Latest news with #COP
The Advertiser
2 days ago
- Business
- The Advertiser
Why a fossil fuel-free COP could put Australia's bid over the edge
When the medical world hosts a conference on quitting smoking, they don't invite Phillip Morris, or British American Tobacco along to help "be part of the solution". Yet when the United Nations hosts its annual climate conference of the parties (known as COP) to reduce emissions, it's usually swamped by fossil fuel lobbyists. The Albanese government is bidding to host next year's COP31 climate summit in Adelaide, alongside Pacific Island Nations. Turkey is also bidding to host the COP and is Australia's main rival for the bid. The decision could be announced any day now. One thing is certain: if fossil fuel corporations and their lobbyists get access to COP31, they'll do their best to sabotage any chance of achieving ambitious climate action. That's why the Australia Institute has called on the Albanese government to ban fossil fuel corporations and their lobbyists from COP31. Banning fossil fuel corporations and their lobbyists from COP31 could give Australia an edge in winning the bid over Turkey by demonstrating our genuine commitment to tackling the source of the problem. Let's be clear - coal, oil and gas companies are causing the climate crisis. The United Nations, the world's scientists and the International Energy Agency have all made it crystal clear that to avert the worst consequences of global heating, the world must swiftly phase out fossil fuels. These companies have no place at UN climate talks. Yet, at last year's COP29 in Azerbaijan, the media reported that fossil fuel lobbyists outnumbered the delegations of almost every country, with at least 1770 coal, oil, and gas lobbyists granted access to the United Nations climate talks in Baku. Oil deals were brokered on the sidelines. Ministers were courted at coal and gas-sponsored events. It's how the climate negotiations consistently get derailed, delayed and watered down. Australia is no exception. It's no surprise, really, considering we're the third-largest exporter of fossil fuels in the world. Back when Scott Morrison was Prime Minister, Australia's official pavilion at COP26 in Glasgow proudly promoted gas giant Santos. At the same UN conference, the Morrison government rejected joining a global pledge to reduce methane emissions by 30 per cent by 2030, which about 90 other countries signed. Deirdre Chambers, what a coincidence! Inviting fossil fuel companies and their lobbyists to the UN climate conference is inviting failure. It will stifle calls to stop opening new gas and coal mines from Pacific leaders, scientists and people around the world. The Australian government is working hard to convince the world that we should be chosen in partnership with Pacific Island Nations to host COP31 in Adelaide. The UNFCCC, the body that decides the host, is due to announce its decision by September. Banning fossil fuel corporations and their lobbyists from an Australia-hosted COP31 would not only show Australia is serious about tackling the problem, but it could even help the government secure the bid. At previous COPs, it's clear that the presence of fossil fuel corporations and lobbyists has only led to weaker agreements. In 2023, the president of COP28 was Sultan Al Jaber, who also happened to be the chief executive of the UAE's state oil company, Adnoc. The Sultan claimed there was "no science" indicating that a phase-out of fossil fuels is needed to restrict global warming to 1.5 degrees. Ultimately, the wording "phase-out" of coal was weakened to "phase-down" in the final agreement hashed out in the final hours of the conference that year. Science requires a phaseout of fossil fuels, yet time and again their lobbyists successfully delay and derail the world's attempts to save itself from sea level rise, extreme heat and more frequent and intense bushfires and floods. The Labor government plans to use the COP31 conference, which will attract tens of thousands of international visitors, to showcase its Future Made in Australia new green economy agenda. Investing in critical minerals processing, green metals and clean energy manufacturing, including battery and solar panel supply chains, is important. It will help highlight the difference between Labor's priorities and those of the previous Coalition government on climate. MORE EBONY BENNETT: But Australia does not have a great track record at international climate talks. And talking up clean energy manufacturing doesn't erase Australia's main contribution to the climate crisis - our massive gas and coal exports. Australia is the third-largest exporter of fossil fuels in the world. Australia continues to subsidise and approve fossil fuel expansion, with more than 100 gas and coal projects in development. And one of the first acts of the newly elected Albanese government was to approve Woodside's enormous North West Shelf gas export extension. So far, not so different from