Thank you for the question.
The question of gas has been raised in the context of the European Union. It's certainly relevant in today's geopolitical context.
The question of whether it is compatible with 1.5° pathways is relevant here, perhaps. What we've seen from the IEA and the IPCC is that, in order to reach net zero by 2050, there can be no additional fossil fuel exploration. Existing and planned fossil fuel infrastructure, without additional abatement, would exceed 1.5° if it's used to the end of its lifetime. Continuing to install unabated fossil fuel infrastructure will lead to emissions lock-in. By “unabated”, I mean.... “Abatement” essentially means interventions that substantially reduce GHG-capturing by 90% or more.
In that context, transition plans that rely on investments in new fossil fuel explorations, sale or distribution are likely not compatible with the Paris Agreement temperature goal and could lead to lock-in. However, in the context of developing transition plans, there's consideration about whether, over the course of its lifetime, infrastructure can be used for greener substitutes—that is, natural gas pipelines being used, in the future, for ammonia or green hydrogen.
These are some considerations. For example, in the the “OECD Guidance on Transition Finance”, transparency on future plans to help avoid emissions lock-in is important, in order to give confidence to the finance community, which is looking to stay consistent, on their side, with the 1.5° pathway, so—