A United Nations-backed study finds that the major fossil fuel-producing countries still plan to extract more than double the amount of fossil fuels in 2030 than would be consistent with the Paris climate accord’s goal for limiting global temperature rise, despite frequent and devastating heat waves

Despite frequent and devastating heat waves, droughts, floods and fire, major fossil fuel-producing countries still plan to extract more than double the amount of fossil fuels in 2030 than is consistent with the Paris climate accord’s goal for limiting global temperature rise, according to a United Nations-backed study released Wednesday.

Coal production needs to ramp sharply down to address climate change, but government plans and projections would lead to increases in global production until 2030, and in global oil and gas production until at least 2050, the Production Gap Report states. This conflicts with government commitments under the climate accord, which seeks to keep global temperature rise below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit).

The report examines the disparity between climate goals and fossil fuel extraction plans, a gap that has remained largely unchanged since it was first quantified in 2019.

  • MxM111
    -3•1 year ago

    The actual reason is that US is now net exporter of oil products. With war by Russia and opec cutting down production trying to get prices up, US compensates this by producing more. This is not a bad thing and does not contradict by itself to shifting to green energy internally. Being independent from price/supply control by such countries as Russia, Iran, Saudi is a good thing, not a bad thing.

      • MxM111
        -2•1 year ago

        You should look whether global oil production increases or not. Just looking at US is pointless. Do you think that gas is chip on gas station? No? Then it means there is no overproduction.

        • @NocturnalMorning@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2•1 year ago

          Maybe I wasn’t clear with my original comment. All oil extraction is a problem. It is adding carbon to the carbon cycle that isn’t naturally there.

          • MxM111
            0•1 year ago

            Yes, but you also said “No increase in oil production is ever a good thing for the climate” in response that specifically discusses that it is local increase (in US) that compensates decrease elsewhere. To expand, it is a good thing because otherwise the oil prices will be too high that might trigger US and global recession and actually reduce available funds for innovations and investments into green technology.

              • MxM111
                -1•1 year ago

                Call it as you want, but economy is a real thing and there is a way to go green without destroying people livelihoods.

                • @NocturnalMorning@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  1•1 year ago

                  Then why haven’t we done it yet? Instead we have kicked the can down the road for decades promising to do it later, all the while with climate scientist sounding alarm bells that we are wrecking our climate…heck, they have even provided a road map of what we have to do to stop it and we’ve basically shrugged at the idea.

    • blazera
      2•1 year ago

      Thats not how the climate works. Producing more oil for the rest of the world while using renewables here doesnt mean just the rest of the world will face the effects of climate change.

      • HubertManne
        1•1 year ago

        he saying the rest of the world was using other world sources so we are just lowering what would be used. this is not good for the environment though anyway as russia had stacks just burning because shutdown is hard. unfortunately war behavior will be bad for the environment and will likely increase.