the "gas-led recovery" Coalition government on climate. Emissions from gas export projects operating in Western Australia are making WA, Australia and the rest of the world hotter, and disasters like fires and floods more frequent and extreme. Emissions from these exports are already greater than 153 individual countries, and greater than all of Australia's coal power stations combined. Australia Institute research shows Woodside's North West Shelf gas export project has caused WA gas and electricity prices to triple since it was granted access to domestic gas in 2020, and the extension will see around $215 billion worth of gas given away royalty-free. No gas exporter has ever paid petroleum resource rent tax, and most pay zero royalties. Gas exporters have made $100 billion in windfall profits exporting Australian gas since Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Australians have seen little benefit from these windfall profits, something the Treasurer could fix as part of upcoming tax reforms. It's clear that fossil fuel lobbyists are some of the most effective operators on Earth, and banning them from COP31 would strengthen Australia's bid to host COP. There's no doubt that hosting COP31 would be a big deal for the Albanese Labor government. But only keeping fossil fuels in the ground will make COP31 a big deal for the planet. When the medical world hosts a conference on quitting smoking, they don't invite Phillip Morris, or British American Tobacco along to help "be part of the solution". Yet when the United Nations hosts its annual climate conference of the parties (known as COP) to reduce emissions, it's usually swamped by fossil fuel lobbyists. The Albanese government is bidding to host next year's COP31 climate summit in Adelaide, alongside Pacific Island Nations. Turkey is also bidding to host the COP and is Australia's main rival for the bid. The decision could be announced any day now. One thing is certain: if fossil fuel corporations and their lobbyists get access to COP31, they'll do their best to sabotage any chance of achieving ambitious climate action. That's why the Australia Institute has called on the Albanese government to ban fossil fuel corporations and their lobbyists from COP31. Banning fossil fuel corporations and their lobbyists from COP31 could give Australia an edge in winning the bid over Turkey by demonstrating our genuine commitment to tackling the source of the problem. Let's be clear - coal, oil and gas companies are causing the climate crisis. The United Nations, the world's scientists and the International Energy Agency have all made it crystal clear that to avert the worst consequences of global heating, the world must swiftly phase out fossil fuels. These companies have no place at UN climate talks. Yet, at last year's COP29 in Azerbaijan, the media reported that fossil fuel lobbyists outnumbered the delegations of almost every country, with at least 1770 coal, oil, and gas lobbyists granted access to the United Nations climate talks in Baku. Oil deals were brokered on the sidelines. Ministers were courted at coal and gas-sponsored events. It's how the climate negotiations consistently get derailed, delayed and watered down. Australia is no exception. It's no surprise, really, considering we're the third-largest exporter of fossil fuels in the world. Back when Scott Morrison was Prime Minister, Australia's official pavilion at COP26 in Glasgow proudly promoted gas giant Santos. At the same UN conference, the Morrison government rejected joining a global pledge to reduce methane emissions by 30 per cent by 2030, which about 90 other countries signed. Deirdre Chambers, what a coincidence! Inviting fossil fuel companies and their lobbyists to the UN climate conference is inviting failure. It will stifle calls to stop opening new gas and coal mines from Pacific leaders, scientists and people around the world. The Australian government is working hard to convince the world that we should be chosen in partnership with Pacific Island Nations to host COP31 in Adelaide. The UNFCCC, the body that decides the host, is due to announce its decision by September. Banning fossil fuel corporations and their lobbyists from an Australia-hosted COP31 would not only show Australia is serious about tackling the problem, but it could even help the government secure the bid. At previous COPs, it's clear that the presence of fossil fuel corporations and lobbyists has only led to weaker agreements. In 2023, the president of COP28 was Sultan Al Jaber, who also happened to be the chief executive of the UAE's state oil company, Adnoc. The Sultan claimed there was "no science" indicating that a phase-out of fossil fuels is needed to restrict global warming to 1.5 degrees. Ultimately, the wording "phase-out" of coal was weakened to "phase-down" in the final agreement hashed out in the final hours of the conference that year. Science requires a phaseout of fossil fuels, yet time and again their lobbyists