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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to sue Big Oil — Part 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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).

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.

 

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

Juliana v. United States: the battle heats up

My earlier post dated January 19th, outlined ‘Juliana v. United States’,  the youth climate lawsuit. The suit claims that the federal government, because of its ongoing failure to limit fossil fuel extraction and use, has violated the young people’s constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property, and failed to protect the country’s public-trust resources. The case is currently held up in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals following an appeal by the government, the latest of many attempts by the Trump administration to derail the action.

Photo: James R. Browning Courthouse, San Francisco CA
James R. Browning Courthouse, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, San Francisco CA. Image: Google

On February 4th., the court agreed to begin hearings on the government’s appeal next June, in Portland, Oregon. Also on February 4th., Donald Trump nominated David Bernhardt to head the U.S. Department of the Interior. Bernhardt had become acting head following the departure of scandal-plagued Ryan Zinke.

Photo of David Bernhardt
David Bernhardt. Photo credit: D. Zalubowski/AP

It’s expected that Mr. Bernhardt, a former fossil fuel industry lobbyist, will continue to work on advancing  the President’s “energy dominance” agenda for the country. According to the New York Times, this has already involved “some of the largest rollbacks of public-land protections in the nation’s history . . .  opening millions of acres of public land and water to oil, gas and coal companies.” The Guardian of Dec. 16, 2018 quotes Natural Resources Defense Council’s Bobby McEnaney: “It’s not so much who [Mr. Bernhardt] has helped, it’s who hasn’t he helped in industry so far. The notion that he could extricate himself from benefiting his former clients is impossible.”

Reduced to its essential meaning, the young people’s lawsuit is accusing the Trump administration of ecocide — the destruction of the natural world, including all the humans in it. Underlying that accusation is the fact that, while the plaintiffs are young, the people causing the destruction are old — like Trump. It follows that while the old people have only a few years left to live, the young people have their whole lives ahead of them, provided the old people can be prevented from killing them prematurely.

Despite the Juliana lawsuit, and perhaps in spiteful reaction to it, President Trump, with the help of Mr. Bernhardt and many others like him, has actively persisted in his objective, which is to open up every square foot of the country’s federal lands to fossil fuel extraction. His current push to open the Atlantic and Pacific Outer Continental Shelves to offshore drilling, has caused even some Republican legislators to become queasy.

Map of USA showing federal lands
U.S. federal lands. Map produced by Bureau of Land Management, Washington DC

On February 7th, reacting to the Trump administration’s nose-thumbing behaviour, the Juliana plaintiffs filed an “urgent motion” in the Ninth Circuit Court, asking it to grant an injunction preventing the government (pending the resolution of its appeal) from: mining coal on federal public lands; engaging in offshore oil and gas exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf; developing new fossil fuel infrastructure such as pipelines and fossil fuel export facilities.

Accompanying and following the motion were supporting briefs from more than 30 diverse groups and individuals, including one from Zero Hour (zerohour.org) on behalf of 32,340 children who responded to an online petition.

The government filed its opposition to the plaintiffs motion on February 19th.

 

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

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.