EXTRACTED: Daily News Clips 12/6/23
PIPELINE NEWS
Law360: Roberts Declines To Freeze Virginia Pipeline Construction
Iowa Capital Dispatch: Pipeline company prevails over two county ordinances
NBC News: Vivek Ramaswamy leans into a contentious issue in Iowa in a late bid for traction
Iowa Standard: Sen. Salmon says Iowans want to know if presidential candidates will stand with companies and donors or farmers and landowners
KXLG: Codington County landowners express opposition on carbon-capturing pipeline to Commissioners
Carbon Herald: PIPES Act Of 2023: Making The Nation’s Pipelines Safer
Reuters: Canada regulator denies Trans Mountain expansion variance request
Reuters: Canada oil firms face losses as booming supply runs into Trans Mountain delays
E&E News: This little-known pipeline could spell trouble for Dakota Access
Mining Journal: Proposed Line 5 tunnel to be addressed at Thursday meeting
Reuters: US Coast Guard responds to oil spill in Gulf of Mexico
NBC Los Angeles: NTSB determines official cause of 25,000 pounds oil spill off Huntington Beach in 2021
Associated Press: US officials want ships to anchor farther from California undersea pipelines, citing 2021 oil spill
WASHINGTON UPDATES
KTUU: Gwich’in Nation in D.C. as questions over future of drilling in ANWR remain
E&E News: EPA: Methane Rule To Slash Smog-Forming Emissions
STATE UPDATES
Daily Montanan: Gianforte, state agencies asks Supreme Court to put Montana climate case order on hold
E&E News: Oil-friendly ad blitz targets Calif. climate policies
WyoFile: Panel recommends Wyoming spend $37.5M on six energy projects
EXTRACTION
Reuters: Activists demand end to fossil fuels at COP28 climate summit
Guardian: More than 1,000 climate scientists urge public to become activists
Reuters: Draft text at COP28 shows negotiators considering fossil fuel 'phase out'
Associated Press: To phase out or phase down fossil fuels? That is the question at COP28 climate talks’
NPR: Oil firms are out in force at the climate talks. Here's how to decode their language
NPR: Big Oil Leads at COP28
Financial Times: How Big Oil’s COP28 agenda backfired
Guardian: Global carbon emissions from fossil fuels to hit record high
New York Times: Can Carbon Capture Live Up to the Hype?
Pipeline Fighters Hub: University of Oxford Report: Heavy dependence on Carbon Capture and Storage ‘highly economically damaging’
Common Dreams: Relying on Carbon Capture and Storage Could Unleash 'Carbon Bomb'
DeSmog: Canada May Soon Give a $15.3B ‘Carbon Bomb’ Subsidy to Big Oil, Experts Say
Bloomberg: Decoding Carbon Capture [VIDEO]
NPR: Carbon capture startups dive for climate solutions in the ocean
Drilled: Reuters, New York Times Top List of Fossil Fuel Industry’s Favorite Media Partners
The Intercept: LEADING NEWS OUTLETS ARE DOING THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY’S GREENWASHING
OPINION
Huntsville Doppler: Carbon capture is a fallacy
LaCrosse Tribune: Enbridge Line 5 pipeline a critical energy conduit
Carbon Plan: Ethanol carbon capture and storage isn’t carbon removal
Guardian: The Cop28 president told a shocking lie about fossil fuels – and he’s wrong about climate economics too
PIPELINE NEWS
Law360: Roberts Declines To Freeze Virginia Pipeline Construction
Katie Buehler, 12/5/23
“U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts declined Tuesday to pause construction of the controversial Mountain Valley Pipeline, allowing work to continue on the natural gas pipeline while Virginia landowners challenge the constitutionality of land seizures related to the project,” Law360 reports.
Iowa Capital Dispatch: Pipeline company prevails over two county ordinances
JARED STRONG, 12/5/23
“A federal judge on Monday permanently barred two Iowa counties from enforcing their ordinances that restrict the placement of carbon dioxide pipelines,” the Iowa Capital Dispatch reports. “Shelby and Story counties adopted restrictions after two companies proposed to build pipeline systems to transport captured carbon dioxide from ethanol plants and other facilities… “Chief Judge Stephanie Rose, of the federal Southern District of Iowa, agreed. Rose granted Summit summary judgments in both lawsuits on Monday and issued permanent injunctions to block the counties from enforcing the ordinances. “The challenged restrictions impose severe limitations that will lead to a situation where the IUB may grant a permit to construct a pipeline and Summit is unable to do so,” Rose wrote in the Shelby County decision. The Story County decision contained a similar rationale. Rose ordered the counties to cease enforcement of their minimum-distance and safety requirements, give written notice to county employees of the injunctions and prove they have complied with the order within 10 days… “Summit declined to comment but sent an email to an unspecified number of county supervisors on Monday to inform them of the judge’s decisions. “This final order is significant, underscoring the precedence of federal and state laws over local ordinances in regulating major infrastructure projects like ours,” wrote Kylie Lange, a senior project manager for the company. “It reinforces our position that local setbacks and safety standards cannot intrude upon the authority vested in federal and state agencies.” Summit also has a pending lawsuit against Emmet County for a similar ordinance… “The threat of litigation has prevented other counties from adopting pipeline ordinances. Jan Norris, a Montgomery County landowner whose property is near the path of Summit’s proposed pipeline, told the Dispatch she has been urging her county supervisors for more than a year to restrict how close it can be to houses and other places… “Despite the threat of litigation, other Iowa counties are considering enacting ordinances. Last month, the Dickinson County Board of Supervisors directed its planning and zoning commission to draft one for its consideration. “If this is adopted, we’re getting sued,” Dickinson County Attorney Steve Goodlow told the board, according to the Dickinson County News. Goodlow told the Iowa Capital Dispatch on Tuesday that the judge’s rulings against the Shelby and Story county ordinances will not prevent his county from pursuing its own ordinance.”
NBC News: Vivek Ramaswamy leans into a contentious issue in Iowa in a late bid for traction
Jillian Frankel and Alex Tabet, 12/5/23
“With the Iowa caucuses closing in, Vivek Ramaswamy is homing in on a local struggle that’s led to an unlikely union between environmental activists and landowners and farmers in the state seeking to protect their property,” NBC News reports. “Ramaswamy has started devoting a significant portion of his stump speeches to addressing concerns about efforts by Summit Carbon Solutions to build underground pipelines to move carbon dioxide emitted from ethanol and industrial plants in Iowa to North Dakota. Landowners who do not want the pipelines installed on their property are concerned that the state government may use eminent domain, which allows the government to seize private lands for public projects, to build them anyway. In a rare speech last week dedicated solely to the carbon capture pipelines, Ramaswamy warned of the ramifications of using eminent domain for private construction… “The focus on the issue comes just weeks before Iowa starts the GOP presidential nominating contests with its Jan. 15 caucuses… “Frankly, for farmers, a cow releases methane. I mean, the same argument applies,” Ramaswamy added after saying the use of eminent domain to seize land for the privately owned pipeline would be unconstitutional. The 38-year-old businessman has challenged popular Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, a Republican, to break her silence on using eminent domain to build the pipelines. “Maybe she has a policy vision, why this is really good for Iowans? If so, she should say instead of cowering and hiding from the issue,” Ramaswamy said, claiming to give Reynolds the benefit of the doubt. “I think it’s just unacceptable for leaders to hide and cower in fear and remain in silence,” Ramaswamy added. “It is a baffling mystery to me why you have so many governors who have been pin-drop silent on this issue.” A Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa poll from March showed 78% of Iowans oppose private companies using eminent domain to construct carbon dioxide pipelines… “Kathy Stockdale, a corn and soybean farmer whose land has been targeted by Summit Carbon Solutions as a place to build, expressed fear about the potential of a carbon capture pipeline explosion. “If there was a leak on our farm, we will be dead. We are in the kill zone,” Stockdale told NBC… “Doyle Turner, a farmer from Moville, Iowa, worries that the pipelines could end his family’s way of life. “My son is a fifth-generation farmer. It does me no good to give my son the land if we don’t give him the right to it,” Turner told NBC. And Eileen Sailer, 75, from Denison, worries what the pipeline could mean for farmers like her husband. She told NBC she can understand the need for eminent domain for certain projects, but not this one. “When it’s used to build new interstates or new highways, I can understand it for public use,” Sailer told NBC. “But when it’s used for private use, I am absolutely opposed to it.” Ahead of the caucuses, the pipeline issue is forcing Republican candidates to demonstrate support for landowners’ rights without minimizing the importance of maintaining the ethanol industry, which many Iowa corn farmers rely on. And Ramaswamy is challenging his GOP rivals to address the issue more directly. "I think it’d be great if the other presidential candidates took this up,” Ramaswamy said in Des Moines. “For the sake of this cause, that would be a good thing. And I’m rooting for them to do it.”
