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 rational 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).

 

 

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

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.

Big Oil rattled by Electric Vehicles; Senator Barrasso tries to help

Worldwide sales of electric vehicles (EVs) have been climbing steadily since 2010. While the proportion of EVs to new car sales is still less than 3% worldwide, the oil industry is disturbed by the trend in total numbers sold (see graph below).

Graph showing sales of EVs in leading markets 2011 to 2017
Sales of EVs in leading markets. Image from Wikipedia.org

Transportation is now the country’s largest source of global warming carbon dioxide. If CO2 emissions are to be reduced, EVs will have to play a major role. For oil refiners, that’s bad news. Electric Vehicles don’t run on gasoline, which means less profit at the pump.

What do giant corporations do when confronted by threats to their market dominance? The simple answer is, they buy political influence. But they also need to be helpful (in a practical way) to the politicians they aim to influence. That is, they need to show them exactly what legislation to adopt and pass into law. That’s where ALEC comes in.

ALEC, short for American Legistative Exchange Council, is a conservative, non-profit, bill-writing organization headquartered in Arlington VA. Its motto is, ‘“Limited Government, Free Markets, Federalism”. Membership includes state legislators and private sector representatives, people who get together to discuss and agree on their political objectives and then convert those objectives into the legislative language of government bills. These ‘model’ bills are then distributed to states that want to adopt them. The bills generated by ALEC reflect the politics of its right wing, conservative, Republican membership. Bills aimed at reducing corporate taxes, cutting environmental regulations, opposing gun control, introducing tough voter ID rules, and weakening labor unions, are typical of the organization’s output.

Several nations, including the U.S., have introduced incentives designed to encourage the purchase of electric vehicles. The U.S. offers a federal tax credit of up to $7,500 to people who buy new EVs., a measure that predates the Trump era. Last November, and again in December, oil industry representatives and state legislators held ALEC meetings to discuss (in private) how to kill the tax credit. According to The Guardian of 4th Dec., the participants secretly approved resolutions “supporting stripping tax benefits from electric vehicles and endorsing Donald Trump’s pro-fossil fuel energy agenda. And they voted down a proposal to limit monopoly control of the power industry, which backers said would give consumers more choice and help grow renewable electricity faster and more cheaply.”

Entities linked to the ALEC meetings included Marathon Petrolium, the nation’s largest refiner, and the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers Association (AFPM). Marathon alone has reported spending close to a million dollars lobbying Congress about the EV tax credit and other issues. The fossil fuel industry’s man in Congress is John Barrasso, Republican Senator from Wyoming.

Photo of U.S. Senator John Barrasso
U.S. Senator John Barrasso (R-WY). Image: Facebook

Barrasso heads the Senate Environment & Public Works Committe, and sits on the Energy & Natural Resources Committe. According to OpenSecrets.org Barrasso received $520,650 in campaign financing from the fossil fuel industry over the period 2013 to 2018. Last October, the Senator introduced a bill to Congress to revoke the EV tax credit and to impose a highway use fee on electric vehicles to make up for the fact that their owners  don’t pay a gasoline tax.

On March 6 of this year, Barrasso Spoke from the Senate Floor on the subject of the Democrats “Green New Deal”. He was responding to a challenge from Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), to tell the Senate what the Republicans planned to do about climate change. Here’s part of what Barrasso said (Senate Committee Press release):

It’s a plan: cut carbon through innovation, not regulation. The question is: do we believe the climate is changing? Do humans have an impact? The answer is yes to both. . . . Second, the United States and the world will continue to rely on affordable and abundant fossil fuel, including coal, to power our economies for decades to come. And we need to also rely on innovation. Not new taxes, not punishing global agreements. That’s the ultimate solution.

Interesting plan — Stick to fossil fuels and innovate. Innovate how? I’m guessing ‘green plan’ type innovations such as wind generators, photovoltaics, battery storage systems, and electric vehicles, are not what the Senator has in mind.

Four-door electric sedans currently sell In the U.S. for $30,000 and up. How will the oil industry react when prices fall? The image below shows the EV currently being built in China  by Great Wall Motors. It’s listed at around $9,000, little more than the tax credit Senator Barrasso is so keen on killing. That’s the future the oil industry will have to contend with.

