So much for that energy transition

Written by News Roundup on April 6, 2025. Posted in Current News

Now here’s a headline to brighten your morning or ruin it depending on your general view of climate.

“BP shuns renewables in return to oil and gas”. From the BBC no less. And why would they do such a thing? Well, “Go woke, go broke” works on environmental policy too, for firms as for governments. And the former lose their own money… or don’t if they come to their senses.

As Roger Pielke Jr. just wrote about the new International Energy Agency Global Energy Review 2025, demand continues to surge, all the decrease in carbon intensity is driven by private-sector efficiency-seeking (the rate hasn’t changed since 1965) and Net Zero projections of the rapid sustained rise in fossil fuel consumption (he also charts it since 1965) is meant to plunge by magic. Until which time, and with all due respect to the potential of nuclear, well, if you’re “British Petroleum” you should sell petroleum not promises.

Even Canary Media gets it, sort of, peddling a chart supposedly showing the transition with the headline:

“Even as new clean energy breaks records, emissions rise/ The world added more solar, wind, and other renewables than ever in 2024. But with electricity demand rising, it’ll take more to cut carbon pollution from the power sector.”

As for what that thing is, well, it’s for people to ignore reality.

Alas, a crucial difference between the private and public sectors is that in the former people who make mistakes pay for them personally, which gets their attention in a hurry. It tastes bad to swallow your pride, but it beats someone else eating your lunch. As the BBC notes:

“The energy giant revealed the shift in strategy on Wednesday following pressure from some investors unhappy its profits and share price have been lower than its rivals.”

Oh. That. Meanwhile the British government is still committed to Net Zero even as everything falls apart including the end of steelmaking in the birthplace of the industrial revolution (how’s that going to help you bolster your defence capabilities in an uncertain world?) and the Adam Smith Institute says that this week’s budget-like “Financial Statement” from the Labour green zealots in power “looks like a polite suggestion to close the door when you leave the country – if you can find a functioning airport.” But of course the politicians’ expense accounts, government limos and guaranteed pensions are still cushy.

To get a sense of the scale of the disconnect, the Chinese owners of the last British steel mills “rejected an offer of £500m from the Government to help it switch to green energy.” Half a billion pounds tossed blithely into the furnace and it still wasn’t enough.

And while any one firm can of course make a mistake, including in response to a previous one, the BBC story about BP also observes that:

“The move comes as rivals Shell and Norwegian company Equinor have also scaled back plans to invest in green energy and US President Donald Trump’s ‘drill baby drill’ comments have encouraged investment in fossil fuels.”

As for admitting a mistake, well, the flavour is greasy and undesirable. Hence:

“Murray Auchincloss, BP’s chief executive, said the energy giant had gone ‘too far, too fast’ in the transition away from fossil fuels, and that its faith in green energy was ‘misplaced’. He said BP would be ‘very selective’ in investing in businesses working on the energy transition to renewables going forward, with funding reduced to between $1.5bn and $2bn per year. He said this was part of a strategy ‘reset’ by the company to focus on boosting returns for shareholders.”

Too far too fast isn’t exactly a repudiation. But how far do you have to stray from fundamentals before it’s a “reset” to focus on profitability instead of coolness?

Of course the BBC found plenty of people unhappy with it:

“The environmental group Greenpeace UK said the latest move was ‘proof that fossil fuel companies can’t or won’t be part of climate crisis solutions’. Alexander Kirk from Global Witness added BP ‘cannot be trusted to deliver the clean energy transition’, adding that it was ‘focusing on short-term profits to shareholders while energy prices are high, with the rest of the world picking up the tab from its climate-wrecking products’. Global Witness drove a lorry around central London with messages criticising BP’s decision. Sir Ian Cheshire, who has held many executive roles at companies such as B&Q owner Kingfisher and Barclays bank, questioned whether BP’s latest move would work. ‘I do wonder whether this sort of decision will look right in 10 years,’ he told the BBC’s Today programme. ‘The climate change issue has not gone away, the science hasn’t changed,’ he said.”

Right. But none of them will lose a dime if they’re complete babblers. As for BP, it covered its tracks with a thin film of green dust:

“Challenged on the reduced commitment to investing in renewable energy, Louise Kingham, BP’s senior vice president for Europe and the UK, said none of the changes announced on Tuesday would alter the UK’s green energy plans, which include three wind farms and carbon capture projects. She said the shift to renewable energy sources had slowed but that BP’s ambition had ‘not changed’ to become a net-zero company.”

But talk is cheap. Unlike blundering into trendy fatuities. Hence:

“‘We just have to do this transition more smartly and more efficiently and try to get those returns for our owners because they are helping us to do that. If we don’t generate the returns, we can’t invest and do more,’ Ms Kingham told the Scottish Affairs committee of MPs.”

Go woke, go broke, pass the hat to people who spend from others’ pockets.

See more here Climate Discussion

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.