once’ if we are to avert the worst of the climate and biodiversity crises. 

So what about banking? Over recent years many organisations and individuals have looked at their financial arrangements and divested from fossil fuels – whether that is selling shares directly linked to oil and gas production or withdrawing from pension and investment funds that are reliant on returns generated through the production of fossil fuels. In 2019 the National Trust announced its decision to divest from fossil fuels to safeguard the long term future of the environment. 

So what about banking?

Banks are essential to the ongoing production of fossil fuels. Their banking services enable companies, such as Shell and BP, to remain operational and able to continue to develop new oil and gas fields. The annual fossil fuel finance report for 2024, ‘Banking on Climate Chaos’,(2) shows that  Barclays is still the eighth largest funder of fossil fuels globally and, once again, holds the number one slot in Europe. In 2023 Barclays supplied the fossil fuel industry with $24 billion. 

Clearly who you bank with has an environmental impact element! For individuals several organisations exist – such as Make My Money Matter, Switch It Green and JustMoney (3) –  to enable people to review their banking arrangements and to switch to a more environmentally friendly alternative. Other organisations such as Mothertree (4) offer the same service for both individuals, organisations and businesses. Most notably this past year both Christian Aid and Oxfam (organisations with complex banking needs) have dropped Barclays as their bank. 

Yet Barclays is the National Trust’s bank. 

Not surprisingly, there has been growing pressure on the National Trust to switch to a more environmentally friendly bank. Continuing to bank with Barclays does dint the National Trust’s credibility as a leading conservation and environmental protection charity.

Christian Climate Action has been actively campaigning on this issue for the last three years, attending the National Trust’s AGMs, writing to and talking with people inside the Trust’s organisation. 

In July Christian Climate Action, along with other organisations, organised a week of action, targeting National Trust properties with banners and placards, banking-themed picnics, fancy dress, questionnaires, scoreboards, and an online petition calling on the Trust to ‘Drop Barclays’.(5) (Later we learnt that the staff and volunteers were pleasantly surprised at the engaging and friendly approach of the actions having previously experienced more aggressive tactics from other campaign groups).

This year’s National Trust’s AGM was held in Newcastle. A group of us from Christian Climate Action organised a pilgrimage -well equipped with flags, pennants and banners (and flapjack) – that set off from The Sill and walked along Hadrian’s  Wall and via the Tyne Valley to Newcastle. On the way we happy band of pilgrims stopped off at National Trust sites – Housesteads Roman Fort, Cherryburn (Thomas Bewick’s birthplace) and the one room dwelling that had been Stephenson’s birthplace.

Up bright and early on the day of the AGM, the CCA pilgrims were joined by other climate activists standing outside the Civic Centre handing out leaflets about the Drop Barclays campaign – and about the equally important Climate and Nature (CAN) Bill campaign. (6) NT staff greeted us with smiles and a genuine interest in what we were doing. 

Those who were members with tickets to go into the AGM, were able to have many face to face conversations with Trustees, Council members and members of the executive team, and to talk with them openly on issues related to the climate, environment and biodiversity loss. Altogether there were some 400 National Trust members attending in person, there were a further 3000 who took part on line – and when it came to questions and comments during the AGM, each contingent was able to participate equally. I was surprised that more people didn’t take part. I asked a question in the first Q and A session and thought that I would then have to sit on my hands thereafter to give space to others. But there was no rush of hands so I was able to make a further two comments in subsequent discussions. 

There were only two points of contention. One concerned the system of Quick Votes – an issue which had been the basis of an unsuccessful resolution the previous year which was felt by a vocal minority to be undemocratic. The Quick Vote is an option where members chose to follow the position of the Trustees. It is a system used by many organisations with a large membership. It is only an option and members can mix and match the way they vote on the different issues.  It does not stifle debate: anyone can still join in the debate regardless of which voting method they have chosen. As the use of the Quick Vote was not a resolution this year (the same topic can not be brought back until three years has elapsed) there was no vote on the matter.

