Corruption is also a product of the Oil & Gas Industry

Cartoon about manipulation of science by special interests
Image from UCS Blog – Union of Concerned Scientists

“[T]he norms and expectations that once ensured that our government was guided primarily by the public interest rather than by individual or partisan interest have significantly weakened. There are now far fewer constraints to deter abuse by executive branch actors.”

The above understatements of the year are from a report released October 3, 2019 by The National Task Force on Rule of Law and Democracy, a group formed under the Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law to figure out how to restore trust in government. The report focuses on the politicization of government science and research. It lists over a hundred specific occurrences of political manipulation of scientific findings. Examples from the list follow (numbers refer to the report’s itemization system):

#453 – The Dept of the Interior’s top climate change scientist was reassigned to an accounting role, despite no training in accounting, after he highlighted the dangers climate change poses for Alaska’s Native communities. Washington Post July 19, 2017

#448 – After Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) researchers produced a study showing economic benefits to protecting wetlands from pollution, aides to the agency’s administrator told them to produce a new study showing no such benefits. NYTimes August 11, 2017

#482 – Chairman of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) questioned studies that connect serious human health problems to air pollution and accepted research funding from the American Petroleum Institute, an oil industry lobbying group that reviewed his findings before publication. ScienceMag (American Association for the Advancement of Science) December 10, 2018

#493 – The news that the EPA stoped updating its climate change websites in April 2017 is confirmed. The agency removed its climate change subdomains from public access, and removed links to its searchable web archive for any past information on the subject. Newsweek November 2, 2018

#485 – Chairman of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) wrote a letter to the EPA administrator criticizing the agency’s use of science to set air pollution standards and questioned the long-established scientific view that fine particulate airborne matter is linked to early deaths. Scientific American March 29, 2019. 

#502 – The Dept. of Agriculture withheld a news release and sought to prevent dissemination of the findings by the department’s research partners concerning a groundbreaking discovery that rice loses vitamins in a carbon-rich environment — a potentially serious health concern for the 600 million people worldwide whose diet consists mostly of rice. Politico June 23, 2019

#441 – High-level Department of the Interior officials altered an environmental assessment for seismic surveying prepared by career scientists in order to underplay the potential impact of oil and gas development on Alaska’s coastal plain. Politico July 26/19

The ill effects of a corrupt executive branch go much deeper than the subversion of scientific findings. President Trump has packed his administration with fossil-fuel friendly officials willing to put Big Oil interests ahead of the public interest. The decisions made by these unelected officials, anxious to do the bidding of their bosses in and out of government, are helping to destroy the environment and cripple the country’s economic prospects. For example, here’s how this top-down rot is working to hobble the country’s nascent offshore wind energy industry:

Vineyard Wind, a $2.8 billion, 800-Megawatt offshore wind power project planned for waters south of Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, has been put on hold by the Trump administration. Vineyard had submitted its Construction and Operations Plan (COP) to the Department of the Interior (DOI) in December 2017 and had expected to receive the go-ahead last month. The map below shows the proposed wind turbine layout submitted to DOI by the company.

Map to show location of Vineyard Wind offshore project

So what is the government’s  excuse for delaying the project? In an August news release, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) — the agency under DOI responsible for managing development of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf — provides two excuses:

(1) “Comments received from stakeholders and cooperating agencies [have] requested a more robust cumulative analysis.” 
(2) “Because . . . 
a greater build out of offshore wind capacity is more reasonably foreseeable than was analyzed in the initial draft EIS [Environmental Impact Statement], BOEM has decided to supplement the Draft EIS and solicit comments on its revised cumulative impacts analysis.”

Excuse (1) is the Trump administration’s way of saying that the delay is open ended and that it doesn’t have defensible reasons to justify it.

Excuse (2) refers to the fact that the wind energy industry has shown great interest in building wind farms off the East Coast (an estimated $70-billion in wind industry investments over the next decade). The claim that that interest was not “reasonably foreseeable” by DOI, is nonsense. The following is from TheHill June 4, 2013:

“Interior announced on [June 3, 2013]  that it would hold an auction on July 31, 2013 for 164,750 acres off the coast of Massachusetts and Rhode Island, which has the potential to generate 3,400 megawatts of electricity — enough to power 1 million homes. Interior Secretary Sally Jewell called the pending lease sale — which has drawn interest from nine firms — “history in the making.” 

If former Interior Secretary Sally Jewell was able to foresee, in 2013, the potential for “a greater build out of offshore wind capacity”, then you can bet current Interior Secretary David Bernhardt was able to foresee it too. It’s just that Mr. Bernhardt, a former lobbyist for the oil industry, doesn’t like the view. David Halperin, writing in Desmogblog March 26, 2019, says: “Bernhardt is . . . more skilled [than his predecessor Ryan Zinke] in the ways of law and government. But in terms of the ways that money corrupts politics and policy, his record is even more concerning. David Bernhardt is the ultimate swamp creature.”

U.S. Rep. Joseph Kennedy III (D-MA) is quoted by WBUR Boston, Aug 9, 2019: “When it comes to the nation’s first major offshore wind project — which has gone through years of extensive study, public comment and mitigation plans for impacted communities — they are trying to delay it to death. . . . Worse still, they are threatening the future of large-scale renewable energy development at a moment when the price of our oil and gas dependency becomes more obvious — and more terrifying — by the day.”

Six hundred thousand (600,000) U.S. wind energy jobs by 2050: that was the prediction made in a March 2015 report from the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. According to the Environment & Energy Study Institute, the wind industry now (July 2019) supports 111,000 direct jobs. To Oil & Gas Industry executives, those figures are the stuff of nightmares. The shift to renewable energy is an existential threat to their industry. They need people like David Bernhardt to help slow it down.

Aerial photo of Wind Farm, North Sea UK
Offshore wind farm, North Sea UK

 

U.S. Senate Committee pushes oil industry’s antisocial LNG scheme.

Oil & Gas field, Midland, Texas. Photo credit: EcoFlight

How long can the fracking spending spree last?
— Houston Chronicle
headlineSept 14, 2018.

The answer to the Chronicle’s question is: for as long as investors have money to burn. Justin Mikulka, writing Dec 18, 2018, for Desmogblog, puts it this way: “Fracking in 2018 was another year pretending to make money. . . . Whether fracking companies are profitable or not doesn’t really matter to Wall Street executives who are getting rich making the loans that the fracking industry struggles to repay.”

Yet the industry is currently pumping more fracked gas than ever before. The market is swamped and prices are at or below break even (see “Natural Gas Prices Fall Below Zero In Texas” – Oilprice.com, Nov 28, 2018). And now there’s a push to liquify as much of the stuff as possible for shipment overseas to anyone who’ll buy it.

Speaking at a July 11, 2019 hearing of the U.S.  Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on “The Important Role of LNG in Evolving Global Markets”, Nikos Tsafos, Senior Fellow, Energy and National Security Program Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), said:

There is an oversupply of LNG on the market, leading to historically low prices in Europe and Asia . . .  Despite [these] historically low prices today, companies are betting billions to enable the next wave of LNG supply—and this wave will be far bigger, more diverse, and perhaps more politically complicated than earlier waves. . . . [There are an] unprecedented number of proposed LNG supply projects that might reasonably start construction over the next two year.

Since the U.S. Senate is controlled by Republicans, only people supportive of the oil and gas industry and its LNG subset were invited to give evidence at the Senate Energy Committee hearing. The talk was all about how best to promote the industry and take advantage of an imagined “window of opportunity” to strengthen its global competitiveness. There was no mention of global warming or the need to restrain the production of fossil fuels. This is how Steven E. Winberg, Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy U.S. Department of Energy, summarized his testimony:

“Natural Gas has transformed our Nation and the world for the better. The increased use and production of natural gas has grown our economy, created countless American jobs, and made our air cleaner. Further, increasing exports of domestically produced natural gas to 36 countries around the world has given our allies a stable, reliable and secure source of clean energy.”

Here’s what’s wrong with that picture: Hydraulic fracking is a filthy business, it poisons the water table, adds greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere, and far from making the world better, it makes it bad (see below for specifics on just how bad); The people employed in the industry would be far more constructively employed in building the nation’s renewable energy economy; Natural Gas is not a stable, reliable, or secure source of energy, let alone a clean one — gas deposits are bound to become stranded due to the superior economics of renewables. And considering the political and social pressures surrounding climate change, “our allies” would be well advised not to get hooked on it.

Renewables are displacing fossil fuels. During this transition, the U.S. has more than enough natural gas to satisfy its current domestic needs. That’s what energy security means. The push to export LNG is not about energy security, or even about making money, it’s about building expensive infrastructure (pipelines, liquefaction plants, terminal facilities, etc) to keep the Oil & Gas Industry in business. Pitching the benefits of investing in this LNG boondoggle is Charlie Riedl, Executive Director of the Center for Liquefied Natural Gas. Here’s part of his testimony before the above mentioned Senate hearing on LNG markets.

“The U.S. is now home to four LNG export terminals in operation, six projects under construction, and seven projects that are permitted and awaiting Final Investment Decisions. There are another fourteen projects in the [Federal Energy Regulatory Commission] FERC queue. Each of these projects individually represents billions of dollars of investment in America’s energy future. . . . Technological breakthroughs in the oil and natural gas industry have unleashed an energy renaissance, establishing the United States as the world’s largest natural gas producer – and domestic production continues to grow. We have enough natural gas to supply affordable energy domestically for at least 100 years with current technology, as well as to significantly increase U.S. participation in the global market for LNG.” (my underlines)

Mr. Riedl paints a picture of a world living indefinitely on fossil fuels, a world much to the liking of the Oil & Gas Industry. He does not mention the impact of global warming or the Paris Climate Accord which calls for a sharp reduction in the total use of fossil fuels. The International Energy Agency’s ‘Sustainable Development’ estimate of World Energy Demand to 2040, shows no increase in natural gas consumption beyond 2020 (see post of July 6, 2019, titled Oil & Gas Industry aims to make global warming even warmer).

Witnesses to the Senate hearing, including Mr. Riedl, refer to natural gas as a clean fuel. It isn’t. Here’s how it compares to other fuels in terms of CO2 emissions:

Lbs of CO2 emitted per million BTU of energy: 
Coal (anthracite) – 229 Lbs
Gasoline – 157 Lbs
Natural Gas – 117 Lbs
Solar (wind or PV’s) – zero emissions

During its production cycle, natural gas also releases methane, a greenhouse gas 80 times as potent as CO2. Last month, the Trump Administration announced plans to weaken existing rules designed to curb the release of methane. That’s not all. Natural gas is routinely flared (burned off) or vented when emitted from wells drilled primarily for oil. The following table from Bloomberg News June 12, 2019, shows the amount of gas flared by certain companies operating in the Permian Basin oil field of Texas:

Table showing gas flared (as a percentage of gas produced) by oil companies operating in Texas
Gas flared (as a percentage of gas produced) by oil companies operating in the Permian Basin of Texas. Original source: Rystad Energy

An article in Bloomberg Businessweek Sept. 10, 2019, by Ryan Collins and Rachel Adams-Heard, contains the following passage: “Gas flaring globally emits more than 350 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in a year, according to the World Bank. . . . In the U.S., flaring accounts for an estimated 9% of the greenhouse gas emissions of the oil and gas industry. In addition, the practice spews particulate matter, soot and toxins into the air that have been shown to be hazardous to humans.”

