Well balanced article. The reference to the “breathless” Guardian article made me smile. There seems to be a genre of breathless/doomer writing, exemplified by The Unhabitable Earth -- exciting reading but in the end not a lot of quality information or analysis.
Hi Tom. I should have been clearer on ECAs vs DFIs. There’s still a (climate vs jobs & energy security) debate within ECAs about supporting overseas E&P, but that debate is over within DFIs and they will not be doing upstream. That leaves downstream, where I’m arguing the development case is strong -- especially in countries with energy poverty who are exporting gas to richer nations. My point: now that those projects in Tz & Moz are likely proceeding for export, we should not stand in the way of local use projects.
Hey Todd. It seems to me that you yourself are totally conflating downstream and upstream in this post. The post is about upstream projects, but you're opposing those who oppose ECA finance for those projects, because <something something> downstream?
You're definitely conflating upstream with downstream if you're arguing that Mozambique's own negligible carbon emissions are a reason it should develop gas resources that (according to TotalEnergies) could satisfy 20% of global demand.
WRT to UKEF finance — I think UK taxpayers absolutely have the right to not want UK public money to go on extracting more fossil fuels, be that in Moz or wherever. And this should not be conflated with "telling developing countries they can't develop their resources / burn fossil fuels". It's just not actively participating in it.
Hi Tom. I should have been clearer on ECAs vs DFIs. There’s still a (climate vs jobs & energy security) debate within ECAs about supporting overseas E&P, but that debate is over within DFIs and they will not be doing upstream. That leaves downstream, where I’m arguing the development case is strong -- especially in countries with energy poverty who are exporting gas to richer nations. My point: now that those projects in Tz & Moz are likely proceeding for export, we should not stand in the way of local use projects.
Right. Well as I've said before I don't see anyone, or at least hardly anyone, trying to stand in the way of gas-to-power in Mozambique, and I would guess the same is true in Tanzania.
But the whole of your "punching bag" Guardian article is about upstream gas development. Producing more fossil fuels. So you're either arguing against a straw man or you're deliberately using smoke and mirrors to persuade people that upstream developments should be supported. If you want to do that, do it, on its own merits. But Mozambique does not need the gas that's in the Rovuma Basin. It already exports gas from onshore fields in the south. And it is desperately trying to come up with downstream projects to find a use for its domestic allocation from the Rovuma projects.
Climate impacts of beef depend greatly on the practices used and alternative uses for the same piece of land. Where I live they convert wildfire fuels to protein. It's not like it's one thing around the world.
Fantastic and important article. Two more:
The Obvious Climate Strategy Nobody Will Talk About
Economic development is the only proven path to climate resilience
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/11/06/climate-cop27-emissions-adaptation-development-energy-africa-developing-countries-global-south/
Green energy gridlock
https://www.npr.org/2023/05/16/1176462647/green-energy-transmission-queue-power-grid-wind-solar
Well balanced article. The reference to the “breathless” Guardian article made me smile. There seems to be a genre of breathless/doomer writing, exemplified by The Unhabitable Earth -- exciting reading but in the end not a lot of quality information or analysis.
https://www.mattball.org/search?q=uninhabitable
Hi Tom. I should have been clearer on ECAs vs DFIs. There’s still a (climate vs jobs & energy security) debate within ECAs about supporting overseas E&P, but that debate is over within DFIs and they will not be doing upstream. That leaves downstream, where I’m arguing the development case is strong -- especially in countries with energy poverty who are exporting gas to richer nations. My point: now that those projects in Tz & Moz are likely proceeding for export, we should not stand in the way of local use projects.
Great article 😊
Hey Todd. It seems to me that you yourself are totally conflating downstream and upstream in this post. The post is about upstream projects, but you're opposing those who oppose ECA finance for those projects, because <something something> downstream?
You're definitely conflating upstream with downstream if you're arguing that Mozambique's own negligible carbon emissions are a reason it should develop gas resources that (according to TotalEnergies) could satisfy 20% of global demand.
WRT to UKEF finance — I think UK taxpayers absolutely have the right to not want UK public money to go on extracting more fossil fuels, be that in Moz or wherever. And this should not be conflated with "telling developing countries they can't develop their resources / burn fossil fuels". It's just not actively participating in it.
Hi Tom. I should have been clearer on ECAs vs DFIs. There’s still a (climate vs jobs & energy security) debate within ECAs about supporting overseas E&P, but that debate is over within DFIs and they will not be doing upstream. That leaves downstream, where I’m arguing the development case is strong -- especially in countries with energy poverty who are exporting gas to richer nations. My point: now that those projects in Tz & Moz are likely proceeding for export, we should not stand in the way of local use projects.
Right. Well as I've said before I don't see anyone, or at least hardly anyone, trying to stand in the way of gas-to-power in Mozambique, and I would guess the same is true in Tanzania.
But the whole of your "punching bag" Guardian article is about upstream gas development. Producing more fossil fuels. So you're either arguing against a straw man or you're deliberately using smoke and mirrors to persuade people that upstream developments should be supported. If you want to do that, do it, on its own merits. But Mozambique does not need the gas that's in the Rovuma Basin. It already exports gas from onshore fields in the south. And it is desperately trying to come up with downstream projects to find a use for its domestic allocation from the Rovuma projects.
Climate impacts of beef depend greatly on the practices used and alternative uses for the same piece of land. Where I live they convert wildfire fuels to protein. It's not like it's one thing around the world.