SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
carbon capture
500+ Lobbyists for 'False Promise of Carbon Capture' Accessed COP30
"The world doesn't need fossil-fueled tech fantasies justifying business as usual for big polluters and Silicon Valley billionaires."
Nov 17, 2025
After critics of big polluters warned of "corporate capture" in the lead-up to the United Nations Climate Change Conference based on previous summits, one advocacy group announced Monday that more than 500 carbon capture and storage lobbyists have gained access to COP30 in Belém, Brazil.
CCS—also called carbon capture, use, and storage—involves capturing carbon dioxide, generally from industrial or power generation facilities, and then either finding a use for it or storing it underground. Opponents and skeptics have long called it a risky "false solution" that extends reliance on planet-heating fossil fuels and distracts from a global shift to renewables.
The Center for International Environmental Law identified 531 CCS lobbyists attending this year's ongoing summit—the largest number since CIEL started analyzing registrations for the annual conference. The group explained that the oil and gas industry and other CCS advocates are highlighting the massive energy needs of booming artificial intelligence "to cement further fossil fuel expansion, using carbon capture promises to mask the devastating climate impact."
CIEL fossil economy director Lili Fuhr said in a statement that "the fossil fuel industry has found in AI's energy demand a new narrative to justify its survival—and in carbon capture, the perfect illusion. CCS cannot make fossil fuels 'clean'; it just keeps them burning. It doesn't curb emissions; it locks them in."
"The world... needs a future rooted in renewable energy, accountability, and justice, and a climate process with a robust conflict of interest policy."
"When governments fall for the AI and carbon capture fairytale of the CCS lobbyists, they open a new escape hatch for the fossil fuel industry, undermine global climate efforts, and delay the urgently needed phaseout of coal, oil, and gas," she argued. "The world doesn't need fossil-fueled tech fantasies justifying business as usual for big polluters and Silicon Valley billionaires. It needs a future rooted in renewable energy, accountability, and justice, and a climate process with a robust conflict of interest policy."
Her group found that CCS lobbyists have received more conference passes than not only "any other single nation registered at COP30, except the host country, Brazil (899 delegates)," but also 62 national delegations combined (526 delegates), including 14 from European Union countries, and the total for national delegations from the Group of Seven nations (481 delegates).
While some lobbyists came from CCS-promoting trade associations and companies driving the climate emergency, such as CNPC, ExxonMobil, Oxy, Petrobras, and TotalEnergies, 44 of them are part of national delegations, including Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Brazil, Georgia, Honduras, Japan, Kuwait, Libya, Oman, Qatar, Russia, and the United Arab Emirates.
What is the big deal? #CarbonCapture could worsen the #ClimateCrisis.Polluters push carbon capture and storage as a means of trapping their carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, transporting them, and burying them underground.The technology is:👿 dangerous,👿 expensive, and 👿 proven to fail.
[image or embed]
— Center for International Environmental Law (@ciel.org) November 17, 2025 at 2:12 AM
"What's even more shocking than the fact that hundreds of CCS lobbyists and fossil fuel industry representatives are roaming COP's halls is the fact that governments still invite them in," said CIEL climate and energy director Nikki Reisch. "The continued presence of those who profit from the products heating the planet and making us sick is a reminder that reform of the UN climate talks is long overdue."
"It's past time to show big polluters the door, to put conflict-of-interest rules in place, and to allow voting when consensus is blocked," she declared. "The #COPWeNeed puts people, science, and the law at the center, not profits."
The group's analysis comes after the Kick Big Polluters Out coalition announced Friday that it counted the "largest ever attendance share" for fossil fuel lobbyists, with 1,602 at this year's summit. In addition to CIEL, KBPO's members include the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth International, Greenpeace International, Oil Change International, and more.
"The influx of CCS lobbyists at COP30 shows how the AI industry is using the false promise of carbon capture as a lifeline for fossil fuels," Center for Biological Diversity Energy Justice program director and senior attorney Jean Su said Monday. "AI is the love child of Big Tech and the fossil fuel industry. It's critical that COP30 recognizes how the AI boom is threatening our global climate goals and acts swiftly to rein in this dirty industry."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Historic Heatwave Grips Europe, Coalition Says 'No to a Climate Law for Polluters'
"Will the European Commission propose a climate law that ends fossil fuel use and reflects the E.U.'s fair share of climate responsibility? Or will it choose political convenience?"
Jun 30, 2025
As yet another dangerous heatwave pushes temperatures well into the triple digits across much of Europe, climate defenders on Monday renewed calls for stronger action to combat the planetary emergency—including by ensuring that the impending European Climate Law ends fossil fuel use and eschews false solutions including international carbon offsetting.
Croatia, France, Italy, Portugal, and Spain are among the countries where near- or record-high temperatures have been recorded. Portugal and Spain both recorded their hottest-ever June days over the weekend. El Granado in southwestern Spain saw the mercury soar to nearly 115°C (46°C) on Saturday. The heatwave is expected to continue into the middle of the week, with authorities warning of elevated wildfire risk and potential severe health impacts.
" Extreme heat is no longer a rare event—it has become the new normal," United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said Sunday on social media. "I'm experiencing it firsthand in Spain during the Financing for Development Conference. The planet is getting hotter and more dangerous—no country is immune. We need more ambitious #ClimateAction now."
On Monday, Real Zero Europe—"a campaign calling on the European Union to deliver real emissions reductions and real solutions to the climate crisis, instead of corporate greenwashed 'net zero' targets"—published a call for an E.U. Climate Law that does not contain provisions for international carbon offsetting, in which countries or corporations compensate for their greenhouse gas emissions by funding projects that reduce emissions in other nations.
🔴 OUT NOW📢 69 NGOs call on the EU to deliver a Climate Law that rejects international carbon offsetting & Carbon Dioxide Removals (#CDR), commits to a full fossil fuel phase-out, and reflects Europe’s fair share of climate responsibility!Read the statement👇www.realzeroeurope.org/resources/st...
[image or embed]
— Real Zero Europe (@realzeroeurope.bsky.social) June 30, 2025 at 2:40 AM
A draft proposal of the legislation published Monday by Politico revealed that the European Commission will allow E.U. member states to outsource climate efforts to Global South nations staring in 2036, despite opposition from the 27-nation bloc's independent scientific advisory board. The outsourcing will enable the E.U. to fund emissions-reducing projects in developing nations and apply those reductions to Europe's own 2040 target—which is a 90% net decrease in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels.
The proposal also embraces carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies like carbon capture and storage, whose scalability is unproven. Climate groups call them false solutions that prolong the fossil fuel era.
"E.U. climate policy stands at a crossroads: Will the European Commission propose a climate law that ends fossil fuel use and reflects the E.U.'s fair share of climate responsibility?" the Real Zero Europe letter says. "Or will it choose political convenience—abandoning that goal under pressure from corporate and populist interests, and turning to risky, unjust carbon offsetting and other false solutions?"