The other issue that produced contentious debate was that of plant based foods. Some members asserted that the proposal forced them to eat food which was not of their choosing, whilst – as  the resolution itself highlighted – felt that instead the proposal gave everyone choices about what they ate. Others were concerned about the impact on the Trust’s tenant farmers. The National Trust aims to use local produce and produce from their farms as much as possible – much of the flour used in their cafes comes from wheat grown on the Trust’s Wimpole Estate. 

In all three member’s resolutions were proposed, discussed and voted on. One called for an increase of plant based foods in the National Trust’s cafes (from the current 40% to 50%). Another called for the strengthening of the National Trust’s response to climate and ecological emergency, and the third called for the National Trust to give its formal support to the Climate and Nature Bill. All three resolutions were passed with significant majorities – voting included votes cast before the AGM and those cast on the day whether in person or online. Whilst the Trustees are not obliged to adhere to the resolutions, they clearly show the Trustees what topics matter most to the Trust’s members.  

I came away from the AGM feeling physically and emotionally drained. I felt taking part had been both important and, as it happened, highly productive. I felt that the pilgrimage had been a good preparation – walking along companions, walking through some of the wonderful landscapes and habitats that we wish to protect and enhance, meeting and sharing with local people, grappling with and overcoming tiredness, and creating the headspace to think clearly and prayerfully. 

Our conversations with the National Trust will continue as we both applaud the many good things they do and  press them to Drop Barclays.

  1. https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/who-we-are/annual-reports

(2) https://www.bankingonclimatechaos.org/ This report was a joint effort among Rainforest Action Network (RAN), BankTrack, Center for Energy, Ecology, and Development, Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN), Oil Change International (OCI), Reclaim Finance, the Sierra Club, and Urgewald. The finance data was co-researched with significant contributions from Profundo.

(3) https://makemymoneymatter.co.uk/; https://www.switchit.green/; https://justmoney.org.uk/the-big-bank-switch/

(4) https://www.mymothertree.com/

(5) https://christianclimateaction.org/2024/06/08/week-of-action-urging-national-trust-to-drop-barclays/

(6) https://www.zerohour.uk/

Counting on … day 85

12th April 2024

Fossil Fuel Subsidies -2

“Since the Paris Agreement, the government has provided £13.6 billion in subsidies to the UK oil and gas industry. From 2016 to 2020 companies received £9.9 billion in tax relief for new exploration and production, including £15 million of direct grants for exploration, and £3.7 billion in payments towards decommissioning costs.” https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/energy/paid-pollute-fossil-fuel-subsidies-uk-what-you-need-know

Research from 2023 commissioned by the Liberal Democrats showed that between 2015 and 2020 renewable energy received £60bn in subsidies whilst fossil fuels received £80bn. In 2020/1 fossil fuels received £1bn whilst renewable energy received a mere £1m!  https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/09/fossil-fuels-more-support-uk-than-renewables-since-2015

Such subsidies are the explicit subsidies. As far as I know, renewable energy generation does not produce pollutants or other harmful side effects. Whereas we as citizens and tax payers are also paying for the implicit subsidy of fossil fuels through ill health caused by pollution from fossil fuels, as well as ill health caused by excess temperatures; through the extra cost thus imposed on the health service; from the extra cost of food as more harvests fail; and the extra cost of repairing buildings and infrastructure affected by extreme wind/ rain and temperatures. 

According to Kisters (an international environmental data and insights organisation that focuses on gathering and reporting data on the water, weather, energy, environment and IT sectors) “the cost of natural disasters in the UK is rising by 11.2 per cent a year, while the UK’s GDP grew by 4.3 per cent in 2022 (according to the Office for National Statistics)…Floods are the most expensive risk the UK faces at present, with the cost of dealing with extreme flooding projected to rise to $217.2bn by 2030-2039 without intervention. But an increasing number of extreme storms also poses a threat. Between 2010 and 2019 storms cost the UK around $1.6bn, but by 2030-2039 this is estimated to rise to $3.8bn. In 2020-29, Kisters predicts the UK government will spend $43.8bn on dealing with the effects of all climate-caused natural disasters.” https://www.newstatesman.com/spotlight/sustainability/climate/2023/12/extreme-weather-natural-disasters-uk-economy-government

