‘Big news’ for climate as global insurance giant shifts away from fossil fuels

Otogidemon, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons
30 St Mary Axe. Also known as the Swiss Re building, or Gherkin. Source: Otogidemon, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

The new policy by Swiss Re “is not perfect yet,” said one campaigner, but the world’s second-largest reinsurer “is headed in the right direction.”

By Kenny Stancil, Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

After Swiss Re, the world’s second-largest reinsurer, announced Thursday that it is moving to end coverage for most new oil and gas projects, climate justice campaigners who have long pushed for the insurance industry to shift away from fossil fuels offered cautious praise.

“Swiss Re is one of the world’s ultimate risk managers and the policy which it published today sends a strong message to fossil fuel companies, investors, and governments: oil and gas operations need to be phased out in accordance with climate science or they may become uninsurable by the end of the decade,” Peter Bosshard, global coordinator of Insure Our Future, said in a statement.

According to Reuters:

In its annual sustainability report on Thursday, Swiss Re said it would no longer insure projects that get the go-ahead from their parent company from 2022, unless the company has an independently verified, science-based plan to reach net-zero emissions.

By 2025, Swiss Re said it wanted half of its overall oil and gas premiums to come from companies aligned with such a net-zero by 2050 plan, and by 2030 all its clients in the sector should have done so.

Also, from 2022, the company said it will no longer insure companies or projects with more than 10% of their production in the Arctic, apart from Norwegian producers.

On the issue of treaty reinsurance, whereby it insures bundles of risk in a job lot, Swiss Re said it expected to finalize a policy for the oil and gas sector in 2023.

“By taking steps to stop insuring new oil and gas projects and companies that won’t aim at aligning their activities with climate science by 2030, Swiss Re is headed in the right direction,” said Reclaim Finance director Lucie Pinson.

“The policy is not perfect yet,” she added, “and we encourage its peers to build on it to fully align with a realistic 1.5°C scenario.”

The International Energy Agency (IEA) said last May that there is “no need for investment in new fossil fuel supply” if the world is to achieve a net-zero energy system by 2050 en route to meeting the Paris agreement’s more ambitious global warming target.

Swiss Re, said Pinson, should respond to the IEA’s landmark report by “drawing a red line against fossil fuel expansion and excluding both projects and companies that cross that line well before 2025.”

Sharing a detailed Twitter thread by Bosshard, Oil Change International celebrated Swiss Re’s move. Becoming the first major oil and gas insurer to deny coverage for most new fossil fuel projects is “big news,” said the group.

Arguing that “ending support for oil and gas projects is gaining real momentum,” 350.org also praised Insure Our Future and encouraged its campaigners to “keep up the good work.”

According to Bosshard, Swiss Re’s phase-out commitment represents “a first for the insurance industry” because it “not only applies to the up and midstream sectors, but also to downstream companies (oil refineries, gas utilities, petrochemical plants etc.) without credible net-zero plans.”

However, he continued, “the new policy includes some important gaps and contingencies.”

“It will not cover new production projects which oil companies move forward as part of their ongoing operations,” said Bosshard. “It also exempts Norway from its definition of Arctic oil. The IEA doesn’t make any such exemptions.”

“Most importantly, the policy hinges on the development of a credible oil and gas framework by the Science Based Targets initiative [SBTi], by which oil companies’ net-zero plans will be measured,” he added. “It’s crucial that the SBTi framework reflect the findings” of the IEA and the United Nations.

Swiss Re’s new policy follows similar policies adopted last week by Hannover Re and Mapfre, said Bosshard, who pointed out that “these three companies cover 21% of the global reinsurance market.”

“Now, the Insure Our Future campaign calls on Munich Re, Lloyd’s, and SCOR, which together account for 26% of the global reinsurance market, to make commitments which build on Swiss Re’s approach by the time of their annual general meetings,” said Bosshard.

“We’ll be watching,” he added.

Amazon deforestation hit record high in February—up 62% from 2021

This absurd increase shows the lack of policies to combat deforestation and environmental crimes in the Amazon, driven by the current administration. … The destruction just isn’t stopping.

