A new global analysis conducted by researchers from ICTA-UAB and the University of Sussex reveals that many so-called “green projects” promoted by the oil and gas industry are not designed to replace fossil fuels but to extend their lifespan under a favorable climate narrative.
A Deliberate Strategy
The study, based on 48 documented socio-environmental conflicts across different continents, concludes that these developments do not meet promised climate goals, aggravate social inequalities, and reinforce the political and economic power of the same companies responsible for much of the climate crisis.
According to the authors, these are not isolated contradictions but a systematic strategy: connecting new “low-carbon” facilities with already operational refineries, pipelines, and thermal power plants, which justifies continuing to exploit fossil assets for decades.
An example is the H2Med pipeline between Barcelona and Marseille, presented as infrastructure for hydrogen, but designed to also transport fossil gas, prolonging the relevance of networks that should be in retreat.
False Solutions and Their Impacts
The central message of the work is clear: none of these technologies truly mitigate climate change if they do not replace and eliminate the extraction and burning of coal, oil, and gas.
Among the questioned “transition solutions” are:
- Blue hydrogen dependent on fossil methane.
- Biofuels that compete with food and promote deforestation.
- Carbon offsets that allow continued emissions elsewhere.
Beyond emissions accounting, the study documents persistent local impacts: air pollution around refineries, land expropriation for energy crops, infrastructure corridors, and displacement of traditional economies. These damages disproportionately affect the Global South and indigenous peoples, reproducing historical inequalities under a new climate label.
The Role of Public Money
The report warns that subsidies and favorable regulatory frameworks end up financing projects with dubious climate benefits, while the social and ecological costs remain off the balance sheet.
Moreover, these “transition” technologies create alliances with emission-intensive sectors:
- Aviation seeks “drop-in” biofuels.
- The agribusiness integrates into energy supply chains.
- Mining joins the enthusiasm for hydrogen.
The result is a network of cross-dependencies that consolidates the influence of the fossil industry in financial markets, logistics chains, and climate governance spaces.
Real Alternatives
Researcher Marcel Llavero-Pasquina emphasizes that the climate impact of oil companies should be measured by the fossil fuels they choose not to extract, not by the number of “green” projects they announce.
The authors warn that turning these false solutions into structural public policy can block necessary transformations, generating slow and centralized transitions controlled by the same usual actors.
Outside of this framework, they point to more effective alternatives:
- Rapid deployment of renewable energies.
- Direct reduction of energy demand.
- Clear fossil phase-out schedules.
- Processes led by local communities.
Carbon capture only makes sense if accompanied by the accelerated closure of fossil facilities. Hydrogen must be green, produced with renewable electricity, and reserved for uses difficult to electrify. Biofuels require strict criteria for social justice and land use, and offsets cannot substitute for real reductions.
The study denounces that oil companies’ green projects function as complements to the fossil model, not as substitutes. The warning is clear: public money should prioritize the reduction of fossil supply and demand, equitable access to clean energy, and repair of historical damages, rather than supporting strategies that perpetuate fossil fuel dependence under a misleading climate discourse.