"Taking responsibility for the E.U.'s past and present role in causing the climate crisis means doubling down on a just and full fossil fuel phaseout not hiding behind false solutions as currently proposed," the letter continues. "The law as planned will send a dangerous signal far beyond E.U. borders. The climate and biodiversity crises are already harming people, especially vulnerable communities and populations largely in the Global South, who have least contributed to the climate crisis."
The 69 groups stress that international carbon offsetting "is a smokescreen for giving license to fossil fuel use beyond 2050" that diverts critical resources and public funds from real climate solutions and climate finance."
"Given the scale of climate catastrophe, for the E.U. to allow international offsets and technological CDR gives a lifeline to polluting industries such as the fossil fuel, agribusiness, plastics, and petrochemical industries," the letter states.
"We say no to an E.U. Climate Law that puts polluting industries over people and climate by embracing the use of international offsets and CDR approaches," the letter's signers said. "We call on the Commission to deliver an E.U. Climate Law and its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) to the U.N. climate negotiations that clearly reflects the bloc's responsibility for the climate crisis. That means a full fossil fuel phaseout and a just transition."
This heatwave is brutal. Temperatures above 40°C in June across France, Spain, Italy...We still hear from right-wing politicians that “it’s just summer.” It’s not. This is the climate crisis courtesy of the fossil fuels industry. It’s not normal.
[image or embed]
— European Greens (@europeangreens.eu) June 30, 2025 at 7:01 AM
U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk also addressed the European heatwave on Monday, saying that "the climate crisis is a human rights crisis."
"Rising temperatures, rising seas, floods, droughts, and wildfires threaten our rights to life, to health, to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, and much more," he continued. "The heatwave we are currently experiencing here shows us the importance of adaptation measures, without which human rights would be severely impacted."
"It is equally clear that our current production and consumption patterns are unsustainable, and that renewables are the energy source of the future," Türk asserted. "Production capacity for renewables increased five-fold between 2011 and 2023. What we need now is a roadmap that shows us how to rethink our societies, economies and politics in ways that are equitable and sustainable. That is, a just transition."
"This shift requires an end to the production and use of fossil fuels and other environmentally destructive activities across all sectors—from energy to farming to finance to construction and beyond," he added. "This will be one of the greatest transformations our world has ever seen."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Extreme Heat Bakes US, 160+ Global Groups Demand 'Real' Climate Action
"Reject false solutions, such as natural gas, mega-dams, geoengineering, bioenergy, forest offsets, carbon trading schemes, nuclear energy, biodiversity credits, and carbon capture and storage."
Jun 23, 2025
As about 265 million people across the United States face advisories for this week's "climate change-driven heatwave," over 160 groups from 45 countries on Monday collectively called for "real" and urgent action to "keep global warming below 1.5ºC to preserve a healthy and livable planet for ourselves and future generations."
The "call to action" was released as United Nations climate meetings are wrapping up in Bonn, Germany, and in anticipation of the next U.N. Climate Change Conference (COP30), set to be held in Belém, Brazil in November.
The joint call was published on the first day of the virtual Global Women's Assembly for Climate Justice: Path to COP30 and Beyond, organized by the Women's Earth and Climate Action Network (WECAN) International.
"For too long, science-based climate solutions have been sacrificed on the altar of capitalism."
"The climate crisis is not just an environmental crisis—it is a crisis of justice, of society, and of humanity itself. How we respond, and who is centered in that response, matters profoundly," said WECAN founder and executive director Osprey Orielle Lake in a statement. "We are calling for systemic transformation—one that delivers climate, social, and economic justice for all generations."
"While governments and corporations push us deeper into climate chaos, movements around the world are rising," she noted. "From every corner of the Earth, women leaders are coming together with solutions and strategies to defend our planet and our communities. We call on governments and financial institutions to heed their voices and ensure effective and equitable policies—from Bonn to Belém and beyond. We must rise boldly, because climate change is not waiting for politics. Our movements are not bending. We are not breaking. We are defining and building a healthy and just future for all."
The new call to action points out that "last year, the world breached this threshold with global average temperatures exceeding 1.5ºC above preindustrial levels. This alarming milestone is not yet a permanent breach of the Paris agreement guardrail, which refers to long-term warming, although scientists predict that 2024 will be the first of a 20-year period reaching 1.5ºC warming."
"Although the pathway is drastically narrowing, the International Energy Agency affirms that the goal of the Paris agreement is still attainable," the publication continues. "Scientists assert that limiting global warming to 1.5ºC will require significant and urgent action from governments and financial institutions."
Specifically, the coalition outlined 10 broad actions for governments and financial institutions, beginning with urging both the public and private sectors to end fossil fuel expansion and extraction, and to "reject false solutions, such as natural gas, mega-dams, geoengineering, bioenergy, forest offsets, carbon trading schemes, nuclear energy, biodiversity credits, and carbon capture and storage."
The collective also called for accelerating a just transition, promoting women's leadership and gender equity, protecting the rights of Indigenous peoples, safeguarding forests and biodiversity, preserving oceans and freshwater, advancing food security and sovereignty, implementing the Rights of Nature, providing robust climate finance, and cutting off financial institutions' support for "harmful projects and redirecting resources into climate solutions."
STARTING SOON! The first day of the Global Women's Assembly for Climate Justice: Path to COP30 and Beyond is kicking off today at 1:00 PM EDT! Join us via Zoom for interpretation and chat moderation or be welcome to watch live on Facebook and Youtube! tinyurl.com/CJ-2025
[image or embed]
— WECAN International (@wecan-intl.bsky.social) June 23, 2025 at 11:49 AM
In addition to WECAN, signatories include Amazon Watch, Journalists for Human Rights, MADRE, MoveOn.org, Public Citizen, Rainforest Action Network, Turtle Island Restoration Network, Urgewald, and over 100 other organizations.
"For too long, science-based climate solutions have been sacrificed on the altar of capitalism," said Zukiswa White, a project specialist and social justice consultant, and speaker at the WECAN assembly. "Corporations, financial institutions, and governments have criminalized and penalized those fighting to defend life, protect the integrity of the planet, and fight for climate action. All this, while the wealthy elite profit off of extracting and burning our planet's resources."
"If we are to prevent the worst of climate change—a crisis that is already impacting most people on the planet—we demand that we insist on a different path," White continued. "Choosing to keep the status quo is neither a coincidence nor is it our inevitable destiny. Rather, it is a political choice. So too is upholding systems that violate planetary boundaries. To counter this, we must center the work of frontline leaders and experts around the world—move into implementation of policies that not only halt climate devastation, but also champion democratic, gender transformative, and community-based solutions."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rio Grande LNG Expansion: a Lose-Lose Proposition
The project jeopardizes the health and environment of frontline communities, threatens local economies and endangered wildlife, and exposes investors to financial and reputational risks.