Climate science bugs Trump — He reaches for the bug-off

Aerial photo of Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Maine
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Maine, one of several large military bases at risk from Sea Level Rise. Image credit: U.S. Navy

President Trump is vexed. Despite his well publicized positions on global warming — it’s a hoax; it doesn’t exist; etc., — elements within his own administration continue to insist that the phenomenon poses a threat to national security. For example, Daniel Coats, Director of National Intelligence, recently submitted the agency’s Worldwide Threat Assessment to the Senate Intelligence Committee for its review. The report states that “Global environmental and ecological degradation, as well as climate change, are likely to fuel competition for resources, economic distress, and social discontent through 2019 and beyond.”

The problem for Mr. Trump is what to do about these public servants who contradict his position on climate change. His natural impulse is to fire them — learned behaviour from his entertainment days. But taking that approach with the military would likely backfire. He would have to sack  a slew of senior officers. The country’s largest military bases are built on the coast and under increasing threat from sea level rise, storm surge, and hurricanes. The top brass know that and have said so publicly.

The following YouTube video from Democracy Now, shows damage caused by Hurricane Michael to Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, on October 10, 2018. It also gets New York Times journalist Dave Philipps’s take on the reaction of the Trump Administration. Hurricane Michael was the first ever on-record category-4 cyclone to hit the Florida panhandle .

If there is one thing Mr. Trump has learned during his time in office, it is that it’s not easy in a democracy to silence dissenters. Silencing them can’t be accomplished simply by decree. To succeed, even partially, directives need to be justified in some way. That’s what Mr. Trump has lacked — justification for gagging, or at least quieting, the climate change chatterers in his administration. Now he’s aiming to rectify that situation.

Photo of professor William Happer, Ph.D.
William Happer, Ph.D. Image: Heartland Inst. website

According to the Feb. 20 Washington Post, the White House is assembling a panel to assess whether climate change poses a threat to  national security. The man slated to head the panel is William Happer. Happer is an emeritus professor of physics at Princeton University. He’s also a climate change sceptic with a bee in his bonnet about carbon dioxide (CO2). While Happer agrees that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, he claims that most of the atmospheric warming that has occurred over the past century is due to natural causes, not to humans actions. He further claims that the release of CO2 from burning fossil fuels, far from being bad for the planet, is actually good for it and for the plants and humans who live on it. Happer believes that CO2 has been unfairly maligned by the scientific community. He now fancies himself as the gas’s defender in chief.

While Professor Happer’s opinions are popular among fossil fuel producers, they are music to the President’s ears. Why? Because such opinions appeal to his support base. According to David Smith reporting for the Guardian, Mr. Trump, during his address to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington on March 2, 2019, had this to say:

 “I think the  [Democrat’s] new green deal, or whatever the hell they call it. The Green New Deal, right? I encourage it. I think it’s really something that they should promote.” — laughter from the crowd — “No planes. No energy. When the wind stops blowing, that’s the end of your electric. ‘Let’s hurry up. Darling, darling, is the wind blowing today? I’d like to watch television, darling.”   —  cheers and applause from the crowd.

When the President’s climate change panel concludes its work — if it ever does — will its findings add to humanity’s sum of useful knowledge? What do you think?

 

 

 

How to quit using fossil fuels the Hawaiian way

Just three days after President Trump announced his June 3, 2017 decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord, Hawaii Governor David Ige signed a bill committing his state to the goals of the international agreement. On signing the document, Governor Ige said:

“We are the testing grounds. As an island state, we are especially aware of the limits of our natural environment. Tides are getting higher, biodiversity is shrinking, coral is bleaching, coastlines are eroding, weather is becoming more extreme. We must acknowledge these realities at home. That is why Hawaii is united in its political leadership on tackling climate change.”

Hawaii Governor David Ige
Hawaii Governor David Ige. Image: Twitter.com – @GovDavidIge

A year later, Governor Ige signed another environmental bill, this time committing his state to achieving carbon neutrality by 2045. According to the new law, by that year, 100% of the state’s electricity must be produced from renewables — photovoltaics, wind, geothermal, biofuels — completely displacing fossil fuels in the process.

The following figure provides a measure of the task ahead. Prior to 2008, less than 4% of the state’s electricity was generated from renewables. By 2017, that had grown to about 26%. Today, the percentage is around 30%.

