據(jù)彭博社6月15日?qǐng)?bào)道，大型石油公司面臨的壓力越來(lái)越大，迫使許多公司承諾減少其主要化石燃料的開(kāi)采。他們還警告稱，最終結(jié)果可能并不是全球排放量的減少。

　　殼牌首席執(zhí)行官范伯登(Ben van Beurden)表示：“假設(shè)殼牌今天決定停止銷售汽油和柴油，這肯定會(huì)減少殼牌的碳排放，但這絲毫無(wú)助于世界碳排放的減少。對(duì)燃料的需求不會(huì)改變，人們將在其他服務(wù)站給他們的汽車和送貨卡車加油?！?/p>

　　這不是一個(gè)新的論點(diǎn)。從歷史上看，石油需求只會(huì)增加。長(zhǎng)期以來(lái)，石油行業(yè)一直用這一趨勢(shì)來(lái)解釋，為什么在向清潔能源轉(zhuǎn)型的過(guò)程中需要繼續(xù)供應(yīng)石油。

　　真正的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)在于，殼牌等國(guó)際石油巨頭將市場(chǎng)份額拱手讓給了國(guó)有石油公司，這些公司在排放報(bào)告方面不那么透明，對(duì)私人投資者的責(zé)任也不那么大。但這一次可能會(huì)有所不同，因?yàn)樵絹?lái)越多的人相信，石油需求峰值可能即將到來(lái)。

　　商業(yè)環(huán)境也有利于減排。公用事業(yè)公司和汽車制造商已經(jīng)受益于可再生電力成本和鋰電池成本的持續(xù)下降。股東們（?？松梨诠揪屯镀边x出了三位有環(huán)保意識(shí)的董事）以及法院（命令殼牌在十年內(nèi)減排45%）都認(rèn)為，石油和天然氣公司需要整頓自己的行為，以提高盈利能力，幫助世界實(shí)現(xiàn)氣候目標(biāo)。

　　這就是為什么石油公司把他們的論點(diǎn)更進(jìn)一步向清潔的未來(lái)推進(jìn)。范伯登表示：“我們需要與社會(huì)、政府和我們的客戶一起努力，實(shí)現(xiàn)全球能源系統(tǒng)真正有意義的改變。這種變化必須解決對(duì)碳基能源的需求，而不僅僅是它的供應(yīng)。”

　　那么，石油公司該如何減少對(duì)石油的需求呢?他們至少有三個(gè)杠桿，即投資清潔技術(shù)，進(jìn)入清潔能源行業(yè)，游說(shuō)氣候政策。

　　普華永道(PwC)表示，作為收入的一部分，能源行業(yè)在研發(fā)方面的投入是最少的。國(guó)際能源署(IEA)的數(shù)據(jù)顯示，令人擔(dān)憂的是，就連政府在能源研發(fā)方面的支出也沒(méi)有大幅增加。要知道，為加速創(chuàng)新提供資金，可以加速能源轉(zhuǎn)型。

　　石油公司還可以投資清潔能源業(yè)務(wù)，如可再生發(fā)電和配電、電動(dòng)汽車充電、可持續(xù)航空燃料、低碳?xì)浜吞疾东@和封存等。

　　這不是一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單的轉(zhuǎn)變。以電動(dòng)汽車行業(yè)為例。理想情況下，石油公司希望通過(guò)為電動(dòng)汽車提供動(dòng)力來(lái)彌補(bǔ)向內(nèi)燃機(jī)汽車消耗汽油造成的收入損失。但據(jù)彭博社估計(jì)，快速充電網(wǎng)絡(luò)可能只占電動(dòng)汽車所需能源的不到一半。此外，由于電動(dòng)汽車非常高效，它們行駛相同里程所需的能量汽車不到一半。據(jù)估計(jì)，電力的利潤(rùn)率通常比燃料的利潤(rùn)率要小。這意味著石油公司很可能最終會(huì)減少每輛電動(dòng)汽車的能源供應(yīng)，并在供應(yīng)的能源中獲得較低的利潤(rùn)。

　　這些數(shù)據(jù)可能令人沮喪，但也不全是壞事。較早進(jìn)入電動(dòng)汽車充電領(lǐng)域的石油公司最終將獲得比為汽車提供燃料更大的市場(chǎng)份額。同樣也適用于可再生電力和可持續(xù)航空燃料。可再生電力可以替代天然氣發(fā)電廠，可持續(xù)航空燃料可以替代傳統(tǒng)燃料。

　　重要的是，低碳?xì)浜吞疾东@技術(shù)提供了新的收入來(lái)源。一家用氫氣替代煤炭的鋼鐵制造商是一家石油公司的潛在客戶，需要幫助運(yùn)輸和掩埋二氧化碳的融合性產(chǎn)業(yè)鏈處理公司也是一個(gè)商機(jī)。然而，這些行業(yè)剛剛起步，甚至還不存在，石油公司將不得不利用他們的游說(shuō)能力來(lái)推動(dòng)創(chuàng)造這些業(yè)務(wù)的政策。