May 26, 2025
In its 2024 fourth quarter update, NextDecade, a Houston-based liquefied natural gas company, announced its intention to more than double its export capacity at the Rio Grande LNG facility near Brownsville, Texas. Despite NextDecade’s sunny projections, community members and investors in the project’s owner, Global Infrastructure Partners, and its parent company, BlackRock, should be wary of risks associated with the LNG facility. The proposed expansion could further harm local communities, the region, and pose significant risks to investors.
LNG is primarily composed of methane, a potent greenhouse gas with 80 times the atmospheric warming potential of carbon dioxide over a 20-year period. As originally proposed, this project was estimated to emit the equivalent emissions of 44 coal power plants every year, about 163 million tons of carbon dioxide annually. The newly announced expansion would be projected to emit over 300 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent every year, or the equivalent of the emissions from 83 coal plants annually.
Perhaps in an effort to address criticism about emissions, NextDecade’s original proposal included carbon capture and storage (CCS), though some opponents described this as greenwashing from the beginning. The company withdrew its CCS application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in August 2024, yet continues to tout sustainability on its website.
The path forward demands a just transition to clean energy that respects both people and the planet.
The Rio Grande LNG facility sits in a region already burdened by economic hardship and environmental injustice. Its expansion will amplify air pollution, exposing local residents—many of whom are Latino and low-income—to increased risks of respiratory illnesses, cancer, and other serious health conditions.
Several nearby towns and entities formally oppose the project, including Laguna Vista, South Padre Island, Port Isabel, and the Laguna Madre Water District. The Rio Grande LNG terminal is being built on the sacred land of the Carrizo/Comecrudo Tribe of Texas, yet Rio Grande LNG, regulatory agencies, and banks have failed to consult with that Tribe on its impacts.
Additionally, according to an environmental report,, the facilities will likely significantly degrade local fishing, shrimping, and natural tourism industries, putting communities’ livelihoods at risk. The project also threatens critical wetlands adjacent to the Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge, which protects endangered species such as the ocelot and Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle. The noise, light, and industrial activity will disrupt fragile ecosystems and threaten biodiversity. The opposition shines a light on the environmental risks inherent in this project.
Rio Grande LNG has faced significant challenges, including pending approval and permitting of the project from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Some banks and insurance companies have wavered in their support. Long before the expansion announcement, insurance company CHUBB backed out of the project. Societe Generale, BNP Paribas, and La Banque Postale have also pulled financial support from the project in the last several years.
For investors, this means escalating risks: construction delays, legal battles, potentially stranded assets, and the threat of diminished returns. Continuing to pour capital into this project is not just environmentally irresponsible—it is financially imprudent.
The global energy market is also shifting rapidly. Ongoing trade wars and on-and-off-again tariffs could make it difficult for Rio Grande LNG to meet its Final Investment Decision, the last fundraising hurdle a project like this must clear before beginning a new stage of construction. At the same time, LNG demand is projected to peak before 2030, and an oversupply threatens to depress prices. And the methane emissions from LNG production undermine the climate benefits often touted by proponents.
The Rio Grande LNG expansion is a lose-lose proposition. It jeopardizes the health and environment of frontline communities, threatens local economies and endangered wildlife, and exposes investors to financial and reputational risks. The path forward demands a just transition to clean energy that respects both people and the planet.
Investors in Global Infrastructure Partners and its parent company BlackRock can limit the harms associated with this project. Potential investors with each company should decline to invest in the expansion of the Rio Grande LNG terminal for the sake of local residents, the region’s economy, and returns on investments.
Keep ReadingShow Less
There Is No Such Thing as 'Normal' Trump Nominee
And Doug Burgum proves it. Backing false climate solutions is hardly less corrosive than outright climate denial when it comes to the goal of mitigating climate change.
Dec 15, 2024
Trump has spent the month since the election firing off a rapid torrent of Cabinet picks. His nominees generally fall into two types: obviously whacko (see Pete Hegseth, Tulsi Gabbard, Kash Patel, RFK Jr.) and superficially normal (think Marco Rubio, Doug Burgum, Pam Bondi). While the headline-grabbing scandals and general trumpery of the first group easily draw scorn, it’s important that we not grade the second group on a credulous curve, overlooking the economic interests behind their soothingly conventional manner.
That’s a lesson we should remember from the last Trump administration, when scandal-plagued appointees like Scott Pruitt at EPA and Ryan Zinke at Interior were replaced by more circumspect villains like Andrew Wheeler at EPA and David Bernhardt at Interior. Wheeler and Bernhardt wreaked havoc on environmental, public health, and public lands protection while evading the mockery invited by their predecessors.
Even a wannabe-authoritarian like Trump wants his administration to have a veneer of power and legitimacy, and the scandals of Pruitt and Zinke compromised that illusion. As I recapped for our series of Trump retrospectives, Pruitt “misspent millions in public funds on 24/7 private security, first-class plane tickets, chartered jets, and renovations, while misusing EPA staffers to find his wife a job and do his personal errands,” while Zinke “resigned amid over a dozen ongoing ethics investigations.” Mockery can be politically useful, insofar as it deflates authoritarian egos. But corruption doesn’t have to be sensational to be consequential—and those are the harder stories to tell.
Billionaire Burgum and His Billionaire Buddies
Trump’s pick for Interior Secretary and energy czar, the billionaire former software executive and North Dakota governor Doug Burgum, appears to be more in the mold of Bernhardt than Zinke: staunchly anti-regulation, pro-corporate, pro-oil.
Backing false climate solutions is hardly less corrosive than outright climate denial when it comes to the goal of mitigating climate change. It just makes Burgum a more slippery villain.
Bernhardt, a former oil lobbyist, had so many potential conflicts of interest at Interior that he walked around with a card listing them all. Burgum leases his family land for oil and gas drilling to Continental Resources, which is owned by his billionaire friend and collaborator Harold Hamm. Hamm’s name might be familiar to you, as he is the billionaire with whom Burgum is orchestrating Trump’s energy policies. Burgum also leases land to oil company Hess, whose billionaire CEO John Hess gave Burgum $25,000 for his 2016 gubernatorial campaign. Burgum’s spouse also owns over $100,000 of stock in fossil fuel companies, according to Burgum’s 2023 financial disclosure.