—Romulo Batista, Greenpeace Brazil

By Jenna McGuire, Common Dreams (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon reached a record high for the month of February, jumping by nearly two-thirds over last February’s level, according to official data released Friday.

Satellite images released by the Brazilian space agency INPE’s DETER monitoring program show 199 square kilometers (77 square miles) of the Amazon rainforest was lost to deforestation last month—the highest rate recorded in February since the agency began keeping records in 2015 and a 62% increase from last year during the same month.

Environmentalists find the data particularly alarming since February is considered the rainy season in the Amazon and generally sees the lowest rates of deforestation throughout the year.

As Indigenous communities and global environmentalists have been sounding the alarm on the imperiled rainforest, deforestation has skyrocketed under Brazil’s right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro. While the Amazon covers land in nine countries, approximately 60% of the forest lies in Brazil, which has reached its highest level of deforestation in more than a decade.

“This absurd increase shows the lack of policies to combat deforestation and environmental crimes in the Amazon, driven by the current administration. The destruction just isn’t stopping,” said Romulo Batista of Greenpeace Brazil in a statement.

Deforestation is predominantly caused by animal agriculture, soy production, logging, mining, and major construction, and has greatly impacted the nearly one million Indigenous people from over 300 tribes who live in the Brazilian Amazon.

“We are going to be eating the rainforest in our burgers,” Holly Gibbs, a land use scientist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, told the Washington Post. “This is our moment as Americans to step forward and leverage some pressure to save the world, by helping to save the Amazon, which is critically important for the future of our planet.”

Research published this week in the journal Nature Climate Change found that the world’s largest rainforest was quickly reaching its “tipping point” and that the Amazon “has been losing resilience since the early 2000s, risking dieback with profound implications for biodiversity, carbon storage, and climate change at a global scale.”

Can wealthy nations stop buying Russian oil?

Illustration from the book Sketches in crude-oil; some accidents and incidents of the petroleum development in all parts of the globe, ... 3rd Edition. Source: McLaurin, John J. (John James), b. 1841, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.
Illustration from the book Sketches in crude-oil; some accidents and incidents of the petroleum development in all parts of the globe, … 3rd Edition. Source: McLaurin, John J. (John James), b. 1841, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

One option the U.S. and other nations have for ratcheting up pressure on Russia in response to its invasion of Ukraine is reducing their Russian energy purchases. U.K. Foreign Minister Liz Truss has proposed that the G7 nations – the U.S., U.K., Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan – impose limits on their Russian oil and gas imports. Global energy policy expert Amy Myers Jaffe explains how this strategy might work and how it could affect international oil markets, which have already been roiled by the conflict.

By Amy Myers Jaffe, The Conversation US, Inc. (CC BY-ND 4.0).

How important is Russia as a global oil supplier?

Russia produces close to 11 million barrels per day of crude oil. It uses roughly half of this output for its own internal demand, which presumably has increased due to higher military fuel requirements, and exports 5 million to 6 million barrels per day. Today Russia is the second-largest crude oil producer in the world, behind the U.S. and ahead of Saudi Arabia, but sometimes that order shifts.

About half of Russia’s exported oil – roughly 2.5 million barrels per day – is shipped to European countries, including Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Finland, Lithuania, Greece, Romania and Bulgaria. Nearly one-third of it arrives in Europe via the Druzhba Pipeline through Belarus. These 700,000 barrels per day in pipeline shipments would be an obvious target for some kind of sanctions, either by banning financial payments or refusing deliveries via spur lines at the Belarus border.

In 2019, European stopped accepting deliveries for several months from the Druzhba line when crude oil flowing through it became contaminated with organic chlorides that could have damaged oil refineries during processing. Russia’s oil shipments fell noticeably as it redirected flows to avoid the Druzhba line.

The remaining export shipments of Russian crude oil to Europe come mainly by ship from various ports.