Fracking natural gas is bad for the climate, bad for the country, bad for the world. The current scramble to increase — at any cost — LNG production and shipping, is nothing more than a hostile and antisocial scheme by the Oil & Gas Industry to prolong its own life by delaying an orderly transition to renewable energy. It’s an industry scheme that’s being eagerly supported by the Oil & Gas-dependent Republicans in Congress and their like-minded buddies in the Trump Administration.

Gas flaring. Image: Dallas Morning News

Pollution from aircraft – another reason to tax fossil fuels at their source

Photo of jet aircraft contrails
Jet aircraft contrails. Image: Wikipedia

The global civil aviation industry is on a roll. Last year the world’s airlines profited from carrying 4.38 billion passengers and 63.3 million tones of freight. According to the International Air Transport Association (IATA) the number of passengers carried per year could reach 8.2 billion by 2037, a forecast based on 3.5% compound annual growth rate. A rosy outlook indeed — for the industry. Can the good times last — for the industry?

The industry’s current prosperity is based on cheap fossil fuel and on the fact that the industry is allowed to dump its emissions into the global atmosphere at no cost to itself. According to IATA data, in 2018 a total of 38.1 million flights consumed 95 billion gallons of fuel and released 905 million tones of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere, about 2% of global CO2 emissions. But that’s not all. Emissions from aircraft jet engines contain other pollutants such as oxides of nitrogen, unburned fuel, soot, and water vapour. Soot, for example, provides condensation sites for water vapour and the consequent formation of contrails at high altitudes (17,000 to 45,000 feet). When contrails linger or spread out thinly like natural cirrus clouds, they trap heat radiating from the earth’s surface and so add to atmospheric warming. The combined contribution to global warming made by these non-CO2 emissions, equals or exceeds that made by the aircraft’s CO2 emissions.

The industry is under pressure to reduce its carbon footprint. According to IATA ‘fact sheets’, this is what the industry plans to do: First it plans to cap its net CO2 emissions at 2019 levels. From then on, or so the industry claims, its growth will be carbon-neutral. It plans to accomplish this carbon-neutral growth by “pursuing a 4-pillar strategy” as follows:

(1) Improved aircraft technology, including the deployment of sustainable low-carbon fuels. (2) More efficient aircraft operations. (3) Better ground-based infrastructure (4) Offsetting the remaining emissions gap.

Here are some of the reasons why the industry’s plan is bound to fall short:

Engineers have made great progress in designing jet engines that are more fuel efficient and produce less CO2. And that work continues. However, a recent paper by Lisa Bock and Ulrike Burkhardt of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany, shows that more fuel efficient jet engines produce more, and longer lasting contrails. The atmospheric heating caused by such contrails cancels out the benefit from more efficient jet engines.

The industry is counting on the development of biofuels to begin replacing fossil fuels. A biofuel is any fuel that is derived from biomass, such as plant or algae material or animal waste. The International Energy Agency (IEA) anticipates biofuels reaching around 10% of aviation fuel demand by 2030, and close to 20% by 2040. In the context of what the industry says it wants to achieve, this is way too slow. Currently biofuels are much more expensive than fossil-based jet fuel, a cost premium that prevents their wider use. The bar chart below shows that for biofuels to compete with fossil jet fuel, the cost of fossil fuels must rise. A sizeable tax on the CO2 content of fossil fuels at well-head or port of entry would do the trick, but that hasn’t happened yet.

Bar chart showing aviation fuel cost comparison
Biofuels vs. jet fuel cost comparison. Image from IEA News, March 18, 2019

According to IEA News, March 18, 2019, “Ongoing research and development is needed to support the commercialisation of novel advanced aviation biofuels which can unlock the potential to use agricultural residues and municipal solid wastes.” In other words, serious work on unlocking that potential on behalf of the aviation industry, hasn’t even started.

 The forth pillar of the IATA’s 4-pillar strategy is where the industry admits that its other pillars will not do enough to mitigate all of its emissions. To mitigate the remaining emissions, the industry intends to rely on an approach developed by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), called Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA). The scheme was agreed to by ICAO’s 193 member states. This is what IATA’s ‘Fact sheet on CORSIA and carbon pricing’ says about offsetting:

Offsetting is an action by a company or individual to compensate for their emissions by financing a reduction in emissions elsewhere. Offsetting and carbon markets are a fundamental component of global, regional and national emissions reduction policies. They have operated for decades for compliance purposes and voluntary emissions reductions and continue to be an effective mechanism to underpin action against climate change.

Offsetting is more effective than a tax, as a carbon tax merely requires companies to pay for their emissions, without any guarantees that the payment will lead to any emissions reductions.

Poppycock! Carbon offsetting, like taxing carbon emissions, is a form of greenwashing — a way for industries to appear responsible while behaving irresponsibly. To argue that “offsetting is more effective” than taxing carbon emissions, is to say nothing. Neither approach works. The bottom line is this: while “offsetting and carbon pricing . . . have operated for decades” the temperature of the world’s atmosphere continues to rise.

♦ According to a paper published Aug. 14, 2019 by the Center for Climate and Security, titled ‘Climate Change Implications for U.S. Military Aircraft’, new research shows that as the environment grows hotter and more humid, the performance of military aircraft is being adversely affected. Rear Admiral David Titley, US Navy (Ret.), is quoted as follows:

“To better visualize how military operations are being impacted by increasing heat and humidity, one can look at the impacts that changing climate conditions have had on commercial airlines. Commercial airlines are fighting a losing battle with climate change. Increasing heat and humidity is driving flight cancellations and threatening the viability of various airports and flight routes. . . . We are not used to having commercial airlines disrupted because of hot weather. This is a harbinger of things to come.”

As temperature increases, air expands and becomes less dense. As humidity increases, nitrogen and oxygen molecules are displaced by lighter water molecules causing the air to become less dense. As air density decreases, aircraft performance decreases and costs increase .

“These aircraft performance impacts,” Titley says, “can be mitigated by expanding aircraft power and efficiency through wing modification, more aerodynamic design, and more powerful engines. Other mitigation strategies involve lengthening runways and decreasing payloads.”

More powerful engines, if they are fossil-fuel powered, means more emissions to mitigate.

♦ To summarize, if the aviation industry is to achieve its objective of carbon-neutral growth, it will have to cut its use of fossil fuel now, not in decades. Relying on offsetting to fudge a cap on CO2 emissions, will not do.

As the bar chart above shows, the cost of fossil jet fuel must rise by about 100 USD/bbl for alternative fuels to begin competing seriously. Alexandre de Juniac, IATA Chief, has been lobbying against a ‘Green Tax’ on aviation. He should instead lobby globally for a carbon tax on fossil fuels at the mine, well-head, or port of entry. A heavy enough tax would remove the cost premium that’s delaying the use of alternative fuels, force the fossil fuel industry to pay some of the conversion costs, and place all airlines on a level environmental playing field.

Carbon Capture — Big Oil’s bogus response to global warming

Carbon Capture cartoon
Carbon Capture. Image credit: Pilita Clark, Financial Times, Sept. 9, 2015

The Oil & Gas Industry wants us to keep on burning fossil fuels, come hell or high sea level. To divert attention from that sorry objective, the industry is promoting a techno-fix that policymakers and investors can get behind — it’s called Carbon Capture and Storage, CCS  for short. It’s a ruse, a scam. CCS won’t change industry’s behaviour, won’t cause emissions to drop.

Last April, a group of U.S. Senators — 8 Democrats, 4 Republicans — sent a letter to the Senate appropriations committee requesting “robust funding” to develop carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) technologies “that will address COemissions from coal, natural gas, and industrial facilities.” The letter contains a mixture of false statements, dubious claims, and baloney. Examples follow:

▲ The Senators claim that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified CCUS as “a critical component of the portfolio of energy technologies needed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions worldwide.” The claim is false. Here are the facts:

The Paris Climate Agreement, signed Dec. 2015 by 95 countries, set a goal of “holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.” Global average temperature has already exceeded 1.0°C. Last year, the IPCC prepared a special report on the impacts of global warming to 1.5°C and on the CO2 emissions pathways that could limit warming to that temperature. Here’s what the report’s ‘Summary for Policymakers’ says  in its single statement (item C.2.2) about the use of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS):

In 1.5°C pathways with no or limited overshoot, renewables are projected to supply 70–85% of electricity in 2050. . . . [T]he use of CCS would allow the electricity generation share [from] gas to be approximately 8% (3–11%) of global electricity in 2050, while the use of coal . . . would be reduced to close to 0%.

In other words, the IPCC views the use of CCS, not as a critical component of efforts to reduce CO2 emissions, but as a bit player, and not even an essential bit player. What the IPCC does predict is that ‘natural’ carbon dioxide removal (CDR) techniques, such as reforestation and soil carbon sequestration, will play the major roles.

The Senators state that “Like the wind and solar industries, a combination of federal incentives such as tax credits and federal funding for research, development, and demonstration, will be needed to improve [carbon capture] technology so that it can be cost-competitive with other forms of low COemitting technologies.”

Here the Senators make the absurd implication that energy from fossil fuels  can be made cost-competitive with energy from renewables (solar, wind) by throwing money into carbon capture research. The fact is, energy from fossil fuels cannot compete with energy from renewable today; adding carbon capture technology — no matter how well researched — to fossil fuel exhaust systems, will result in energy that is even less competitive tomorrow. No amount of funding will change that certainty.

▲ The Senators state that “Innovators across the United States are already developing a wide range of CCUS technologies that can improve the efficiency of electricity generation and utilize carbon dioxide emitted by power plants and other sources for more efficient resource development and valuable products, such as algae-derived chemicals, plastics, and fuels.”

Here the Senators are trying, but failing, to show that CCS can pay for itself. The reference to “more efficient resource development” points to ‘enhanced oil recovery’, a process in which captured CO2 is injected into existing wells to force more oil out of the ground. When the recovered oil is burned, it releases as much or more CO2 into the atmosphere as was captured in the first place. The process has nothing to do with true carbon storage, nor with serious efforts to reduce global warming CO2 emissions.

As for the reference to “valuable products”, the world is awash in chemicals, plastics, and fuels, all derived from fossil carbon feed stock (oil, gas, coal). When that fossil carbon feed stock is burned, its carbon is released into the air. The claim that that same carbon (captured from the emissions) can form the basis for new or different products, makes no sense.

▲ The Senators claim that “Investment in carbon utilization technologies will transform carbon dioxide into an economic resource, lower the cost of reducing emissions, create jobs, save consumers money, and safeguard our environment.”

At least the part about jobs is true. Scientists will work on anything, no matter how nutty the project, just so long as they get paid to do it.

Photo of U.S. Senate building
U.S. Senate. Image: Senate.gov

The Senators’ letter is dated April 4, 2019 and signed by Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Christopher Coons (D-Del.), Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Angus King (I- Maine), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).

If the Senators had actually read the IPCC’s 2018 special report’s ‘Summary for Policymakers’, they would have discovered that holding global average temperature to 1.5°C by 2050 requires action on restricting CO2 emissions NOW.  Pushing CCS technology on behalf of the fossil fuel industry will not do the trick. Here’s what the ‘Summary for Policymakers’ says on the matter:

Avoiding overshoot and reliance on future large-scale deployment of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) [e.g., reforestation] can only be achieved if global CO2 emissions start to decline well before 2030 (item D.1).

