Norway’s Okea, Britain’s Neptune, Chrysaor, Siccar Point and Spirit Energy are all either actively preparing or expected to plan an initial public offering (IPO) in the short term, as are recently merged German-Russian Wintershall Dea and Israeli-owned Ithaca Energy.

Oil and gas companies with a combined value of around $41 billion are seen as candidates for listing in the coming years, according to estimates by energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie.

Shares of oil and gas companies historically rise after a crash in oil prices as investors bet on a recovery in prices.

But the recovery following the 2014 downturn, the worst in decades, has been slow and bumpy amid surging U.S. shale production and wider uncertainty over long-term oil demand as the world transitions to cleaner energy.

“IPOs tend to come when markets are sizzling hot and valuations are high – that is not the case for the energy sector currently,” said Bertrand Born, portfolio manager for global equities at German asset manager DWS.

Listed oil and gas companies have struggled in recent years, underperforming in many cases oil prices and other sectors, and offering a tough backdrop for any company contemplating a public listing.

In a sign of the challenging conditions, Okea on Thursday lowered its offered price per share and delayed its listing on the Oslo stock exchange.

Sam Laidlaw, executive chairman of Neptune, backed by private equity firms Carlyle Group and CVC Capital Partners, said he saw no time pressure for his company’s IPO.

“Lower returns at $100 a barrel than at $60 raised concerns among capital markets. There is less appetite from generalist investors. We don’t see anything that’s IPO ready yet,” he told Reuters this month.

“Some will consolidate, some will never make it to market, some will take longer. If we wanted to be first, there’s plenty of time still.”

Many of the IPO candidates, including Neptune, were set up in the wake of the 2014 crash by private-equity funds seeking to buy cheap and sell high when the oil price recovers.

But nearly five years on, the going is still tough for the sector.

In the first quarter of 2019, European IPOs slumped to their lowest since the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, as uncertainty over Brexit and the U.S.-China trade dispute left companies not wanting to take their chances.

UNIQUE STORY

To succeed, companies will have to offer investors something unique, says Jon Clark, regional transaction leader at EY.

“The European oil and gas IPO landscape looks like it will shift from famine to feast and the potential IPO candidates need to think how they will best position themselves,” Clark said.

Wintershall-Dea is the largest producer of the group, aiming to boost its output by around 30% to at least 750,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day by 2023, in a portfolio stretching from Brazil to Europe and Russia and the Middle East.

Chrysaor, backed by Harbour and EIG, is the largest oil and gas producer in the North Sea after acquiring large portfolios from Royal Dutch Shell and ConocoPhillips.

Neptune has assets in a number of regions and is focused on gas, seen as the least-polluting fossil fuel.

In addition to returns, environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues are an ever-growing concern for fund managers and their clients.

Unlike any other time, investors are likely to question a company seeking to list on its role in the transition to a lower carbon economy following the 2015 Paris climate agreement to limit global warming.

“Sentiment in the market is not necessarily as strong as it used to be for oil and gas assets… we’re moving towards a lower carbon economy,” said Les Thomas, chief executive of Ithaca, owned by Israel’s Delek Group, which last month acquired most of Chevron’s North Sea assets for $2 billion.

Greek group Energean was one of a handful of energy companies to list in London in recent years, betting on Israeli gas production and long-term offtake agreements. Its shares have risen over 90% since listing last year.

“Oil price upside is not enough anymore. You have to offer investors at least partial, if not complete, security of a return on their investment regardless of commodity prices,” Energean Chief Executive Mathios Rigas said.

“It’s not enough to say I have this amazing geologist or knowledge of a basin or promise to find oil in frontier areas. To continue investing as an energy company only in oil, from an ESG perspective, is suicidal.”

LONDON (Bloomberg) — OPEC said that international trade tensions are hurting demand for oil, slashing its estimates for consumption earlier in the year and predicting further challenges ahead.

The organization, due to meet in the coming weeks to set production levels for the second half, said demand increased by less than 1 MMbpd in the first quarter after cutting its assessment by more than 20%. The world economy is headed for its weakest growth in a decade, buffeted by a prolonged tariff battle between the U.S. and China.

“Throughout the first half of this year, ongoing global trade tensions have escalated,” resulting in “weaker growth in global oil demand,” the cartel’s Vienna-based secretariat said in its monthly report. “The observed slowdown in the global economy in the first half will be further challenged in the second half.”

