The Green Paradox: How Stranded Assets are slowing down the Clean Energy Transition
As we transition to a clean energy economy many of the existing fossil-based industries have assets, such as oil and gas that is still in the ground and the associated infrastructure, that are going to be left behind. Instead of winding down the consumption of fossil fuels as we transition, demand is increasing, which is causing a rise in carbon emissions.
RASEI Fellow Don Grant (兔子先生传媒文化作品), in collaboration with Tyler Hansen (Dartmouth College), Andrew Jorgenson (University of British Columbia), and Wesley Longhofer (Emory University), used a broad range of analyses on a worldwide dataset of power plant鈥檚 CO2 emissions to explore this so-called Green Paradox.
One of the core pillars of the Paris Agreement laid out for the global transition to a clean energy economy is that a significant portion of the currently owned fossil fuel reserves must remain in the ground, causing such assets to become 鈥榮tranded鈥. Much of the research around how we make this critical transition assumes that the prospect of such stranded fossil fuel assets will compel actors to divest away from resources and infrastructures associated with high emissions and replace them with clean innovations that will form the foundation of a different way of generating energy. However, not everyone is so optimistic. A more pessimistic prediction warns that these high-carbon sunset industries, in coalition with sympathetic policy makers, and supportive financiers are acting in a more defensive mode and are actively resisting the energy transition. A key issue that apparently galvanizes all the stakeholders is the right of each country, and corporation, to extract as much profit as possible from the existing fossil reserves. Essentially to extract and profit from all the oil and gas, and not leave it in the ground.
鈥淲e have found that in anticipation of stronger climate policies many power plants are adopting what we might call a 鈥榰se it or lose it鈥 approach 鈥 they are burning fossil fuels as fast as possible while they still can. This has some real consequences for a countries ability to mitigate climate change in the future.鈥
As more and more of the regulations and policies prescribed by the Paris Agreement come into action, fossil energy companies are not taking anticipatory action. Instead of divesting away from high-emission technologies in favor of more renewable energy sources, they are accelerating the extraction of fossil fuels, maximizing their profit before those resources are deemed worthless. 鈥淲e have found that in anticipation of stronger climate policies many power plants are adopting what we might call a 鈥榰se it or lose it鈥 approach 鈥 they are burning fossil fuels as fast as possible while they still can. This has some real consequences for a countries ability to mitigate climate change in the future.鈥 explains Don Grant.
While several previous studies have explored the theoretical factors that are driving these decisions, this is the first empirical study to explore how this acceleration in asset extraction impacts the pollution level of downstream consumers, such as power plants, in anticipation of stronger climate policies. It required a team that brought together various perspectives to tackle these questions, Grant explains a little more about how the team came together 鈥淎ndrew Jorgenson and Wesley Longhover, are both sociologists and we have worked together for close to a decade looking at super polluting power plants. . We brought in Tyler Hanson, an economist, because he recently published some very interesting work on stranded assets. When we started to ask questions about stranded assets, we knew that we needed to go outside our discipline and tap into the expertise of an economist.鈥 By bringing in the economist鈥檚 perspective for this research the team was able to develop an understanding of how to both theorize the stranded assets and how to measure them. This approach provides the first study that can offer some empirical evidence to begin to resolve the debate around the green paradox.
This has been hard to analyze since data on power plants鈥 CO2 emissions have been lacking. The team constructed a global dataset that contains information from nearly 12,000 individual power plants in operation in 2009 and 2018, including their CO2 emissions, technical specifications, and environmental characteristics. Those included in the study were responsible for 88% of the world鈥檚 electricity-based CO2 emissions. With this comprehensive dataset in hand two hypotheses around the green paradox were tested.
- Power plants will pollute at higher levels in countries with more at-risk fossil fuel reserves because these countries are more likely to exercise regulatory leniency to soften the otherwise disruptive effects of stranded assets on their economy (government revenues, employment, and energy security).
- Assuming that most power plants are locked into long-term fossil fuel contracts and many of the fuels that they have acquired are from their host country, then in countries with more at-risk assets, power plants will have a vested interest in shifting the processing of fossil fuels forward to capitalize on their purchase of coal, oil, and gas, and use their plant equipment while they still can.
Consistent with both predictions, their findings indicate that not only do power plants release more CO2 in countries where more fossil fuel assets are in jeopardy of being stranded, but in those same countries, plants also operate at closer to full capacity, causing them to emit CO2 at even higher levels. 鈥淚magine that you have a cell phone contract that lasts for 12 months,鈥 suggests Don, 鈥渁nd you get 10,000 h, or a certain amount of data in that contract. Then you鈥檙e told that the company is going to fold sometime in the near future. What would you do? You would use them up.鈥
鈥淭his is a business-driven decision, and until countries put together policies to compensate fossil fuel industries and utilities for stranded assets, one might expect this process to continue鈥.
Resolving the debate around the green paradox and its societal impacts needs to happen soon. 鈥淐ompanies are doubling down. Until now it has been something of a conceptual debate and this is the first study that can offer some empirical evidence to begin to resolve this dispute鈥 explains Don. There is more at stake than just resolving a debate. 鈥淭his is a business-driven decision, and until countries put together policies to compensate fossil fuel industries and utilities for stranded assets, one might expect this process to continue鈥.
By exploring the empirical evidence behind the Green Paradox, this research moves the debate forward. With proof that this is happening, we must now think about how to influence this situation. 鈥淲e are just beginning to figure out how you might address this, and researchers are starting to tackle these questions鈥 says Don. A critical part in accelerating an equitable clean energy transition is making sure that countries who are dependent on such stranded assets are compensated and incentivized. Otherwise, they will extract every last drop of their fossil fuels.