China is another large buyer: It imports 1.6 million barrels per day of Russian crude oil. Half comes via a special direct pipeline, the Eastern Siberia Pacific Ocean pipeline, which also services other customers via a port at its end point, including Japan and South Korea.

How would Russia be affected if other nations reduce imports of its oil?

Sanctions against Russia’s oil industry would have a greater impact than limiting natural gas flows because Russia’s oil receipts are higher and more critical to its state budget. Russia earned over US$110 billion in 2021 from oil exports, twice as much as its earnings from natural gas sales abroad.

Since oil is a relatively fungible global commodity, much of Russia’s crude exports to Europe and other participating G-7 countries might wind up being sent somewhere else. That would free up other supplies from sources such as Norway and Saudi Arabia to be redirected back to Europe.

Russia’s oil has high sulfur and other impurities, so refining it requires specialized equipment – it can’t be sold just anywhere. But other Asian buyers can take it, including India and Thailand. And Russia has special supply arrangements with countries like Cuba and Venezuela.

It’s already clear, though, that Russia is having trouble redirecting its crude oil sales. At the start of the invasion of Ukraine, European refiners began shunning spot cargoes for fears that sanctions might be forthcoming.

India bought Russian crude cargoes that were already at sea, at a sharp discount. Markets would likely respond to a G-7 oil ceiling by further discounting Russian crude. We saw the same pattern in the past when countries sanctioned Venezuelan and Iranian oil: Those nations still found buyers, but at reduced prices.

Top 10 world oil producers, 2020 Chart: The Conversation, CC BY-ND Source: EIA Get the data
Top 10 world oil producers, 2020 Chart: The Conversation, CC BY-ND Source: EIA Get the data

Can European nations get oil from other sources?

Oil shipments are arguably easier to reroute than natural gas, which has to be super-chilled to liquefy it for ship transport, then converted back to gas at its destination port. That means Russia’s crude oil may potentially be easier for European countries to replace and reroute than its natural gas, which relies more heavily on pipeline delivery, depending on market conditions.

To ensure replacement barrels are available, Europe and the U.S. could simultaneously increase crude oil sales from their national strategic stocks to lessen the blow of any restrictions on Russian crude oil imports to the G-7. The U.S. is already selling 1.3 million barrels per day from its Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and it could increase these flows. China has also released oil from its national strategic stocks to help ease oil prices.

The U.S. and other G-7 members would also likely ask Middle East countries to relax destination restrictions on their crude oil shipments and press countries like China and India to redirect other oils of similar quality to Russian oil back to Europe if and when they increase their purchases from Moscow. Such steps would lower the chances of G-7 restrictions on Russian oil imports raising global prices.

It’s not certain that China and India would cooperate, but it would be in their interests to do so. They are major oil importers and would not want to see higher crude oil prices.

How would global oil prices be affected if G-7 nations buy less Russian oil?

It would depend on what other steps governments take in response to rerouting of Russian oil exports. Nations are already acting to prepare global markets for shifts in liquefied natural gas flows in case of reduced purchases from Russia.

G-7 energy diplomacy is likely to involve other oil capitals that might be willing to export more oil to alleviate disruption of crude oil sales from Russia. Most exporters are maxed out in terms of crude oil production, but a few of the largest Middle East producers could surge their output in the short term to put an extra 1 million barrels per day or more onto the market.

U.S.-Saudi relations could face a test. Riyadh has access to large stores of crude oil in its vast global tank system and its tankers that float at sea. In 2014, when Russia invaded Crimea, U.S. allies in the Persian Gulf held over 70 million barrels in storage near Fujairah in the United Arab Emirates. They did this as a threat to Russia that a price war would ensue if Russian troops moved beyond that peninsula. Russia stayed in Crimea, so the oil was not released.

Saudi Arabia has instituted price wars that hurt Russia’s economy in 19861998, 2009 and again briefly in 2020. But today’s oil market conditions make a price war an unlikely outcome, given the existing tight balance between supply and demand. The only scenario that could trigger a price war now would be if global demand were to contract suddenly because of a recession.

The Conversation