The lower the emissions in 2030, the lower the challenge in limiting global warming to 1.5°C after 2030 with no or limited overshoot. The challenges from delayed actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions include the risk of cost escalation, lock-in in carbon-emitting infrastructure, stranded assets, and reduced flexibility in future response options in the medium to long term (item D.3).

In other words: ignore the carbon capture ruse, focus instead on reducing fossil fuel production. That’s the real challenge for policymakers. Are they up to it?

How to sue Big Oil — Part 2

Image of painting by Rossetti of Pandora
Pandora holding the box. Painting by Dante Gabriel Rossetti 1871

This is a follow up to my last post. It’s an attempt to clarify the logic underlying it.

Global Warming has two separate and distinct parts. Part 1 is about controlling the production, distribution, and burning of fossil fuels. Part 2 is about the consequences of burning them.

Part 1 is under the control of humans as represented by legal units such as national, state, or municipal governments. These units make rules, regulations, and laws, and assign departments or agencies to administer them, all with the intention of regulating the production and use of fossil fuels.

Part 2 is totally different. As soon as fossil fuels are burned and carbon dioxide (CO2) molecules are emitted into the atmosphere, human control of the situation ceases. Those CO2 molecules are incorporated into the atmosphere where they work to enable global warming and its damaging consequences. Once C02 molecules from fossil fuels are allowed to enter the atmosphere, they are beyond human control.

Part 1 lawsuits are about how perfectly or imperfectly fossil fuels are being regulated. The litigants have opposing views about how new regulations or changes to existing ones may affect future events. 

Examples:
— The Trump Administration opens public land to drilling. Citizens sue to stop that happening 

— The EPA moves to weaken the Clean Air Act. New York State sues to stop it doing that.

— The Federal Government fails to act against global warming. Kids sue to force action (Juliana v. United States).

Part 2 lawsuits are about the climate damage that has occurred and is occurring due to the release of fossil fuel CO2 into the atmosphere. The litigants have opposing views on who is at fault and who should pay the damage costs. Such lawsuits are tricky because they involve assigning blame and assessing compensation. But that is what judges are for.

Example:
— Cities sue big oil companies to recover climate damage costs.

Unlike Part 1 lawsuits, Part 2 lawsuits have absolutely nothing to do with the regulations designed to control fossil fuels, or with the government departments or agencies who apply them.

By the time a Part 2 lawsuit is launched, the damage costs to be litigated have already been paid. As noted in my previous post, the U.S. Government Accounting Office, in its report dated Oct. 24, 2017, determined that damage from Climate Change over the 10 year period ending 2o17, cost the government $350 billion in taxpayers money. The costs include funding for disaster recovery programs, flood insurance claims, repairs to defence bases, etc. The tax-hit on any city for that same 10-year period is the per capita cost multiplied by the city’s population.

What needs to be emphasized is that when cities sue Big Oil, they are doing so on behalf of their citizens. The citizens paid taxes to cover the costs of climate damage. The oil corporations paid nothing. What the lawsuits ask is that some of those costs be shifted onto the shoulders of the oil corporations. The idea that such claims are best handled by the executive and legislative branches of government, as some judges have suggested, makes no sense. The facts of such cases have nothing to do with the control and regulation of fossil fuels. What Big Oil did was lie to their clients about the dangers that flow from the use of their products. That can be proved. Climate damage became worse as a consequence of those lies and, as a result, taxpayers became poorer, oil companies became richer. The question to be settled is how much money should the oil companies pay the cities to correct that imbalance.

The image at the top of this post shows Rossetti’s interpretation of the Greek myth about Pandora. It shows Pandora’s right hand resting on the lid of the box. Has she just closed the lid? It appears so. Note the plume of smoke rising from the box. The industrial revolution was well underway when Rossetti composed the work in 1871. Was he influenced by the industrial revolution? Probably. In any case, the evils let loose from the box surely included CO2 from fossil fuels. Who should be held responsible? Pandora because she opened the box out of ignorance? Or the person who loaded the box with CO2 but failed to inform Pandora about the dangers?

How to sue Big Oil for money and win . . . maybe

Photo of judges hammer and money
Image: from NY Post

Last year (Jan 2018) New York City sued five major Oil & Gas companies — ExxonMobil, BP, SheIl, Chevron, and Conoco Phillips — for contributing to global warming and the resulting physical damage to city property. It asked the court to hold the oil companies liable for the damage they’ve caused, and award the city monitory compensation. But on July 20, 2018, the court dismissed the lawsuit in favour of the oil companies.

In dismissing the lawsuit, U.S. District Court Judge John F. Keenan, ruled that the city’s claims come under federal law involving greenhouse gas emissions that cross state lines, thus putting them under the jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Problems associated with climate change, the judge said, should be tackled by Congress and the executive branch. In its brief to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals November 12, 2018, the city claims that Judge Keenan misunderstood the lawsuit. The appeal argues that the city did not ask the court to regulate emissions but, rather, to award the city damages on the basis of Public Nuisance, Private Nuisance, and Trespass, which, to a non lawyer, sounds pretty mild.

If Judge Keenan misunderstood the city’s lawsuit it’s because the city framed its 67 page brief around global warming as an international threat instead of what was intended, a limited and local demand for compensation. The titles of sections IV thru VIII in the brief give the flavour of the thing:

IV. Climate Change Impacts on New York City
V. Fossil Fuels Are the Primary Cause of Climate Change
VI. Defendants Have Produced Massive Quantities of Fossil Fuels—and Have Continued to Do So Even as Climate Change Has Become Gravely Dangerous
VII. Defendants Had Full Knowledge that Fossil Fuels Would Cause Catastrophic Harm
VIII. Despite Their Early Knowledge that Climate Change Posed Grave Threats, Defendants Promoted Fossil Fuels for Pervasive Use, While Denying or Downplaying These Threats

Within the brief, ‘greenhouse gas’ is mentioned 29 times, ‘emissions’ 46 times, ‘global warming’ 48 times, ‘climate change’ 100 times. On the other hand, the word ‘damages’ appears in the brief only 7 times. The impression given is that the city is afraid that the judge might not understand the situation unless provided with multiple reminders that global warming exists and that it’s a serious problem.

The fact is, the judge understands the issue very well. New York City framed its complaint in terms of global warming, an international problem that requires an international solution. The judge ruled accordingly. Fossil fuel companies are happy to defend themselves at the national or international level. They know how slow and ineffective national efforts to limit global warming are. They know how to influence those efforts so as to slow them down to a crawl. They even go so far as to promote placing taxes on CO2 emissions, knowing that that distances the production of fossil fuels from the possibility of direct control. It’s a tactic that also gets others to pay what  the oil companies should be paying.

If New York City’s lawsuit fails on appeal, it will show that the Nuisance and Trespass laws are not sufficient. What then? How can any city structure it’s climate lawsuits in such a way that the trans-boundary issue is sidelined?

Here’s my contribution to solving the puzzle:

1. The science linking fossil fuels to global warming , climate change, increasing damage from storms, drought, sea level rise, etc., is settled. Global Warming is happening now. The judges know it. The Oil & Gas companies do not deny it. They most certainly do not want to wind up in court fighting the science. They would lose. Instead, when sued for climate damages, oil companies fight back by attacking the lawsuit’s legal right to stand. There’s no need to stress the existence and effects of global warming when suing oil companies.

2. Even though oil companies have known for decades about the dangerous effects that result from the use of their products, they deliberately kept the knowledge to themselves.

3. New Yorkers generate pollution while engaged in manufacturing, transportation, electricity generation, day to day living, etc. The energy used in these activities includes fuels purchased from the oil companies. New York takes responsibility for the pollution it generates and is working to abate it.

4. As New Yorkers use fossil fuels purchased from the oil companies, carbon dioxide (CO2) molecules are released into the atmosphere. All of those CO2 molecules released by New York to date, remain in the atmosphere and will remain there indefinitely, doing their part in causing the atmosphere to heat up. Once in the atmosphere, those molecules that originated in New York cannot be controlled or regulated by any agency. 

5. The CO2 molecules released by New York from the fossil fuels supplied by the oil companies, add to the burden of CO2 molecules that have built up in the atmosphere over time from other sources. It follows that the atmospheric heating and consequent damage has increased by some measure due to New York’s use of those fossil fuels. To put it another way, if New York had not used any of those fossil fuels, the amount of damage inflicted on New York would be less by some measure (see item 7).

6. The oil companies learned in the 1980’s or earlier about the dangers posed by their products.  Had they behaved honestly and, at that time, informed New Yorkers about the dangers, it’s reasonable to assume that the city would have acted earlier to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels by at least 50% of what it is today. The oil companies should pay the costs flowing from that failure to tell the truth.

7. According to the U.S. Government Accounting Office (report dated Oct. 24, 2017), damage from Climate Change has cost U.S. taxpayers $350 billion over the past decade (2007 to 2017). When adjusted for population size, New Yorkers’ share of that cost was 2.6% or $9.1 billion. 

Considering all the above, how much money should the oil companies pay New York in damage compensation?

For the period 2007 to 2017 (see item 7), 50% of $9.1 billion = $4.55  billion in the form of a lump sum payment.

Since climate damage is ongoing, annual costs following 2017 will be one tenth of $9.1 billion = $0.91 billion per year (see item 7). Oil companies should therefor pay 50% of 0.91 = $0.455 billion per year starting in 2018. For how many years should the oil companies pay that annual amount. Idefinitely or until they go bust.

Photo of Verrazano bridge taken Oct 2012 during Hurricane Sandy
Verrazano bridge from Brooklyn waterfront, NYC, during Hurricane Sandy Oct. 29, 2012. Image credit: Carlos Ayala

Oil & Gas Industry aims to make global warming even warmer

Photo of oil well pumps
Oil well pumps. Image credit: CBC

There’s a growing mass mobilisation of world opinion against oil, which is “beginning to … dictate policies and corporate decisions, including investment in the industry” Mohammed Barkindo, the secretary general of OPEC said. Climate activists are “perhaps the greatest threat to our industry going forward”, he also said.
— from The Guardian and other press reports, July 5, 2019.

Mr. Barkindo is like the arsonist who sets fires for money and then complains that fire engines are threatening his business. He should know that ‘climate activists’ are not the only people delivering unwanted messages to the Oil & Gas Industry about global warming. Similar (although milder) messages are originating from within the industry’s own ranks. The problem is that, as yet, most of the industry’s bosses refuse to listen.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) is an intergovernmental body established in 1974 following the 1973 oil crisis. The agency’s purpose at the time was to respond to disruption in the supply of oil. Its mandate has since expanded and the agency now acts to provide member states, as well as as Russia, China, and India, with information and policy advice on energy security, economic development, and Environmental Protection.

The following chart in the IEA’s World Energy Outlook, shows the Agency’s estimate of total world energy demand to 2040 under what it calls its New Policies Scenario (NPS). The NPS, the report says, “Incorporates existing energy policies as well as an assessment of the results likely to stem from the implementation of announced policy intentions.” In other words, the chart represents the IEA’s business-as-usual prediction. The chart shows demand for fossil fuels (Natural Gas + Coal + Oil) steadily rising beyond 2020.