Harold Hamm organized the dinner between Trump and oil executives last spring where Trump asked for $1 billion in donations in order to demolish Biden’s climate agenda; Burgum attended it. (Eighteen days after that dinner, Hamm’s Continental Resources donated $1 million to Trump.) Hamm and other Big Oil executives present at that dinner have defied congressional Democrats’ requests for information about this meeting. John Hess, meanwhile, was scrutinized by the Biden administration’s Federal Trade Commission for colluding with OPEC and Saudi Arabia on oil pricing, and as a result of their preliminary investigation he was banned from joining Chevron’s board. Hess has said he may appeal this ban once Trump takes office. If confirmed, Burgum will have personal ties to these “drill-ionaires” in the crosshairs of federal oversight while helming the federal agency that leases the land and issues the permits to drillers.
Burgum told wealthy Trump donors that the “the No. 1 thing that President Trump could do on Day 1” would be to “stop the hostile attack against all American energy, and I mean all. Whether it’s baseload electricity, whether it’s oil, whether it’s gas, whether it’s ethanol, there is an attack on liquid fuels.” In reality, every single year of the Biden presidency, the U.S. produced more crude oil than any other nation at any other time, and remained the world’s largest methane gas producer, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Burgum is Bullish on Carbon Capture Bullsh*t
As governor of North Dakota, Burgum has been a vocal supporter of the controversial Summit Carbon Capture Pipeline, which would transport carbon captured from ethanol production facilities across state lines and sequester it underground in North Dakota. As Molly Taft brilliantly documented in “Unrest in Carbon Country,” opposition to Summit’s carbon pipeline and the use of eminent domain to seize land for it has united people across parties and walks of life in the rural Midwest.
Burgum’s support for the massive carbon pipeline project is unsurprising when you consider that Harold Hamm’s Continental Resources is one of the project’s main investors. But more broadly, Burgum’s support for carbon capture should not be understood as an admission of the need to mitigate climate change, but rather as an extension of a shrewd maneuver from the oil and gas industry to secure federal climate funding for a technology that helps them extract more oil and gas.
Capturing the carbon created as a byproduct of industrial processes in order to pump it back underground and recover more oil and gas from a well—also known as enhanced oil recovery (EOR)—has become increasingly important to the fossil fuel industry as oil reserves and the productivity of existing wells diminish. As the great Amy Westervelt explained last week:
“The carbon capture and storage (CCS) boom is neither a greenwashing campaign nor a genuine attempt to tackle carbon emissions, it has been driven almost entirely by the industry’s increasing reliance on EOR to deal with oil fields in decline. Compressed carbon turns out to be the best way to get dwindling oil reserves out of the ground, but it’s also one of the more expensive methods. Solution? Re-brand the process as a climate solution and get taxpayers to fund it. That is what the 45Q tax credit, passed as part of the Inflation Reduction Act, is all about.”
And that is definitely what carbon capture is about for the oil industry in North Dakota. The state’s primary drilling region, the Bakken formation, contains a massive amount of hard-to-get oil. The Bakken has a low “recovery factor” of less than 10 percent of oil in place being extracted. The fracking boom in the Bakken basin, which made Harold Hamm’s Continental Resources a fortune, unlocked more productivity for oil extraction. But enhanced oil recovery could potentially extend production further, prolonging the polluting lifespan of fossil fuel extraction even as major producers in the Bakken can foresee the time when production dwindles.
As Molly Taft reported for Drilled, “In April, North Dakota’s top oil and gas regulator warned that without importing CO2 from outside states, production in the Bakken could go into ‘terminal decline.’ Governor Burgum…called enhanced oil recovery carbon capture’s ‘biggest prize.’”
Earlier this year, Reuters reported that while Summit Carbon Solutions “has repeatedly pledged its project will not be used by drillers to boost output from oil fields,” its message to prospective clients from North Dakota’s oil industry is decidedly different: “if you want to use our project for enhanced oil recovery (EOR), where gas is pumped into oil fields to increase production, just write a check.”
Burgum’s support for carbon capture is among the factors that led some to view him as a less extreme pick than climate change deniers Chris Wright and Lee Zeldin, who Trump has tapped to head the Energy Department and the EPA. When he ran for president in 2023, USA Today reported that “Burgum believes human activity has caused climate change, and as governor he made it a goal to get the Roughrider State carbon-neutral by 2030. But he rejects the Democratic worldview of using regulation to curtail fossil fuel use and instead emphasizes innovative technology to capture carbon emissions.” After Burgum was tapped by Trump for Interior, Politico deemed Burgum to be “maybe the best hope for policymakers who favor an ‘abundance agenda.’”
Burgum’s selection has indeed gathered praise from pro-development voices on the center and right, including Alec Stapp of Institute for Progress, who called Burgum a “YIMBY abundance guy.” Joe Pitts of American Enterprise Institute called his selection “really, really good news.” Matt Yglesias called him “a totally solid pick who’ll do good things.” In what a telling glimpse into what the abundance agenda may be gunning for—cheap energy for AI data centers—Thomas Hochman of the Foundation for American Innovation tweeted that Burgum would help the U.S. “win the AI arms race.” Christopher Barnard of the American Conservation Coalition tweeted that he was “excited to see how [Burgum] drains the permitting swamp over the next 4 years.”
Backing false climate solutions is hardly less corrosive than outright climate denial when it comes to the goal of mitigating climate change. It just makes Burgum a more slippery villain. His gubernatorial track record gives us a sense of what we might expect from him at Interior. As governor, Burgum opposed a federal rule requiring gas companies to cut down on methane leaks when drilling on federal and tribal lands, while his state sued the Biden administration’s Interior Department for establishing conservation as a valid use of federal lands. Burgum opposed a federal rule reducing mercury emissions from coal plants that cause cancer, heart attacks, and developmental delays in children, while exempting the coal industry from $100 million in taxes over five years. Burgum applauded federal funding going to corporations pushing false climate solutions like carbon capture from coal production and gas-powered hydrogen production, but wants to repeal federal subsidies for consumers purchasing electric vehicles.
Unfortunately for the climate left, there will be little solace in “I told you so” when Burgum reveals himself to be just as irredeemably oily as the rest of Trump’s pollution promoters.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Exclusive: Khanna Proposes End to 'Unconscionable' Taxpayer Subsidies for Big Oil
"The fossil fuel industry receives over $20.5 billion in taxpayer dollars every year while fleecing American consumers and driving a global climate crisis," said the California Democrat.
Sep 26, 2024
As fossil fuel giants continue to rake in billions of dollars in profits, U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna on Thursday is reintroducing legislation to end giving billions in taxpayer dollars to companies that inject captured carbon dioxide into wells to extract more climate-wrecking oil.
"The fossil fuel industry receives over $20.5 billion in taxpayer dollars every year while fleecing American consumers and driving a global climate crisis," Khanna (D-Calif.) told Common Dreams. "The End Polluter Welfare for Enhanced Oil Recovery Act will eliminate the subsidy for captured carbon used for enhanced oil recovery, which only leads to more fossil fuel extraction and does nothing to mitigate climate change."