Iowa Standard: Sen. Salmon says Iowans want to know if presidential candidates will stand with companies and donors or farmers and landowners
Jacob Hall, 12/4/23
“Republican State Sen. Sandy Salmon challenged those seeking the GOP nomination for the White House on Friday. During the event hosted by Vivek Ramaswamy and Free Soil Coalition, Salmon said Iowans want to know one thing about the presidential candidates,” the Iowa Standard reports. “We want to know who will the presidential candidates stand with — well-financed companies and political donors or with farmers and landowners and We The People,” she asked. She called allowing eminent domain for the carbon capture pipeline project a “very important issue” and noted it has been two full years of fighting for private property rights against “powerful economic interests” who are willing to use the government power of eminent domain to seize farmland to further their own financial gain… “It is gratifying to see that we have a major presidential candidate willing to speak out and take a stand,” she said. “Hopefully this prods every other presidential candidate to take a stand. Even though this is an Iowa or Midwest-specific issue, it is a very important one. How strongly we uphold the constitutional protections of our private property rights will eventually affect the entire country. “So it is important for a presidential candidate to weigh in with their views on this issue. Private property rights affect every one of us, not just the landowners and farmers who have had the misfortune of their land being in the way of the pipeline. If any of us has our property rights damaged, we all have our property rights damaged. It may not be you today, but it could be you tomorrow.”
KXLG: Codington County landowners express opposition on carbon-capturing pipeline to Commissioners
Steve Jurrens, 12/5/23
“...During today’s Codington County Commissioners meeting, several landowners in the surrounding area opposed the pipeline construction project,” KXLG reports. “One of those landowners is Gordon Little. Little says, “It really got my attention when Summit Caborn sued me.” Dennis Jones spoke about representing the people of the community… “KXLG News reached out to Brian Jorde, a lawyer for the group LEDR or Landowners for Eminent Domain Reform, and received some PDF slides that are attached to the article below.”
Carbon Herald: PIPES Act Of 2023: Making The Nation’s Pipelines Safer
Violet George, 12/5/23
“On Thursday Nov. 30, The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure introduced the Promoting Innovation in Pipeline Efficiency and Safety (PIPES) Act of 2023. The draft bill would reauthorize the federal pipeline regulator, Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s (PHMSA) pipeline safety program for four more years and make changes to the Pipeline Safety Act,” the Carbon Herald reports. “While we were hoping to make more significant progress to make pipelines safer, we appreciated the bipartisan efforts of the committee’s leadership,” Pipeline Safety Trust (PST) Executive Director Bill Caram said. “We still have a long way to go to eliminate the hazards from our nation’s pipelines, but this legislation would take some positive steps.” “...A noticeable shortcoming of the bill is the minimal direction given to PHMSA on how the agency should develop its rules on carbon dioxide and hydrogen pipeline safety. Given the strong incentives Congress enacted leading to the unprecedented new development of these types of pipelines, PST thought it imperative the committee direct PHMSA to develop strong modernized regulations that prioritize public safety. The bill does provide a few basic improvements to carbon dioxide pipeline safety, including making vapor dispersion modeling that accounts for topography and atmospheric conditions a requirement for all carbon dioxide pipeline operators to determine which people and areas could be impacted by a pipeline failure. It also requires that PHMSA begin regulating all phases of carbon dioxide when transported by pipeline… “While it is good to see an increase in civil penalties for pipeline safety violations, it seems even under this change, PHMSA will continue to levy fines that are economically insignificant to operators,” Caram said. “A way to change this would be for Congress to eliminate the cap on civil penalties for related series of violations and impose a mandatory minimum penalty for each violation as opposed to simply increasing the maximum civil penalty amount.”
Reuters: Canada regulator denies Trans Mountain expansion variance request
Nia Williams, 12/5/23
“The Canada Energy Regulator (CER) on Tuesday denied a request from the Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX) project for a variance on a section of oil pipeline under construction in British Columbia, a decision that could delay the 590,000 barrel-per-day (bpd) expansion,” Reuters reports. “Trans Mountain had asked to be allowed to install smaller diameter pipe in a 1.4-mile (2.3-km) section of the oil pipeline's route after encountering "very challenging" drilling conditions due to the hardness of the rock in a mountainous area between Hope and Chilliwack. The CER denied the variance, according to a letter posted on its website. The regulator said it would give reasons as soon as possible, but had initially issued the decision without reasons because Trans Mountain had asked for an expedited process. At a hearing on Nov. 27, Trans Mountain representatives said installing the smaller pipe would save 59 days of construction time and keep the expansion on track for a start date late in the first quarter of 2024. Denying the variance request risked delaying the start date, and drilling a wider section for the larger diameter pipeline to pass through was "unpredictable," Trans Mountain said. The CER decision is yet another setback for the troubled expansion project, intended to triple shipments of crude from Alberta to Canada's Pacific coast to 890,000 bpd once it starts operating… “The C$30.9 billion ($22.78 billion) project, first proposed by Kinder Morgan (KMI.N) in 2012, has been beset by years of regulatory delay and cost over-runs and was bought by the Canadian government in 2018 to ensure it was built.”
Reuters: Canada oil firms face losses as booming supply runs into Trans Mountain delays
Nia Williams and Stephanie Kelly, 12/5/23
“Canadian oil producers are bracing for further potential delays to the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion (TMX) that could cost them millions of dollars in lost revenues in coming months after they ramped up production ready to fill the expanded line, meant to unlock access to Asia,” Reuters reports. “Producers entered 2023 thinking the 590,000 barrel per day (bpd) expansion - nearly tripling the existing pipeline's capacity - from Alberta's landlocked oilfields to the Pacific Coast would be filling with oil by year-end - the last step before full operations commence. However, the project, about 95% completed, has been beset by construction issues in British Columbia, stoking concerns among traders and analysts that its start will be delayed beyond the current target of late March 2024. In October, TMX said linefill would start in the first quarter and take up to seven weeks. On Tuesday Canadian regulators denied a variance request, a move Trans Mountain said risked delaying the project's start date… “Further delays could force producers to accept lower prices for their crude and to put more barrels into storage to deal with a glut of oil stranded in Alberta while they wait for the pipeline to start. TMX's construction hold-ups already helped push the discount, or differential, on benchmark Western Canada Select (WCS) heavy crude to the U.S. benchmark crude futures close to $30 a barrel last month, the deepest level in a year.”
