2 bubble”, “unburnable carbon” and “stranded assets” into the financial and environmental lexicon. We would like the Commission to note that neither Andrew nor myself are scientists. Our backgrounds are in company and financial analysis. Slide 3: The Carbon Budget In Carbon Tracker’s first report, ‘Unburnable Carbon, are the World’s Financial Markets Carrying a Carbon Bubble?’ published in 2011. See https://www.carbontracker.org/reports/carbon-bubble/ looked at the world’s top 200 publically traded fossil fuel companies. We analysed the reserves and resources of the companies to assess the embedded CO2 and compared these numbers against a carbon budget to 2 degrees of warming. Details on carbon budget can be found below but also here https://www.carbontracker.org/carbon-budgets-explained/ We found that: - Already in 2011, the world has used over a third of its 50-year carbon budget of 886GtCO2, leaving 565GtCO2 - All of the proven reserves owned by private and public companies and governments are equivalent to 2,795 GtCO2 - Fossil fuel reserves owned by the top 100 listed coal and top 100 listed oil and gas companies represent total emissions of 745GtCO2 - Only 20% of the total reserves can be burned unabated, leaving up to 80% of assets technically unburnable This slide illustrates that the remaining carbon budget to 2 degrees can be shared between oil, coal and gas. If global coal use declines quickly, this would leave more ‘carbon budget’ left for use by less carbon intensive fuels. What do the oil majors say about the carbon bubble? Shell: “The issue of the bubble arises because the combined proven oil, gas and coal reserves currently on the books of fossil fuel companies (and governments in the case of NOCs) will produce far more than this amount of CO2 when consumed”. https://blogs.shell.com/2013/05/03/bubble/ BP: “We agree that burning all known reserves would probably cause global temperatures to rise by more than 2°C – and that addressing this issue will require the efforts of governments, industry and individuals. However, we believe that the unburnable carbon approach to assessing the impact of potential climate regulation on a company’s value oversimplifies the complexity of the issue and overstates the potential financial impact.”