Oil prices slumped into a bear market last week, sinking below $60/bbl in London for the first time since January, on concerns that faltering demand would lead to a crude surplus even as the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies keep supply in check. Prices surged 3% today on suspected attacks on oil tankers in the Persian Gulf.

Although OPEC reduced demand estimates for the first quarter, it kept forecasts for 2019 as a whole mostly unchanged and projects that consumption growth will accelerate during the rest of the year. World demand will rise by 1.14 MMbpd, or 1.2%, on average this year, down from an estimate of 1.21 MMbpd in last month’s report.

As a result, the report signaled that if OPEC maintains production at current levels then global markets should tighten significantly during the third quarter, by about 1.3 MMbpd. Output from its 14 members fell by 236,000 bpd to 29.9 MMbpd last month as the U.S. tightened its squeeze on Iranian exports, it said.

Nonetheless, as OPEC and its partners prepare to meet in Vienna, its members appear focused on continuing to restrict supplies.

Saudi Arabian Energy Minister Khalid Al-Falih said in St. Petersburg last week that the organization is aligned on maintaining its output curbs during the rest of 2019, and awaits only a similar commitment from its ally, Russia.

As the booming American shale industry propels U.S. production to new records, United Arab Emirates Energy Minister Suhail Al Mazrouei even indicated that OPEC may also need to constrain supply in 2020. The cartel pumps about 40% of the world’s oil.

Although the policy decision looks straightforward when OPEC and its partners convene, the producers are still struggling with one issue. As the tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran continue to heat up, members are bickering over exactly which date to meet.

Qatar’s current account surplus increased to 8.7% in third quarter of 2018, from less than 4% in 2017 due to higher gas prices and production from the North Field, the country’s biggest gas repository, according to the World Bank.

Qatar, the largest LNG exporter globally, had seen its goods export earnings rose by 25% in 2018, World Bank has said in its recent “Economic Update.”

The country’s public finances have improved, supported by the recovery in energy prices, and Qatar is expected to post a small fiscal surplus in 2018, the first since 2014. A large public investment programme for 2014-2024 has been pared back, with FIFA 2022 projects given priority.

Qatar’s withdrawal from the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec) in January 2019, after six decades of membership, has not had a major impact since Qatar was one of the smallest members of the group, making up less than 2% of Opec’s total oil production, World Bank noted.

The World Bank said Qatar’s “outlook remains positive” with growth expected to rise to 3.4% by 2021 driven by higher service sector growth as the FIFA World Cup draws nearer. In addition, higher infrastructure spending on the Qatar National Vision 2030 projects aimed at diversifying the economy should help offset falling investment spending on FIFA projects.

The hydrocarbon sector growth is also expected to pick up as the Barzan natural gas facility comes online in 2020, and as the expansion of the North Field gas projects is completed by 2024. Monetary policy is expected to gradually tighten as the Qatar Central Bank resumes raising interest rates to restore the spread versus US policy rates, and to attract FX inflows into the banking system. Public finances are expected to remain in small surplus, supported by recent tax reforms and the introduction of a VAT over the medium term, the World Bank said.

A recovery in imports, driven by capital goods related to infrastructure spending, should keep the current account surplus in single-digits (in contrast to surpluses of over 30% prior to 2014).

Qatar’s economy has largely overcome the constraints posed by the “continuing diplomatic rift” with GCC (Gulf Co-operation Council) neighbours, the report noted.

“Nevertheless, a resolution of this situation would help boost investor confidence. Key external risks include risks of volatility in global energy prices, regional instability risks, and global financial volatility that affects capital flows and costs of funding although these are mitigated by the return to fiscal and current account surpluses,” the World Bank said.

(Reuters) – A draft law submitted to Turkey’s parliament introduces tax exemptions to loan restructurings and legal protection for bankers as Ankara tries to make it easier for banks to restructure bad debt.

Following last year’s sharp fall in the lira, Turkish banks and the government have been in talks on how to restructure billions of dollars of loans and remove them from banks’ books – an important step toward pulling the economy out of recession.

The draft law seen by Reuters contains some of the demands banks put to the government during the talks, such as tax exemptions on restructurings and amendments to protect bankers involved in restructuring.

Under an existing legal technicality bankers involved in debt write-downs or decreasing the value of loan collateral could potentially be liable to embezzlement charges.