E&E News: This little-known pipeline could spell trouble for Dakota Access
Mike Soraghan, 12/6/23
“The company behind the Dakota Access oil pipeline has neglected a different, older pipeline, federal safety regulators say, resulting in a cascade of troubling spills,” E&E News reports. “A recent proposed safety order for the Mid-Valley pipeline could complicate matters for Dakota Access, the hotly contested system that moves crude from North Dakota to Illinois. Federal officials are conducting an environmental review to determine whether Dakota Access can continue to operate under a federally controlled lake. Both pipelines are owned by Energy Transfer, and the company’s spill record has been a key point of contention in the legal drama surrounding the Dakota Access pipeline. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe has long warned that a pipeline spill could foul its water supply, a prospect dismissed by the company. Now, the tribe argues the Mid-Valley order — issued by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) — shows safety and environmental problems are “pervasive” in the company. The order, issued in October, has not been previously reported. “PHMSA’s Safety Order shows these issues are systemic to Energy Transfer,” Doug Crow Ghost, the tribe’s water resources director, said in a statement to E&E News. “This is a major reason why DAPL is unsafe and must be shut down.” Mid-Valley, built in the 1950s, experienced three leaks within 10 days last summer, on top of two others earlier in the year. That prompted PHMSA to look into the pipeline’s record in the years since Energy Transfer bought it. The inquiry found that the Mid-Valley system has had 34 spills or other mishaps since 2014 — some of which were repeats, occurring in the same places for the same reasons. “Conditions exist on the Mid-Valley Pipeline that pose a pipeline integrity risk to public safety, property, or the environment,” PHMSA wrote in the proposed order… “The tribe says a pipeline spill in its water supply would be an existential threat. Energy Transfer has called chances of a catastrophic spill “infinitesimal.” But when it comes to the company’s Mid-Valley pipeline, federal regulators say neglect has increased the risk of spills. Energy Transfer acquired the pipeline with its 2012 purchase of Sunoco Inc… “The 34 Mid-Valley failures were from various causes, including internal corrosion, pump failures, third-party damage, faulty equipment, exposed pipe, failed repairs and operator errors, according to the order.”
Mining Journal: Proposed Line 5 tunnel to be addressed at Thursday meeting
ALEXANDRIA BOURNONVILLE AND DREYMA BERONJA, 12/6/23
“Michigan residents will have the opportunity to voice their concerns or support for the proposed Line 5 tunnel on Thursday,” the Mining Journal reports. “The Mackinac Straits Corridor Authority meeting will provide Michigan residents with a construction contractor selection process and general progress update from Enbridge Energy, the Canadian-based company responsible for Line 5. Residents interested in attending the meeting can find the full agenda link to watch the meeting and submit public comments at michigan.gov/mdot/about/commissions-councils-committees/msca/december-2023. The Michigan Public Service Commission approved a siting application filed by Enbridge Energy on Friday for a proposed replacement segment of pipelines now located on top of the the lakebed along the Straits of Mackinac, replacing them with a single pipeline in a tunnel deep below the lakebed, subject to the company obtaining additional government approvals and permits. There are also conditions related to the tunnel’s safety and construction… “Current Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Attorney General Dana Nessel publicly opposed the continued operation of Line 5 in the Straits. One group — FLOW (For Love of Water) — is in direct opposition to Line 5 as a whole due to the risks it poses for the area’s water. “In the same week that Governor Whitmer signed into law a nationally significant climate bill to decarbonize 100% of Michigan’s economy by 2040, today’s ruling is a black mark on the administration’s climate record and a disgrace to all of Michigan,” said a statement from FLOW. “A Line 5 tunnel with a 99-year lease will be an embarrassing albatross, hobbling future efforts to transition the region off fossil fuels and imprudently burdening taxpayers.”
Reuters: US Coast Guard responds to oil spill in Gulf of Mexico
12/5/23
“The U.S. Coast Guard said on Wednesday it was responding to an oil discharge near the Main Pass Oil Gathering (MPOG) Co's pipeline system in the Gulf of Mexico, while the main pipeline and several surrounding ones remained shut in,” Reuters reports. "The reported sheen is being investigated and has not been confirmed to be associated with the November 16 observed initial discharge," the Coast Guard said. The Coast Guard had not yet identified any damage or indication of a leak after surveying the entire length of the pipeline along with 22.16 miles (36 km) of surrounding pipelines. Remote-controlled devices and divers continued to reassess the pipelines. About 3% of the Gulf of Mexico's daily oil production remained shut in after a million-gallon oil spill, the Coast Guard said last week. The pipeline was closed by Third Coast's MPOG on Nov. 16 after crude oil was spotted around 19 miles (30 km) offshore the Mississippi River delta, near Plaquemines Parish, southeast of New Orleans.”
NBC Los Angeles: NTSB determines official cause of 25,000 pounds oil spill off Huntington Beach in 2021
Anastassia Olmos, 12/5/23
“More than two years after a pipeline in the San Pedro Bay leaked nearly 25,000 lbs. of crude oil into the ocean off Huntington Beach, the National Transportation Safety Board determined the probable cause and recommendations moving forward Tuesday,” NBC Los Angeles reports. “The NTSB conducted a thorough investigation and found the pipeline was in fact struck by two cargo ship anchors and the pipeline company subsequently failed to follow protocols… “The spill closed Huntington and Newport beaches and harbors, halted the Pacific Airshow, and affected tourism and fishing. The initial damage to the pipelines dates back to the cargo ship backup at Southern California ports during the COVID-19 pandemic… “The NTSB was able to pinpoint the two cargo ship companies dragging anchors over the San Pedro Bay pipeline—Beijing and MSC Danit. The investigation also detailed the chaos the Vessel Traffic Services Los Angeles-Long Beach, jointly operated by the US Coast Guard and the marine exchange of Southern California, was dealing with trying to assign anchor positions to ships that were drifting into each other’s space with high winds… “After two years, Huntington Beach locals say these changes may not be enough. “I just wish they’d get rid of those oil platforms out there, I think as long as they’re there, there’s a risk of that happening again, it’s just scary for the wildlife and the human life,” Ryb Katz told NBC.
Associated Press: US officials want ships to anchor farther from California undersea pipelines, citing 2021 oil spill
12/5/23
“Federal officials on Tuesday recommended increasing the distance from undersea pipelines that vessels are allowed to anchor in Southern California, citing a 2021 oil spill they said was caused by ships whose anchors were dragged across a pipeline after a storm,” the Associated Press reports. “The leak occurred in a ruptured pipeline owned by Houston-based Amplify Energy. National Transportation Safety Board officials concluded damage to the pipeline had been caused months earlier when a cold front brought high winds and seas to the Southern California coast, causing two container vessels that were anchored offshore to drag their anchors across the area where the pipeline was located… “The NTSB concluded that the pipeline rupture was likely caused by the proximity of anchored shipping vessels. The agency's board members recommended that authorities increase the safety margin between ships anchored on their way to and from the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach and undersea pipelines in the area. They also urged vessel traffic services across the country to provide audible and visual alarms to those tasked with keeping watch when anchored vessels near pipelines. Procedures are also needed to notify pipeline operators when a potential incursion occurs, they said. The recommendations as well as several others followed a nearly four-hour hearing on the spill, one of the largest in Southern California in recent years.”