successfully delay and derail the world's attempts to save itself from sea level rise, extreme heat and more frequent and intense bushfires and floods. The Labor government plans to use the COP31 conference, which will attract tens of thousands of international visitors, to showcase its Future Made in Australia new green economy agenda. Investing in critical minerals processing, green metals and clean energy manufacturing, including battery and solar panel supply chains, is important. It will help highlight the difference between Labor's priorities and those of the previous Coalition government on climate. MORE EBONY BENNETT: But Australia does not have a great track record at international climate talks. And talking up clean energy manufacturing doesn't erase Australia's main contribution to the climate crisis - our massive gas and coal exports. Australia is the third-largest exporter of fossil fuels in the world. Australia continues to subsidise and approve fossil fuel expansion, with more than 100 gas and coal projects in development. And one of the first acts of the newly elected Albanese government was to approve Woodside's enormous North West Shelf gas export extension. So far, not so different from the "gas-led recovery" Coalition government on climate. Emissions from gas export projects operating in Western Australia are making WA, Australia and the rest of the world hotter, and disasters like fires and floods more frequent and extreme. Emissions from these exports are already greater than 153 individual countries, and greater than all of Australia's coal power stations combined. Australia Institute research shows Woodside's North West Shelf gas export project has caused WA gas and electricity prices to triple since it was granted access to domestic gas in 2020, and the extension will see around $215 billion worth of gas given away royalty-free. No gas exporter has ever paid petroleum resource rent tax, and most pay zero royalties. Gas exporters have made $100 billion in windfall profits exporting Australian gas since Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Australians have seen little benefit from these windfall profits, something the Treasurer could fix as part of upcoming tax reforms. It's clear that fossil fuel lobbyists are some of the most effective operators on Earth, and banning them from COP31 would strengthen Australia's bid to host COP. There's no doubt that hosting COP31 would be a big deal for the Albanese Labor government. But only keeping fossil fuels in the ground will make COP31 a big deal for the planet. When the medical world hosts a conference on quitting smoking, they don't invite Phillip Morris, or British American Tobacco along to help "be part of the solution". Yet when the United Nations hosts its annual climate conference of the parties (known as COP) to reduce emissions, it's usually swamped by fossil fuel lobbyists. The Albanese government is bidding to host next year's COP31 climate summit in Adelaide, alongside Pacific Island Nations. Turkey is also bidding to host the COP and is Australia's main rival for the bid. The decision could be announced any day now. One thing is certain: if fossil fuel corporations and their lobbyists get access to COP31, they'll do their best to sabotage any chance of achieving ambitious climate action. That's why the Australia Institute has called on the Albanese government to ban fossil fuel corporations and their lobbyists from COP31. Banning fossil fuel corporations and their lobbyists from COP31 could give Australia an edge in winning the bid over Turkey by demonstrating our genuine commitment to tackling the source of the problem. Let's be clear - coal, oil and gas companies are causing the climate crisis. The United Nations, the world's scientists and the International Energy Agency have all made it crystal clear that to avert the worst consequences of global heating, the world must swiftly phase out fossil fuels. These companies have no place at UN climate talks. Yet, at last year's COP29 in Azerbaijan, the media reported that fossil fuel lobbyists outnumbered the delegations of almost every country, with at least 1770 coal, oil, and gas lobbyists granted access to the United Nations climate talks in Baku. Oil deals were brokered on the sidelines. Ministers were courted at coal and gas-sponsored events. It's how the climate negotiations consistently get derailed, delayed and watered down. Australia is no exception. It's no surprise, really, considering we're the third-largest exporter of fossil fuels in the world. Back when Scott Morrison was Prime Minister, Australia's official pavilion at COP26 in Glasgow proudly promoted gas giant Santos. At the same UN conference, the Morrison government rejected joining a global pledge to reduce methane emissions by 30 per cent by 2030, which about 90 other countries signed. Deirdre Chambers, what a coincidence! Inviting fossil fuel companies and their lobbyists to the UN climate conference is inviting failure. It