The government pledged in April to repackage problem loans to energy companies, estimated at more than $12 billion, into funds which can then be sold to investors. It aims to do the same with construction loans.

The plan is seen as one of the ways to free up banking resources as well as supporting industries that are burdened by the slowing economy.

“Banks seems to have got most of their demands from the government. I think perhaps this may help with the most troubled types of restructurings, but I’m cautious on a broader take up by banks” a restructuring consultant said on condition of anonymity.

The draft law, submitted to parliament on Monday, exempts at least 50% of the profits banks make on problem asset sales from corporate tax. Asset transfers from borrowers to creditor institutions will also not be subject to value added tax.

The types of restructurings that fall under the scope range from amend and extend agreements, to debt to equity swaps and transfer of problem loans and assets to special purpose funds.

The haggling may have been unedifying, but the candidates nominated by the European Council to lead the European Union’s governing institutions are undoubtedly impressive. If approved by the European Parliament, German Minister of Defense Ursula von der Leyen and Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel will become president of the European Commission and Council, respectively, and Spanish Minister of Foreign Affairs Josep Borrell will serve as High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. Then, in November, Christine Lagarde is set to succeed Mario Draghi as president of the European Central Bank.

The good news is that each of these candidates would strengthen the EU at a time of global insecurity. The bad news is that the EU itself will continue to face significant challenges from within. The struggle to fill the top leadership positions resulted in the elimination of the Spitzenkandidaten process – whereby the largest party grouping in the European Parliament selects the Commission president – and the return of backroom deal-making, which many see as undemocratic. The justification for that change needs to be explained, or the EU’s credibility may suffer. After all, the Spitzenkandidaten process was introduced in 2014 to counter the perception that the EU suffers from a democratic deficit.

The leadership struggle has also intensified a clash of perspectives within – and about – the EU’s sources of legitimacy. Whereas member states with a strong parliamentary culture think the top personnel should be selected based on the results of May’s European Parliament election, others (like France) consider executive experience far more important than the link to those results. It is naturally a long process to devise a broadly accepted system for selecting EU leaders. Despite this year’s setback, the principle of the Spitzenkandidaten system should be preserved and combined in the next elections, with additional transnational lists of candidates backed by stronger trans-European party structures. Beyond that, the EU also needs to strengthen the role of the European Parliament.

A number of MEPs are deeply frustrated by the Council’s failure to nominate any of the Spitzenkandidats on offer, and they could make their sense of betrayal known by voting against von der Leyen’s appointment. Should her candidacy be rejected, months of institutional gridlock would likely follow. As a show of good faith, von der Leyen should announce early that she will work toward empowering MEPs de facto to initiate legislation. With an inter-institutional agreement with the European Commission, such a change would not require an amendment to any founding treaties. Moreover, if confirmed, von der Leyen and the new European Parliament president, David Maria Sassoli of Italy’s Democratic Party, should establish a working relationship as close as that of their respective predecessors, Jean-Claude Juncker and Martin Schulz. But, given the new composition of the European Parliament, they should strongly involve the chairs of all parliamentary groups that wish to work toward a stronger Europe.

The fact that MEPs elected Sassoli instead of the Council’s own candidate, former Bulgarian Prime Minister Sergei Stanishev, suggests that the European Parliament election in May has led to a renewed desire for institutional self-assertion. And yet the election left the body more fragmented than ever. The number of seats held in the 751-member parliament by the two main party groups, the European People’s Party (EPP) and the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D), fell from 404 to 336, owing to gains by the Greens, right-wing nationalists, and liberal centrists.

The fall of Europe’s grand coalitions and the emergence of new, smaller parties will impede decision-making, as already demonstrated by the Parliament’s failure to agree on its own Spitzenkandidaten. Divisions among the parliamentary groups are not just political, but also geographic. The EPP has almost no MEPs from France or Italy, and large delegations from Germany and Northern Europe. The S&D draws far more support from the Iberian Peninsula and Italy, with relatively few MEPs from the Visegrád group (the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia) or France.

The increased fragmentation in the European Parliament goes hand in hand with changing relationships between EU member states. France and Germany’s days of working hand in glove are gone; and even if they do come together on a particular issue, blocking minorities can stand in their way at the Council. The latest round of EU leadership negotiations shows just how hard it has become to reach a majority, let alone unanimity. On the contrary, national governments fight increasingly recklessly for their interests. As a result, individual member states will face a strong temptation to pursue specific objectives in smaller, likeminded groups. The challenge, then, is to ensure that such initiatives follow official EU processes, rather than being decided through intergovernmental backroom deals.