Figure from Rhodium Group, April 19, 2019 report
Image from Rhodium Group, April 19, 2018 report

Some might think that the environmental actions of a small, isolated state (pop 1.4 mil) is of little account in the grand scheme of things. They’d be wrong. The work involves more than simply replacing old technology with PV panels and wind mills. Hawaii has six power grids, one for each of its larger islands. The current mix of renewable energy sources includes at least 60 utility-scale plants and 150,000+ residential rooftop solar systems, all with outputs that fluctuate depending on time of day, weather conditions, and other factors. How to integrate such diverse systems in a way that maintains grid stability (no overloads, brownouts, shutdowns) — that’s the real challenge. And the project is being watched closely by other states keen on cutting  their dependence on fossil fuels.

The key to success will depend on energy storage — batteries that can store energy when the systems are producing an excess, and return it when they are not producing enough. Judging by the rapid pace of solar development now taking place in Hawaii, that should not be a problem.

A Jan 3, 2019 news release from the utility Hawaiian Electric, says it has submitted contract proposals to the state’s Public Utilities Commission for seven grid-scale, solar-plus-storage projects on three islands. “The projects – three on Oahu, two on Maui and two on Hawaii Island – will add approximately 262 megawatts (MW) of solar energy with 1,048 megawatt-hours (MWh) of storage. The energy storage can provide four hours of electricity that can further reduce fossil fuel use during peak demand in the evening or at other times when the sun isn’t shining.”

Solar array, Poipu, Hawaii
Solar array, Poipu, Hawaii. Photo from Scientific American. Credit: Getty Images

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has been helping the Hawaiian Electric Companies respond to their grid stability issues. Commenting on the work (NREL News, April 24, 2018) Martha Symko-Davies, program manager for NREL’s Energy Systems Integration Facility said, “We’ve helped Hawaii integrate not just solar, but also storage, electric vehicle infrastructure, and more. If this can be done in Hawaii, it can be replicated anywhere else—the question is not ‘if’ we can do it, it’s ‘how’ we can do it. How do we apply the solutions we’ve helped implement in Hawaii and translate those solutions into ones that can work in other, mainland states?”

Map of Hawaiian Islanda
Hawaiian Islands – Image: Google Maps

Idaho: safe from Sea Level Rise but not from Drought and Fire

Crown fire in mixed conifer forest, southern Idaho, 2016
Crown fire in a mixed conifer forest, southern Idaho, 2016. Photo by Karl Greer, U.S. Forest Service

Idaho, an inland State, most of which lies above 2,000 feet in elevation, is safe from Sea Level Rise, but not from the warming atmosphere that’s causing it. Average summer temperature across the Pacific Northwest are predicted to rise by several degrees in the coming years. That will translate into serious trouble for the regions forests.  The Seattle Times of Sept. 11, 2017, quotes Amy Snover, director of the Climate Impacts Group at the University of Washington: “We expect to see more fires and bigger fires. People are just beginning to wake up to this, but public lands managers do think about this and the potential risks.”

The 2018 fire season validated that prediction. The  image below shows a satellite snapshot (as an overlay on a map of the U.S.) of dense smoke across the West Coast on the morning of August 20, 2018.  The smoke cover extends north into Canada, south to Texas, and east to the Great Lakes. Idaho is hidden.

Satellite snapshot of wildfire smoke across the U.S. Aug. 20, 2018
Satellite snapshot of wildfire smoke across the U.S. Aug. 20, 2018. Image: NOAA

According to the U.S. Forest Service budget report for 2015, climate change has extended the wildfire season by an average of 78 days per year since 1970. Funding for fire fighting has remained flat for years, and rising costs have repeatedly broken the Service’s annual budget. Last year, Congress passed a ‘fire funding fix’. The bill, which will become effective in 2020, provides $2.25 billion to cover fire fighting costs that exceed regular appropriations. In addition, the bill contained half a billion in emergency fire fighting funds for 2018.

Mike Crapo, U.S. Senator from Idaho, was the principal backer of the ‘fire funding fix’. Speaking about the new funding regime at the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho, on May 3, 2018, he had this to say:

“It’s taken us . . . thirty years to get here in terms of what was not the adequate management we needed to be putting into place on the ground. We are not going to solve it all in one fire season. So it’s true, we’re still going to be dealing with some of the things that have been building up over time and are giving us the problems that we have now. That being said, we are now going to start managing properly, and, as Vickie Christiansen, the Acting Chief of the [U.S.] Forest Service said, we are now going to move toward that point — which will take us some years to achieve — but to that point where fire is the servant not the manager of our forests.”