Estimated World energy demand by IEA
Estimated world energy demand to 2040 – business as usual. Image: International Energy Administration (IEA)

The next chart is from the same page of the same IEA report. It shows the Agency’s estimate of total world energy demand to 2040 under what it calls its Sustainable Development Scenario (SDS). The SDS, the report says, represents “an integrated approach to achieving internationally agreed objectives on climate change, air quality and universal access to modern energy.” In other words, the chart shows what the IEA estimates will happen to world energy demand, should the signatories to the Paris Accord follow up on on their commitments. Result: fossil fuel production falls.

The IEA’s estimated world energy demand to 2040 - Sustainable Developmemt Scenario. Image: IEA
The IEA’s estimated world energy demand to 2040 – Sustainable Development Scenario. Image: IEA

In what way is the Oil & Gas Industry reacting to this obvious policy message from a respected industry policy advisor? (1) It tries to ignore it. (2) It works to undermine the message in any way It can. One way it works to undermine the message is to produce estimates of its own showing that the world needs more fossil fuels, not less.

The following bar chart from BP’s ‘2018 Energy Outlook’ shows estimates of GROWTH in total worldwide energy consumption to 2040 according to nine different fossil-fuel focused organizations. All of them predict growth in the consumption of fossil fuels ranging from 0.3% to 0.9% per year. Note that BP has included an IEA estimate (4th from left), but one that is based on the Agency’s business as usual scenario, not on its Sustainable Development Scenario.

Bar chart showing growth to 2040 in worldwide energy consumption according to various organizations
Estimates of GROWTH to 2040 in total worldwide energy consumption according to various fossil-fuel-focused organizations. Image: from BP 2018 Energy Outlook

BP =   BP plc (formally British Petroleum)
CNPC = China National Petroleum Corporation
EIA = U.S. Energy Information Administration
IEA = International Energy Agency (OECD)
IEEJ = Institute of Energy Economics (Japan)
IHS = IHS Inc (a London based ‘Information Handling Services’ Company)
OPEC = Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries
Statoil = Statoil ASA (Norwegian state oil co. now called Equinor)
XOM = ExxonMobil Corporation

Here’s what  BP says about its prediction labeled ‘BP ET scenario’ (first bar in the chart): Our report’s “Evolving Transition scenario suggests that a continuation of the recent progress and momentum in policies and technologies is likely to cause the growth in carbon emissions to slow markedly relative to the past. But this slowing falls well short of the sharp drop in carbon emissions thought necessary to achieve the Paris climate goals. We need a far more decisive break from the past .” (my underlining)

In other words, BP’s prediction assumes ‘business as usual’ as do all the other predictions shown in the chart. BP tries to distance itself from the implications of its own report by stating that the scenarios in its report “are not predictions of what is likely to happen or what BP would like to happen.” Nevertheless, its business as usual ‘scenario’ is taken by other Oil & Gas Industry heavyweights as a valid prediction that supports the industry’s business as usual behaviour.

For example, while ExxonMobil’s report titled ‘2019 Energy and Carbon Summery’ is peppered with references to emissions reduction and the goals of the 2015 Paris Accord, the company’s true position is exposed by two statements on page 9: “Natural gas will expand its role, led by growth in electricity generation and industrial output” and  “Rising oil demand will be driven by commercial transportation and the chemical industry.” See last bar in the chart.

BP’s ‘2018 Energy Outlook’ contains a surprisingly frank statement (underlined above) concerning the Paris Accord and how to achieve its goals. “We need a far more decisive break from the past” the writer of the report states.  Very true. Thing is, the decisive break from the past is going to hit the industry whether it likes it or not. More storms, more droughts, more floods, and more climate activists will see to that.

In the mean time, there’s only one way to meet the Paris climate goals and that is to cut fossil fuel production. Taxing carbon emissions will not do the trick; that’s just a silly game and the fossil fuel pushers know it. Taxing fossil fuels at the well or mine head and/or at ports of entry will work. Better still, mandate the elimination of fossil fuels as some jurisdiction are already beginning to do. One thing for sure: don’t expect help from the fossil fuel crowd. They are not part of the solution, they are the problem.

Oil & Gas elephant spooked by EV mouse — for good reason

Photo of EV charging station
Electric Vehicle charging station. Image: City of Hoboken NJ

The oil and gas industry is losing market share to clean energy technologies such as wind and solar. But it’s the electric vehicle (EV) that poses the most pressing threat to the industry. Here’s why:

The car-owning public reacts negatively to high gas prices. Politicians of all strips are sensitive to that fact. Even politicians who recognize the environmental need to reduce fossil fuel production are reluctant to take actions that could drive up prices at the pump. Taxing the carbon in fossil fuel emissions rather than taxing the carbon content of fossil fuels as they are produced is an example of this reluctance — it distances the politician from the effect. And even that feeble political action is further weakened by the failure to set the carbon price high enough to cause meaningful reduction in fossil fuel use. A switch from gasoline to electric powered cars will remove the political fear of pump prices and leave the oil and gas industry vulnerable to direct carbon pricing.

Many of the country’s newer natural gas powered electricity generating plants might last for another thirty years or more. This means that the complete replacement of fossil fuel power with cheaper renewables could take decades. The situation with electric vehicles is different. The average life expectancy of a car is 10 years or less. As EV prices drop and public acceptance increases, a shift to EVs could result in a complete replacement of the existing fleet of vehicles within a period of 10 to 15 years. Motor gasoline accounts for about 24% of total fossil fuel energy currently used in the U.S., a big chunk of the fossil fuel industry’s market. The shift would, at the same time, create new opportunities for wind and solar powered electricity generation.

Oil and gas industry executives are well aware of the threat posed by EVs. It explains the industry’s hatred of the EV incentive program. The program, introduced in 2015 under the Obama administration, offers a tax credit of $2,500 to $7,500 per new EV purchased for use in the U.S. Initial funding for the program was capped at about $2-billion. The oil and gas industry, concerned that Congress may decide to extend funding for the program, has ramped up its propaganda machine to try and prevent that from happening. As usual, when it comes to spreading disinformation about climate science and clean technologies, the industry calls on its mercenary propaganda troops to do the lying for them (see Apr.21 post — How the Oil and Gas Industry gets others to fight for its life). The propaganda effort described below shows the lengths the industry will go to fight what is a relatively small program.

A coalition of 34 fossil-fuel-funded, free market advocacy groups (see image below) delivered a letter May 9 to Congress (addressed to Senators Grassley and Wyden, and Representative Brady and Neal) urging members to protect “all American families by opposing an expansion of the electric vehicle tax credit.” The coalition is led by the American Energy Alliance (AEA), a not-for-profit organization that, according to its website, “engages in grassroots public policy advocacy and debate concerning energy and environmental policies.” The AEA, according to Desmogblog, is run by a former lobbyist for Koch Industries. The letter claims that the EV subsidy is unpopular, overwhelmingly benefits the rich, and amounts to a wealth transfer to California at the expense of all other states. It also claims that electric cars are not cleaner than cars powered by internal combustion engines.

Image of 34 fossil fuel funded, free market advocacy groups logos
Coalition of fossil fuel funded, free market advocacy groups organized to oppose expansion of the federal EV subsidy program. Image: eenews

As mentioned above, the U.S. EV subsidy is relatively small. Since its start in 2015, the program has handed out a total of about $20-billion in the form of income tax credits. By comparison, the U.S. fossil fuel industry receives about $27-billion annually in direct federal subsidies. The industry letter to Congress says nothing about that. The following bar chart shows the amount of annual subsidies each of the G7 nations currently hand out to support their fossil fuel addictions. It’s time they sought treatment.

Bar chart showing how G7 countries subsidize fossil fuel industry
Image: Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)

Note that the bar chart above shows only the direct subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. The industry also receives a massive indirect subsidy due to the fact that it does not pay the cost of damages — global warming, climate destabilization, etc. — caused by the burning of its products.

How to survive global warming — Nail the culprits before they nail us

Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) continues its rapid rise. Last month (May 2019) CO2 in the atmosphere set a new record with the average peaking at 414.7 parts per million at NOAA’s Mauna Loa Atmospheric Baseline Observatory (see graph below). 

NOAA graph showing atmospheric CO2 2014 to present
The red line represents the monthly mean values. The black line represents the same as a moving average of 7 adjacent seasonal cycles, after correction for the average seasonal cycle. Image: NOAA

The highest level of CO2 in the atmosphere during the 800,000 years preceding the industrial revolution was 300 ppm. That occurred about 330,000 years ago, long before modern humans arrived on the scene (see graph at bottom of post).

What is being done about the present accumulation of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere? Here’s what the World Bank (April 2018) says: Some 40 countries and more than 20 cities, states and provinces already use carbon pricing mechanisms, with more planning to implement them in the future.  Together the carbon pricing schemes now in place cover about half their emissions, which translates to about 13 percent of annual global greenhouse gas emissions.”

As the above graph shows, these carbon pricing efforts, while well meaning, have had no noticeable effect on the rise in atmospheric CO2. Is it possible that if the carbon pricing efforts become more widespread, their effect will become noticeable? That is unlikely. Why? Because the carbon pricing schemes currently in use target the emissions from fossil fuels rather than the fossil fuels themselves.

In a shooting war, the bullets are not the enemy, the people loading the guns and pulling the triggers are the enemy. To win the war, you duck the bullets and focus your attack on the gunmen. In our climate war, we need to look past the CO2 emissions and set our sights on the gunmen, the people who extract fossil fuels from the ground, the oil and gas industry. 

The best way to fight the industry is to replace fossil fuel based technologies with clean technologies. That’s already happening simply because the cost of clean technologies has dropped sharply. Clean technologies are now cheaper and more efficient than fossil fuel based technologies and they are starting to be used in large areas of the economy (see May 27 post — NY Governor Cuomo goes for clean power technology in a big way). The fossil fuel industry will eventually collapse because of its inferior economics. But not fast enough.

Applying a carbon tax is a way to speed things up. However, to be effective the tax must be targeted, not against the CO2 emission from fossil fuels, but against the carbon content of the fossil fuels before they are burned. The most effective time and place to apply the carbon tax is when and wherever the fuels are extracted from the ground or imported into the country. The correlation between the amount of tax charged and the resulting reduction in oil and gas produced will be close, unambiguous, and directly measurable; a huge advantage for the administrators.

Is it right to single out a particular industry and tax it so as to throttle its production? Of course it is. Our survival depends on it. Being fair to the enemy is not a winning strategy. In any case, fossil fuel companies do not deserve equitable treatment. They knew for years that the use of their products would cause global warming. Did they inform the public? No. They kept the knowledge to themselves, continued pumping fossil fuels, and lied about the dangers.

Keep this in mind:
The oil and gas industry is in favour of taxing CO2 emissions. Why? Because it provides a smoke screen in which to hide. When CO2 emissions are taxed, everyone pays. It allows the oil and gas industry to masquerade as just another industry paying its fair share. It is not just another industry, it is the culprit. As I write this post, the culprit is busy promoting a scheme to 
tax CO2 emissions, a scheme much to its advantage (see May 12 post — Oil Industry promoters want to pay Americans not to complain about global warming).

Subsidize clean technologies. Sue oil and gas  corporations in court. Ban fossil fuel industry tax breaks. Dump investments in oil and gas. Dump politicians who support the oil and gas industry. Those are all great ways to hit the fossil fuel industry and its promoters. Here’s some pertinent advice:

“hit them fast, hit them hard, hit them a lot” — Jack Reacher (Lee Childs’ fictional character)

Graph showing Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations in parts per million (ppm) for the past 800,000 years, based on European Project for Ice Coring in the Antarctic (EPICA) data. Image: NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI).
Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations in parts per million (ppm) for the past 800,000 years, based on European Project for Ice Coring in the Antarctic (EPICA) data. Image: NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI).