The strong turnout in the European Parliament election indicates that the EU has not lost public support. The political center was strengthened at a time when Euroskeptic and nationalist parties are on the rise in member states. Overall, public trust in the EU is as high as it was in the 1980s, when European integration served as a defense against the Soviet Union. For most Europeans, being a part of the EU still means something.

But the outcome of the election also signaled a desire for change. Many citizens abandoned traditional parties, and a significant share of them did so out of fear. Like politicians at the national level, the EU’s new leaders will have to answer to voters who harbor deep uncertainties about their and their children’s future. Europeans are understandably anxious about great-power competition, new security threats, and a technological revolution that threatens to upend entire economic systems and societies.

The EU, working with member-state governments, will need to respond to these challenges with ambition and resolve. The European Council has already devised a strategic agenda for 2019-2024, and now the ball is in the European Parliament’s court. Since the elections in May, MEPs from the four moderate party groups have been negotiating a shared program of policy priorities. In other words, they are putting substance over personnel; regardless of who fills the top leadership positions, the European Parliament will already have a shared platform in place. Despite the circumvention of the Spitzenkandidaten process, this effort, like the slate of promising candidates selected by the Council, suggests that the EU is slowly and steadily maturing.

A tanker traveling from the Arctic region to Belgium with a cargo of Russian liquefied natural gas was instead sent to Israel at the last moment.

The British Diamond changed destination just before arriving, indicating how quickly natural gas traders need to act in a market where healthy inventories and supply have sapped prices to near their lowest in almost a decade. It may well be a sign of things to come for the rest of the summer, as the Asian benchmark Japan-Korea marker widens its premium to its European Title Transfer Facility counterpart and Middle East demand for cooling increases.

“You can see room for more diversions. It’s hard to believe JKM will strengthen any time soon, but TTF could weaken further as European stocks are full,” said Jean-Christian Heintz, head of LNG broking at SCB Brokers SA in Nyon, Switzerland. “It might rapidly become more attractive for cargoes to go to India and southeast Asia — they could be good opportunistic buyers in coming weeks.”

Two other tankers with gas from Russia’s Yamal LNG project have gone on month-long journeys to China rather than stop in Europe in recent weeks. That’s not surprising as even a heatwave last week was unable to prevent the rapid refilling of storage sites, which are 74% full, about 17 percentage points above their five-year average.

“If the demand-side response is not enough, prices will then need to fall to the point where either more power demand appears, or supply starts to be choked off,” Energy Aspects said in a note. “Either way, that would mean prices moving downwards from current levels.”

As European inventories are filling rapidly, traders may start looking at filling underground storage in the U.S. or choose to float cargoes on the water, according to Energy Aspects. The latter is looking attractive as prices for months later in the year are higher than for next month, known as a contango.

And the demand for power generation may also be limited. Even with natural gas becoming cheaper in the region than lignite for the first time ever, increased generation from renewables will probably curb the extra European demand, according to BloombergNE.

U.S. LNG cargoes may also prefer to go to Asia, supported by a wider inter-basin freight differential. With increasing volumes from new plants in the U.S. and Russia and a premium required to return empty ships after unloading in Asia, west of Suez shipping rates are higher.

One Yamal cargo is taking this season’s first voyage from Siberia via the Northern Sea Route to Asia, while transshipments of the project’s cargoes in northwestern European ports are also on the rise.

The question remains whether a few cargoes being sent to Asia rather than unloaded in the oversupplied European market will relieve the glut. Record LNG deliveries flooded liquid northwestern European markets in March and April, and while the wave has since subsided, shipments remain strong.

“At a certain point the market should regulate itself, if you see some supply going to Asia, it should help rebalance,” Heintz said. “Storages are so full that just a few cargoes less may not be enough to change the picture.”

أكدت صحيفة ليزيكو الفرنسية أن صندوق قطر السيادي أصبح أكثر انتشارا على الساحة الدولية ويعمل على تعزيز أعماله والتركيز على الاستثمارات في الولايات المتحدة وآسيا في السنوات المقبلة، وفي قطاعات مثل التكنولوجيا والصحة.