Mike Crapo, U.S. Senator from Idaho
Mike Crapo, U.S. Senator from Idaho. Image: McClatchy Videos

Senator Crapo doesn’t believe (or refuses to admit) that Global Warming is real, or that it’s an unfolding catastrophe caused by the burning of fossil fuels. That’s why he doesn’t mention the impact of climate change. As far as Crapo is concerned, the increasing number of wildfire disasters are due to the cumulative effect over thirty years of improper forest management practices, and that the problems will be solved because now, the Forest Service will have enough money to do a better job. You’ll recall how the Service has already received tips from President Trump on ways to improve their forest management practices.

Will increased funding enable the Forest Service to put a stop to the uncontrollable burning up of the western forests? It can help. It can delay. It can mitigate. But It can’t succeed until the root cause of the problem — the increasing temperature of our planet’s atmosphere — is brought under control.

On June 3, 2017, President Trump announced his intention to pull the United States out of the Paris Climate Accord. A month earlier, 22 Republican Senators jointly sent a letter to the President urging him to dump the deal. Mike Crapo and his fellow Idaho Senator, Jim Risch, were among the signatories. According to The Guardian of June I, 2017, the 22 Senators had collectively received $10.7 million in campaign donations from fossil fuel industries, over the previous three election cycles (2012, 2014, 2016). Mike Crapo’s share was $110,250. Jim Risch received $123,850.

America currently remains a party to the Paris Accord. Three years must elapse before its withdrawal becomes official. Is there any possibility that Idaho will support efforts to reverse President Trump’s decision to withdraw? Considering Idaho’s current standing as a solid red State, and the apparent fealty of its Republican politicians to the fossil fuel industry, that seems unlikely. Every stick of Idaho’s forests will burn before some minds are changed.

There is, however, an indication that light has begun to penetrate Idaho’s Republican darkness.  Brad Little, a Republican, was sworn in as Idaho’s 33rd Governor on January 4th. According to High Country News, the Governor, while addressing the Idaho Environmental Forum on January 16th, told the crowd that “Climate Change is real.” His statement reportedly reduced the crowd to stunned silence. Responding to questions later, he said, “Climate is changing, there’s no question about it. We’ve just gotta figure out how to cope with it and we gotta slow it down. Now, reversing it is going to be a big darn job.” (quote from Idaho Press)

Map of the United States showing location of Idaho
The red State of Idaho. Image: Wikipedia

The 1,000-year Tennessee flood of 2010 — what are the odds?

It started raining on Saturday, May 1, 2010. By the time the rain stopped 36 hours later, large areas of middle and western Tennessee were under water. Fiftytwo of the state’s nintyfive counties would later qualify for disaster assistance. The amount of water that bucketed down that weekend was epic. The meteorologists called it ‘a thousand-year flood.’ What’s remarkable about the weather system that caused so much damage is that it showed up unannounced. No named storm was involved.

Map of Tennessee showing rainfall distribution May 1 & 2, 2010

The rains that inundated Houston, Texas, in 2017, were carried in from the Gulf by hurricane Harvey. The rains that dumped on the Carolinas in 2018, were transported from the Atlantic by hurricane Florence. People knew those tropical storms were coming, days in advance. We could watch the approaching cyclones on our TV screens. The deluge that swamped Tennessee in 2010 arrived without any warning at all. Here’s what the Memphis Office of the National Weather Service had to say:

“A significant weather system brought very heavy rain and severe thunderstorms from Saturday, May 1 through Sunday morning, May 2. A stalled frontal boundary coupled with very moist air streaming northward from the Gulf set the stage for repeated rounds of heavy rainfall. Many locations along the I-40 corridor across western and middle Tennessee reported in excess of 10 to 15 inches, with some locations receiving up to 20 inches according to Doppler radar estimates.”

It was an ordinary weather system — except for the “very moist air.” Apparently that’s what made the difference between a typical Tennessee rain storm and a thousand-year flood.  What is a thousand-year flood, anyway? The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration website (climate.gov) contains an engaging article titled, “How can we call something a thousand-year storm if we don’t have a thousand years of climate observation?”  Here’s my interpretation of the statistics it covers:

Records gathered over the past 100+ years showing the correlation between rainfall amount and flooding are available for most parts of the country. Flood predictions are derived from the statistical analysis of these records. The term ‘thousand-year flood’ means that the chance for a flood of a certain magnitude to occur at a particular place, in any given year, is one in a thousand or 0.1%. For Tennessee, it means that the chance for a 2010-sized flood to re-occure this year (2019) or in any following year, is one in a thousand.