will stifle calls to stop opening new gas and coal mines from Pacific leaders, scientists and people around the world. The Australian government is working hard to convince the world that we should be chosen in partnership with Pacific Island Nations to host COP31 in Adelaide. The UNFCCC, the body that decides the host, is due to announce its decision by September. Banning fossil fuel corporations and their lobbyists from an Australia-hosted COP31 would not only show Australia is serious about tackling the problem, but it could even help the government secure the bid. At previous COPs, it's clear that the presence of fossil fuel corporations and lobbyists has only led to weaker agreements. In 2023, the president of COP28 was Sultan Al Jaber, who also happened to be the chief executive of the UAE's state oil company, Adnoc. The Sultan claimed there was "no science" indicating that a phase-out of fossil fuels is needed to restrict global warming to 1.5 degrees. Ultimately, the wording "phase-out" of coal was weakened to "phase-down" in the final agreement hashed out in the final hours of the conference that year. Science requires a phaseout of fossil fuels, yet time and again their lobbyists successfully delay and derail the world's attempts to save itself from sea level rise, extreme heat and more frequent and intense bushfires and floods. The Labor government plans to use the COP31 conference, which will attract tens of thousands of international visitors, to showcase its Future Made in Australia new green economy agenda. Investing in critical minerals processing, green metals and clean energy manufacturing, including battery and solar panel supply chains, is important. It will help highlight the difference between Labor's priorities and those of the previous Coalition government on climate. MORE EBONY BENNETT: But Australia does not have a great track record at international climate talks. And talking up clean energy manufacturing doesn't erase Australia's main contribution to the climate crisis - our massive gas and coal exports. Australia is the third-largest exporter of fossil fuels in the world. Australia continues to subsidise and approve fossil fuel expansion, with more than 100 gas and coal projects in development. And one of the first acts of the newly elected Albanese government was to approve Woodside's enormous North West Shelf gas export extension. So far, not so different from the "gas-led recovery" Coalition government on climate. Emissions from gas export projects operating in Western Australia are making WA, Australia and the rest of the world hotter, and disasters like fires and floods more frequent and extreme. Emissions from these exports are already greater than 153 individual countries, and greater than all of Australia's coal power stations combined. Australia Institute research shows Woodside's North West Shelf gas export project has caused WA gas and electricity prices to triple since it was granted access to domestic gas in 2020, and the extension will see around $215 billion worth of gas given away royalty-free. No gas exporter has ever paid petroleum resource rent tax, and most pay zero royalties. Gas exporters have made $100 billion in windfall profits exporting Australian gas since Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Australians have seen little benefit from these windfall profits, something the Treasurer could fix as part of upcoming tax reforms. It's clear that fossil fuel lobbyists are some of the most effective operators on Earth, and banning them from COP31 would strengthen Australia's bid to host COP. There's no doubt that hosting COP31 would be a big deal for the Albanese Labor government. But only keeping fossil fuels in the ground will make COP31 a big deal for the planet. When the medical world hosts a conference on quitting smoking, they don't invite Phillip Morris, or British American Tobacco along to help "be part of the solution". Yet when the United Nations hosts its annual climate conference of the parties (known as COP) to reduce emissions, it's usually swamped by fossil fuel lobbyists. The Albanese government is bidding to host next year's COP31 climate summit in Adelaide, alongside Pacific Island Nations. Turkey is also bidding to host the COP and is Australia's main rival for the bid. The decision could be announced any day now. One thing is certain: if fossil fuel corporations and their lobbyists get access to COP31, they'll do their best to sabotage any chance of achieving ambitious climate action. That's why the Australia Institute has called on the Albanese government to ban fossil fuel corporations and their lobbyists from COP31. Banning fossil fuel corporations and their lobbyists from COP31 could give Australia an edge in winning the bid over Turkey by demonstrating our genuine commitment to tackling the source of the problem. Let's be clear - coal, oil and gas companies are causing the climate crisis. The United Nations, the world's scientists and the