WASHINGTON UPDATES
KTUU: Gwich’in Nation in D.C. as questions over future of drilling in ANWR remain
Beth Verge, 12/5/23
“Alaskan and Canadian representatives of the Gwich’in Nation have descended upon Washington, D.C., as part of an effort urging continued protections of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,” KTUU reports. “Gwich’in Nation tribal chiefs, elders, youth, and other appointees arrived in the capital this week as part of a four-day effort toward long-term conservation of ANWR, to include prevention of oil and gas drilling in the area for the long haul. The group on Monday said it hopes to highlight the cultural and spiritual importance of ANWR for the Gwich’in Nation, along with demonstrating support for the Biden Administration’s recent cancellations of oil and gas leases in the region. “It’s not just about land,” Bernadette Demientieff, Gwich’in Steering Committee Executive Director, told KTUU. “It’s about our identity within, it’s about our future generations. And right now, Alaska is thawing four times faster than the rest of the world, and we are seeing drastic changes, and drilling is the last thing that we need there.” “...The Gwich’in Steering Committee, for example, has long considered drilling in ANWR to be exploitative and a “violation of human rights,” as it has formally stated multiple times over the years. The group regularly refers to ANWR as “land sacred to the Gwich’in, and the birthing grounds to the Porcupine Caribou Herd.” “...Tonya Garnett, a member of the Arctic Village Council who also serves as the special projects manager for the Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government, agreed. “It’s a short-term answer to our nation’s needs,” she told KTUU. “We need to think more long-term. And then, if you also think about it, caribou is a natural resource. They’ve lasted us thousands of years, you know? That’s providing for our livelihood, for us to survive, and that’s something that we need to take into consideration.” At the same time, congressional delegates from here in Alaska have championed development within ANWR’s boundaries, as have various groups across the state, to include several key players in the northern region.”
E&E News: EPA: Methane Rule To Slash Smog-Forming Emissions
Sean Reilly, 12/4/23
“New regulations aimed mainly at cutting oil and gas industry emissions of heat-trapping methane will also slash the industry's output of hazardous air pollutants and smog-forming volatile organic compounds, according to an EPA forecast,” E&E News reports. “From 2024 to 2038, the stricter standards are expected to cumulatively cut releases of the two classes of pollutants by a total of 47 percent versus what they would be otherwise, agency spokesperson Remmington Belford said Monday in response to questions from E&E News. During the 15-year period, for example, the stiffer curbs on leak detection, natural gas well flaring and other requirements in the rule released Saturday will slice emissions of volatile organic compounds by a total of 16 million tons, alongside a reduction in releases of hazardous air pollutants by 590,000 tons. Besides averting hundreds of early deaths during that time, the new requirements will also head off up to 97,000 cases of asthma symptoms and 35,000 lost school days a year, EPA predicts. Among environmental and public health groups, the initial reaction was mostly positive.”
STATE UPDATES
Daily Montanan: Gianforte, state agencies asks Supreme Court to put Montana climate case order on hold
Blair Miller, 12/4/23
“Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte’s administration says it is impractical for the state to immediately start addressing greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts to the environment following a judge’s ruling this summer that the state was violating Montanans’ constitutional rights by not preserving a “clean and healthful” environment,” the Daily Montanan reports. “Attorneys representing Gianforte and several state agencies in the Held vs. Montana case on Friday asked the state Supreme Court for a stay in the case in order to put the district court’s decision on hold from being enforced pending the full appeal. It’s the second time in recent months that Gianforte, the Department of Environmental Quality, Department of Natural Resources and Conservation and Department of Transportation have sought a pause on District Court Judge Kathy Seeley’s August decision… “The motion to pause the order says attorneys representing the defendants — most of them with the Montana Department of Justice — are asking the Supreme Court to put Seeley’s decision on hold to preserve the status quo because the the state believes the youth are trying to force the state to account for greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts when reviewing energy permits under the Montana Environmental Policy Act. According to the latest filing and the previous request, the state believes having to suddenly perform those analyses is too difficult and that it should be clarified whether the state must perform them while the defendants appeal the case… “The defendants say their appeal raises “serious and unprecedented legal questions,” another reason they argue Seeley’s decision should be put on hold for the time being… “They argue it also violates the separation of powers “by imposing an extra-statutory regulatory scheme to take its place” they say would cost them considerable resources in order to develop and implement methods to analyze greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts — though the state has analyzed greenhouse gas emissions in the past, as was noted during the trial… “The plaintiffs in the Held case have also filed an amicus brief in a case involving environmental groups that are challenging the permits for a natural gas plan being built near Laurel, arguing their district court victory should invalidate those permits until the state finishes its appeal, as the Associated Press reported last week.”
E&E News: Oil-friendly ad blitz targets Calif. climate policies
Anne C. Mulkern, 12/6/23
“Oil industry allies in California are filling television and computer screens statewide with a multimillion-dollar ad campaign that blames state climate policies for pushing up gasoline and electricity costs,” E&E News reports. “Some key details around the ads are unclear, including who exactly is funding the spots and what — if any — policies or votes they are trying to influence. But some observers see the fossil fuel industry exerting its financial muscle, as the nation’s most populous state seeks to transition away from oil and gas and toward cleaner energy options. The ad blitz “tees up the messaging that it’s government that’s at fault here,” Ethan Elkind, director of the climate program at the University of California, Berkeley’s Center for Law, Energy & the Environment, told E&E. One ad comes from Californians for Energy Independence (CEI), which has ties to fossil fuel interests. The other comes from Californians for Affordable and Reliable Energy, which is linked to a big business association. Both groups describe themselves as nonprofit coalitions. Neither would provide specifics on their membership. The two groups have spent a combined $4.3 million so far this year to put the ads on television and Facebook in both English and Spanish, according to data from AdImpact. The commercials take a broad approach to energy and climate issues, and they don’t mention specific regulations, referendums or candidates. “California is an energy island” with “no pipelines and limited rail transport” to get domestic oil, says the commercial from CEI. “Experts warn policies to shut down our highly regulated local oil production before we have enough alternative energies in place would force our state to depend on volatile foreign countries for the oil we still need.” Meanwhile, the ad from Californians for Affordable and Reliable Energy argues that “since 2018, California’s energy policies raised residential electricity rates by 54 percent, but only increased renewable electricity supply by 2 percent.” It also says that the “California government is adding $1.12 in taxes and fees to a gallon of gas” and that “working people pay for state capital politics.” Neither ad makes direct mention of a major electoral fight on the horizon. Next year, California voters will decide whether they want to throw out a state law prohibiting new oil wells near schools, homes, parks, and other sensitive sites. Oil drillers and their allies spent $21 million to get that measure on the ballot. Officials affiliated with the groups behind the ads said the commercials aren’t aimed at the 2024 ballot measure.”
WyoFile: Panel recommends Wyoming spend $37.5M on six energy projects
Dustin Bleizeffer, 12/4/23
“The Wyoming Energy Authority has recommended Gov. Mark Gordon award a combined $37.5 million to support six energy projects, including coal-to-hydrogen and carbon capture proposals,” WyoFile reports. “To pay for the initiatives, Gordon would tap a $150 million pot of Wyoming taxpayer money that the Legislature established in 2022 and set aside for the governor to spend at his discretion. The Wyoming Energy Authority, which screens proposals for the Energy Matching Funds program, is accepting public comment on the projects through Sunday… “Black Hills Energy and Wyodak Resources Development Corporation’s “BrightLoop – CCS Demonstration Plant: Converting Wyoming PRB Coal to Hydrogen“; $15,995,451 in two phases of funding. Cowboy Clean Fuels, LLC’s “Triangle Unit Carbon Capture and Storage Project“: $7,792,653. Flowstate Solutions’ “CO2 and Hydrogen Pipeline Safety: AI-Driven Leak Detection“: $2,000,000. Membrane Technology and Research, Inc.’s partnership with the Department of Energy for carbon capture and storage efforts at Basin Electric’s Dry Fork Station: $8,000,000.”
