Social Channels


Additional Options

Date Range

Receive a Daily or Weekly summary of the most important articles direct to your inbox, just enter your email below:

Credit: dabldy iStock / Getty Images Plus
25 April 2017 5:01

Cut fossil fuel use ‘dramatically’ to meet climate goals, says Shell-backed report

Simon Evans

Simon Evans

Simon Evans

Simon Evans

25.04.2017 | 5:01am
Oil and gasCut fossil fuel use ‘dramatically’ to meet climate goals, says Shell-backed report

The use of fossil fuel, particularly coal and oil, must decline “sharply” if the world is to meet the goals of the Paris accord, according to a new report backed by energy giants Shell and BHP Billiton.

Global coal use must be cut by 70% within 25 years, oil use must fall 30% and gas can increase by only 2% out to 2040. The growing global population will instead get its energy from a huge expansion of renewables, combined with more efficient energy use and other low-carbon technologies.

Those are the conclusions of the Energy Transitions Commission, a group set up in 2013 by a cross-section of major firms, NGOs and academics. Its conclusions broadly align with other pathways for 2C and below, but the commission’s membership adds an interesting twist to the findings.

Paris pathway

The commission’s report sets out a pathway to keeping temperatures well-below 2C above pre-industrial temperatures, in line with the less ambitious end of the Paris Agreement on climate change. It says this path is hugely challenging, but that it is “technically and economically possible”, and that it would bring “important additional social benefits…and economic opportunities”.

The key elements of this pathway include wind and solar supplying 45% of the world’s power by 2040, with a further 35% coming from other zero-carbon sources, including nuclear and hydro.

It adds that “near-total-variable-renewable power system” of close to 100% renewable will be possible in many countries by 2035. For example, it says “up to 98% [variable renewable power would be possible] in countries like Germany”.

This near-100% renewable system would cost $70 per megawatt hour (MWh), the report says, allowing renewables to be “fully cost-competitive with fossil fuels, allowing for all necessary flexibility and back-up costs”.

It includes a $30/MWh system cost to provide backup for variable renewables and the flexibility to accommodate their use. It says this cost is “likely to be conservative…[and] could be significantly reduced,” if demand management and grid integration is improved.

The falling costs of renewables means that increasing shares of overall energy use could be decarbonised through electrification, the report says. Around 10-20% of fossil fuel use could be eliminated in this way, using electric vehicles and heating.

Across the global economy, a “step change in energy productivity” is required, with improvements in the amount of energy needed to generate wealth rising from 1.7% per year to 3%. To achieve this “energy productivity revolution”, more efficient devices and vehicles will have to be combined with deeper structural change, such as more efficient urban design.

Global energy-related CO2 emissions would fall, under these conditions, from 37bn tonnes today to just 20bn tonnes in 2040. After that, the commission adds, they would fall to net-zero later this century.

Fossil fuel investment

The net result of all these shifts is that fossil-fuel investment needs would be cut “dramatically” by $175bn per year below business-as-usual levels, with low-carbon investment increased by $300bn/yr and investment in buildings and efficiency rising $900bn/yr.

Investment in fossil-fuel extraction would fall a third, from $12.5tn to $8.8tn per year in 2030, and in new fossil power plants by two-thirds, from $3tn to $1tn. Fossil-fuel use would fall by 30-50% by 2040, depending on the availability of carbon capture and storage (CCS).

For coal, there must be an immediate decline in global use and a phaseout as soon as possible in rich nations, to achieve an overall 70% cut by 2040. Oil use should peak in the 2020s and fall 30% by 2040. Only gas use would increase, by a tiny 2% over the next 25 years.

Source: Energy Transitions Commission

CCS is often portrayed as a way to increase the lifetime of fossil-fuel assets, particularly coal-fired power. While CCS has a significant role in the commission’s pathway, however, it is primarily used to tackle industrial emissions rather than for coal- or gas-fired power stations.

Commission context

The broad outlines of the the Energy Transition Commission’s pathway is familiar, even as some of the details are different. Here, coal use would fall by 70% in 2040. In the International Energy Agency’s 2C scenario, it is 50%. Both see oil use decline to 2040, with only small increases in gas.

Like a recent roadmap for meeting the Paris goals drawn up by scientists, the commission’s proposals are also hugely challenging. Nevertheless, the commission’s report says:

Despite the scale of the challenge, the Energy Transitions Commission is confident that this transition is technically and economically possible, and that it would deliver important additional social benefits – with, for instance, dramatically improved local air quality leading to longer and healthier lives – and economic opportunities – related to the development of new industries and business models.

What the report does not explain is how these “technically and economically possible” changes will be brought about. For example, it advocates a global carbon price starting at $50 per tonne in the 2020s and rising to $100 in the 2030s, to pick just one of many politically challenging aims.

The commission’s report “makes no effort to set its findings in a real-world context, where the main problems are the politics of transition not the economics or technology,” Tom Burke, chair of thinktank E3G, tells Carbon Brief. He says:

The real problem is not modelling a technological and economic pathway to 2C. There are lots of different ways to do that…But unless you say how you think you can solve the political problems of doing that, it’s just an interesting academic exercise. This would have been really groundbreaking if it had come out before Paris, two, three years ago. Now, it’s pretty much par for the course.