International Energy Agency have all made it crystal clear that to avert the worst consequences of global heating, the world must swiftly phase out fossil fuels. These companies have no place at UN climate talks. Yet, at last year's COP29 in Azerbaijan, the media reported that fossil fuel lobbyists outnumbered the delegations of almost every country, with at least 1770 coal, oil, and gas lobbyists granted access to the United Nations climate talks in Baku. Oil deals were brokered on the sidelines. Ministers were courted at coal and gas-sponsored events. It's how the climate negotiations consistently get derailed, delayed and watered down. Australia is no exception. It's no surprise, really, considering we're the third-largest exporter of fossil fuels in the world. Back when Scott Morrison was Prime Minister, Australia's official pavilion at COP26 in Glasgow proudly promoted gas giant Santos. At the same UN conference, the Morrison government rejected joining a global pledge to reduce methane emissions by 30 per cent by 2030, which about 90 other countries signed. Deirdre Chambers, what a coincidence! Inviting fossil fuel companies and their lobbyists to the UN climate conference is inviting failure. It will stifle calls to stop opening new gas and coal mines from Pacific leaders, scientists and people around the world. The Australian government is working hard to convince the world that we should be chosen in partnership with Pacific Island Nations to host COP31 in Adelaide. The UNFCCC, the body that decides the host, is due to announce its decision by September. Banning fossil fuel corporations and their lobbyists from an Australia-hosted COP31 would not only show Australia is serious about tackling the problem, but it could even help the government secure the bid. At previous COPs, it's clear that the presence of fossil fuel corporations and lobbyists has only led to weaker agreements. In 2023, the president of COP28 was Sultan Al Jaber, who also happened to be the chief executive of the UAE's state oil company, Adnoc. The Sultan claimed there was "no science" indicating that a phase-out of fossil fuels is needed to restrict global warming to 1.5 degrees. Ultimately, the wording "phase-out" of coal was weakened to "phase-down" in the final agreement hashed out in the final hours of the conference that year. Science requires a phaseout of fossil fuels, yet time and again their lobbyists successfully delay and derail the world's attempts to save itself from sea level rise, extreme heat and more frequent and intense bushfires and floods. The Labor government plans to use the COP31 conference, which will attract tens of thousands of international visitors, to showcase its Future Made in Australia new green economy agenda. Investing in critical minerals processing, green metals and clean energy manufacturing, including battery and solar panel supply chains, is important. It will help highlight the difference between Labor's priorities and those of the previous Coalition government on climate. MORE EBONY BENNETT: But Australia does not have a great track record at international climate talks. And talking up clean energy manufacturing doesn't erase Australia's main contribution to the climate crisis - our massive gas and coal exports. Australia is the third-largest exporter of fossil fuels in the world. Australia continues to subsidise and approve fossil fuel expansion, with more than 100 gas and coal projects in development. And one of the first acts of the newly elected Albanese government was to approve Woodside's enormous North West Shelf gas export extension. So far, not so different from the "gas-led recovery" Coalition government on climate. Emissions from gas export projects operating in Western Australia are making WA, Australia and the rest of the world hotter, and disasters like fires and floods more frequent and extreme. Emissions from these exports are already greater than 153 individual countries, and greater than all of Australia's coal power stations combined. Australia Institute research shows Woodside's North West Shelf gas export project has caused WA gas and electricity prices to triple since it was granted access to domestic gas in 2020, and the extension will see around $215 billion worth of gas given away royalty-free. No gas exporter has ever paid petroleum resource rent tax, and most pay zero royalties. Gas exporters have made $100 billion in windfall profits exporting Australian gas since Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Australians have seen little benefit from these windfall profits, something the Treasurer could fix as part of upcoming tax reforms. It's clear that fossil fuel lobbyists are some of the most effective operators on Earth, and banning them from COP31 would strengthen Australia's bid to host COP. There's no doubt that hosting COP31 would be a big deal for the Albanese Labor government. But only keeping fossil fuels in the ground will make COP31 a big deal for the planet.
