Modest Modernization or Massive Setback?
An analysis of the Energy Charter Treaty agreement in principle
-
Reforms to the Energy Charter Treaty are too modest, too piecemeal, and too untested to transform the Treaty into an instrument that is compatible with the global climate agenda and states’ energy transition goals.
-
In the EU and UK, existing fossil fuel investments will continue to enjoy ECT protection for at least 10 more years—a length of time at odds with current knowledge on the speed of fossil fuel phase-out required to limit global warming to 1.5°C.
-
Existing and new fossil fuel investments could continue to be covered indefinitely in almost all ECT parties other than the UK and EU.
The paper explains both the changes outlined in the Communication and identifies key areas where no change has been indicated, with a view to examining how the revised ECT text will impact the critical objective of limiting global warming to 1.5°C.
The analysis concludes that, while the changes address some of the problems inherent in old generation investment treaties, the reforms are too modest, too piecemeal, and too untested to transform the ECT into an instrument that is compatible with the global climate agenda and states’ energy transition goals.
You might also be interested in
Oil Companies Are Suing to Block Climate Action – With 72% Success
Fossil fuel investors are adopting a bold new legal tactic in response to efforts to limit global warming: they are going to private international tribunals to argue that climate change policies are illegally cutting into their profits and they must therefore be compensated. Now governments are scrambling to figure out how to not get sued for billions when enacting climate policies.
Governments' Climate Laws Could Spur $340B In ISDS Claims
As governments consider how and when to enact legislation or mitigation measures meant to address climate change, a study shows there is a pricey cause for concern as fossil fuel companies could bring legal claims worth billions of dollars against them in order to protect their assets.
The fossil fuel industry has a trillion-dollar secret weapon to kneecap climate action
On his first day in office, President Joe Biden revoked the permit for the controversial Keystone XL Pipeline, which would have brought exceptionally dirty oil south from Canada across the Plains. The project’s owner, Calgary-based TC Energy, saw billions in future profits go up in smoke. So it turned to an arcane but potentially explosive tool to try to recoup the loss, filing a claim under the now-defunct North American Free Trade Agreement. The company is seeking $15 billion.
Investor-state disputes threaten the global green energy transition
To limit global warming to below 1.5°C, governments will have to simultaneously curb demand for fossil fuels and limit supply. However, efforts to limit supply will affect asset holders, particularly in the upstream (exploration and production) and midstream (transportation and storage) portions of the supply chain.