Six #pétroliers demandent un prix « ambitieux » du #carbone
▻http://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-services/energie-environnement/021104229758-six-petroliers-demandent-un-prix-ambitieux-du-carbone-1124223.
« Les pétroliers préfèrent un prix du CO2 qui répartisse la contrainte en la faisant d’abord peser sur les centrales au charbon plutôt qu’une approche qui durcirait les normes d’émissions sur ses principaux clients que sont les constructeurs automobiles », analyse Emmanuel Fages, consultant chez Roland Berger. « Aujourd’hui, tout le monde demande un prix du carbone. Les pétroliers ont tout intérêt à se montrer pro-actifs et ils ne prennent pas un grand risque, parce que toutes les tentatives récentes ont échoué ou se sont traduites par des conséquences peu contraignantes, les Etats redoutant l’impact sur l’emploi ou la compétitivité », estime aussi un expert.
Sans fixer de prix – « parce que nous ne sommes pas seuls » –, Patrick Pouyanné a indiqué que ces « mécanismes de tarification doivent être stables, transparents et ambitieux », évaluant tout de même autour de 40 dollars la tonne de CO2 le point d’équilibre entre gaz et charbon pour produire de l’électricité.
Quant à la technologie émergente de capture et stockage du carbone (CCS), elle nécessiterait un prix de 80 à 100 dollars la tonne pour être rentable, a jugé le patron de Total, qui produit déjà autant de gaz que de pétrole et devrait voir la part du premier s’accroître encore ces prochaines années.
Plus précisément encore :
In Stunning Reversal, ‘Big Oil’ Asks for Carbon Price
▻http://www.climatecentral.org/news/oil-companies-carbon-price-19054
The desire for a price on carbon might seem anathema to companies that make much of their billions from extracting oil and gas, two of the main drivers of carbon dioxide emissions that are warming the planet. And make no mistake, the six companies are not talking about getting out of the oil and gas business anytime soon. In fact, a separate letter to the media highlights natural gas as an important bridge fuel.
And despite signing the letter, Shell is also headed back to the Arctic this summer to drill for oil.
But in the big picture, the lack of a price on carbon creates an uncertain environment for companies that tend to plan decades into the future. The sooner a price is set, the quicker companies can adjust their plans for future profitability.
In addition, there’s been growing pressure from shareholders that want more clarity on how oil companies plan to continue making money in a world where carbon emissions need to decline in order to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. The growing power of the divestment movement, which aims to get pension funds and endowments to remove fossil fuel companies from their portfolio, is also posing a growing issue for fossil fuel companies.
“The investors have really woken up in the past 12 months,” Frances Way, co-chief operating officer of programs at CDP, said. “There’s a push to ask that as a responsible investor, should they be supporting oil and gas at this point.”
CDP works with investors and companies interested in planning for the impacts of climate change and how to reduce emissions. For fossil fuel companies, reducing emissions means reimagining what kind of company they are.
“It depends if you see it as a fossil fuel business or an energy business. Can they can diversify and change over time?” Way said. “I feel a number of individuals are trying to get a point of dialogue about the strategy and risk and being more transparent.”
Figueres has said she wants to have fossil fuel companies at the table for climate talks. The letter signals a willingness that they’ll be pulling up a seat as good guests and not party crashers.