New Indian Express
2 days ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Global plastic treaty negotiations: What's at stake in Geneva
What to expect INC-5.2 is the longest session yet. A 10 full negotiating days, organised into four contact groups clustered around contentious articles (production, chemicals, finance, and governance), with a legal drafting group charged with cleaning the text for final plenary adoption on August 14. Delegates will also hammer out the roadmap to the DipCon and sketch the work programme leading up to the first COP — guidance that countries will need to translate treaty obligations into national law once the agreement enters into force. More than 70 ministers are expected to arrive mid-session to close political gaps, but unresolved Rules of Procedure — including how to settle disputes if consensus collapses — could yet derail the finish. Imbalance in negotiations, threats Industry participation has surged across recent sessions; in Busan alone, more than 220 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists registered — outnumbering scientists by three to one and Indigenous representatives by almost nine to one. In fact, on July 8, Richard Thompson, a marine biologist from the University of Plymouth who has been working on plastic pollution for 30 years and co-coordinator of the Scientists' Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty, expressed deep concern during the UK Parliament's Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee hearing about scientists facing threats in the context of the UN plastics treaty negotiations. He stated: 'Scientists I work with have been threatened on UN premises as part of these negotiations… threats to scientists are not a new issue. It has happened through many of these negotiations.' When asked to elaborate, he confirmed these were verbal threats from industry representatives, and that those responsible were ejected from the UN premises. Thompson said there was an imbalance in the negotiation process, where industry actors are well-funded and well-represented, while scientists are often self-funded observers with limited voice and protection. He added that almost what he would consider a fundamental right to science and to access science was being denied. Later, he shared that even in peer-reviewed publications, he had personally received legal threats from companies for naming specific products or findings. He acknowledged that these threats could discourage younger scientists from participating or speaking out. This testimony was a powerful call for the establishment of an independent, protected scientific evidence mechanism, as mandated by UNEA 5/14, to ensure fair and safe participation for scientists in treaty processes. Amy Youngman, legal and policy specialist at Environmental Investigation Agency, said: "When fossil fuel and chemical lobbyists outnumber not just scientists, but most national delegations, you have to ask: who is this treaty really being written for? In Busan, over 220 lobbyists had seats in the room, which is more than any other delegation and more than most low-income country delegations combined. That's not participation, it's capture. These are the very actors driving the plastics crisis, and they're not just shaping access, they're shaping the tone of negotiations and even influencing national positions, all while slowing ambition. Unless there's a course correction in Geneva, the treaty risks being forged under the shadow of the very industries it's meant to hold to account."
CNBC
2 days ago
- Business
- CNBC
Cramer's Lightning Round: Cameco is 'a winner'
ConocoPhillips: "Buy should be in ConocoPhillips." Advanced Micro Devices: "I don't know, but it's going in the right direction." Cameco: "I like CCJ...I just think that this is a winner." Click here to download Jim Cramer's Guide to Investing at no cost to help you build long-term wealth and invest
DW
3 days ago
- Politics
- DW
Keeping climate relevant in a noisy world – DW – 07/17/2025
Charged with presiding over this year's international climate summit, Andre Correa do Lago says action to prevent the planet heating even further is critical. Even when the world is distracted by war and politics. Appointing someone to head the UN's annual climate talks can spark outrage among climate campaigners. But that seemed to be less of an issue this year when Brazilian veteran diplomat Andre Correa do Lago was handed the role. With more than two decades of experience working in sustainability, he is widely seen as a logical pick for the November talks to be held in the Amazon. But regardless of his expertise at the negotiating table, he says conflict, trade wars and a political shift to the right are all making climate diplomacy more challenging. "It is a complex context," he explained, speaking exclusively to DW on the sidelines of