EXTRACTION
Reuters: Activists demand end to fossil fuels at COP28 climate summit
Alexander Cornwell, 12/5/23
“Activists protested over the presence of the oil, gas and coal industry at the COP28 U.N. summit in Dubai on Tuesday, while demanding an end to the use of fossil fuels, which are the major source cause of climate change,” Reuters reports. “Several dozen activists called for "climate justice", and carried banners that read "Just + Equitable, Fossil Fuel Phase Out, Stop Fueling the Fire" at the demonstrations, where participants were typically outnumbered by onlookers. While past U.N. climate talks have sparked huge protest rallies, including 2021's COP26 in Glasgow and 2015's COP21 in Paris, this year's demonstrations have been muted in host United Arab Emirates, where freedom of expression is limited. The U.N. and UAE are allowing pre-approved protests to take place at the COP28 venue and there have been none so far outside the site. Activists taking part in COP28 demonstrations have said they feel stifled and have commented on a lack of presence from any grassroots, local civil society. "We want to demand an end to all fossil fuels, including abated and unabated," Zimbabwean activist Lorraine Chiponda, 37, told Reuters after speaking at one of the demonstrations. Countries that produce or rely on fossil fuels have emphasised the potential use of technologies to "abate", or capture, the emissions rather than ending the use of them. Chiponda argued that language calling for the phase-out of "unabated" fossil fuels was merely a distraction that would allow for their continued use… “Meanwhile, Filipino activist Jainno Congon, 24, told Reuters carbon capture technologies advocated by some were a "dangerous distraction" and a "fake solution" to tackle climate change.”
Guardian: More than 1,000 climate scientists urge public to become activists
Damien Gayle, 12/4/23
“...Now, as diplomats meet in Dubai for the 28th round of the Cop climate talks, in a year predicted to be the hottest on record, and as carbon emissions continue to rise, Cramer is one of 33 IPCC authors among 1,447 scientists and academics in signing an open letter calling on the public to take collective action to avert climate breakdown. “We are terrified,” they warn. “We need you.” “Wherever you are, become a climate advocate or activist,” the letter, published on Monday by Scientist Rebellion, a climate activist group, implores. “Join or start groups pushing for policies that help secure a better future. Contact groups that are active where you are, find out when they meet and attend their meetings. “If we are to create a liveable future, climate action must move from being something that others do to something that we all do.” The letter comes as delegates gather in the United Arab Emirates, a country glittering with oil wealth, for Cop28. There they are splitting hairs over whether to “phase out” or “phase down” use of greenhouse gas-emitting fossil fuels, the primary cause of climate breakdown. A fund has been agreed for poorer nations for whom climate-related disasters are already a reality. Cramer told the Guardian he and his scientific colleagues were becoming frustrated. “Western governments, European governments, have this tendency to say: ‘Oh, we are already doing so much,’” he told the Guardian. “And yes, of course, we need to applaud that, we need to be happy about every little step in the right direction. “But I think the failure in communication at the moment is to talk enough about the inadequacy, about the full disconnect, between the engagements that we see by governments at Cops, and in the implementation of their commitments at home, on the one hand, and clear targets of the Paris agreement on the other.”
Reuters: Draft text at COP28 shows negotiators considering fossil fuel 'phase out'
12/5/23
“A second draft of what could be the final agreement from the COP28 U.N. climate summit shows negotiators are considering calling for an "orderly and just" phase out of fossil fuels,” Reuters reports. “The draft text was published by the U.N. climate body and shows the possible outcomes for talks at the COP28 summit in Dubai. The negotiations are part of the "global stocktake" process, in which nearly 200 nations are trying to agree on plans to curb rising global temperatures. The first option in the draft text was listed as "an orderly and just phase out of fossil fuels". The second called for "accelerating efforts towards phasing out unabated fossil fuels". The third option would be no mention of a fossil fuel phase out. Negotiators have yet to embark on trying to find a common vision for the future of fossil fuels. They have used the first phase of talks to settle on the options and lay the ground for what could be the trickiest issue on which to find agreement. The draft text also included an option for countries to agree to a "rapid phase out of unabated coal power this decade" and an immediate halt to building new CO2-emitting coal power plants. However, a second option for the same paragraph would not mention phasing out coal at all. An "unabated" power plant is one that does not capture the plant's CO2 emissions before they hit the atmosphere. The vast majority of the world's power plants are unabated.”
Associated Press: To phase out or phase down fossil fuels? That is the question at COP28 climate talks
SIBI ARASU AND SETH BORENSTEIN, 12/5/23
“After days of shaving off the edges of key warming issues, climate negotiators Tuesday zeroed in on the tough job of dealing with the main cause of what’s overheating the planet: fossil fuels,” the Associated Press reports. “As scientists, activists and United Nations officials repeatedly detailed how the world needs to phase-out the use of coal, oil and natural gas, the United Arab Emirates-hosted conference opened “energy transition day” with a session headlined by top officials of two oil companies. Negotiators produced a new draft of what’s expected to be the core document of the U.N. talks, something called the Global Stocktake, but it had so many possibilities in its 24-pages that it didn’t give too much of a hint of what will be agreed upon when the session ends next week. Whatever is adopted has to be agreed on by consensus so it has to be near unanimous… “The options in the draft on the future of fossil fuels range from a less-stringent “phasedown of unabated coal power” to a simple but dramatic “an orderly and just phase out of fossil fuels.” “...We need to phase out of fossil fuels completely without a back door,” New Climate Institute’s Niklas Hohne told AP. “At this conference, there’s actually many back doors being proposed at the briefing table ... mainly for prolonging the life of fossil fuels, and one is to talk about ‘unabated’ fossil fuels.” Including “unabated” means allowing the burning of fossil fuels if their emissions can be captured and stored, a technology that’s much talked about but really hasn’t proven to work well, Hohne and other scientists have said… “Activists had a series of events and actions lined up Tuesday at the summit seeking to amp up pressure on conference participants to agree to phase out — not down — coal, oil and gas, responsible for most of the world’s emissions, and move to clean energy in a fair way.”
NPR: Oil firms are out in force at the climate talks. Here's how to decode their language
Camila Domonoske, Julia Simon, 12/4/23
“Just a few years ago oil companies said they felt unwelcome at United Nations climate talks. Not this year,” NPR reports. “This year's climate conference is taking place in the United Arab Emirates, a major oil and gas producing country that's looking to increase its oil production. And the oil industry has a big platform at the talks. The oil cartel OPEC has its own pavilion at this meeting, known as COP28, and giant oil companies are playing a prominent role, to the dismay of climate activists. So what are oil producers saying in their pledges and statements about climate change? And what does it actually mean?... “Many oil companies talk about their support for "low carbon energy" and "lower carbon energy." "We believe the future of energy is lower carbon," Chevron, an NPR sponsor, frequently emphasizes in ads and speeches. Mahdavi told NPR the focus should be on the words "low" or "lower". It doesn't mean no carbon emissions, he says… “But experts say carbon capture technology isn't fully proven: projects often haven't reduced as much emissions as they said they would and are often over budget. Climate scientists say that carbon capture can't reduce the bulk of emissions, and really reducing carbon requires using less fossil fuels… “This past weekend the U.S. joined other nations in a pledge to phase out "unabated" coal. That might sound a lot like eliminating fossil fuels. But, again, notice the word "unabated." It describes emissions from coal, oil or gas that go straight into the atmosphere and heat up the planet. Oil companies instead focus on "abating" emissions from producing and using fossil fuels, which means stopping at least some of the emissions from entering the atmosphere. The industry argues carbon capture and storage – that "low-carbon" technology with a poor track record of success – could accomplish this. Experts have major concerns.”
NPR: Big Oil Leads at COP28
12/1/23
“Every year world leaders gather at the Conference of the Parties, or COP, to devise solutions to what amounts to a growing existential crisis for humankind: our rapidly heating planet,” NPR reports. “The United Arab Emirates is hosting COP28 this year. The goal of the conference is to decrease emissions and protect the planet. But leading the climate talks is the head of one of the biggest oil companies in the world, in a nation that derives much of its wealth from oil. Are the goals of this meeting truly in sync with the goals of the hosts? NPR's Miles Parks speaks with NPR international correspondent Aya Batrawy from COP28.”