While advocates of carbon capture utilization and storage claim that it's necessary to address the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency, most CO2 captured in the United States is used to extract more planet-heating oil and gas, leading many scientists and green groups to argue that it is a "false climate solution."
"Oil drilling is the real story behind the fossil fuel industry's carbon capture obsession," said Jim Walsh, policy director at Food & Water Watch, which has endorsed Khanna's bill. "These corporate polluters are raiding public coffers from what could easily be hundreds of billions of dollars while greenwashing the further degradation of our climate."
Walsh also highlighted the impact on people who live near fossil fuel infrastructure, telling Common Dreams that "communities across the country are facing the potential for thousands of harmful industrial projects and tens of thousands of miles of dangerous pipelines that will do little more than put money in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry."
Despite such warnings, Congress has actually boosted Section 45Q tax giveaways for companies using captured CO2 for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) since Khanna first introduced the legislation in December 2021. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 was heralded as a "landmark" climate package for its investments in cleaner energy, but a little-noticed provision in the law increased the relevant credit for CO2 injection from $35 to $60 per metric ton.
"Taxpayers shouldn't be left footing the bill to help Big Oil boost its profits at the expense of our health and economy."
This year, 15 other House members are backing Khanna's bill, as are over a dozen organizations. Among them is Evergreen Action, which has spent years calling for reforms, including a June memo denouncing 45Q subsidies that encourage more fossil fuel production.
"It's unconscionable that American taxpayers are still subsidizing oil and gas companies to extract even more fossil fuels through so-called 'enhanced oil recovery,'" said Evergreen Action senior energy transition policy lead Mattea Mrkusic. "By eliminating these wasteful tax giveaways, Rep. Ro Khanna's bill takes a crucial step toward ending one of many federal fossil fuel handouts that drive climate pollution."
"Climate change is no longer a distant threat—it's happening right now, fueling more frequent and severe weather events, disproportionately impacting marginalized communities, and costing the American people billions every year," Mrkusic told Common Dreams. "Taxpayers shouldn't be left footing the bill to help Big Oil boost its profits at the expense of our health and economy. It's a perfect time to fully invest in our clean energy future instead."
Khanna's reintroduction of the End Polluter Welfare for EOR Act follows the hottest year in human history—a record that 2024 is expected to beat, with historic summer heat that led global scientists to demand urgent action to shift away from fossil fuels.
It also comes less than six weeks away from the U.S. general election, in which Americans are set to determine the makeup of Congress and the next occupant of the Oval Office. While Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris has the support of nearly every major climate group, former Republican President Donald Trump, who has pledged to swiftly gut federal climate policies if Big Oil puts $1 billion toward his campaign, has been dubbed an existential threat to progress on the climate crisis.
Regardless of who wins in November, there's also a looming Capitol Hill battle over taxation, given that policies Trump signed into law in 2017 are set to expire at the end of next year. As Common Dreams reported in June, the climate movement sees that debate as an opportunity to end tax giveaways for the fossil fuel industry.
"Fossil fuel companies have raked in astronomical profits at the expense of communities while Big Oil and Gas lobbyists actively work to keep us hooked on their polluting products that perpetuate the climate crisis," said Mahyar Sorour, Sierra Club's director of beyond fossil fuels policy. "It is absurd that taxpayers should then also provide a blank check through subsidies, corporate giveaways, and sweetheart deals."
Sierra Club is supporting Khanna's bill, as are 350.org, Alliance for Affordable Energy, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for International Environmental Law, Climate Justice Alliance, Environment America, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace USA, Oil Change International, Our Revolution, Oxfam America, Progressive Democrats of America, U.S. PIRG, and Zero Hour.
"We must end the billions of dollars in wasteful taxpayer subsidies to the fossil fuel industry," Sorour stressed. "Congress continues to say they are concerned about the country's deficit. Ending handouts to billion-dollar corporations that price gouge consumers and pollute our environment is a great way to reduce spending."
"We are grateful to Rep. Khanna for leading this legislation and look forward to supporting this and other types of similar legislation that hold Big Oil and Gas companies accountable," Sorour told Common Dreams.
Earlier this year, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) reintroduced the broader End Polluter Welfare Act, of which Khanna is a co-lead. Its sponsors say that by closing tax loopholes and ending corporate handouts to the fossil fuel industry, that bill "would save American taxpayers up to $170 billion over the next 10 years."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Leak at First CO2 Injection Site in US Exposes Dangerous Folly of Carbon Capture
"This incident puts an exclamation point on concerns communities across the country have been raising for years about the dangers the CCS industry poses to public safety and drinking water," said one climate group.
Sep 13, 2024
Environmental groups said Friday that a newly reported leak at the first CO2 injection site in the United States highlights the threat—and false promise—of carbon capture and storage efforts, which climate advocates have long criticized as a ploy by the fossil fuel industry to preserve its extractive business model.
E&E News reported Friday that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has "issued a violation notice to the operator of the country's first carbon dioxide injection wells for permanent storage, alleging that the company hasn't complied with its federal permit."
The facility operator is Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), an agribusiness giant that has received hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding for carbon capture and storage (CCS) efforts—with underwhelming results.
E&E News published a three-page notice that the EPA sent to Archer Daniels Midland, alerting the company to a violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act at its CCS injection well in Decatur, Illinois.
The EPA said the company allowed "injection and formation fluids" to move into "unauthorized zones."
A spokesperson for ADM told E&E News that the company in March "detected some corrosion in a section of one of two deep monitoring wells at approximately 5,000 feet and below." According to E&E News, "that corrosion allowed CO2 and formation fluid to migrate into a formation where those liquids weren't permitted to go."
"There are significant risks at every step of the CCS process, and it's not a matter of if carbon sequestration facilities leak, but rather when."
Jim Walsh, policy director for Food & Water Watch, criticized the EPA for its "lack of transparency" surrounding the leak, adding that
"carbon dioxide injection wells are a dangerous endeavor, even if EPA does not capitulate to industry demands to rush permitting."
"This incident puts an exclamation point on concerns communities across the country have been raising for years about the dangers the CCS industry poses to public safety and drinking water," said Walsh. "The reality is this: CCS is a technologically unsound and economically unviable scheme, perpetuated by the fossil fuel industry to allow oil and gas companies to keep on drilling, keep on fracking, and keep on polluting our planet."
The Illinois Clean Jobs Coalition said in a statement Friday that the incident underscores that "there are significant risks at every step of the CCS process, and it's not a matter of if carbon sequestration facilities leak, but rather when."
"This incident demonstrates how important strict CCS regulations are to protect our communities and environment, and is exactly why we passed the CCS Protections Act in Illinois this year," the group said. "There are real concerns from many legislators, community partners, and Illinoisans who rely on public drinking water about the need for even stronger protections, and this incident shows that these concerns need to be taken seriously to ensure Illinoisians are protected to the fullest extent possible."
