G20成员国在油气领域投资巨大

据7月24日今日油价报道，能源政策跟踪机构的最新数据显示，G20成员国在石油、天然气和煤炭方面的支出仍高于在可再生能源方面的支出。自疫情爆发以来，各国政府已承诺在化石燃料领域投资至少1609.5亿美元，在可再生能源领域投资至少1237.5亿美元。这意味着人均石油和天然气投资支出为35.10美元，清洁能源投资支出为26.99美元。

大多数所谓的无条件化石燃料投资都是在石油和天然气领域，这并不令人意外，煤炭投资仅占总额的102亿美元。虽然100亿美元对于污染最严重的化石燃料来说似乎太过昂贵，但G20各国政府还划拨了384.4亿美元用于无条件化可再生能源投资。不过，能源政策追踪机构表示，这一比例在可再生能源总支出中所占比例较小。能源政策跟踪机构称，大部分投资仍是用于所谓的有条件的清洁能源发展领域。

该报告将有条件的清洁能源投资定义为“旨在支持化石燃料转型，但对实施适当的环境保护措施政策不明确”。 例如：大型水电站；轨道公共交通和使用多种能源类型的电动汽车（电动汽车、自行车、滑板车、船只等）。

这意味着20国集团成员正在并计划在交通电气化方面投入更多的资金，而不是增加可再生能源产能，以生产电气化所需的电力。另一方面，组成20国集团的19个国家和欧盟计划将大部分化石燃料资金用于无条件的石油和天然气投资领域，这意味着将对油气的生产和消费进行投资，没有任何气候目标或额外的污染减排要求。

在气候变化的背景下，这看起来不太好，但G20各国政府在支出优先顺序上存在明显差异。

欧盟是这方面表现最好的国家之一:本周早些时候，欧盟就一项具有历史意义的危机后经济复苏计划达成一致，该计划以绿色能源为重点。欧盟为其2021-2027年预算(包括疫情恢复基金)批准的21亿美元中，近三分之一的投资费用将用于与气候变化相关的项目，这与欧盟到2050年的净零排放计划一致。按绝对值计算，这相当于用于绿色政策和行动的费用达5720亿美元。

美国似乎是无条件石油和天然气项目投资最大的国家。自危机开始以来，美国的政策承诺大多在这一领域，总计达681.2亿美元，而有条件的项目为269.1亿美元。这一点也不奇怪，因为联邦政府已经把国家的能源安全放在主导地位。

除欧洲和北美以外，G20成员国在化石燃料上的支出超过了其他任何国家，只有巴西例外。巴西承诺发展清洁能源，以及能源政策追踪组织所称的“其他能源”，包括核能、生物质能和生物燃料。

与此同时，石油和天然气行业仍面临着投资者外流的压力。在美国据《华尔街日报》最近的一篇报道显示，美国的一些投资者已经发誓不再投资石油和天然气。在欧洲，梵蒂冈加入了反对化石燃料的阵营，教皇亲自建议天主教徒停止投资石油和天然气。

这种压力与20国集团政府能源政策计划之间的差异表明，保障能源安全仍优先于考虑提供这种安全能源的来源。目前看来，对大多数G20成员国来说，石油和天然气更能提供安全保障。

王佳晶 摘译自 今日油价

原文如下：

World’s Largest Economies Are Still Spending Big On Oil & Gas

Spending on oil and gas, and coal is still higher among members of G20 than spending on renewable energy, a data update from the Energy Policy Tracker has revealed. Across the group, since the start of the pandemic, governments had pledged at least $160.95 billion in fossil fuel investments, versus $123.75 billion in renewable energy investment, the tracker, which updates government spending data on energy every week, said. This translates into $35.10 per capita in oil and gas spending, and $26.99 per capita for cleaner energy spending.

Most of the so-called unconditional fossil fuel investment was on oil and gas, unsurprisingly, with just $10.20 billion of the total allocated for coal. While this may sound like ten billion dollars too much to spend on the most polluting fossil fuel, G20 governments also allocated $38.44 billion on unconditional renewable energy. This was, however, the smaller portion of the total renewable energy spending; the bulk was pledged for so-called clean conditional energy, the Energy Policy Tracker said.

The tracker defines clean conditional policies as those that “are stated to support the transition away from fossil fuels, but unspecific about the implementation of appropriate environmental safeguards. Examples include: large-hydropower; rail public transport and electric vehicles (electric cars, bicycles, scooters, boats etc) using multiple energy types.”

This means that G20 members are spending—and planning to spend more on the electrification of transport than on boosting renewable energy capacity to produce the power required for this electrification drive.

On the other hand, the 19 countries and the European Union that make up G20 plan to spend most of their fossil fuel money on unconditional oil and gas—this means investment in the production and consumption of oil and gas “without any climate targets or additional pollution reduction requirements,” as the tracker puts it.

This doesn’t look too well in the context of the climate change narrative but, of course, there are marked differences in spending priorities among G20 governments.

The European Union is among the best performers here: the bloc earlier this week agreed on a historic post-crisis economic recovery program that heavily features green energy. Of the total $2.1 billion that the EU approved for its 2021-2027 budget—including the Covid-19 recovery fund—almost a third will be spent on climate change-related projects, in line with the EU’s net zero plans for the period to 2050. In absolute terms, this translates into $572 billion on green policies and initiatives.

The United States appears to be the biggest spender on unconditional oil and gas: most of its policy commitments since the start of the crisis are in this area, totalling $68.12 billion, versus $26.91 billion for clean conditional policies. Again, this is hardly a surprise with a federal government that has prioritized the country’s energy security and even dominance.

Outside Europe and North America, G20 members are spending on fossil fuels over anything else with the marked exception of Brazil, which has made commitments on clean energy and what the Energy Policy Tracker calls “other energy”, which includes things like nuclear and polluting biomass and biofuels.

Meanwhile, the pressure against the oil and gas industry continues in the form of an investor outflow. In the U.S., no less, several universities have sworn off oil and gas investments, according to a recent Wall Street Journal report. In Europe, none other than the Vatican joined the anti-fossil fuels crowd with the pope personally advising Catholics to stop investing in oil and gas.

The discrepancy between this pressure and G20 governments’ energy policy plans suggests energy security is still a priority over the source of the energy that provides this security. For now, it seems, for most G20 members, oil and gas are better at providing the security.