Financial Times: How Big Oil’s COP28 agenda backfired
Simon Mundy and Patrick Temple-West, 12/6/23
“...As if the Emirati presidency of COP28 didn’t have enough critics to deal with, the secretary-general of the UN now appears to have joined their ranks,” the Financial Times reports. “In a speech here in Dubai yesterday, António Guterres spoke in withering terms about the Global Decarbonisation Accelerator (GDA) that was announced on Saturday. In that announcement, a flagship initiative of COP28 president Sultan al-Jaber, big energy companies accounting for 40 per cent of global oil output pledged to eliminate carbon emissions from their operations by 2050. But as Guterres noted, their announcement “says nothing about eliminating emissions from fossil fuel consumption”, when their oil and gas is burned by end customers. “The promises made clearly fall short of what is required,” Guterres said. “There must be no room for greenwashing.” “...The 50 signatories include many of the world’s biggest oil and gas companies, including Saudi Aramco, Petrobras, and all the private-sector “supermajors” bar Chevron. Most of the world’s biggest state-owned oil companies, from countries such as Russia, China, Iran and Kuwait, have not signed up, although the agreement still puts some pressure on them to act. The risk is that, by drawing attention to their action on “scope 1” operational emissions, the oil companies distract from the far larger “scope 3” emissions from the use of their products — and the need to move away from fossil fuel energy altogether… “But the science is clear that — with the world on track for a temperature rise roughly double the 1.5C target — a really dramatic shift away from fossil fuels is what’s needed. In that context, Jaber’s preferred gradualist term, “phase-down”, simply won’t cut it… “There is real concern that the petroleum industry is seeking to use COP28 to secure a consensus on an energy transition pathway that includes a substantial long-term role for fossil fuels. These suspicions will have been inflamed further by this FT interview with ExxonMobil chief executive Darren Woods, attending his first COP, who argued that UN climate talks have “put way too much emphasis on getting rid of fossil fuels.”
Guardian: Global carbon emissions from fossil fuels to hit record high
Ajit Niranjan, 12/5/23
“Global carbon emissions from fossil fuels reached record levels again in 2023, as experts warned that the projected rate of warming had not improved over the past two years,” the Guardian reports. “The world is on track to have burned more coal, oil and gas in 2023 than it did in 2022, according to a report by the Global Carbon Project, pumping 1.1% more planet-heating carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at a time when emissions must plummet to stop extreme weather from growing more violent… “Two years after Glasgow, our report is virtually the same,” Claire Stockwell, an analyst at Climate Analytics and lead author of the CAT report, told the Guardian. “You would think the extreme events around the world would be sparking action but governments appear oblivious, somehow thinking treading water will deal with the flood of impacts.” “...If the world continued to emit CO2 at that rate, the international team of more than 120 scientists found, it would burn through the remaining carbon budget for a half-chance of keeping global heating to 1.5C (2.7F) above pre-industrial temperatures in just seven years. In 15 years, the scientists estimated, the budget for 1.7C would be gone too… “Governments were happy to promote clean energy but had done little to penalise fossil fuels, Glen Peters, a research director at the climate research institute Cicero, who co-wrote the report, told the Guardian. “It is simply not enough to support clean energy. Policies are also needed to drive fossil fuels out of the energy system. The report also found that technology to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere would have done almost nothing to stop global heating this year. Current levels of technology-based removal – which does not include carbon absorbed by trees – are more than 1m times smaller than current fossil CO2 emissions, the researchers found.”
New York Times: Can Carbon Capture Live Up to the Hype?
Brad Plumer and Nadja Popovich, 12/6/23
“World leaders at the annual United Nations climate talks have battled for years over whether they should “phase out” fossil fuels like coal or just phase them “down,” the New York Times reports. “Now, another phrase has taken center stage at this year’s summit in Dubai: Should countries agree to end the use of “unabated” fossil fuels? That peculiar word choice might allow nations to continue to burn coal, natural gas or oil as long as they trap and bury the resulting carbon dioxide, and stop the gas from heating the planet. One big dispute is over how big a role this technology, known as carbon capture and storage, should play in the fight against global warming. Some oil and gas producers say it should be central in planning for the future. Others, including many activists and world leaders, dismiss carbon capture as too unproven and too risky… “But its use is likely to be limited: It would be nearly impossible for countries to keep burning fossil fuels at current rates and capture or offset every last bit of carbon dioxide that goes into the air. The technology is expensive, and in many cases there are better alternatives. Despite billions of dollars in investment, countries and industries have also struggled to get carbon capture projects up and running so far. Unless that changes quickly, experts say, the technology might not play more than a marginal role in climate efforts. “Carbon capture and storage definitely could be a critical technology,” Fatih Birol, executive director of the International Energy Agency, told the Times. “But the history of carbon capture to date has largely been a disappointment.” “...More recently, the agency issued a report warning fossil fuel producers against “excessive expectations and reliance” on carbon capture to maintain their current market share, noting that it would cost $3.5 trillion per year to capture or offset all of the emissions from today’s oil and gas output. Carbon capture, the agency concluded, “is not a way to retain the status quo.” “...The operational complexity of these projects can be a big obstacle,” Paola Perez Peña, a principal research analyst at S&P Global Commodity Insights, told the Times. “A lot of projects have announced their intent to capture carbon dioxide, but you still need a storage site to be developed. And that can create a chicken or egg dynamic: Who will put the money down first?” “...But in the Midwest, landowners and environmentalists have opposed new pipelines to transport the carbon dioxide to disposal sites.”
Pipeline Fighters Hub: University of Oxford Report: Heavy dependence on Carbon Capture and Storage ‘highly economically damaging’
Emma Schmit, 12/5/23
“Last month, we saw yet another study showing carbon capture and storage (CCS) to be a false climate solution. Now, a new report from Oxford is lifting the veil on the economic concerns facing the future of CCS technology. These papers highlight what we already know – a large-scale carbon capture buildout, and the pipelines that would come with it, does not benefit everyday people, our pocketbooks, or our planet,” according to the Pipeline Fighters Hub. “Across the globe, countries are incentivizing carbon capture and storage as a means of reducing carbon emissions. In the US, that has meant offering up billions of our tax dollars to wealthy corporations as Bold’s Paul Blackburn detailed in a multi-part series earlier this year. And it’s working – in 2018, there were 35 CCS facilities existing or under development across the globe. In 2023, that number skyrocketed to 312. But, as Bacilieri, et al. point out in the Oxford study, a massive expansion of carbon capture networks is not the best route forward. The authors suggest that “rapid, widespread electrification powered by renewable energy should be the centerpiece of any decarbonisation strategy, while continuing high fossil fuel use with increasing abatement should not.” The report found that relying on CCS to reach net-zero by 2050 comes with a number of potential issues, including: 29 of the 41 operating CCS facilities rely on enhanced oil recovery (EOR) to remain economically viable. As the global demand for oil decreases, so will the value of EOR. At this point, there is not a revenue stream comparable to EOR that could serve as a replacement. Few CCS projects actually get up and running. The study notes, “In 2011 the capacity [of CCS facilities] in planning and construction totalled about 130 MtCO2, with approximately 20 MtCO2 already in operation; a decade later, operational capacity totalled about 40 MtCO2, showing that the vast majority of planned projects were abandoned.” Carbon capture technology is incredibly expensive. What’s more, unlike other technologies such as wind or solar, the cost of carbon capture and storage isn’t expected to go down. If CCS is highly utilized to decrease carbon emissions, rather than focusing on renewable energy, energy efficiency and electrification, the price tag for reaching net-zero by 2050 would jump by more than $30 trillion.”