Concerns about leaks and other harms associated with CCS projects are expected to grow as the U.S. continues promoting them with taxpayer dollars.
"Federal and state regulators are reviewing 69 projects or permits to store CO2 underground, with 24 of those in Louisiana. Nine projects have already been approved while one more, in California, is pending," Inside Climate News reported earlier this year. "Companies plan to inject carbon dioxide into porous rock formations that are usually filled with brine containing not only extremely high salt levels but often heavy metals, hydrocarbons, and radioactive elements. Brine leaks, therefore, can be even more worrying than the escape of CO2."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Colossal Waste': US Leads Way in Public Spending on False Climate Solutions
"The fossil fuel industry delays climate action, distracts from real solutions that would end the fossil fuel era, and does everything in its power to squeeze the last drops of profit from a dying industry, at the expense of all of us."
Aug 29, 2024
Among the world's wealthiest countries, the U.S. leads the way in spending public money on so-called climate "solutions" that have been proven to "consistently fail, overspend, or underperform," according to an analysis released Thursday by the research and advocacy group Oil Change International.
The group's report, titled Funding Failure, focuses on international spending on carbon capture and fossil-based hydrogen subsidies, which continues despite ample data showing that the technological fixes have "failed to make a dent in carbon emissions" after 50 years of research and development.
The report details how five countries account for 95% of all carbon capture spending, with the U.S. investing the most taxpayer money in the technology, at $12 billion in subsidies over the last 40 years.
Norway comes in second with $6 billion going to carbon capture and storage, while Canada has spent $3.8 billion, the European Union has spent $3.6 billion, and the Netherlands has poured $2.6 billion into the technology, with which carbon dioxide emissions are compressed and utilized or stored underground.
"It is nothing short of a travesty that funds meant to combat climate change are instead bolstering the very industries driving it."
Harjeet Singh, global engagement director for the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, told The Guardian that the subsidies amount to a "colossal waste of money."
"It is nothing short of a travesty that funds meant to combat climate change are instead bolstering the very industries driving it," said Singh.
While proponents claim carbon capture and storage reduces planet-heating carbon emissions, OCI notes, it was originally developed in the 1970s "to enhance oil production, and this remains its primary use," with the technology "barely" reducing emissions.
High-profile carbon capture failures in the U.S. include the Petra Nova project in Houston, Texas, which cost nearly $200 million in taxpayer funds and whose captured emissions were later used for crude oil production, and the FutureGen project, "which swallowed $200 million and never materialized."
"Investing in carbon capture delays the transition to renewable energy," reads OCI's report. "Instead of wasting time and money on technologies that do not work, governments must commit to justly and urgently phasing out fossil fuels before it's too late."
Despite the lack of data supporting the use of carbon capture, the group said, countries including the U.S. are "preparing to waste hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars on these ineffective technologies, further benefiting the fossil fuel industry."
OCI highlighted how the U.S. and Canada, while ostensibly fighting the climate crisis, have spent a combined $4 billion in public money to explicitly "pay oil companies to produce more oil," with the subsidies going to carbon capture for "enhanced oil recovery."
The report also found that in addition to the $12 billion in taxpayer funds the U.S. has spent on carbon capture and fossil hydrogen—a leak-prone gas produced through energy-intensive processes that cause their own emissions—the government has spent an estimated $1.3 billion on the 45Q tax credit, which allows companies to write off tax for every ton of carbon dioxide they store underground.
The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) increased the amount given to companies in 45Q tax credits from $35 to $60 per ton, meaning that the subsidy could grow to over $100 billion in the next 10 years.
OCI's Policy Tracker shows that overall public spending on carbon capture and hydrogen could grow by between $115 billion and $240 billion in the coming decades.
"We need real climate action, not fossil fuel bailouts!" said OCI in a post on social media.
The group's report also highlights that fossil fuel giants such as ExxonMobil have shifted from carbon capture skeptics to outspoken proponents of the technology—with the company bragging to investors that carbon capture and hydrogen would help its Low Carbon Business Unit make "hundreds of billions of dollars" and grow to be "larger than ExxonMobil's base business."
Exxon didn't launch its carbon capture efforts until 2018, having spent several years and hundreds of millions of dollars on another "climate solution" that ultimately failed: the use of algae to make biofuels.
Since then, Exxon has "pushed for direct government funding for carbon capture, particularly at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)," successfully lobbying for $12 billion allocated in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill in 2021 for "carbon management research, development, and demonstration."
Exxon also lobbied for the increased rate of the 45Q tax credit in the IRA and "played a 'central role' in drafting a 2019 DOE-sponsored report on carbon capture that determined Congress would need to create an incentive of around $90 to $110 per ton to support carbon capture deployment," according to OCI.
The Guardian on Thursday reported that Exxon still "chases billions in U.S. subsidies for a 'climate solution' that helps drill more oil," describing how the oil giant hosted an event at the Democratic National Convention earlier this month where senior climate strategy and technology director Vijay Swarup praised the IRA for helping Exxon pursue carbon capture and said: "We need new technology and we need policy to support that technology. We need governments working with private industry."
Exxon's enthusiasm for carbon capture, said OCI, is an example of how "the fossil fuel industry delays climate action, distracts from real solutions that would end the fossil fuel era, and does everything in its power to squeeze the last drops of profit from a dying industry, at the expense of all of us."
Keep ReadingShow Less
7 Steps to What a Real Renewable Energy Transition Looks Like
Historically, an overhaul for humanity's energy system would take hundreds or many thousands of years. The rapid shift to cleaner, more sustainable sources of power generations will easily be the most ambitious enterprise our species has ever undertaken.
Aug 25, 2024
Humanity’s transition from relying overwhelmingly on fossil fuels to instead using alternative low-carbon energy sources is sometimes said to be unstoppable and exponential. A boosterish attitude on the part of many renewable energy advocates is understandable: overcoming people’s climate despair and sowing confidence could help muster the needed groundswell of motivation to end our collective fossil fuel dependency. But occasionally a reality check is in order.
The reality is that energy transitions are a big deal, and they typically take centuries to unfold. Historically, they’ve been transformative for societies—whether we’re speaking of humanity’s taming of fire hundreds of thousands of years ago, the agricultural revolution 10,000 years ago, or our adoption of fossil fuels starting roughly 200 years ago. Given (1) the current size of the human population (there are eight times as many of us alive today as there were in 1820, when the fossil fuel energy transition was getting underway), (2) the vast scale of the global economy, and (3) the unprecedented speed with which the transition will have to be made in order to avert catastrophic climate change, a rapid renewable energy transition is easily the most ambitious enterprise our species has ever undertaken.