وبين التقرير المنشور أمس وترجمته “الشرق” أن هيئة الاستثمار القطرية استحوذت للتو على حصة قدرها 250 مليون دولار، أي أقل من 5 ٪ من رأس مال المجموعة الهندية “BYJU’S”، في قطاع التكنولوجيا التعليمية. وبعد فترة من الهدوء المرتبط بالحصار الاقتصادي الذي عانت منه الدوحة منذ عام 2017، أصبح صندوق الاستثمار الحكومي أكثر إقبالا على المشاريع ونشاطا في السوق العالمية.

◄ توسيع الاستثمارات
وأورد التقرير أن سعادة الشيخ محمد بن عبد الرحمن آل ثاني، نائب رئيس الوزراء وزير الخارجية، ورئيس مجلس إدارة جهاز قطر للاستثمار، في مقابلة مع فاينانشال تايمز: “في الأشهر الستة الماضية أكد: كنا نشطين للغاية، خاصة في أمريكا الشمالية. ما زلنا نستثمر في أوروبا، لكننا أكثر تركيزًا على آسيا والولايات المتحدة.” وتابع التقرير خلال زيارة رسمية لباكستان، أظهر الصندوق القطري اهتمامه بالاستثمار في قطاعات الطاقة والسياحة والإسكان. مثله مثل عدد من نظرائه، فهو مهتم بإمكانيات السوق الهندية الواسعة. وفي القارة الأوروبية، تحدثت التقارير العالمية عن استحواذ قطري على أسهم في بنك دويتشه، حيث استثمرت الدوحة بالفعل في 6.1 ٪ من حصة.

وحسب الصحيفة الفرنسية، فقد استثمر الصندوق في شركات الإدارة، ليسيطر على المشاريع الكبرى، بالإضافة إلى قطاعات مثل التكنولوجيا والصحة،. كما استثمر هذا العام في شركة سان فرانسيسكوالأمريكية، SoFi، في قطاع التمويل الشخصي عبر الإنترنت، واستأنف عمليات الشراء في العقارات الفاخرة في مانهاتن بنيويورك. وحصل على 200 مليون جنيه إسترليني في المجموعة البريطانية Severn Trent في إدارة الموارد المائية.

وبين عامي 2010 و2018، حقق الصندوق القطري زيادة سنوية في متوسط رأسماله بنسبة 21 ٪، الذي يبلغ حوالي 300 مليار دولار وفقا لصندوق النقد الدولي. وفي تقرير نُشر في يونيو، تم توضيح أنه يتم استثمار نصف الأصول في الأسهم المدرجة، و20 ٪ في السندات و30 ٪ في الأصول البديلة (العقارات، والأسهم الخاصة، وصناديق التحوط).

◄ تقدم قطري
وفي تقرير سابق قالت صحيفة ليزيكوالفرنسية إن قطر نجحت في تجاوز أزمة الحصار، حيث رفضت خطة الاستسلام الجيوسياسي المكونة من 13 نقطة والتي طالبت بها دول الحصار ومنها إغلاق قناة الجزيرة، وتمكنت من الصمود بمرونة عالية، وواصلت عمليات التوريد للبضائع والمواد الاستهلاكية، ووجدت طرقا جديدة لتحقيق اكتفائها الذاتي من خلال التعاون مع عدد من البلدان على غرار الكويت، تركيا، إيران، الدول الأوروبية، المغرب، الهند، الصين، سلطنة عمان. وفي هذا الصدد صرح رجل الأعمال رودي بارودي ليزيكو: “لقد أظهرت قطر صمودا وتماسكا وطنيا، ولم تتوقف عن الاستثمار”.

وبينت الصحيفة أن الدوحة رفعت سقف الملكية الأجنبية في أي مشروع محلي إلى 49%، مقابل 25%، وأطلقت برامج دعم كبيرة للصناعة المحلية، وقامت ببرامج لتحقيق الاكتفاء الذاتي منها إنشاء أكبر مزرعة لمنتجات الألبان في الشرق الأوسط في وقت قياسي لتغطية احتياجات السوق الاستهلاكية، حيث ساعدت هذه التدابير في تجنب النقص والزيادات التضخمية.

وذكرت الصحيفة أنه حسبما ذكر صندوق النقد الدولي في تقرير له في مارس الماضي، فإن تأثير الحصار كان عابرا، لم يتعد كونه انتقاليا، حيث تمكنت المؤسسات المالية القطرية كالبنك المركزي وصندوق الثروة السيادي، وجهاز قطر للاستثمار من ضخ السيولة وحماية الاقتصاد القطري من تداعيات الأزمة الخليجية، كما حققت قطر مرونة اقتصادية كبيرة بفضل إستراتيجيتها في التأثير والتأمين.