Mayor de Blasio resurrects project to bring hydro power from Quebec to NYC

Photo of Indian Pt. nuclear power plant as seen from west side of Hudson River
Indian Point nuclear power plant, Peekskill, NY, as seen from Hwy 202 on the west side of the Hudson River. Image: Google

The Indian Point nuclear power plant sits on the east bank of the Hudson River near Peekskill NY, 42 miles upstream from Lower Manhattan and the center of the NY Metropolitan Region. The plant’s proximity to the city has been viewed as a potential catastrophe and an ongoing health threat ever since it first started generating electricity in 1962. New Yorkers will breath easier when the plant shuts down for good in 2021. However, the shut down will leave a 2,000 MW hole in the state’s electricity supply which will have to be filled by a renewable source of energy. If NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio has his way, power from hydro-rich Quebec will help fill the gap.

Mayor de Blasio announced his ‘Green New Deal’ for New York City on April 22, three months after Andrew Cuomo, Governor of New York, announced his ‘Green New Deal’ for the state (see previous post). While de Blasio’s plan ‘commits’ the city to carbon neutrality + 100% clean electricity by 2050, Cuomo’s plan commits the state (including NYC) to 100% clean electricity by 2040. Two Green New Deals for New York? Well, two are better than none. The Mayor, a Democrat, has entered the race to become U.S. President and is showing his environmental credentials.

The Mayor can aspire to carbon neutrality for the city. He can work towards it. But he doesn’t have the authority to mandate it. That’s Cuomo’s job — a moot point since the Governor hasn’t promised carbon neutrality. In any case, neither Cuomo nor de Blasio have defined what carbon neutrality means. Mayor de Blasio’s justification for making the 100% clean energy commitment is a plan to bring electric power from Quebec directly to New York City. The rationale is that when the electricity is added to the state grid, it will be enough to power all city-owned buildings in NYC. The more obvious effect will be simply to offset half the power that will be lost when the Indian Point nuclear plant shuts down.

First proposed in 2008, the Champlain Hudson Power Express (CHPE) is a 369 mile high voltage, direct current (HVDC) buried transmission line designed to carry 1,000 megawatts of clean power from Quebec to New York City. The buried transmission line would originate at Hydro Quebec’s Hertel substation in La Prairie, south of Montreal. On the map below, the red dot just south of Montreal is the approximate location of Hydro Quebec’s Hertel substation. The red dot immediately north of New York City is the approximate location of the Indian Point nuclear power station.

Map of North-east USA and Canadian boarder region

The CHPE transmission line will cross the international boarder at Rouses Point NY, then head south by way of Lake Champlain and the Hudson River Valley, terminating in the NYC borough of Queens. The line will follow existing rights of way as well as water ways. The promoter of the U.S. section of the project is Transmission Developers Inc of Albany NY. A 2014 news release by the company put the cost  of the “merchant transmission project” at US$2.2-billion. During his NYC Green New Deal announcement on April 22, the Mayor said he wanted to start talks with Quebec immediately on finalizing a deal to get the CHPE project moving.

The Mayor’s Green New Deal contains initiatives that he does have the authority to mandate. They include: reducing greenhouse gas emissions from large buildings; banning new inefficient glass-walled buildings; replacing the city’s fossil fuel powered fleet with electric vehicles; ending the purchase by the city of single use plastics; divesting investment of $5-billion in city pension funds from the fossil fuel industry — all good ideas that he could have promoted years ago.

Photo of NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio announcing his Green New Deal
NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio announces Green New Deal April 22, 2019. Image: from NYGov video

NY Governor Cuomo goes for clean power technology in a big way

 

Aerial photo of Con Edison East River power plant
14th St. East River Con Edison power plant, Manhattan, NYC (looking NW), Midtown in background. Image: Wikipedia

About 57% of New York state’s electricity is generated by power stations that burn fossil fuels. Nineteen of them — ranging in capacity from 22 to 2336 MW — are located in New York City, four in Manhattan. Emissions include carbon dioxide (CO2), sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, plus a multitude of other hazardous pollutants that damage human health. Many New Yorkers live next door to these plants. For example, the photo above shows the proximity of Stuyvesant Town to Con Edison’s 736-MW East River power plant.

NY Governor Andrew Cuomo, spurred by the need to take action on the health and climate effects of burning fossil fuels, announced on January 20 his ‘Green New Deal’ for the state. The goal of the plan is 100% clean electric power by 2040, the commitment to become state law. The plan will focus on building more land-based wind and solar plants, and on targeting the states offshore wind potential.

The following bar chart shows NY State energy consumption for 2016 (latest available). Natural gas is the primary fossil fuel used to produce the state’s electricity.

Bar chart showing NY State energy consumption

To get an idea of the magnitude of the task set by Governor Cuomo, the table below shows the clean power capacity in megawatts needed to replace all the fossil fuel amounts shown in the bar chart (Btu to MWh to MW x 0.9%):

Natural Gas + Coal  . . . . . . . . . . . . 42,000 MW
Motor Gasoline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,000 MW
All other fossil fuels . . . . . . . . . . . .18,000 MW

The 42,000 MW of electricity from natural gas is the focus of Cuomo’s green plan. In fossil fuel terms, to provide that much power from scratch would require building 50 to 60 power plants of the size shown in the photo above. Instead, the task will require building wind and solar farms. For example, if offshore wind was the only source of clean power, at least 3,500 wind turbines rated at 12 MW each would be needed to generate the 42,000 MW of electricity. By comparison, the capacity of European offshore wind farms (operational and under construction) now stands at about 21,000 MW, with another 20,000 MW on the drawing board. The map below shows where New York’s offshore wind farms will be sited. Statoil (now called Aquinor) is considering a 2,000 MW wind farm for its leased area, the grey-shaded part of Hudson North.

Map showing offshore wind lease areas off New York
New York Bight offshore wind lease areas. Image: BOEM

Governor Cuomo’s plan does not specifically mention motor gasoline. As the transition is made from gasoline to electric cars, at least 19,000 MW in additional clean electrical generation capacity will eventually be required. My guess is that a significant chunk of that capacity will be met by home or community based solar panels. The other fossil products such as distillates (e.g. diesel fuel) and jet fuel are not even mentioned in the plan.

It’s sometimes suggested that carbon neutrality can be achieved while continuing to burn fossil fuels. We (all animals) exhale CO2 with every breath. That CO2 is captured by growing plants during photosynthesis. To stay alive, we eat the plants (and the flesh of animals that also live on plants) and so regain the carbon lost to the atmosphere while breathing. That is our basic carbon-neutral economy. When we began to release CO2 by burning fossil fuels, that basic economy was thrown out of kilter. Result: the greenhouse effect and global warming. The only way to re-create a carbon neutral economy is to stop burning fossil fuels. Governor Cuomo is on the right track. He summarizes his plan in the following YouTube video (1 min 42 sec).

 

 

Offshore Wind — Why drilling for offshore oil is dumb

Photo of Block Island wind turbines in heavy seas
Block Island wind turbines in heavy seas. Image: Deepwater Wind

The amount of energy generated by America’s offshore winds last year, exceeded by more than four times the total amount of energy consumed by the nation’s people and industry in the same year.  Only a tiny fraction of that wind resource has been harnessed commercially so far. The following map shows average wind speeds off U.S. coasts at a height of 100 meters and extending to the country’s 200 nautical-mile EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone). The richest wind areas (fastest wind speeds) are off the N. California and New England coasts.

Map showing U.S. offshore wind speeds
Offshore wind speeds. Image from 2016 NREL study of U.S. offshore wind energy resources

The country’s first offshore wind farm became fully operational December 2016. It lies 3 miles SE of Block Island RI. The electricity it generates is delivered by sub-sea cable, first to a substation on Block Island, then on to the Rhode Island mainland where it connects to the state’s electrical grid. Operated by Deepwater Wind Co., the 30 Megawatt (MW) wind farm consists of 5 wind turbines, each rated at 6 MW. Together, they generate annually about 125 Gigawatt-hours (GWh) of clean energy, enough to serve about 17,000 households. Ørsted, the Danish wind company, acquired Deepwater in 2018 for a reported $510 million.

Offshore wind farms are set to become common features along the NE coast in the coming decade. The Rhode Island wind farm is the pioneer. To see it, take a day trip to Block Island. If you’re driving between NYC and Boston, exit the I-95 at Hwy RI-138 (about 30 miles south of Providence); head east to Kingston. In Kingston turn right at Hwy RI-108 (traffic lights but no sign) and head south to Galilee and the Pt. Judith ferry terminal. Park your car at the ferry terminal (the ferry does carry vehicles). The Ferry departs for New Shoreham, Block Island, four times each day, year round. The trip, port to port, takes 55 minutes (scheduled). Rent a bike in New Shoreham, ride 15 minutes south (or walk the 1.8 miles) to Mohegan Bluffs. The wind farm’s five turbines are located about 3 miles to the SE, clearly visible from the island.

Map showing location of Deepwater Wind farm SE of Block Island RI
Deepwater Wind. Image: Landfall Navigation

Construction of the first large-scale offshore wind project, an 800 MW, 84 unit farm, will likely begin this year. The project is owned by New Bedford MA based Vineyard Wind Co., a 50-50 partnership Between Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners  and Avangrid Renewables. The array of wind turbines will be located about 14 miles south of Martha’s Vineyard MA (see map below). At that distance, the wind turbines will not be visible from land. The project will deliver electricity to Massachusetts for an initial price of 6.5 cents per KW hour, the price to rise by 2.5% year subsequently.

Map showing offshore Vineyard Wind lease area
Vineyard Wind lease area. Image credit: vineyard Wind website

According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s (NREL) 2016 study ‘Offshore Wind Energy Resource Assessment for the United States’, the Gross Resource Potential of the country’s offshore winds (excluding Alaska) is 10,800 GW. Of that amount, 2058 GW is listed as Technical Resource Potential, that is, the amount that could be harnessed today using currently available technology. Areas of the offshore wind zone that are not considered technically available at the present time include: areas where the depth is greater than  1,000 m (3281 ft); areas where the average wind speed is less than 7 m/second; shipping lanes; marine protected areas.

The existing electricity generating capacity of the U.S. is 1072 GW (2017). Of that, about 64% or 646 GW is generated by fossil fuel plants. The electricity from those polluting plants could be replaced three times over by clean electricity generated from Technical Resource offshore wind. The Trump administration is promoting offshore oil/gas exploration. What is the justification for spending billions hunting for fossil energy offshore while clean, cheaper, renewable energy blows past the rigs needed to do the drilling? There isn’t one. As electric cars displace fossil powered cars in the coming years, more clean electricity will be needed, not more petroleum.