As we’ll see, the evidence shows that the transition is still in its earliest stages, and at the current rate, it will fail to avert a climate catastrophe in which an unimaginable number of people will either die or be forced to migrate, with most ecosystems transformed beyond recognition.
Implementing these seven steps will change everything. The result will be a world that’s less crowded, one where nature is recovering rather than retreating, and one in which people are healthier (because they’re not soaked in pollution) and happier.
We’ll unpack the reasons why the transition is currently such an uphill slog. Then, crucially, we’ll explore what a real energy transition would look like, and how to make it happen.
Why This Is (So Far) Not a Real Transition
Despite trillions of dollars having been spent on renewable energy infrastructure, carbon emissions are still increasing, not decreasing, and the share of world energy coming from fossil fuels is only slightly less today than it was 20 years ago. In 2024, the world is using more oil, coal, and natural gas than it did in 2023.
While the U.S. and many European nations have seen a declining share of their electricity production coming from coal, the continuing global growth in fossil fuel usage and CO2 emissions overshadows any cause for celebration.
Why is the rapid deployment of renewable energy not resulting in declining fossil fuel usage? The main culprit is economic growth, which consumes more energy and materials. So far, the amount of annual growth in the world’s energy usage has exceeded the amount of energy added each year from new solar panels and wind turbines. Fossil fuels have supplied the difference.
So, for the time being at least, we are not experiencing a real energy transition. All that humanity is doing is adding energy from renewable sources to the growing amount of energy it derives from fossil fuels. The much-touted energy transition could, if somewhat cynically, be described as just an aspirational grail.
How long would it take for humanity to fully replace fossil fuels with renewable energy sources, accounting for both the current growth trajectory of solar and wind power, and also the continued expansion of the global economy at the recent rate of 3 percent per year? Economic models suggest the world could obtain most of its electricity from renewables by 2060 (though many nations are not on a path to reach even this modest marker). However, electricity represents only about 20 percent of the world’s final energy usage; transitioning the other 80 percent of energy usage would take longer—likely many decades.
However, to avert catastrophic climate change, the global scientific community says we need to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050—i.e., in just 25 years. Since it seems physically impossible to get all of our energy from renewables that soon while still growing the economy at recent rates, the IPCC (the international agency tasked with studying climate change and its possible remedies) assumes that humanity will somehow adopt carbon capture and sequestration technologies at scale—including technologies that have been shown not to work—even though there is no existing way of paying for this vast industrial build-out. This wishful thinking on the part of the IPCC is surely proof that the energy transition is not happening at sufficient speed.
Why isn’t it? One reason is that governments, businesses, and an awful lot of regular folks are clinging to an unrealistic goal for the transition. Another reason is that there is insufficient tactical and strategic global management of the overall effort. We’ll address these problems separately, and in the process uncover what it would take to nurture a true energy transition.
The Core of the Transition is Using Less Energy
At the heart of most discussions about the energy transition lie two enormous assumptions: that the transition will leave us with a global industrial economy similar to today’s in terms of its scale and services, and that this future renewable-energy economy will continue to grow, as the fossil-fueled economy has done in recent decades. But both of these assumptions are unrealistic. They flow from a largely unstated goal: we want the energy transition to be completely painless, with no sacrifice of profit or convenience. That goal is understandable, since it would presumably be easier to enlist the public, governments, and businesses in an enormous new task if no cost is incurred (though the history of overwhelming societal effort and sacrifice during wartime might lead us to question that presumption).
But the energy transition will undoubtedly entail costs. Aside from tens of trillions of dollars in required monetary investment, the energy transition will itself require energy—lots of it. It will take energy to build solar panels, wind turbines, heat pumps, electric vehicles, electric farm machinery, zero-carbon aircraft, batteries, and the rest of the vast panoply of devices that would be required to operate an electrified global industrial economy at current scale.
In the early stages of the transition, most of that energy for building new low-carbon infrastructure will have to come from fossil fuels, since those fuels still supply over 80 percent of world energy (bootstrapping the transition—using only renewable energy to build transition-related machinery—would take far too long). So, the transition itself, especially if undertaken quickly, will entail a large pulse of carbon emissions. Teams of scientists have been seeking to estimate the size of that pulse; one group suggests that transition-related emissions will be substantial, ranging from 70 to 395 billion metric tons of CO2 “with a cross-scenario average of 195 GtCO2”—the equivalent of more than five years’ worth of global carbon CO2 emissions at current rates. The only ways to minimize these transition-related emissions would be, first, to aim to build a substantially smaller global energy system than the one we are trying to replace; and second, to significantly reduce energy usage for non-transition-related purposes—including transportation and manufacturing, cornerstones of our current economy—during the transition.
In addition to energy, the transition will require materials. While our current fossil-fuel energy regime extracts billions of tons of coal, oil, and gas, plus much smaller amounts of iron, bauxite, and other ores for making drills, pipelines, pumps, and other related equipment, the construction of renewable energy infrastructure at commensurate scale would require far larger quantities of non-fuel raw materials—including copper, iron, aluminum, lithium, iridium, gallium, sand, and rare earth elements.
While some estimates suggest that global reserves of these elements are sufficient for the initial build-out of renewable-energy infrastructure at scale, there are still two big challenges. First: obtaining these materials will require greatly expanding extractive industries along with their supply chains. These industries are inherently polluting, and they inevitably degrade land. For example, to produce one ton of copper ore, over 125 tons of rock and soil must be displaced. The rock-to-metal ratio is even worse for some other ores. Mining operations often take place on Indigenous peoples’ lands and the tailings from those operations often pollute rivers and streams. Non-human species and communities in the global South are already traumatized by land degradation and toxification; greatly expanding resource extraction—including deep-sea mining—would only deepen and multiply the wounds.
The second materials challenge: renewable energy infrastructure will have to be replaced periodically—every 25 to 50 years. Even if Earth’s minerals are sufficient for the first full-scale build-out of panels, turbines, and batteries, will limited mineral abundance permit continual replacements? Transition advocates say that we can avoid depleting the planet’s ores by recycling minerals and metals after constructing the first iteration of solar-and-wind technology. However, recycling is never complete, with some materials degraded in the process. One analysis suggests recycling would only buy a couple of centuries’ worth of time before depletion would bring an end to the regime of replaceable renewable-energy machines—and that’s assuming a widespread, coordinated implementation of recycling on an unprecedented scale. Again, the only real long-term solution is to aim for a much smaller global energy system.
The transition of society from fossil fuel dependency to reliance on low-carbon energy sources will be impossible to achieve without also reducing overall energy usage substantially and maintaining this lower rate of energy usage indefinitely. This transition isn’t just about building lots of solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries. It is about organizing society differently so that is uses much less energy and gets whatever energy it uses from sources that can be sustained over the long run.