　　投資者維權(quán)組織Follow This的創(chuàng)始人馬克·范·巴爾(Mark van Baal)表示：“大型石油公司的發(fā)展歷程表明，它們能夠成功地游說(shuō)政府減緩減排法規(guī)。不難想象，他們會(huì)采取相反的角度，即讓人們不想要化石燃料。人們需要能源，而且越來(lái)越需要清潔能源?！?/p>

　　王佳晶 摘譯自 彭博社

　　原文如下：

　　What Oil Companies Can Do to Cut the Demand for Oil

　　Increasing pressure on major oil companies has forced many to make promises to reduce the extraction of their main fossil fuel. They also warn that the result may not be a reduction in global emissions.

　　“Imagine Shell decided to stop selling petrol and diesel today. This would certainly cut Shell’s carbon emissions,” Chief Executive Officer Ben van Beurden wrote on linkedIn last week. “But it would not help the world one bit. Demand for fuel would not change. People will fill up their cars and delivery trucks at other service stations.”

　　It’s not a new argument. Historically, oil demand has only gone up. It’s a trend that the industry has long used to explain why it needs to keep supplying oil even as it transitions to clean energy.

　　There’s a real risk that the market share ceded by international oil giants such as Shell goes to national oil companies, which are less transparent in reporting emissions and less accountable to private investors. But this time might be different, with a growing number of people convinced that peak oil demand may be in sight.

　　T he business environment also is conducive for cutting emissions. Utilities and automakers are benefiting already from a sustained decline in renewable electricity costs and lithium-ion batteries. Shareholders, like the ones that voted in three climate-minded directors at Exxon Mobil Corp., and courts, like the Dutch one that ordered Royal Dutch Shell Plc to cut emissions 45% this decade, are taking the view that oil and gas companies need to clean up their act to improve profitability and help the world meet climate goals.

　　That’s why oil companies are taking their argument one step further. “We need to work together, with society, governments and our customers to achieve real, meaningful change in the worldwide energy system,” van Beurden wrote. “And this change must address the demand for carbon-based energy, not just its supply.”

　　So what can an oil company do to reduce the demand for oil? They have at least three levers: invest in clean technologies, move into clean-energy businesses and lobby for climate policies.

　　As a share of revenues, the energy industry spends some of the least money on research and development, according to PwC. What’s worrying is that even government spending on energy R&D has not increased substantially, International Energy Agency data shows. Providing funds to speed up innovation could accelerate the energy transition.

　　Oil companies also can invest in clean-energy businesses, such as renewable electricity generation and distribution, electric-vehicle charging, sustainable aviation fuels, low-carbon hydrogen and carbon capture and storage.

　　It’s not a straightforward switch. Take the explosion of electric vehicles, for example. Oil companies ideally would like to make up for the revenue lost from selling gasoline to internal-combustion engine cars by powering EVs instead. The trouble is that fast-charging networks are likely to be responsible for less than half the energy EVs need, according to BloombergNEF’s estimates. Also, because EVs are highly efficient, they need less than half the energy to travel the same number of miles as an ICE car. And the profit margins on electricity are typically smaller than those on fuels, according to BNEF’s Ryan Fisher. That means oil companies are likely to end up supplying less energy per EV and make lower profits on the energy they do supply.

　　The math may be discouraging, but it’s not all bad. Oil companies that get into EV charging early could end up enjoying a larger share of the market than they did serving fuel to ICE cars. Similar calculations can be made for renewable electricity, which can replace gas power plants, and sustainable aviation fuels, which replace conventional fuels.

　　Crucially, technologies such as low-carbon hydrogen and carbon capture offer new streams of revenue. A steelmaker replacing coal with hydrogen is a potential customer for an oil company. A cement company needing help to transport and bury carbon dioxide is a business opportunity. Yet these industries are nascent or don’t exist yet. That’s where oil companies will have to use their lobbying power to push for policies that will create those businesses, said BNEF’s David Doherty.

　　The history of major oil companies has shown that they can successfully lobby governments to slow down regulations to cut emissions. It’s not hard to imagine they could do the opposite, says Mark van Baal, who founded the activist-investor group Follow This. “People don’t want fossil fuels,” he said. “People want energy, and increasingly clean energy.”

免責(zé)聲明：本網(wǎng)轉(zhuǎn)載自其它媒體的文章，目的在于弘揚(yáng)石化精神，傳遞更多石化信息，并不代表本網(wǎng)贊同其觀點(diǎn)和對(duì)其真實(shí)性負(fù)責(zé)，在此我們謹(jǐn)向原作者和原媒體致以敬意。如果您認(rèn)為本站文章侵犯了您的版權(quán)，請(qǐng)與我們聯(lián)系，我們將第一時(shí)間刪除。