By Mark Paul

SARASOTA — US President Donald Trump’s anti-climate agenda is in full swing. His administration has already taken action 117 times to repeal or weaken climate regulations, and much more deregulation is in the works. By unravelling environmental protections on an unprecedented scale, including through executive orders, Trump is using every tool at his disposal to increase fossil-fuel extraction and the production of dirty energy. Apparently, he is hell-bent on topping his predecessor’s own fossil-fuel boom.

That is right, former President Barack Obama presided over a fossil-fuel boom: the domestic shale-energy revolution enabled by the advent of hydraulic fracturing (or fracking). The fact is that neither major party in the United States has been the climate champion that the country and the world needs. While young activists around the world are stepping up to show what true climate leadership looks like, politicians are barely taking note. As Dianne Feinstein, a Democratic US senator from California, dismissively told a group of young people advocating a Green New Deal (GND): “I’ve been doing this for 30 years. I know what I’m doing.”

The longer both parties cling to a policy of “business as usual”, the more likely we are to face a climate catastrophe in which millions of people perish or have their lives upended. In reality, though, the responsibility for adopting a new paradigm ultimately rests with the Democrats. While Trump has been disastrous for the planet, his administration’s policies are in keeping with a Republican Party that will not change anytime soon.

In a recent review of more than 1,000 climate-related bills introduced in the US Congress since 2000, we found that, in the past decade alone, Republicans presented 187 that would increase greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions. Most of these bills have sought to advance the interests of the fossil-fuel industry over those of everyone else. The Republicans’ purported rationale is to achieve “energy independence,” which, in practice, has meant offering special treatment to the oil, gas and coal companies that spend exorbitant amounts on campaign contributions.

Not long after coming to office, Trump promised that by unleashing America’s fossil-fuel reserves, his administration would “create countless jobs for our people, and provide true energy security to our friends, partners and allies all across the globe”. Following the same logic, Don Young, a Republican congressman representing Alaska, has introduced the American Energy Independence and Job Creation Act, which would allow exploration and extraction of oil and gas reserves in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Adding insult to injury, the bill would direct half of the tax revenues generated by the exploitation of public resources to a pot of incentives for the fossil-fuel industry.

But the real insult is the behavior of Democratic leaders, who continue to abide by what James K. Boyce of the University of Massachusetts calls “climate-change denial lite”. Consider the case of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Last year, the DNC decided that it would no longer accept contributions from political action committees affiliated with the fossil-fuel industry, only to reverse course and embrace an “all-of-the-above” energy policy just months later.

Though congressional Democrats have introduced modest proposals to curtail GHG emissions, they have not made any major push for climate legislation since the failed American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (the Waxman-Markey bill). And even that bill would not have reduced emissions fast enough, relative to what the climate crisis demands.

Among the more meaningful climate bills introduced by Democrats in recent years is the 100 by ‘50 Act, which includes provisions to “achieve 100 per cent clean and renewable energy by 2050”. But, again, this falls far short of what is needed to limit global warming to 1.5ºC above pre-industrial levels, the threshold beyond which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change forecasts devastating consequences.

Fortunately, a growing chorus of Democrats has begun to demand genuine action that would start to make up for decades of climate-change denialism lite. They understand that without significant, comprehensive action by the US, the climate cannot possibly be stabilised at a level that is still conducive to human flourishing.

Rather than talking about what people must give up to reduce emissions, the climate realists are trying to sell voters on a new vision of the economy, one that offers long-term economic security and environmental stability. The GND resolution introduced earlier this year has rapidly shifted the window of discourse, such that once-radical proposals are now garnering public support and being debated seriously.

Though the details of the GND still need to be fleshed out, Democratic presidential contenders such as Washington Governor Jay Inslee are already offering concrete proposals in accordance with its prescriptions. The GND could be the “north star” of the country’s decarbonisation path. But much will depend on Democratic congressional leaders such as Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who has scoffed at ambitious climate proposals as a “green dream.” Either that changes, or we will all find ourselves in an environmental nightmare.