What it does do, which is useful and positive, is it sets the bar for where the conventional wisdom is, amongst people who actually understand something about the energy problem…The people who are not getting that message are the politicians. People who know the energy business won’t argue with this. The people who will argue with this are politicians, who just don’t understand the level of change that’s going on.

In this context, the commission’s mainstream membership is instructive. It is backed by a group of 28 “commissioners”, including representatives of investment firm BlackRock, mining giant BHP Billiton, HSBC bank, oil major Shell and the utility firm General Electric.

Shell, for one, has long struggled to produce pathways compatible with a 2C world. Even if this report falls short of a comprehensive recipe for reaching that goal, it still represents something of a progression.

In short, some of the world’s largest energy firms now agree that it is not only technically and economically possible, but also offers economic opportunities to move move towards a low-carbon future.

It’s worth noting, in conclusion, that the commission members do not necessarily agree with every detail of the report:

This report constitutes a collective view of the Energy Transitions Commission. Members of the Energy Transitions Commission endorse the general thrust of the arguments made in this report, but should not be taken as agreeing with every finding or recommendation. The institutions with which the Commissioners are affiliated have not been asked to formally endorse the report.

Note: Laurence Tubiana, chief executive of the European Climate Foundation (ECF), is a member of the Energy Transitions Commission. Carbon Brief is funded by ECF.

Sharelines from this story
  • Cut fossil fuel use 'dramatically' to meet climate goals, says Shell-backed report
  • Andrew Warren

    This report stresses ( top of page 4) that achieving the objective requires rapid progress on two specific fronts: secondly, via a 1% annual growth in market share for zero carbon energy sources, but firstly by a near doubling of annual improvements in energy productivity/intensity.
    I had a small bet with myself that ,as ever, Carbon Brief would concentrate upon the second recommendation, and almost entirely ignore the first.
    And, guess what, I won my bet!

    • Simon Evans

      Hi Andrew, I can understand your frustration – our coverage was hardly unusual in its focus on the supply side vs demand side, which most of the papers also went with. I suppose it’s partly our failing too, but the report’s conclusions on low-carbon energy and the fossil fuel transition just grabbed my attention more than the bits on energy efficiency. Do please keep reminding us of how important efficiency is, and we will try to give it more space and coverage…

      • Andrew Warren

        Whilst I do appreciate your ready Mea Culpa, Simon, it would be very nice if I didn’t have to keep on having to remind you ( and most other journalists) that the single biggest contribution to a low carbon future has long been to ensure we make far greater efforts to minimise the amount of energy of all types that we use.

        • InsightWind

          Andrew, at FORESIGHT Climate & Energy Business Denmark we’re planning a deep dive into efficiency in the next issue. If you’re familiar with FORESIGHT you’ll also know that when we say “deep” we mean it (we just did electricity market design fit for a renewable energy future). See

  • Global coal use must be cut by 70% within 25 years, oil use must fall 30% and gas can increase by only 2% out to 2040.

    I disagree. We should aim to cut by 100% the use of all fossil fuels as soon as is practical and I don’t need 25 years.

    depending on the availability of carbon capture and storage (CCS).

    Captured carbon dioxide cannot be stored in any way which is enforceable, but that’s not the intention. CCS is, in my opinion, a fossil fuel industry distraction scam, to deflect attention from their business as usual intentions.

    I’ve no confidence in this so-called “Energy Transitions Commission” and I present my alternative vision of a 100% renewable energy transition.

    Take South America as an inspirational example.

    Taking Brazil and Paraguay’s 14GW Itaipu Dam hydroelectric project as a wee taste of things to come, South America still has an extraordinary almost completely undeveloped potential for renewable energy!

    Solar from the Atacama Desert
    Wind from Patagonia
    Pumped-hydro storage from Lake Titicaca
    The Amazon for hydroelectric and biomass

    South America could go into business exporting vast quantities of renewable energy to world markets, as synthetic fuels, as the Gulf countries export fossil fuels now.

    So there’s not going to be any good excuse for anyone in 2040 still burning fossil fuel. Our ambition should be no less than 100% renewable energy.

    with low-carbon investment increased by $300bn/yr and investment in buildings and efficiency rising $900bn/yr.

    OK. Alright.

    That’s the necessary scale of investment budgets that countries can provide with borrowing from their central banks to implement our scientifically-sound plans to transition the world to 100% renewable energy.

    I’m still offering to serve as governor of a new public sector British Green Investment Bank capitalised by the UK Treasury and Bank of England with an public investment stream of, I suggest, £100 billion a year, which should be a key part of any British government’s industry strategy.

    Scottish Scientist
    Independent Scientific Adviser for Scotland
    * Double Tidal Lagoon Baseload Scheme
    * Off-Shore Electricity from Wind, Solar and Hydrogen Power
    * World’s biggest-ever pumped-storage hydro-scheme, for Scotland?
    * Modelling of wind and pumped-storage power
    * Scotland Electricity Generation – my plan for 2020

  • Joris75

    “It’s worth noting, in conclusion, that the commission members do not necessarily agree with every detail of the report”

    Is there more on the specific nature of these disagreements? I would say that such disagreements are where the key insights on the challenges of the energy transition are to be found. I’ve looked at the report but found no listing of these disagreements.

Related Articles


Expert analysis directly to your inbox.

Get a Daily or Weekly round-up of all the important articles and papers selected by Carbon Brief by email.


Expert analysis directly to your inbox.

Get a Daily or Weekly round-up of all the important articles and papers selected by Carbon Brief by email.