Memo:
1 Kilowatt (KW) = 1,000 Watts
1 Megawatt (MW) = 1,000 KW = 1,000,000 Watts
1 Gigawatt (GW) = 1,000 MW = 1,000,000,000 Watts

Oil Industry promoters want to pay Americans not to complain about global warming

Photo of oil derricks, Long Beach CA in 1937
Oil derricks, Long Beach CA in 1937. Image: Lib. Of Congress

Every national government in the world knows that burning fossil fuels is a practice that’s killing us. All 197 UNFCCC member countries have either signed or acceded to the Paris Agreement dealing with greenhouse gas emissions. Yet the production of oil and gas continues unabated. The following table shows the production from the largest producers: the U.S., Russia, and Saudi Arabia. The U.S. alone has increased its production by about 55% since 2008

U.S. EIA chart showing oil and gas production

Global warming is the disease. Stopping fossil fuel production is the cure. Reducing production might at least help the patient survive. So why haven’t the producers acted? Because no legislation exists anywhere to force them to act. Nor is such legislation likely to appear anytime soon; politicians the world over dance to the tune of the fossil fuel industry. In the few countries where setting a price on carbon emissions is being tried, the taxes are set too low for the effects to work back to the producers of the fuel.

The fossil fuel industry’s business model is similar to the one used by the drug trade: push the product; saturate the market; keep the users hooked. Direct or indirect political involvement is a given. The equivalent of the drug kingpins are the guys running or controlling the world’s Oil and Gas companies: Exxon, Gazprom, BP, Aramco, Shell, to name a few. The pushers are all the entities that stand to gain from the industry’s continued existence. They range from nation states and oil companies down to the industry’s bottom feeders: bought politicians; co-opted scientists; paid lobbyists; etc. A formidable array.

American Fossil fuel pushers are easy to spot because their statements are obviously pro industry. Sometimes their ideas sound reasonable at first reading. The Climate Leadership Council (CLC) is an example. Its proposal — called the Baker-Shultz Carbon Dividends Plan (aka: the Climate Consensus Solution) — is presented as a sort of prospectus in its 6 page website. The plan is heavy on promotion, light on specifics. Change a few words in it and the thing could pass as a sales pitch, complete with big-name endorsements, for Florida investment property.

According to its website, the CLC is “an international policy institute founded . . . to promote a carbon dividends framework as the most cost-effective, equitable and politically-viable climate solution.” Its plan, the website says, is backed by “3500+ economists, 27 Nobel laureates, all 4 former Fed Chairs, and 15 former Chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers.” 3500+ economists? That’s what it says. The following image identifies the CLC’s founding members.

Photo list of Climate Leadership Council founding members
Climate Leadership Council founding members. Image from CLC website

The CLC plan proposes that polluting industries pay a carbon tax on CO2 emissions, the money to be collected and given back to the American people in the form of dividend cheques. In exchange, the American people would have to agree to: the elimination of certain EPA emissions regulations; repeal of the clean power rule; and the introduction of a new law that would prohibit lawsuits of the sort that are currently plaguing fossil fuel producers. In other words, while the emitters of CO2 (all industries that burn fossil fuel) would pay a carbon tax, the producers of oil and gas, who refine but don’t burn much of the stuff themselves, would not have to pay much of the carbon tax. Instead, they would get to stick around producing more fossil fuel without having to worry about being sued for causing global warming.

Here’s how the creators of this ‘believe it or not’ scheme sum it all up:

“A sensible carbon tax might begin at $40 a ton and increase steadily over time, sending a powerful signal to businesses and consumers, while generating revenue to reward Americans for decreasing their collective carbon footprint.”

Let’s see how that might work: (1) Industry pays carbon taxes. (2) The tax money is collected and distributed to all Americans as a reward (for agreeing not to sue Oil and Gas companies?) (3) Industry raises its prices to recover the tax cost. (4) Americans use their reward money to cover the extra cost of the stuff they buy from industry. At what point in that Mobius Loop does a reduction in fossil fuel use take place? It doesn’t. The thing is a fantasy. But wait. Isn’t it true that carbon taxes work over time to limit the use of fossil fuels? Yes, but not when the taxing system is designed by fossil fuel pushers as is the case with this CLC plan. This plan is about convincing Americans to shut up about global warming so that the oil and gas companies can get on with the business of making money while the planet burns.

Among the CLC founding members shown in the image above, the five oil and gas companies are doubtless fully supportive of the CLC plan. As for the rest, who knows. My guess is that most of them don’t know exactly what they’ve lent their names to. The CLC pitch is misleading. The website prospectus mentions ‘carbon dividends’ 11 times and ‘climate solution’ 8 times. A dividend-generating Climate Solution sounds good. On the other hand, the words, oil, gas, fossil, or fuel, appear only once or not at all in the prospectus. Those are words that remind people of what causes global warming in the first place.

The Climate Leadership Council is headquartered in Washington DC at 1250 Connecticut Ave. NW.

1250 Connecticut Ave. NW, Washington DC
1250 Connecticut Ave. NW, Washington DC

ExxonMobil: savvy company or a dinosaur with climate-killing instincts?

Photo of ExxonMobil sign

Interviewed on TV March 7, Darren Woods, CEO of ExxonMobiI, was asked how politics and the Green New Deal could affect his approach to running the company. His responses reveal plenty about the vulnerability of his company; more than speeches by industry executives typically deliver.

ExxonMobil is the largest publicly traded oil and gas company in the world. Its operations generate correspondingly large volumes of carbon dioxide, the cause of our global warming crisis. The company’s operations affect every living thing on the planet. That’s why the people who direct those operations must be watched closely. To make Mr. Woods interview responses easier to follow, they’ve been transcribed from spoken to written form and presented within quote marks below. The underlining is mine. Mr. Woods first tackles the part of the interviewer’s question that he’s most comfortable with, the political part:

“Energy is such an important part of people’s daily lives and their standard of living that as you think about these big ideas and as you translate them down to the smaller practical steps you take, people become very cognizant of what the impacts are for individuals, and as that starts to happen, people’s views change as to how far they can go and how quickly they can go.”

See how easily Mr. Woods brushes aside “these big ideas” i.e. the Green New Deal. The Green New Deal is a political idea and Mr. Woods is no stranger to politics. However, the Green New Deal is based on the availability of actual machines that can be seen today producing electricity at lower cost than electricity from fossil fuels. That’s the crux of the matter. Unlike ideas, machines that people can see and touch are impossible to brush aside. Watch as Mr. Woods struggles with that reality in the following paragraph:

Our approach to that is to try to be part of the solution and engage with that. We have a long long history in this industry and a really good perspective on the global energy system, and we’re a company that’s grounded in science and technology, and if you look at the risk of climate change and what people and society are focused on in terms of lower emission energy systems, we’re going to need some technology breakthroughs. The conventional technology set doesn’t address the gaps that are out there today. We think we can play a role in that. In fact that’s where we’re investing some of our technology and our RD dollars to help fill some of those gaps.”

There you have it. As soon as Mr. Woods gets close to the crux of the matter, he backs away. Apparently unwilling to even mention the existence of green technologies, he implies that they don’t exist. Then he asks us to imagine gaps that need filling with “breakthrough technologies.” What Mr. Woods is saying is that the fossil fuel industry Is not equipped to deal with the climate problems it has created. Prompted by the interviewer, Mr. Woods now goes on to tell us how his company is working hard to invent the “lower emission energy systems” that the world needs.

Well, there are lots of different ideas out there. The way we look at it is that its got be be scaleable, it’s got to work at scale, and ultimately it’s got to be economic so that people can afford it, and it’s got to be reliableSo one of the things that we’ve been working on for many years is algae, biodiesel from algaeand the reason for that today is that we don’t have a good solution set for commercial transportation and emissions from commercial transportation, and algae and biodiesel could do that. Carbon capture and storage is another area that has potential but today the economics are very challenging, so finding more economical methods for capturing carbon is another exciting area. We’re looking at how you utilize the carbon you capture; what do you do with it? You can store it underground and you can also turn it into other products. So we’ve got a lot of research in terms of how you might use carbon and turn it into another product that society could use. So there’s a lot of exciting stuff happening in this space and we’re participating pretty broadly in that technology space. We’ve got relationships with eighty universities around the world. We’re working with the National Lab. We’re working with  governments around the world. So we’re trying to stay plugged in to make sure that we’re contributing as we can.

That’s it. The world is threatened by climactic Armageddon and the best ExxonMobil can come with by way of potential fixes are biodiesel and carbon capture. Biodiesel is not a global warming fix; nor is carbon capture. Carbon capture is an economic loser. A fossil fueled machine that’s already economically challenged will become even more uneconomical after another machine is attached to its smokey ass. An eight year old could tell them as much. So what’s going on? Is the idea’s primary purpose to calm the nerves of skittish investors — a line of bull to make the company’s prospects look sound? I suspect it is. ExxonMobil is not a savvy company.

As Mr. Woods correctly points out, energy technologies must work economically and reliably when scaled up to commercial size. That’s exactly what green technologies — photovoltaics, wind turbines, battery storage systems — are doing right now. That’s why Mr. Woods doesn’t mention them; they are an existential threat to the fossil fuel industry and are taken seriously by that industry.

The Green New Deal, however, is not taken seriously by its detractors. Why? Because it’s not a real thing, it’s an abstraction. That’s what makes it difficult to promote successfully. Advice to the Democrats: promote the work the green technologies are doing right now; win the next election; then introduce the Green New Deal.

The following YouTube video shows Mr. Wood’s TV interview of March 7, 2019.  The first two and a half minutes is the part of the video discussed in this post.

 

How the Oil & Gas Industry gets others to fight for its life

Vice President Mike Pence, speaking at a meeting of the Ohio Oil & Gas Association on March 8, 2019, delivered the following message to the members: “The oil and gas industry, I want to promise you,” he said, “has no greater friend than President Donald Trump. And as the President said, in his words, our administration will not only seek American energy independence but will seek American energy dominance.” (whitehouse.gov –  briefings)

Photo of VP Mike Pence speaking to Ohio Oil & Gas Assoc. March 8, 2019
VP Mike Pence speaks at a meeting of the Ohio Oil & Gas Assoc. March 8, 2019. Image credit: Brooke LaValley/Columbus Dispatch

The oil industry is on the defensive for causing global warming, sea level rise, mega storms, the end of life as we know it. People who want it stopped are protesting in the streets, launching lawsuits. Smart energy technologies such as photovoltaics are showing the industry up for what it is: smelly,  poisonous, obsolete. Is the industry buckling under the weight of these assaults? Not yet. Since science and the facts are on the side of their tormentors, oil industry executives are fighting back with a weapon that can defeat any amount of truth — money.

The industry is wielding its money weapon in three ways: 1. buying politicians; 2. swamping the market; 3. financing climate science deniers.

Politicians are first on the industry’s purchase list. The following chart from a report by OpenSecrets, shows the top Oil Industry contributors to the 2017-2018 election cycle. As the chart makes clear, oil industry contributions go to Republicans by an overwhelming margin. Oil industry executives know where to get the biggest bang for their bucks. They own the Republicans in Congress.

Chart of top Oil Industry contributors to election campaigns, 2017-2018
Top Oil Industry contributors to election campaigns, 2017-2018. Image credit: OpenSecrets.org

The chart shows only direct political donations— money that’s easy to track. The oil and gas industry spends millions more dollars on lobbying and Political Action Committees (PAC’s), money that’s difficult to track.

