This is the finding of a British scientific consortium, which at the same time advocates a more lenient period for the poorest countries.
The richest oil and gas producing countries should cease all production by 2034 to hope to contain global warming to 1.5°C, while the poorest should benefit from a delay, according to a study by a British scientific consortium published on Tuesday.
Coal, oil and gas are among the main sources of greenhouse gas emissions responsible for global warming, which the Paris agreement aims to limit if possible to +1.5°C compared to the pre-industrial era. An exit from fossil fuels is therefore one of the main levers to limit the already visible consequences of climate change, droughts, storms or devastating floods.
But this exit does not have the same economic consequences for the various producing countries, underlines the study of the Tyndall Center for Climate Change, a British consortium including universities. Focusing on the oil and gas sectors, the researchers studied 88 countries, representing almost all of the world’s production.
For some poor countries representing only a small percentage of global production, income from fossil fuels contributes very strongly to their overall national wealth, the researchers point out.
Addiction
On the other hand, some major producing countries would remain rich even if they stopped extracting: the world’s largest oil producer, the United States, whose oil and gas sector contributes 8% to GDP, would thus retain almost unchanged per capita wealth, around 60,000 dollars per head, against 63,500 currently.
The authors therefore sought to establish a timetable for an “equitable” exit according to the needs and capacities of the different countries “to finance a just transition” thanks to the level of their GDP excluding “dependence” on oil and gas.
“We have calculated the end dates of the emissions corresponding to the temperature objectives of the Paris agreement. We have found that the richest countries must achieve zero oil and gas production by 2034,” said Kevin Anderson, professor at the University of Manchester and lead author of the study.
These countries, 19 in number – including the United States, the United Kingdom, Norway and the United Arab Emirates – have an average GDP excluding fossil fuels of $50,000 per capita and represent 35% of world production of oil and gas.
A group of 14 countries with an average non-fossil GDP of 28,000 dollars per capita should cease all production in 2039. These countries, including Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, represent 30% of world production.
Next come 11 countries with an average per capita GDP excluding fossil fuels of 17,000, including China and Mexico, which are due to cease production (11% of the world total) in 2043; 19 countries with an average GDP of 10,000 dollars, including Iran, to cease production (13% of the total) in 2045; and a group of 25 countries with an average GDP of 3,600 dollars, including Iraq, Libya or Angola, due to cease production (11% of the total) in 2045.
Responsibility
But are the objectives of this new study not unrealistic, the invasion of Ukraine having once again pointed to the dependence of the world’s economies on fossil fuels?
“As researchers, it’s not our problem,” replies Kevin Anderson. “What we are giving is a timetable for (respecting) +1.5°C. Are these changes that companies will choose to make? Is it achievable in the current political context? Nothing says so at the moment. No country comes close to the necessary commitments”.
And while UN climate experts have been meeting since Monday to validate the IPCC experts’ report on solutions to reduce global emissions, he is very critical: “I think we (scientists) have given up our responsibility to tell the truth about the consequences of our work on public policy. For 20 or 30 years we have been softening things up to make the pill go away”.
“How to reduce emissions is inherently, and this is normal, a political question, not just a scientific one”, continues the researcher for whom this chapter “should not even be part of the IPCC process”.