the recent interim climate conference in Bonn. "But all presidents of COPs say that their COP is happening at a very special and difficult moment." An important issue for him is making sure the issue of climate change remains relevant. Particularly given that there are so many other things going on "that affect people's lives more directly, that affect politicians more directly, and that affect the economy more directly." Indeed, Russia's war in Ukraine, conflict in the Middle East, and US-imposed trade tariffs have increasingly dominated headlines and political agendas. But that does not mean temperature rise is slowing. "Unfortunately, we are having wars, we're having very serious things happening, but in spite of that, climate change is progressing, and climate change is a bigger and bigger threat," he said. That threat has many different faces. Already this year heatwaves, intensified by climate change, have led to more than a thousand deaths in Europe, fueled wildfires in the US, Canada, Turkey and South Korea and worsened flooding in Argentina, parts of Africa, and most recently in Texas. There is pressure is on the Brazilian presidency under Correa do Lago to drive significant progress in this year's summit — which comes a decade after the inception of the Paris Agreement. Seen at the time as a big step towards tackling the climate crisis, the accord obliges governments to take action on reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing the planet to heat up. But with months to go until the summit kicks off in the Brazilian city of Belem, the country itself has come under scrutiny. It is selling off oil exploration rights — including at 19 sites around the mouth of the Amazon River. Critics say this raises questions around Brazil's own commitment to transitioning away from fossil fuels. But Correa do Lago is pragmatic on the issue, saying that it is up to each country to determine its path away from coal, oil and gas. "Brazil is quite convinced that we can use some of the wealth that the oil brings to us to accelerate the transition," he said. "We don't have the perfect answer, but we have a very fair debate in the country about what we do with the oil that we may have." That thinking, however, is not in line with a roadmap published by the autonomous intergovernmental International Energy Agency. Back in 2021, the IEA said that there could be no new commitments for oil and gas fields if the world was stay below the 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) warming threshold agreed at the 2015 Paris talks. But June 2024 was the twelfth consecutive month measuring global surface temperatures of at least 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial conditions. That does not mean the target has been breached, but many scientists predict it will happen in the next few years. This would lead to more extreme heat, devastating droughts and more intense storms. Still, Correa do Lago says the 1.5 limit remains a possibility, even if it means first overshooting the goal and using technology to bring the temperature back down. But, he said, it will need "everybody on board doing the right thing". Something that currently seems unlikely. While the US is among the 195 signatories to the Paris Agreement, when President Donald Trump took office in January, he announced his plans to withdraw his country from the accord. Correa do Lago sees the departure of the world's second biggest emitter as a setback for the climate agenda. "The US quitting is something that really complicates many things from a political point of view." But he welcomed the fact that some US states, cities and businesses remain committed to the international accord. "When we think that the US has left the Paris Accord, it's the US central government," Correa do Lago added. "There are some evaluations that believe that more than 35 states in the US will continue to follow the Paris Accord and will continue to have their state laws [...] this would correspond to almost 70% of the US economy." Correa do Lago sees widespread resistance to necessary economic changes in countries across the world, but believes it is shortsighted to decouple the economy from climate action. Describing himself as "an optimist," he said there is already evidence that taking action against runaway temperature rise "can bring economic growth, can bring more jobs." Nonetheless, it is "not yet very well incorporated into full policies of governments." He would like to see climate integrated into economics, finance and other sectors, adding that taking a step towards a less siloed approach would be a focus for the next climate summit. "This is one of our main objectives – to translate how this [COP] process has generated enough information, enough progress, to be able to think of a new economy in which you can mainstream climate change."