Do political contributions work? During his talk to the Ohio Oil and Gas Association, the Vice President made sure to tell his listeners how their contributions do indeed work: “We [the Trump administration] approved the Keystone and Dakota pipelines; withdrew the United States from the job-killing Paris Climate Accord; eliminated the hydraulic fracking rule; rolled back methane; we’re ending the Clean Power Plan; scrapped the Stream Protection Rule; and now, under President Donald Trump, the war on coal is over. American energy is booming.” (Applause)

There are two ways to swamp a market. One way is to increase production so as to undercut the competition (cleaner more efficient energy technologies). The second way is to invest heavily in down-stream facilities so as to embed the use of a product more firmly into the economy. The oil and gas industry is lavishing its investors money in both ways. A 2018 study commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute (API) titled ‘U.S. Oil and Gas Infrastructure Investment through 2035’, predicts that the industry will spend at least $1 trillion (a million million dollars – see pie charts below) on new facilities such as pipelines, storage tanks, refineries, export terminals. There’s nothing in the 154 page report about renewable energy technologies or anything related to global warming. For the API and its members, the goal is fossil fuel domination, the planet be damned.

Pie charts showing projected investment in oil and gas infrastructure
From a 2018 study commissioned by the American Petroleum Inst. Image credit: ICF Fairfax VA

Providing financial assistance to individuals and groups willing to spread disinformation about climate science is a big part of the industry’s survival strategy. There are dozens of groups that work to discredit climate science and the impacts of global warming. The Trump administration is packed with individuals drawn from oil companies or from the disinformation mills that live off them. Some of the better known groups include: the American Enterprise Institute; the Manhattan Institute; the Heritage Foundation; the Heartland Institute. Not wishing to become objects of mockery themselves, oil industry executives never publicly express agreement with the absurd views generated by such outfits. Instead they buy clowns and crazies to do it for them. It doesn’t matter how outlandish or mad the stories are. The important thing is that they reach the ears of the millions of people prone to believe them.

President Trump — a faithful servant of the oil and gas industry — is an exemplar of the ‘clowns and crazies’ crowd. He has a talent for delivering climate-science falsehoods to large appreciative audiences in the manner of a standup comic. Speaking at a National Republican Congressional Committee fund raising dinner, April 2, Trump said: “If you have a windmill anywhere near your house, congratulations, your house just went down 75% in value. And they say the noise causes cancer. You tell me (waves his arms while vocalizing sound of rotating windmill).” See 26 second video clip below.

Trump is simply a windbag who puffs out drivel in support of his masters, the oil industry bosses. Those are the guys the Democrats need to bring under control. Until that happens, advancing the objectives of the Paris Climate Accord will be difficult.

 

 

 

 

The Colorado River — not enough water; too many straws

The U.S. Reclamation Act of 1902 is a federal law that works to fund and manage water projects in the arid regions of the American west. Much of the work is focused on the Colorado River. By the end of the 20th century, the engineers of the Bureau of Reclamation had built the system of dams, reservoirs, and aqueducts that control the river and distribute its waters to the surrounding seven states. About 4 million acres of agricultural land and 40 million people consume the river’s entire flow. By the time the river reaches its estuary at the north end of the Gulf of California in Mexico, its flow is reduced to a trickle. The following map shows the extent and main water features of the Colorado River Basin.

Map of the Colorado River Basin
The Colorado River Basin. Image: Bureau of Reclamation

Today, the viability of the Colorado River project is threatened by two powerful forces: drought and global warming. The regional drought, now in its nineteenth year, has reduced river flow volumes to the point where the basin states, for the first time ever, are talking about cuts to water consumption.

The Hoover Dam is located about 35 road miles SE of Las Vegas. The effect of drought plus global warming is measured by the level of water in Lake Mead, the reservoir for the Hoover Dam. When full, the elevation of the lake surface above sea level is 1,221 ft. — the  lip of the dam. The lowest possible elevation of the lake surface is 895 ft. — the bottom water outlet in the dam. The lake at its lowest water level is known as ‘dead pool’. That’s when the Colorado River downstream from the Hoover dam would run dry. Before that happens, a drop to 1,025 ft. will trigger an emergency and the Bureau of Reclamation will take control and enforce water consumption cuts on all the basin states.

The current water level in Lake Mead (April 8) is 1,090 ft., which is 131 ft below full pool. The level fluctuates by 10 to 12 ft every year due to the spring release of the annual allotment of water to farmers, mainly in California  (see chart below). Since 1983 — the last time the lake was full — the water level has dropped around 4 feet per year on average. If the drought continues unabated and no drastic cuts are made to water consumption, a rough calculation suggests that panic time will arrive in about 12 years.

Chart showing water level in Lake Mead, AZ
Water level in Lake Mead during 2017, 2018, & 2019 (to 8 April). Image from LakeLevels.info

The Parker Dam is located 160 miles downstream from the Hoover Dam. The water backed up by the Parker Dam Is called Havasu Lake. The lake stores water for pumping into two aqueducts, namely the Colorado River Aqueduct that feeds water to Southern California, and the Central Arizona Project (CAP) that delivers water to Phoenix and Tucson in Arizona (see map above). While the Hoover Dam is the Bureau of Reclamation’s greatest engineering achievement, the CAP project may prove to be the Bureau’s last major construction job — and the Colorado River’s last straw.

To reach the Parker Dam after visiting the Hoover Dam, take US-93 to Kingman, then west on I-40, then south on AZ-95 to the dam, a total of 160 miles of desert driving. The source of the CAP aqueduct, and the pumping station that draws its water from Lake Havasu, is located to the left of the highway a few miles short of the dam. The only way to see it is to park by the side of the highway (there are wide gravel verges) and walk to the bridge overlooking the station.

Photo of CAP pumping station on Lake Havasu
CAP pumping station on Lake Havasu

The water for the aqueduct is pumped at the rate of 3,000 cubic feet per second through a 7 mile long tunnel driven upward through the mountain behind the pumping station. The discharge end of the tunnel is 824 ft higher in elevation than its intake end. The aqueduct itself is basically a concrete-lined canal, open to the elements. The aqueduct snakes across the desert to Phoenix and Tucson for a total length of 336 miles. Over its length, there are 12 tunnels and 4 pumping stations. The total rise in elevation from Lave Havasu to Phoenix is 1,247 ft.

Aerial photo of CAP aqueduct
Central Arizona Project (CAP) aqueduct. Image: USBR.gov

To reach Phoenix from the Parker Dam, drive south on AZ-95, then east on Interstate-10. It requires another 170+ miles of desert driving. The CAP aqueduct took 20 years to construct. Completed in 1993, it cost about $3.5 billion to bring water from the Colorado River to the desert city of Phoenix. Will the CAP aqueduct contain water 20 years from today? My guess is, no, not a drop.

Photo of CAP aqueduct, Phoenix AZ
CAP aqueduct looking west from Black Canyon Hwy., Phoenix

Arizona Governor Doug Ducey, is fully aware of the water shortage problems threatening the south-west states. The Governor, however, does not like to talk about global warming or climate change. He prefers the phrase: “transitioning to a dryer future.” Accurate but not accurate enough. If the Governor wants us to face the future squarely, he needs to add the word ‘hotter’ to his phrase. The following graph shows average annual temperature for Phoenix since 1900. It shows that it is indeed getting hotter in that city.

Graph showing average annual temperature in Phoenix AZ since 1900
From U.S. National Weather Service

NJ Transit – Railroading in the age of Sea Level Rise

Satellite image of New York Metro region at night
Satellite view of New York metropolitan region at night

The New York Metropolitan region is cut in half by the Hudson River which runs north-south through the region’s center (see satellite view above). Of the region’s +20 million residents, 1.6 million commute into Manhattan, the region’s core, from surrounding districts. Of those, about 400,000 must cross the Hudson every week day from New Jersey, the west side of the river, by rail, road, or ferry. When Hurricane Sandy blew in from the Atlantic October 2012, the cross-Hudson mass transit pathways were knocked completely out of commission for more than a week. Repairs to flood damaged tunnels continue to this day.

New York’s subway system (MTA), and the PATH rail system that carries about 60% of New Jersey’s Manhattan-bound commuters, were back in business within 2 to 3 weeks. By comparison, the New Jersey transit system struggled for 3 months to get back on its wheels. Why? According to a post-Sandy investigation by WNYC (NY Public Radio), the NJ Transit officials had no plan to deal with the storm surge caused by Sandy because they failed to appreciate the effect global warming is having on storm size. In the days leading up to Sandy, the National Weather Service repeatedly warned of storm tides of up to 15 feet. Yet NJ Transit officials paid no attention.

Believing they knew from past experience how to keep their equipment dry, the NJ Transit officials decided to park much of their rolling stock in two rail yards that forecasters had predicted would flood: the Meadowlands maintenance yard and the Hoboken yard (see map below). The storm surge flooded both yards, seriously damaging about 70 locomotives and 260 rail cars, roughly a third of the corporation’s fleet. Compare that to New York’s MTA which  lost only about 20 of its 8,000 rail cars during the same storm, even though all of its Lower Manhattan subway tunnels south of 34th Street were flooded.

Map showing areas of NYC and NJ flooded by Sandy
Areas flooded by Sandy. NJT train yard locations marked in red. Image: nichiusa.org

The Meadowlands yard is a 78-acre site in Kearny surrounded by wetlands where the Passaic River joins the Hackensack River — a natural flood plain. The yard contains the corporation’s maintenance facilities, indoor equipment storage buildings, training center, and the transit system’s operations center. The storm surge flooded the yard to a depth of 8 feet, damaging everything it touched.

Photo of NJ Transit Meadowlands Rail yard
NJ Transit Meadowlands rail yard looking east. Manhattan skyline in the distance. Image: Google

Asked to explain NJ Transit’s storm preparations at a State Assembly committee hearing some months later, Jim Weinstein, the corporation’s executive director at the time, said: “I can tell you decisions on where to keep our locomotives were sound, based on all the information we had at the time . . . The facts are the weather models we evaluated at the time had an 80 to 90 percent chance the rail yards would stay dry. Our decisions were informed by the fact that neither of those rail yards had ever flooded. It is entirely wrong to characterize them as flood-prone.”

An article published by the Union of Concerned Scientists titled ‘Protecting New Jersey from Sea Level Rise: the future of the Meadowlands’ has this to say: “If emissions continue to rise through the end of the century, sea level is projected to rise more than 6 feet by 2100. In this scenario, the same areas of northern New Jersey and New York City that we’re flooded by Hurricane Sandy’s storm surge would be inundated more than 26 times per year, or every other week on average.” And that statement has nothing to say about what future storms coupled with rising sea level will do in the interim.

Northern New Jersey is a heavily urbanized/industrialized region dependent on a fantastically complex network of roads and railways. The number of elevated sections, bridges, underpasses and overpasses are too many to count. Three of the state’s largest city’s, Newark, Jersey City, and Elizabeth, as well as Newark International Airport, are all located on or surrounded by low-lying, flood prone real estate. And then there’s the Meadowlands, now only a remnant of its previous size. The Meadowlands, a stretch of wetlands, shows just how low-lying the region really is, and how difficult, perhaps impossible, it’s going to be to protect it from the encroaching sea.

Satellite view of New Jersey metro region
Satellite view of New Jersey Metro region. Image: Google

The following snapshot shows a portion of the Meadowlands as seen from the I-95 Highway which bisects the feature from north to south. The NJ Transit rail line from Hoboken to Lyndhurst is on the right. The tall structure to the left of the transmission tower is part of the draw bridge which allows trains to cross the Hackensack River. The Manhattan skyline can be seen in the distance on the left. The water directly to the right of the rails, and only a few feet lower than the rail bed, is part of the Hackensack River. The storm surge from Hurricane Sandy flooded the Meadowlands including all the rail lines crossing it.