Counting on … day 84

11th April 2024

Fossil Fuel Subsidies -1

This overview of fossil fuel subsidies comes from the IMF: “Subsidies are intended to protect consumers by keeping prices low, but they come at a substantial cost. Subsidies have sizeable fiscal consequences (leading to higher taxes/borrowing or lower spending), promote inefficient allocation of an economy’s resources (hindering growth), encourage pollution (contributing to climate change and premature deaths from local air pollution), and are not well targeted at the poor (mostly benefiting higher income households). Removing subsidies and using the revenue gain for better targeted social spending, reductions in inefficient taxes, and productive investments can promote sustainable and equitable outcomes.” (1)

The article goes on to explain the difference between explicit and implicit subsidies, the former being the obvious direct payments to fossil fuel producers to bring down the unit cost of the fuel. The latter is a subsidy that is likely always present, vis in the practice of not charging the fossil fuel producers for the costs of pollution, climate change etc that are a consequence of their business. 

“Implicit subsidies occur when the retail price fails to include external costs, inclusive of the standard consumption tax. External costs include contributions to climate change through greenhouse gas emissions, local health damages (primarily pre-mature deaths) through the release of harmful local pollutants like fine particulates, and traffic congestion and accident externalities associated with the use of road fuels”(1)

By way of example they provide the following bar chart: 

(1) https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidies

Counting on … day 61

7th March 2024

“The International Energy Agency Agency (IEA) is a Paris-based autonomous intergovernmental organisation, established in 1974, that provides policy recommendations, analysis and data on the global energy sector. The 31 member countries and 13[1] association countries of the IEA represent 75% of global energy demand… The core activity of the IEA is providing policy advice to its member states and Associated countries to support their energy security and advance their transition to clean energy.[3] Recently, it has focused in particular on supporting global efforts to accelerate clean energy transition, mitigate climate change, reach net zero emissions, and prevent global temperatures from rising above 1.5 °C.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Energy_Agency)

It seems strange that the membership does not include any of the oil states from the Middle East, and very few African nations who surely have an equally vested interest in energy security. 

Back in 2021, the IEA declared that the exploitation and development of new oil and gas fields must stop if the world was to stay within safe limits of global heating and meet the goal of net zero emissions by 2050. It is thus worrying that so many countries and so many companies have since then continued to grant licences and develop new oil and gas fields. The UK’s current government is even proposing to increase the frequency with which it issues new licenses!

This message was reinforce in 2023 when, having noted the strong growth in clean energy provision, the IEA reported that whilst there was no longer a need to maintain current investment levels in fossil fuels, investment in oil and gas was in fact twice what would be necessary to achieve net zero emissions targets. (https://origin.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2023)

On the plus side, the IEA’s report of March this year on clean energy, notes: “The deployment of solar PV, wind power, nuclear power, electric cars, and heat pumps from 2019 to 2023 avoids around 2.2 billion tonnes (Gt) of emissions annually. Without them, the increase in CO2 emissions globally over the same period would have been more than three times larger.” (https://www.iea.org/reports/clean-energy-market-monitor-march-2024

Green Tau: issue 88

The climate crisis and insurance companies intersect at three main points.

Climate risks: the risks that insurance companies guard against will include the growing risks associated with extreme adverse weather events. More intense and more frequent floods, wildfires, storms, mud- and landslips will lead to increases in damage to lives and properties. In the short term insurance companies will bear the loss; in the longer term premiums will rise but not necessarily profits.

Underwriting fossil fuel projects: fossil fuel projects – drilling wells, building pipelines, opening mines – need insurance companies who will underwrite the risk of undertaking the project. Ironically these are the very projects that cause climate change and the consequential extreme weather damage for which the insurance companies have to pay out. 

Of course insurance companies can be the hero of the day by not underwriting fossil fuel projects and so preventing them from going ahead.