But wait a minute. If the meteorologists are doing their job, they are constantly updating the available records with the most recent data. And if (as news reports from around the world suggest) the existing records are being broken with increasing frequency, statistical predictions will eventually reflect that trend. Floods that were once labeled 1,000-year floods, may now more properly by labeled 500-year or 100-year floods. For Tennessee, it means that the chance for a 2010-sized flood to re-occure this year, could be one in a hundred rather than one in a thousand.

How should politicians, concerned about the safety of the people they represent, respond to an increasingly dangerous climate? Since the problem is global, the response must be global. Hence The Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement aims to strengthen the international effort to halt the rise in temperature of the world’s atmosphere and thereby limit its destabilizing effect on climate.

The U.S. Climate Alliance is a coalition of 16 (and counting) U.S. States committed to upholding the objectives of the Paris Agreement. What are the chances that the State of Tennessee will join the Climate Alliance? Considering Tennessee’s current political leadership, about one in a million. The following YouTube video, published December 2009, records the position of GOP House Rep. Marsha Blackburn, on the question of Climate Change — she says: it’s cyclical; the science is not settled; humans are not responsible. Blackburn is now a U.S. Senator representing Tennessee.

 

Is the federal government deliberately trampling on your fifth amendment rights? The young plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States say yes

Photo of Kelsey Juliana, plaintiff
Kelsey Juliana, plaintiff in Juliana v. United States. Image from Ourchildrenstrust.org Photo: Robin Loznak

Kelsey Juliana is the named plaintiff in Juliana v. United States, which is currently on hold in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2015, Kelsey and twenty other young people (aged 7 to 18 at the time), sued the Federal Government in U.S. District Court, Oregon, for causing life-damaging Climate Change impacts. Listed in the lawsuit are the specific complaints made by each of the young people.

Here’s a summary of Kelsey’s complaint:

Kelsey was born and raised in Oregon. She depends on the resources of the state for her survival and wellbeing. For sustenance she drinks Oregon’s fresh waters and eats the food it produces, including: seafood from Oregon’s marine and estuarine waters; food grown by farmers in the Willamette Valley; and food grown by her family in their garden. For recreation and vacationing she enjoys outdoor activities such as visiting the beaches and tide pools along Oregon’s coast; snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, and snow camping in winter; hiking, canoeing, and backpacking in warmer weather.

The suit alleges that the affects of Climate Change — drought, warmer winters, declining snowpack, increasing summer temperatures, algal blooms on lakes, intense wildfires — are already harming Kelsey’s drinking water, her food sources, and all the places she enjoys visiting. The suit also contends that in the coming decades, Kelsey will suffer even greater harm from the impacts of ocean acidification and rising sea levels, all because of the federal government’s actions and inactions.

Kelsey’s complaint goes on to say that the federal government has “caused psychological and emotional harm to Kelsey as a result of her fear of a changing climate, her knowledge of the impacts that will occur in her lifetime, and her knowledge that [the government is] continuing to cause harms that threaten her life and wellbeing. As a result of the acts and omissions of [the federal government], Kelsey believes that she will not be able to continue to do all of the things described in this Complaint for her life, health, and enjoyment, nor will she one day be able to share those experiences with her children.”

Photo of Oregon coastal mountains and beach
Oregon Coast. Image from Unsplash.com Photo by Vasiliki Volkova

People blame the government for all sorts of things. What’s so special about Kelsey’s complaint? Nothing, except for the fact that the lawsuit links it directly to the U.S. Constitution.

The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment bars the federal government from depriving a person of ‘life, liberty, or property’ without ‘due process of law’. Kelsey and her co-plaintiffs are claiming that the federal government is violating their due process rights by knowingly causing the climate to change to such an extent that they are being deprived of their way of life and the things that make it livable. Items I & II of the suit’s statement of facts, spell it out:

I. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS KNOWN FOR DECADES THAT CARBON DIOXIDE POLLUTION WAS CAUSING CATASTROPHIC CLIMATE CHANGE AND THAT MASSIVE EMISSION REDUCTIONS AND A NATION-WIDE TRANSITION AWAY FROM FOSSIL FUELS WAS NEEDED TO PROTECT PLAINTIFFS’ CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
II. IN SPITE OF KNOWING OF THE SEVERE DANGERS POSED BY CARBON POLLUTION, DEFENDANTS CREATED AND ENHANCED THE DANGERS THROUGH FOSSIL FUEL EXTRACTION, PRODUCTION, CONSUMPTION, TRANSPORTATION, AND EXPORTATION.