Business Insider
3 days ago
- Business
- Business Insider
Geopolitical Turmoil Spurs ConocoPhillips Stock (COP) Bulls
While upstream hydrocarbon giant ConocoPhillips (COP) represents a vital cog within the U.S. energy ecosystem, its underlying oil and gas exploration and production business has been gradually losing market favor in light of clean and renewable solutions. Since the start of this year, COP stock has declined by 5%, while over the past 52 weeks, it has fallen approximately 18%. Elevate Your Investing Strategy: Take advantage of TipRanks Premium at 50% off! Unlock powerful investing tools, advanced data, and expert analyst insights to help you invest with confidence. Make smarter investment decisions with TipRanks' Smart Investor Picks, delivered to your inbox every week. Nevertheless, some changes could be in store. Since early June, COP stock has been steadily moving northward. Naturally, the upward trend can be linked to escalating tensions in the Middle East, which have raised serious concerns about the stability of global oil supply chains. However, ConocoPhillips has also benefited from a much more productive catalyst — strong support from President Donald Trump. Throughout the campaign trail, Trump has repeatedly championed the hydrocarbon industry, particularly oil and gas. Therefore, when he signed the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act,' the move came as no surprise to anyone paying even remote attention to American politics. Essentially, the new law rolls back much of the environmentally forward policies of the Biden and Obama administrations. Cynically, the paradigm-shifting decision should help boost ConocoPhillips' relevance. Given that Trump will be in power for the next three years, long-term investors, including myself, have a justification for being Bullish on COP stock. Importantly, taking advantage of the current price action will require the use of COP stock options and a slightly unconventional approach to ascertaining the probability of near-term prices. Laying the Foundation of Applied Game Theory While it's important to understand the color and context of an investment prospect, for options traders, such narratives don't address the two key components necessary for an adequate thesis: magnitude projection (y-axis) and time frame (x-axis). Since all options eventually expire, it's not enough to be directionally confident; there must also be temporal integration. Let's be practical: most market participants turn to financial publications not simply for general interest, but to gain clear, actionable insights—specifically, identifying promising opportunities and understanding the appropriate timing to act on them. Effectively addressing both elements often goes beyond traditional fundamental or technical analysis. In my view, this is where applied game theory becomes valuable, offering a structured, evidence-based framework to help determine not just what decisions to make, but when to make them. However, one metric that creates confusion is the share price. As a continuous signal, the share price of any security is unbounded, meaning that it can theoretically go anywhere (with the apparent exception of negative prices). Such kinesis presents significant challenges for comparative studies, rendering statistical analysis extremely difficult, if not impossible. A more forward-thinking approach involves compressing price discovery into market breadth, specifically, tracking sequences of accumulation and distribution sessions. Market breadth addresses the fundamental question: By the end of the day, was the market a net buyer or a net seller? By distilling data down to its core drivers, we can more effectively spot recurring patterns and the key moments when they begin to shift. Putting Theory into Practice with COP Stock Utilizing the above methodology for COP stock across 10-week intervals gives us the following demand profile: In the trailing two months, COP stock has printed a 4-6-U sequence: four up weeks, six down weeks, with a positive trajectory across the 10-week period. It's a rare sequence, having only materialized nine times since January 2019. Much of its unusual nature centers on the balance of distributive sessions being greater than accumulative, yet the overall trajectory is positive. What's really intriguing, though, is that in six cases of the 4-6-U flashing, the following week's price action resulted in upside, with a median return of 4.71%. During the three times that COP stock fell, the median loss was 3.37%. Armed with a higher probability of success and a greater performance magnitude, options traders are theoretically incentivized to consider bidding on this particular hand. Formalizing COP's Market Sequences It's worth pointing out that if the market were truly random, analyzing the above demand sequences wouldn't matter: the probabilities should coalesce around 50%. Yet that's not what's happening at all. Some hands — if we want to use gambling terms — clearly favor the bettor over others. My thesis, then, is that the 4-6-U sequence is an intriguing idea to consider given that its chance of upside is nearly 67%. In contrast, the baseline probability (for a one-week-long position) is only 52.05% — that's game theory in action. With this in mind, aggressive traders may want to consider the 95/97 bull call spread expiring on August 1st. This transaction involves buying the $95 call and simultaneously selling the $97 call, for a net debit paid of $97 (the maximum possible loss). Should COP stock rise through the short strike price of $97 at expiration, the maximum reward is $103, a payout of over 106%. Is ConocoPhillips a Buy, Sell, or Hold? Turning to Wall Street, COP stock carries a Strong Buy consensus rating based on 15 Buys, two Holds, and zero Sell ratings over the past three months. The average COP stock price target is $114.71, implying almost 24% upside potential over the coming year. Betting on COP Stock's Potential Rise the Smart Way While energy investors may appreciate the Trump administration's support of ConocoPhillips and the broader hydrocarbon ecosystem, this narrative alone doesn't really provide actionable insights for options traders, who require a multi-dimensional working thesis. To address this dilemma, we can apply the principles of game theory, identifying patterns and probabilistic projections for a more innovative near-term Bullish approach.