Investing in climate positive or climate negative: to ensure they have sufficient funds to pay out for insurance claims, insurance companies invest the premiums they receive to generate a return. In the past many insurance companies have invested in the fossil fuel industry. This again can be an ironic choice with their fossil fuel investments adding to the climate crisis and thus the size and number of insurance claims being made. 

Of course, insurance companies do not have to invest in fossil fuels; there are many other investment opportunities in the renewable energy industry, where profits can be made without damaging the environment. 

From 26th February, across the globe, climate activities took part in the week long ‘Insure our Futures’ campaign. The campaign reached out to numerous insurance companies – and groups such as Lloyds of London – inviting them to be the superheroes we need by committing to ensure their company policies exclude the fossil fuel projects that are devastating the world. The campaign was highly creative with dance and song, music and marches and symbolic actions such as forming a human chain around Lloyds of London. Other activists peacefully occupied the offices of key insurance companies whilst passing on information to their staff about the risks of insuring destructive projects such as the East Africa Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP).  


I took part in one such occupation. Eight of us calmly walked into the foyer of 88 Leadenhall Street which houses the offices of Probitas 1492. We sat quietly on the floor such that we were visible to those coming in and out – but not blocking their passage. We remained there for five hours, praying, singing, reading poems, and hearing once again the speech given by Antonio Guterres, the UN Secretary General, in which he spoke of the urgency of tackling the climate crisis using the famous words that we must now act to do ‘everything, everywhere, all at once.’

Throughout our stay the receptionist and the security staff we polite and pleasant – afterwards we gave them a box of chocolates as a thank you. The police presence (a pair of officers) was also polite: our action was not a criminal offence. 

Today, 4th March, Probitas 1492, has officially confirmed that they have not and will not insure neither  EACOP nor the West Cumbrian Coalmine.  For more details – https://christianclimateaction.org/2024/02/28/christians-occupy-probitas-1492-to-ask-them-not-to-insure-fossil-fuel-projects/

Does it matter which bank we bank with?

21st February 2024

Banks are key players in ensuring the flow of finance through global and national economies. As such they can influence which industries and companies receive funds and grow, and which do not. One of the greatest threats to life is the climate crisis which is primarily driven by emissions from fossil fuels. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has already told us that if we are to keep emissions and hence global warming at a tolerably safe level, we should not open up any new oil and gas projects. Yet this is precisely what the fossil fuel industry is doing, with funding secured by a – still – large number of banks. 

Make My Money Matter has long been urging us to direct our money so that it supports action to tackle the climate crisis, rather than allowing it to fill the coffers of those who perpetuate the problem. 

“The fossil fuel industry cannot exist without banks, yet our high street banks are continuing to pump money into them. So our message is simple – don’t bank on fossil fuel expansion. Banks must act and you can drive that change. ” https://makemymoneymatter.co.uk/

Another such platform advocating and enabling change is Switch it Green.

“Together, we will move £7 billion out of fossil fuel support this year; pressuring banks to phase out their climate-harming investments.

“We are harnessing the power of switching en masse. By switching alongside thousands of others – and maximising your switch with our ready-to-go lobbying features – your individual action is transformed into a collective call for change.” https://www.switchit.green/why-switch-it/article/how-do-banks-contribute-to-climate-change

And coming from a specifically Christian focus there is Just Money which provides information  and leads  campaigns on issues of money and justice.

“The money that we put into a bank helps it to do its work. A growing movement of Christians want to bank more ethically and campaign for a fairer, greener banking sector…Some banks are good news for people and planet. As Christians we can champion these, and support ethical alternatives, like credit unions.” https://justmoney.org.uk/

This Lent Just Money has a special campaign encouraging us all to switch to a green bank – https://justmoney.org.uk/the-big-bank-switch/

I am involved with Christian Climate Action and their campaign to highlight the harmful practices of Barclays Bank – the largest European funder of the fossil fuel industry (2016-2022) – and to encourage both individuals but also organisations and charities to switch to greener, more ethical banks. 