Photo of the Navajo Generating Station , Arizona
Coal burning power plant, the Navajo Station, Arizona. Image from nbcnews.com

The federal government does not want to see this lawsuit go to trial. Government lawyers have, several times, petitioned the Oregon District Court, the Ninth Circuit Court, and the Supreme Court, trying to put a stop to it. The government hasn’t yet denied the claim that its climate actions have caused harm to the young plaintiffs. Rather, it has attempted to derail the suit by claiming that they have no right to bring their complaints to court in the first place.

The Ninth Circuit Court is expected to rule soon on the hold it placed on the suit last December. If the ruling is in the plaintiffs favor, the Oregon District Court will set a trial date.

Climate Change in Florida — Seeing is Believing

Photo of Miami skyline
Miami, Florida. Image: Unsplash.com. Photo by Muzammil Soorma

Back in 2014, Rick Scott, then republican governor of Florida, was asked if he had a plan to deal with Climate Change. Here’s a 24-second YouTube video clip in which Scott gives his answer: No Plan. That was his position for the remainder of his term in office.

The threat posed by sea level rise to the future of Miami is known and it is dire. Yet people continue to purchase ocean front properties as if no such threat exists. The question is, why? Noah Smith, in an opinion piece for Bloomberg News dated May 3, 2018, suggested that “Increased probability of coastal flooding makes waterfront real estate a bit like a junk bond.” It’s an analogy that calls for elaboration.

A junk bond is a high-yield, moderate-risk security. For example, a city in danger of going broke, may raise money by selling ten-year junk bonds that pay a higher rate of interest (the yield) to attract buyers. The risk to the buyer is that the city may go bankrupt before the ten-year maturity date is reached, in which case the bonds become worthless. Waterfront property threatened by ocean flooding can be compared to that city. The property will continue to attract investors so long as it continues to offer a higher than normal quality of life (real or imagined). That’s the yield. The risk to the buyer in the short term — 10 to 20 years — is the unlikely chance that the property insurers (private or government) run out of money to cover damage when flooding does occur. In other words, the short-term risk to the buyer is negligible.

What about the long term threat posed by sea level rise (3 to 6 feet higher by the end of the century)? As far as Miami real estate transactions are concerned, it hasn’t yet become an issue. The immediate attraction of a higher quality of life (seaside living) has so far trumped whatever worries buyers may have about sea level rise. Furthermore, the prevailing political position has been to avoid giving the buyers reasons to to worry. State officials have taken a see-no-evil, speak-no-evil approach to the threat. There are no zoning laws or other disincentives aimed at discouraging further development in the region’s  flood-prone areas. In effect, the politicians are sitting on their hands, apparently waiting for the ocean to force the issue. 

That raises another question: when forced to act by rising waters, what will the city or the state do to protect the people and their way of life? Move them to higher ground? Miami is built on land that lies barely above sea level. The average elevation of Miami-Dade County is about 6 feet. The highest point in the county is about 25 feet. This means that high-tide flooding already affects those parts of the city that sit at little more than a foot and a half above Mean Sea Level (the average level of the sea between high and low tide). And even conservative predictions say that in 15 to 25 years, sea level will be a foot higher than it is today.

There’s a geological feature called the Atlantic Coastal Ridge stretching along the eastern edge of the Florida peninsula. It consists of outcrops of limestone, which In some places provide marginally higher ground. For example, the North Miami communities known as Little Haiti and Liberty City are built on ridge limestone that rises a few feet higher than the surrounding land. Noah Smith, in his opinion piece for Bloomberg News, mentions studies showing that “higher elevation locations have risen in price faster than similar locations at low elevations.” Okay. But it’s a side issue. The population of the Miami metropolitan area is pushing seven million. The place can’t speculate its way out of the problems that lie ahead. It needs a real plan.

Florida now has a new Governor, Ron DeSantis, another republican. Here’s a YouTube video in which he says, “I see the sea rising, I see the flooding in South Florida, so I think you’d be a fool not to consider that as an issue we need to address.” That’s progress. Let’s see what he actually does about it?