Photo of NJ Meadowlands where I-95 crosses NJ Transit Rail line
View of Meadowlands where I-95 crosses NJ Transit rail line from Hoboken to Lyndhurst

Another view of the New Jersey Meadowlands looking east across marsh water and beyond it, the Hackensack River (center).

Photo of New Jersey Meadowlands seen from
New Jersey Meadowlands looking east from I-95 Highway. Manhattan skyline in distance

 

New York v. ExxonMobil — the climate fraud case

Global warming — the rise in the atmosphere’s average temperature since pre-industrial times — forms the background to the State of New York v. the ExxonMobil Corporation lawsuit.

Chart of ice core data showing CO2 levels from year 1000 to1990’s
Ice core data showing CO2 levels from year 1000 to 1990’s. Image: CSIRO

Before 1800, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere fluctuated around 280 ppm (see chart above). The level of CO2 began its steep rise around 1800 due to the heavy use of coal during the industrial revolution. By the 1990’s, the continued burning of fossil fuels had  raised the CO2 level to 350 ppm. Today the level exceeds 411 ppm (NOAA-ESRL, March 2019).

CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat from the sun, a result of the greenhouse effect. As the level of CO2 increases, so does the atmospheric temperature. The Paris Climate Agreement set a goal of “holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C (3.6°F) above pre-industrial levels.” As of this date (March 2019), the average increase has already exceeded 1°C.

ExxonMobil does not deny that global warming is occurring. Nor does it deny that burning fossil fuels is the major cause of it. It is also fully aware of the various government actions being taken worldwide to limit the burning of fossil fuels. What the company is supposed to do is incorporate that knowledge into its financial statements so that investors can judge for themselves whether or not to risk their money. This requires that the company anticipate future government actions, such as, for example, the imposition of carbon taxes, and calculate their financial effects. What the lawsuit alleges is that the company lied to its investors about the potential impact of such actions. In other words, it deliberately underestimated the risks.

The New York Attorney General in her filing of October 24, 2018, against the company puts it more strongly. Exxon, the filing says, perpetrated a “longstanding fraudulent scheme … to deceive investors and the investment community … concerning the company’s management of the risks posed to its business by climate change.” Considering that the AG’s office spent three years investigating Exxon before charging it with fraud, you can bet that whatever the company is accused of doing, it won’t be easy to explain or prove in court.

Which of the parties involved in this lawsuit deserves support or sympathy? None of them. Not the investors. Not the Attorney General’s office. Certainly not ExxonMobil. Whether or not Exxon is found guilty of fraud, we know that it is guilty of pushing its product onto the market by any means it can get away with including: heavy lobbying of government; ladling out election financing to friendly politicians; feeding money to pro-industry organizations (propaganda outlets).

The internet provides investors with the same global warming information available to the Exxon Corporation. The risks of investing in the fossil fuel industry are plain to see. Signs of the industry’s slow but inevitable decline are already evident. Just how slow is anybody’s guess. Spreadsheets from corporate accountants will not aid in the guessing. The risk-free option is not to invest in the industry.

According to Bloomberg News (Oct. 24/18), the State of New York holds about $1.5 billion worth of Exxon stock. The investment includes “the state’s common retirement fund, with more than 1 million employees and retirees, and the New York State Teachers Retirement System, with nearly half a million members.” Considering that New York is a member of the U.S. Climate Alliance, and therefore supposedly committed to upholding the objectives of the 2015 Paris Agreement on limiting global warming, it strikes me as odd, hypocritical even, that the state retains its investment in a fossil fuel company, particularly one that’s being sued by its own Attorney General.

Some people say that the Trump administration’s opposition to the Paris Climate Accord, and its total support of the fossil fuel industry, should make it unnecessary for business, or the courts, or investors, to take global warming seriously. Those people are wrong. Dealing with the Trump Administration is like dealing with a monkey in a dining room leaping about spilling drinks, snatching food off plates, shitting on the table cloth. The prudent diner will wait until the monkey is removed before ordering a meal.

Gatehouse entrance to ExxonMobil headquarters, Irving TX
Gatehouse entrance to ExxonMobil headquarters, Irving TX. Image: Google

Death by Plastic

Cuvier’s Beaked Whales (Ziphius cavirostris) are known for their extreme diving abilities. Researchers using satellite-linked tags to measure the diving behavior of the species off the Southern California coast have recorded one dive to 9,816 ft (2992 m) in depth, and another lasting 137.5 minutes, “both new mammalian dive records.” The work, carried out by Gregory Scharr and colleagues of the Cascadia Research Collective, was published March 26, 2014 in the open access journal, PLOS ONE.

Phot of Cuvier’s Beaked Whale
Cuvier’s Beaked Whale. Image: Cetacean Research & Rescue Unit, Banff, Scotland.

Because of the animal’s preference for deep water, typically far from shore, the living habits of this marvellous creature are poorly understood. Most of the collected knowledge about the species comes from the study of dead specimens. A week ago (March 16), marine researchers in the Philippians learned that a young Cuvier’s Beaked Whale could hold 88 lbs (40 kg) of plastic trash in its stomach before dying of “gastric shock”.

According to an article in the National Geographic, the young 15ft long, 1,100 pound whale was still alive when it washed up on the shore of the Davao Gulf. The people who found it said it looked emaciated and was vomiting blood before it died. The magazine quotes Darrell Blatchley, the marine biologist who performed an autopsy on the body: “Plastic was just bursting out its stomach”. Blatchley describes the contents as being like two densely packed basketballs, but hard as a baseball, some of it calcified from being in the stomach for so long. The trash, 8% of the animal’s total weight, included plastic shopping bags of various sizes, rice sacks, banana bags, and tangles of nylon rope. According to the National Geographic piece, the animal’s “stomach acid, unable to break down the plastic waste, had worn holes through its stomach lining instead.”

Writing about how much plastic trash can fit inside the belly of a whale has reminded me of the email I sent last December to James Quincey, CEO of the Coca-Cola Co. concerning his talk on ‘sustainability’ published on YouTube, August 30, 2018 – see below. The Coca-Cola Company reportedly generates — world wide — about 3 million tons of plastic packaging annually, all of it destined to pollute land, sea, or air, in one form or another. What concerned me about Mr. Quincey’s comments on plastic, was that, rather than talk about alternatives, he went on about how improved ‘recycling’ of plastic waste could ultimately fix the problem of plastic waste pollution.

My email to Mr. Quincey’s was intended to remind him that recycling plastic waste is not a ‘sustainable’ solution to the pollution problem. The email listed the following three reasons why it isn’t:

First, the collection of discarded plastic is driven by local demands for the cleanup of unsightly trash, and it depends on the availability of municipal taxes and/or government subsidies to pay for the work. There are many places, including whole countries, that cannot afford decent garbage disposal, let alone the facilities needed to extract plastic from the stuff.
Second, even in places where the collection of trash is good, there is no profit motive to drive plastic recycling. The cheapest way to make plastic is to use fossil fuels – oil, gas, coal – as the raw material. It’s far more expensive to extract used plastic from garbage and then reprocess it.
Third, even if increased levels of plastic recycling could be achieved, the amount of plastic in the environment would continue to rise. That’s because recycled plastics remain in the environment as potential pollutants. For example, lawn chairs made from recycled plastic bottles eventually return to the trash pile. Recycling merely delays the pollution caused by the recycled stream.

Promoting the idea of recycling to reduce plastic pollution is a useful PR position for a corporation like Coca-Cola to adopt— in the short term. But what, I asked Mr. Quincey, is his company’s actual, sustainable, solution for the long term? I’m expecting a positive reply; something like: plastic is an abomination, a scourge, there’s no choice but to phase it out, we must use glass instead, the quicker we act the better.

I haven’t received any reply from Mr. Quincey yet, but I’ll update this post when I do.

While the whale that died from gastric shock will disintegrate and return harmlessly to the earth, the trash removed from its stomach continues to exist. Conceivably the same trash could some day find its way back into the ocean to once again kill more creatures — assuming there are any creatures left to kill. That’s the problem with plastics. Like the fossil fuels from which they are derived, once let loose into the environment, the damage they cause lasts indefinitely and becomes virtually impossible to control. Perhaps next time Mr. Quincey and his fellow Coca-Cola board members meet to discuss corporate business, they’ll consider more carefully the implications of their product-packaging decisions. To use a business jargon term, the company needs to get out ahead of the curve.

Photo of Coca-Cola Co. Board of Directors
Coca-Cola Board of Directors. James Quincey 7th From left. Image from Coca-Cola Co. website

 

Climate Bafflegab: the words Big Business uses to keep us ignorant

Bafflegab: language deliberately used to confuse, obscure, baffle

The Limits to Growth, a report commissioned by The Club of Rome, hit the book stands in 1972. Widely discussed at the time, it’s a study of industrial and population growth in relation to the supply of resources. It concluded that, unless the world changed its ways, limits to growth would become evident by the year 2072. Since its publication, more than 30 million copies of the book have sold, and it continues to generate debate to this day.

Photo of The Limits to Growth, 1st Edition cover

Question: why is the phrase ‘Limits to Growth’ so rarely mentioned in the press or elsewhere? What happened to it? Answer: Big Business, aided by its friends in government, buried it. Business leaders like to talk about growing their businesses, never about stunting them. Outside of academic circles, talk about limiting growth is considered bad taste, like spitting in public. How did Business manage to suppress the phrase so completely? Easy. It promoted an alternative phrase more to its liking. It’s called ‘Sustainable Development’, a masterpiece of bafflegab.

Google’s Ngram Viewer consists of a search engine and a database of about five million books published up to the year 2008. It provides a way to chart the frequency over time of any set of words or phrases appearing in the data set of printed texts. By choosing 1900 as the start date, and entering these three phrases, industrial development, limits to growth, and sustainable development, the Viewer generates the following chart.

Image of Google Ngram chart
Google Ngram Chart. (All) = case insensitive

The People who write books tend to use the words and phrases acceptable to the people they hope will read them. Books reflect what people are talking about at any point in time. When it was published in 1972, the Club of Rome’s book reflected the growing discomfort with industrialization. That’s when talk about ‘industrial development’ started heading downhill (see chart) and talk about ‘limits to growth’ began to gain traction. Big Business had to act fast and it did. By 1990, the new, business-friendly phrase ‘sustainable development’ had eclipsed the phrase ‘limits to growth’, and would soon take over from the phrase ‘industrial development’.

Does that mean Big Business is out of the woods, free to carry on as before? Not quite. There remains the question of global warming and its bafflegab replacement phrase ‘climate change’.  Yes, that’s right, ‘Climate change’ is a phrase chosen and promoted by Big Business in its ongoing attempt to bury the words ‘global warming’. Business hates the phrase ‘global warming’. The words imply that, not only is the world getting hotter, but that there’s no limit to how hot It will get. Business does not want to get blamed for cooking its customers. ‘Climate change’ by comparison, sounds positively benign. As President Trump has remarked, the climate could “change back again”.

Here’s what the Ngram chart shows when the phrases global warming and climate change are added.

Image of Google Ngram Chart
Google Ngram Chart (All) = case insensitive

‘Climate change’ and ‘sustainable development’, the two bafflegab phrases, are up there leading the pack, exactly where Business likes to see them. ‘Global warming’, the truthful phrase, although still in the race, is lagging.  ‘Limits to growth’, also a truthful phrase, remains lying in the dirt — for now.