Actions taken by CCA include regular vigils held outside local branches of Barclays. This is done by local CCA groups often in conjunction with other groups concerned about justice and the environment. See CCA’s event page for more details – https://christianclimateaction.org/events/

  CCA has also written to and met with organisations – such as Christian Aid, Oxfam  and The National Trust – and have held prayerful vigils outside their headquarters. 

Charities, Churches and Universities are all Dropping Barclays

See also – https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2024/2-february/news/uk/more-charities-sever-ties-with-barclays-over-stance-on-fossil-fuels

CCA is also liaising with those Church of England dioceses that bank with Barclays, and recently organised a workshop for diocese to share and explore how they can switch to a better bank. (For more information about CCA’s campaign with dioceses – https://christianclimateaction.org/2023/11/14/urging-church-to-drop-barclays/

Success is being achieved. Christian Aid, Greenbelt, Sheffield Cathedral and Oxfam have all  undertaken to switch away from Barclays. 

Green Tau: issue 86

5th February 2024

Banking on a better future

The world – people, animals, plants, birds, economies, agriculture, water supplies etc – is already suffering from the effects of climate change and this is a crisis that will continue to grow (exponentially) unless action is taken. The major contributor of the greenhouse gases cause this, is fossil fuels. 

The IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report (2023) states  “Limiting human-caused global warming requires net zero CO2 emissions. Cumulative carbon emissions until the time of reaching net-zero CO2 emissions and the level of greenhouse gas emission reductions this decade largely determine whether warming can be limited to 1.5°C or 2°C (high confidence). Projected CO2 emissions from existing fossil fuel infrastructure without additional abatement would exceed the remaining carbon budget for 1.5°C (50%) (high confidence)”. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/resources/spm-headline-statements/

In other words, our current production levels and use of fossil fuels will, cumulatively (because they build up and remaining in the atmosphere for generations), cause global temperatures rises in excess of 1.5C.  (In 2023 the global temperature rise was 1.2C above the average for NASA’s baseline period (1951-1980))

For more insight into the urgency of the situation, see https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/20/ipcc-climate-crisis-report-delivers-final-warning-on-15c?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

The IPPC’s report goes on to to say “Finance, technology and international cooperation are critical enablers for accelerated climate action. If climate goals are to be achieved, both adaptation and mitigation financing would need to increase many-fold. There is sufficient global capital to close the global investment gaps but there are barriers to redirect capital to climate action.”

Finance is key but it will only be effective if it is targeting projects that reduce emissions. One would expect therefore to be seeing an ongoing g and rapid transfer of money away from fossil fuel projects and into the support of renewable energy. Yet in January 2023 Reuters reported “The share of bank finance going to renewable energy rather than fossil fuels has little changed in six years, raising questions about how fast lenders are pushing energy clients to become greener, according to research published Tuesday. Since 2016 renewable energy has taken 7% of a total $2.5 trillion in bank loans and bond underwriting for energy activities, according to a report commissioned by environmental groups including Sierra Club and Fair Finance International.” https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/bank-funding-renewables-stagnates-vs-oil-gas-report-2023-01-24/

A report, Banking on Climate Chaos, records that fossil fuel financing from the world’s 60 largest banks reached $5.5 trillion in the six years since the Paris Agreement, 2015, and 2022. Of these JP Morgan, the worst bank overall, financed $39 billion in 2022, so totalling $434 billion between 2016 – 2022. Top rating amongst the European banks was Barclays, which took seventh place in the league table, having $190.5 billion over the time frame. 

Barclays provides finance to numerous oil companies including Exxon, Shell, BP, Chevron, Total, and Equinor. This is finance that supports both existing and new projects. Yet there is no space in the world’s carbon budgets for this continuing increase in emissions. “Potential emissions from fossil fuels already in production or under construction – the wells already drills or being drilled – already takes the world well past 2C of global warming… world cannot afford any fossil fuel expansion…”  https://www.bankingonclimatechaos.org/

Not surprisingly a number of climate concerned groups are pushing for change – both of banks that they stop financing the fossil fuel industry, and of customers that they stop using these highly destructive banks. 