Common Dreams: Relying on Carbon Capture and Storage Could Unleash 'Carbon Bomb'
JESSICA CORBETT, 12/5/23
“While the United Nations climate summit continued in the Middle East, researchers in Germany warned Tuesday that depending on technology to trap and sequester planet-heating pollution could unleash a "carbon bomb" in the decades ahead,” Common Dreams reports. “Specifically, the new briefing from the Berlin-based think thank Climate Analytics states that reliance on carbon capture and storage (CCS) could release an extra 86 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere between 2020 and 2050. "The climate talks at COP28 have centered around the need for a fossil fuel phaseout," the publication notes, referring to the United Arab Emirates-hosted U.N. conference. "But some are calling for this to be limited to 'unabated' fossil fuels." "The term 'abated' is being used as a Trojan horse to allow fossil fuels with dismal capture rates to count as climate action." Over 100 countries at COP28 support calling for "accelerating efforts toward phasing out unabated fossil fuels," or operations that don't involve technological interventions such as CCS," as Common Dreams reported earlier Tuesday. The new briefing highlights the risks of targeting only unabated fossil fuels. Contrary to claims that significant oil and gas consumption can continue thanks to new tech, it says, "pathways that achieve the Paris agreement's 1.5°C limit in a sustainable manner show a near complete phaseout of fossil fuels by around 2050 and rely to a very limited degree, if at all, on fossil CCS." “...Climate Analytics CEO Bill Hare, who also contributed to the document, said that "the false promises of 'abated' fossil fuels risks climate finance being funneled to fossil projects, particularly oil and gas, and will greenwash the 'unabatable' emissions from their final use, which account for 90% of fossil oil and gas emissions." “...Lorne Stockman, OCI's research director, asserted last week that "governments need to stop pretending that fossil fuels aren't the problem. Instead of throwing a multibillion-dollar lifeline to the fossil fuel industry with our tax dollars, they should fund real climate solutions, including renewable energy and energy efficiency. Fossil fuel phaseout must be the central theme of COP28, not dangerous distractions like CCS propped up with public money."
DeSmog: Canada May Soon Give a $15.3B ‘Carbon Bomb’ Subsidy to Big Oil, Experts Say
Geoff Dembicki, 12/5/23
“As world leaders meet in Dubai for the COP28 climate negotiations, federal and provincial governments in Canada are preparing to give an estimated $15.3 billion in new subsidies to oil and gas companies, and other heavy emitters, for expanding the production of fossil fuels, according to climate experts,” DeSmog reports. “ Those subsidies are taking the form of massive new tax credits for carbon capture and storage (CCS), which is a technology that companies use to grow their extraction of oil and gas while burying a fraction of their greenhouse gas emissions underground. “I completely agree that Canada’s tax credit for carbon capture and storage is a subsidy to the oil and gas industry,” Jason MacLean, an adjunct professor who studies climate policy at the University of Saskatchewan, told DeSmog in an email. The federal Canadian government is close to announcing details on a tax credit that will go to top oil and gas companies like Suncor, Cenovus, and Imperial Oil, along with other major industrial polluters. Policymakers previously estimated the value of these investment tax credits to be $10 billion. The government of Alberta, home to the tar sands, has meanwhile announced taxpayer funding in the range of $3.5 billion to $5.3 billion for CCS projects. The Pathways Alliance, an industry lobbying and marketing group representing 95 percent of tar sands production, says these tax credits are essential for oil and gas producers to lower their emissions in line with achieving “net-zero emissions” by 2050… “Yet, in submissions to the federal government, the Pathways Alliance explained that lowering a portion of oil sands emissions via carbon capture will create opportunities for the industry to expand globally — even as other countries move away from fossil fuels. “We believe Canada should seek to increase its market share for responsibly produced, lower emissions energy, even if global market demand, as a whole, begins to decline,” the group said in one submission. “We need to keep in mind that this is about reducing emissions and not reducing production,” the organization said last year in a separate submission, as revealed by DeSmog… “It is really important for the energy industry in Canada because it extends the life of Canada’s largest industrial sector and maintains our competitiveness over the long term,” Scott Crockatt of the Business Council of Alberta told the Calgary Herald last month. However, tax credits supporting carbon capture risk accelerating already dangerous levels of global temperature rise, MacLean argues… “Allowing oil and gas to expand while relying on carbon capture could result in the release of 86 billion additional tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide between 2020 and 2050, according to a new analysis from the organization Climate Analytics.”
Bloomberg: Decoding Carbon Capture [VIDEO]
12/5/23
“Neil R. Brown, Managing Director, KKR Global Institute & KKR Infrastructure, and Brad Crabtree, Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy & Carbon Management, US Department of Energy, discuss the fast growing yet controversial carbon capture technologies with Bloomberg’s Akshat Rathi at Bloomberg Green at COP28 in Dubai,” Bloomberg reports.
NPR: Carbon capture startups dive for climate solutions in the ocean
Chris Bentley, 12/5/23
“As money pours into companies promising to take greenhouse gasses out of the atmosphere, there's a small but fast-growing sector of startups that want to leverage one of the world's biggest carbon sinks to clean up humanity's climate pollution: the ocean,” NPR reports. “For our series Reverse Course, Chris Bentley reports on some of the scientists and entrepreneurs developing ways to enhance the ocean's natural ability to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.”
Drilled: Reuters, New York Times Top List of Fossil Fuel Industry’s Favorite Media Partners
Amy Westervelt, Matthew Green, 12/5/23
“As she begins a recent episode of the podcast “Powered By How,” award-winning journalist Nisha Pillai talks about the difficulty of scaling innovation, then introduces her guests: a business psychologist, a renewable energy investor, and the head of an innovation lab. The guests go on to describe the complexities of climate change, the challenges to scaling any sort of technology, and what’s needed to engineer real solutions,” Drilled reports. “It sounds like any other business or energy podcast, but each episode in this eight-part series is actually an ad. The casual listener could easily miss the first 5 seconds, set to jangly, stereotypically podcast-y music, when Pillai, a former BBC World News presenter whose voice instills instant confidence, announces that this is a podcast from Reuters Plus in partnership with Saudi Aramco. Pillai never explains that Reuters Plus is the internal ad studio at Reuters, not part of the newsroom. Nor does she remind listeners of the show’s sponsor when the head of the innovation lab, an Aramco executive, trots out the fossil fuel industry’s favorite line on climate: “We need to have collective action from all: government, industry, the developer of the technologies and the end consumer.” Reuters is one of at least seven major news outlets whose internal brand studio creates and publishes misleading promotional content for fossil fuel companies, according to a new report released today. Known as advertorials or native advertising, the sponsored material is created to look like a publication’s authentic editorial work, lending a veneer of journalistic credibility to the fossil fuel industry’s key climate talking points. In collaboration with The Intercept and The Nation, Drilled and DeSmog analyzed hundreds of advertorials and events, as well as ad data from Media Radar. Our analysis focused on the three years spanning October 2020 to October 2023, when the public ramped up calls for media, public relations, and advertising companies to cut their commercial ties with fossil fuel clients amid growing awareness that the industry’s deceptive messaging was slowing climate action. All of the media companies reviewed — Bloomberg, The Economist, the Financial Times, the New York Times, Politico, Reuters, and The Washington Post — consistently top lists of “most-trusted” news outlets. They also all have internal brand studios that create advertising content for major oil and gas companies, furnishing the industry with an air of legitimacy as it pushes misleading climate claims to trusting readers.”