Mark Paul is an assistant professor of economics at New College of Florida. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2019. www.project-syndicate.org

http://jordantimes.com/opinion/project-syndicate/americas-bipartisan-climate-policy-failure

LONDON (Reuters) – Trade tensions risk throwing the global economy’s transition to greener energy into disarray and could hurt energy companies’ preparations toward it, BP Chairman Helge Lund said as leaders of the world’s largest economies gather for talks in Japan.

Lund, in his first interview since taking office in January, said BP would rather see a rapid, orderly phasing out of fossil fuels than a delayed and disorganized transition.

The former chief executive of Norwegian oil group Equinor said BP as well as rivals such as Royal Dutch Shell (RDSa.L) and ExxonMobil (XOM.N) would have a vital role to play to ensure a successful transition to low carbon economies.

“It is better for us to see a path that goes rapidly,” Lund said. “It will be very difficult for the oil and gas companies but that is a better and a preferred solution than an uncontrolled sudden change maybe 10, 15 years into the future.”

London-based BP, like some of its peers, has taken steps toward meeting the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement to limit global warming, including setting targets to reduce carbon emissions from its operations, link them to managers’ pay and ensure that investments are in line with the accords.

But many investors say BP will have to do more, including tackling emissions from the fuels and products it sells to millions of customers daily, known as Scope 3 emissions, to prevent a catastrophic rise in global temperatures.

Lund said however that such Scope 3 targets would tie BP’s hands to make future investments, whether in renewable energy or oil and gas. He nevertheless said the company’s thinking around Scope 3 was likely “to evolve over time.”

BP invested around $500 million in renewable power, electric vehicle charging points and other low-carbon technologies last year, a fraction of its annual spending of $15 billion.

And the pressure on companies and governments to do more to curb greenhouse gases is rising as carbon emission levels show no sign of decreasing.

Investors managing more than $34 trillion in assets, nearly half the world’s invested capital, this week demanded urgent action from governments on climate change, piling pressure on leaders of the world’s 20 biggest economies meeting this week.

France has said it will not accept a final G20 communique that does not mention the Paris climate change agreement.

“The long-term framework around the energy transition is important. Over time it is much easier for big companies like BP if we have a stable global framework for trade and investments,” Lund told Reuters at BP’s London headquarters.

Lund said an unprecedented level of cooperation was needed between companies and governments to bring greenhouse gas emissions to zero by the end of the century.

He urged governments to introduce a price on carbon emissions to allow phasing out fossil fuels, even though only a handful of such schemes have been introduced around the world.

SOUND INVESTMENT

BP has faced a wave of protests by climate activists, including a blockade on its London office and protests at events the company sponsors.

Big investors, including Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, are reviewing shareholdings in some oil and gas drillers, though not in BP and its largest rivals.

Lund, who took part in discussions on a climate resolution with a group of investors earlier this year, believes most investors understand that modern societies are almost built on hydrocarbons.

BP forecasts that even with a rapid increase in wind, solar and other forms of renewable energy, fossil fuels will account for the majority of energy supply for decades to come.

Lund also warned that attempts to curb fossil fuels too fast could harm societies.

“It takes time to change energy systems … If you try to build down the oil and gas industry quicker than you are able to build up a carbon neutral system you will pull societies back.”

Lund said large oil companies would be vital for the transition due to their large balance sheets, technical expertise and innovation skills.

“To be a strong contributor in the long term we have to stay financially strong, we have to be a good investment.”

Lund also said: “There is another dimension that we need to think about and that is if you believe that BP and other integrated oil and gas companies understand energy markets, they have significant balance sheets, they have technical capabilities, they have innovation capabilities, they can take risks – so in my mind business and these companies play an incredibly important role in the energy transition.”

SUCCESSION

Lund, 56, faces the task of leading BP through the energy transition and also overseeing the succession to Chief Executive Bob Dudley, who took the helm in 2010 following the crisis over the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico.

Dudley also steered BP through the oil industry’s worst downturn in decades so that the company is now producing strong profits which reached a five-year high last year of $12.7 billion.

“Bob is a very good leader, I am not sure where BP would have been without him,” Helge said.

BP’s board would ensure that when Dudley, who turns 65 next year, steps down, there will be “at least a number of candidates who can compete for the job,” he added.

Lund, a former consultant and political adviser in the Norwegian parliament rejected suggestions he could replace Dudley to become the next CEO.

“I’ve been CEO for three companies. I thought about this when I left BG whether I should try to get one more (CEO) job or try to get a different life and I decided on the latter and I think it is rewarding,” he said.