It is often argued that moving one’s money out of Barclays will have no impact as it will merely be replaced by money from elsewhere. I’m not sure that that can always be true – there must at some point be a finite sum of money to be banked. But turning it round, the money you move can then be invested by a greener bank to support renewable energy and other beneficial projects – and this indeed might be money they would otherwise not get. And don’t worry of the amount you are banking with is small: for every £ deposited, banks will lend a multiple amount. Even if that multiplier was  only 2 it would double the financial contribution that you money makes to green investments.

Here in the UK Make My Money Matter is calling on individuals to “green their money” as well as encouraging students and alumni to call on their universities to switch to  sustainable  banks – https://makemymoneymatter.co.uk/

Another useful website is ‘switch it green’  helping people find a better bank – https://www.switchit.green/about

Just Money offers another  perspective on the issue, this time from a Christian view point, and has advice and resources for churches and charities wishing to switch to green banking.  

I have been involved with Christian Climate Action’s ongoing campaign to encourage charities to switch to greener banks – especially those charities whose remit encompasses people and places adversely affected by the climate crisis. To date Christian Aid, Greenbelt and Oxfam have all declared their decision to switch away from Barclays Bank. Read more on this at – https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2024/2-february/news/uk/more-charities-sever-ties-with-barclays-over-stance-on-fossil-fuels

And it is not just charities that are being asks to reconsider their banking arrangements. The same ask is being made of churches and dioceses. Christians are called to care for creation and to love their neighbour – which are actually overlapping  vocations – and switching to a bank that does not pursue profit through the financing of fossil fuels,  is one of the easier steps  they can take!

Prayer vigil outside Oxfam’s headquarters.

Counting on … day 1.202

26th October 2023

It is good to be reminded that the need to cut our use of fossil fuels is still pressing and urgent!

The Imagine newsletter reported on the IEA’s update of its report, Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector. The report concludes that by 2030:

– fossil fuel demand must fall 25%

– the energy efficiency of homes, vehicles and other appliances must double

– methane emissions from the oil and gas sector must fall 75%

– and renewable energy capacity must triple and replace coal, oil and as at a rapid pace!

Counting on …. Day 1.193

13th October 2023

“Money makes the world go round” goes the saying. But where does that money come from? National and international banks, the World Bank, the investment arms of pension and insurance companies – all looking for a healthy financial return. Choosing where to invest, gives these organisations a highly influential role in shaping the world. If they invest in airlines, then airplanes are built. If they invest in oil, then oil wells are dug. If they invest in wheat and palm oil, then wheat and oil palms are grown – clearing away rainforest if that is in the way. 

But surely they could alternatively invest in wind turbines? Or solar panels? Or railways? Or indigenous crops? Or public health schemes? Or education systems? 

 Who decides? Could it be us?

Currently there are various campaigns encouraging us as individuals to choose banks/ pension funds/ insurance policies that work in favour of, rather than against, the environment. 

It could also be us if we choose to press the bigger players – big banks, the insurance companies, national charities, churches and dioceses – to similarly opt for financial arrangements that benefit the environment and transition away from fossil fuels. Christian Aid earlier this year announced its decision to drop Barclays as its bank, whilst many National Trust members still object to the Trust’s continued use of Barclays.

Faith for the Climate has been pressing Lloyds of London to end their insurance of fossil fuel projects. XR and CCA continue to campaign against Barclays – Europe’s largest fossil fuel investing bank. 

There are also campaigns to persuade sporting and art event organise against accepting sponsorship from environmentally unfriendly investors – eg opposing Barclays’ sponsorship of Wimbledon.

Counting on … day 1.131

18th July 2023

What should the fossil fuel industries be doing? 

Christina Figueres, former Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, diplomat and renowned climate leader, says “Let’s remember what the industry could and should be doing with those trillions of dollars: stepping away from any new oil and gas exploration, investing heavily into renewable energies and accelerating carbon capture and storage technologies to clean up existing fossil fuel use. Also, cutting methane emissions from the entire production line, abating emissions along their value chain and facilitating access to renewable energy for those still without electricity who number in their millions.”