The Intercept: LEADING NEWS OUTLETS ARE DOING THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY’S GREENWASHING
Amy Westervelt, Matthew Green, 12/5/23
“...All of the media companies reviewed — Bloomberg, The Economist, the Financial Times, the New York Times, Politico, Reuters, and the Washington Post — consistently top lists of “most trusted” news outlets,” The Intercept reports. “They also all have internal brand studios that create advertising content for major oil and gas companies, furnishing the industry with an air of legitimacy as it pushes misleading climate claims to trusting readers. In addition to producing podcasts, newsletters, and videos, some of these outlets allow fossil fuel companies to sponsor their events. Reuters goes even further, creating custom summits for the industry explicitly designed to remove the “pain points” holding back faster production of oil and gas. (Disclosure: Co-author Matthew Green was formerly a Reuters climate correspondent.) “...It’s really outrageous that outlets like the New York Times or Bloomberg or Reuters would lend their imprimatur to content that is misleading at best and in some cases outright false,” Naomi Oreskes, a climate disinformation expert and professor at Harvard University, told The Intercept. “They’re manufacturing content that at best is completely one-sided, and at worst is disinformation, and pushing that to their readers.” Spokespeople for Bloomberg, the Financial Times, the New York Times, Reuters, and the Washington Post told us that advertorial content is created by staff members who are separate from the newsroom, and their journalists are independent from their ad sales efforts (Politico and The Economist did not respond to requests for comment). But the independence of these outlets’ journalists is not in question; what’s important is whether readers understand the difference between reporting and advertising. And according to a growing body of peer-reviewed research, they do not. A 2016 Georgetown University study, for example, found that advertorials are confused for “real” content by about two-thirds of people. Another study, conducted in 2018 by Boston University researchers, found that only one in 10 people recognized native advertising as advertising rather than reporting. Michelle Amazeen, the lead author on the Boston University study, found that those who did recognize sponsored content for what it was thought less of the outlet they were reading. “It tarnishes the reputation of that news outlet,” Amazeen told The Intercept. “So it’s baffling to me why newsrooms are continuing to pursue this.”
OPINION
Huntsville Doppler: Carbon capture is a fallacy
Kim deLagran, Utterson, Ontario, 12/6/23
“Dear Prime Minister and Ministers Guilbeault and Wilkinson, I am writing to express my concerns along with many other Canadians about Carbon Capture technology,” Kim deLagran writes for the Huntsville Doppler. “My concern is the level of credibility and funding that your Federal government is willing to give what is basically unproven and unsuccessful technology. Just as concerning, is your government’s about face in allowing Federal carbon reduction subsidies to flow to oil producers who only permanently store 10% of captured carbon while using 90% to recover more oil! For our delegates to appear at COP28 and say we believe the science and know we need to reduce our dependence on gas and oil, funding another way for oil companies to make more oil and more money, it seems more than a little counter productive… “The carbon capture story is one of baffle gab, real action delay, and selling snake oil… “Carbon Capture will be too little too late…Don’t Look Up….when our Prime Minister says “Sorry it Didn’t Work “, it will be too late to change course to avoid Climate Hell.”
LaCrosse Tribune: Enbridge Line 5 pipeline a critical energy conduit
Larry Vangen, 12/6/23
“A pipeline in northern Wisconsin is a vital source of the oil and natural gas liquids our region needs to produce the gas, diesel and propane we need to drive our cars, move our goods, and heat our homes, but unless we speak up, this pipeline could get shut down,” Larry Vangen writes for the LaCrosse Tribune. “That’s because the pipeline – Enbridge’s Line 5 – needs to be relocated off a 12-mile segment of tribal land and environmental activists are trying to stop this project in their attempt to shut down the pipeline. This is a huge deal because Line 5 is unique in that it is critical to the propane supply chain in Wisconsin and the Midwest… “Luckily the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has the ability to approve this project and ensure Line 5 keeps flowing. The DNR needs to put our economy, and the families that rely on Line 5 for energy, ahead of the political games of those trying to stop access to affordable energy.”
Carbon Plan: Ethanol carbon capture and storage isn’t carbon removal
FREYA CHAY, KATA MARTIN, 12/4/23
“The voluntary carbon market is lurching toward buying and selling credits from corn ethanol carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects. As recent indications, NextGen CDR and an ethanol CCS project in the midwest made a $30 million purchase agreement, and the offset registries Gold Standard and Verra have released draft methodologies under which such projects could be credited. All signs indicate the intention to credit corn ethanol CCS as carbon dioxide removal (CDR). The problem is, corn ethanol CCS doesn't actually remove CO₂ from the atmosphere,” Freya Chay and Kata Martin write for Carbon Plan. “...Proponents assert that retrofitting corn ethanol facilities with CCS is carbon removal because it stores CO₂ that was originally captured from the atmosphere via photosynthesis. However, this carbon storage is contingent upon the continued production of ethanol, and even with carbon capture, today’s ethanol production as a whole adds greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. No matter how you do the math, this system couldn’t be used to reduce the total quantity of CO₂ in the atmosphere and therefore should not be called carbon removal. Mislabeling activities like corn ethanol carbon capture muddles the definition of carbon removal and risks diverting investment from developing the carbon removal capacity the world needs… “The process emits additional greenhouse gasses during corn production, through building and operating the ethanol plant, and via transportation of both the corn and the ethanol. Furthermore, dedicating agricultural land to corn ethanol production can result in land-use change by reducing food crop availability and increasing the conversion of land to agricultural use… “ However, because achieving that carbon storage is contingent upon the continued production of ethanol, the retrofit functionally avoids a portion of the existing facility’s emissions rather than removing carbon from the atmosphere… “However, even with CCS, the system as a whole remains a net-emitting process… “Barring major changes to the process of corn ethanol production, CCS retrofits on corn ethanol facilities do not result in carbon removal. We urge standard setters to reconsider how these projects are described, and recommend that carbon removal buyers steer clear of these credits.”
Guardian: The Cop28 president told a shocking lie about fossil fuels – and he’s wrong about climate economics too
Geoffrey Lean, 12/4/23
“For months Sultan Al Jaber, the president of the Cop28 climate negotiations in Dubai, has been insisting that there is no conflict with his day job, chief executive of the United Arab Emirates’ (UAE) state oil company,” the Guardian reports. “Instead, he argued, the dual role enabled him to persuade fossil fuel companies to change. And some early successes in the talks provided some credibility to that claim. Now it lies in ruins, following Sunday’s exclusive Guardian report of rejoinders he made to Mary Robinson, the former president of Ireland and UN special climate envoy, during a live event on 21 November. He claimed there was “no science” showing that phasing out fossil fuels would keep the world beneath the internationally agreed guardrail of a rise of 1.5C above preindustrial levels – beyond which lurk 11 irreversible tipping points that threaten to plunge the world into a much more hostile climate. Indeed, he implied, such a phase-out could “take the world back into caves”. No sooner had Al Jaber’s remarks become public than the scientific community descended on him, with top experts citing the overwhelming mass of hard evidence establishing the vital need to quit coal, gas and oil… “Opponents of action on climate change have almost entirely stopped denying the science in the face of conclusive evidence (making Al Jaber’s claim against it all the more extraordinary). Instead they are focusing on claiming that the level of intervention needed would be economically ruinous. They have made headway on this. The far-right parties advancing throughout the west have taken up the theme, and it appears to have influenced Rishi Sunak’s decision to delay net zero targets. In this new political atmosphere, fossil fuel companies are stepping up their drilling, while barely investing in renewables. Al Jaber’s “back into caves” jibe will give them comfort. But it could not be more wrong. Far from harming growth, economists, businesses and governments increasingly recognise that green measures offer the best hope of achieving it… “But now he must be held accountable, on pain of resignation, for withdrawing his reckless remarks – and for delivering a phase-out decision in Dubai.”