Last month, E3G, Beyond Fossil Fuels, We Mean Business Coalition and Savanta released a report after surveying 1,477 senior business executives across 15 countries. As you’d expect, the results show an overwhelming support for a rapid transition away from fossil fuels to renewables in the power system. There are a few key findings worth highlighting from the press release:
No room for new gas: Two-thirds (67%) of executives want coal phased out and replaced with renewables, grids and storage—without locking in new gas infrastructure. Even in gas-reliant countries like Mexico, Italy, and Japan, businesses favour a direct transition to renewables. In the United States which has the fourth largest proven gas deposits in the world, almost two-thirds (65%) of those polled would rather see a direct transition to renewables in a post-coal era.
Despite relentless lobbying by oil and gas interests and wrong-headed advocacy by some governments, business leaders are not fooled by the false narrative of “gas is a transition fuel”.
Energy security is paramount: Three-quarters (75%) of executives associate renewables with stronger energy security. 78% of German business leaders believe an accelerated renewable transition will reduce Germany’s exposure to volatile energy imports.
Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine rattled the international fossil fuel markets, “energy security” has become the new excuse that lobbyists and policymakers use to accelerate climate disruptions. Again, business leaders understand that more fossil fuel dependence won’t prevent energy crises caused by fossil fuel dependence.
People used to think that being able to import LNG from global markets provides some insurance when piped gas stops flowing. But they quickly find out that when gas stops flowing in some big pipes, everyone rushes to buy the insurance at the same time, and they can’t afford the insurance anymore. Investing in more LNG infrastructure and supply doesn’t solve the problem because these new capacity will be quickly consumed by new demands. Oil and gas businesses, like any other businesses, optimise for asset efficiency. Only idling capacity can absorb shocks, but idling capacity doesn’t make money. When the next shock inevitably comes, fossil fuel-dependent countries will babble about the same energy security challenges all over again.
Renewables have their own security challenges. (China’s dominance in renewables is not a challenge because renewables don’t require constant replenishment.) But compared to fossil fuels, renewables have the unique advantage that what makes them secure (predictable sunlight, rainfall and wind patterns) are completely aligned with our goal of a stable climate.
Our choices are:
- Doubling down on fossil fuels that will wreck the climate system without providing real security, ever. Or,
- Switching to renewables that slow down climate change, and becomes more secure as climate change slows down.
Which of these feels like a better bet for energy security?
An Inconvenient Thought 