How We Could Actually Do It, In Seven Concurrent Steps
Step one: Cap global fossil fuel extraction through global treaty, and annually lower the cap. We will not reduce carbon emissions until we reduce fossil fuel usage—it’s just that simple. Rather than trying to do this by adding renewable energy (which so far hasn’t resulted in a lessening of emissions), it makes far more sense simply to limit fossil fuel extraction. I wrote up the basics of a treaty along these lines several years ago in my book, The Oil Depletion Protocol.
Step two: Manage energy demand fairly. Reducing fossil fuel extraction presents a problem. Where will we get the energy required for transition purposes? Realistically, it can only be obtained by repurposing energy we’re currently using for non-transition purposes. That means most people, especially in highly industrialized countries, would have to use significantly less energy, both directly and also indirectly (in terms of energy embedded in products, and in services provided by society, such as road building). To accomplish this with the minimum of societal stress will require a social means of managing energy demand.
The fairest and most direct way to manage energy demand is via quota rationing. Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs) is a system designed two decades ago by British economist David Fleming; it rewards energy savers and gently punishes energy guzzlers while ensuring that everyone gets energy they actually need. Every adult would be given an equal free entitlement of TEQs units each week. If you use less than your entitlement of units, you can sell your surplus. If you need more, you can buy them. All trading takes place at a single national price, which will rise and fall in line with demand.
Step three: Manage the public’s material expectations. Persuading people to accept using less energy will be hard, if everyone still wants to use more. Therefore, it will be necessary to manage the public’s expectations. This may sound technocratic and scary, but in fact society has already been managing the public’s expectations for over a century via advertising—which constantly delivers messages encouraging everyone to consume as much as they can. Now we need different messages to set different expectations.
What’s our objective in life? Is it to have as much stuff as possible, or to be happy and secure? Our current economic system assumes the former, and we have instituted an economic goal (constant growth) and an indicator (gross domestic product, or GDP) to help us achieve that goal. But ever-more people using ever-more stuff and energy leads to increased rates of depletion, pollution, and degradation, thereby imperiling the survival of humanity and the rest of the biosphere. In addition, the goal of happiness and security is more in line with cultural traditions and human psychology. If happiness and security are to be our goals, we should adopt indicators that help us achieve them. Instead of GDP, which simply measures the amount of money changing hands in a country annually, we should measure societal success by monitoring human well-being. The tiny country of Bhutan has been doing this for decades with its Gross National Happiness (GNH) indicator, which it has offered as a model for the rest of the world.
Step four: Aim for population decline. If population is always growing while available energy is capped, that means ever-less energy will be available per capita. Even if societies ditch GDP and adopt GNH, the prospect of continually declining energy availability will present adaptive challenges. How can energy scarcity impacts be minimized? The obvious solution: welcome population decline and plan accordingly.
Global population will start to decline sometime during this century. Fertility rates are falling worldwide, and China, Japan, Germany, and many other nations are already seeing population shrinkage. Rather than viewing this as a problem, we should see it as an opportunity. With fewer people, energy decline will be less of a burden on a per capita basis. There are also side benefits: a smaller population puts less pressure on wild nature, and often results in rising wages. We should stop pushing a pro-natalist agenda; ensure that women have the educational opportunities, social standing, security, and access to birth control to make their own childbearing choices; incentivize small families, and aim for the long-term goal of a stable global population closer to the number of people who were alive at the start of the fossil-fuel revolution (even though voluntary population shrinkage will be too slow to help us much in reaching immediate emissions reduction targets).
Step five: Target technological research and development to the transition. Today the main test of any new technology is simply its profitability. However, the transition will require new technologies to meet an entirely different set of criteria, including low-energy operation and minimization of exotic and toxic materials. Fortunately, there is already a subculture of engineers developing low-energy and intermediate technologies that could help run a right-sized circular economy.
Step six: Institute technological triage. Many of our existing technologies don’t meet these new criteria. So, during the transition, we will be letting go of familiar but ultimately destructive and unsustainable machines.
Some energy-guzzling machines—such as gasoline-powered leaf blowers—will be easy to say goodbye to. Commercial aircraft will be harder. Artificial intelligence is an energy guzzler we managed to live without until very recently; perhaps it’s best if we bid it a quick farewell. Cruise ships? Easy: downsize them, replace their engines with sails, and expect to take just one grand voyage during your lifetime. Weapons industries offer plenty of examples of machines we could live without. Of course, giving up some of our labor-saving devices will require us to learn useful skills—which could end up providing us with more exercise. For guidance along these lines, consult the rich literature of technology criticism.
Step seven: Help nature absorb excess carbon. The IPCC is right: if we’re to avert catastrophic climate change we need to capture carbon from the air and sequester it for a long time. But not with machines. Nature already removes and stores enormous amounts of carbon; we just need to help it do more (rather than reducing its carbon-capturing capabilities, which is what humanity is doing now). Reform agriculture to build soil rather than destroy it. Restore ecosystems, including grasslands, wetlands, forests, and coral reefs.
Implementing these seven steps will change everything. The result will be a world that’s less crowded, one where nature is recovering rather than retreating, and one in which people are healthier (because they’re not soaked in pollution) and happier.
Granted, this seven-step program appears politically unachievable today. But that’s largely because humanity hasn’t yet fully faced the failure of our current path of prioritizing immediate profits and comfort above long-term survival—and the consequences of that failure. Given better knowledge of where we’re currently headed, and the alternatives, what is politically impossible today could quickly become inevitable.
Social philosopher Roman Krznaric writes that profound social transformations are often tied to wars, natural disasters, or revolutions. But crisis alone is not positively transformative. There must also be ideas available for different ways to organize society, and social movements energized by those ideas. We have a crisis and (as we have just seen) some good ideas for how to do things differently. Now we need a movement.
Building a movement takes political and social organizing skills, time, and hard work. Even if you don’t have the skills for organizing, you can help the cause by learning what a real energy transition requires and then educating the people you know; by advocating for degrowth or related policies; and by reducing your own energy and materials consumption. Calculate your ecological footprint and shrink it over time, using goals and strategies, and tell your family and friends what you are doing and why.
Even with a new social movement advocating for a real energy transition, there is no guarantee that civilization will emerge from this century of unraveling in a recognizable form. But we all need to understand: this is a fight for survival in which cooperation and sacrifice are required, just as in total war. Until we feel that level of shared urgency, there will be no real energy transition, and little prospect for a desirable human future.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Study Shows How Climate-Mitigating Reforestation Can Be Done Much More Cheaply
New research shows that a mix of natural forest regrowth and tree planting could remove up to 10 times more carbon at $20 per metric ton than previously estimated by the IPCC.
Aug 18, 2024
Trees are allies in the struggle against climate change, and regrowing forests to capture carbon may be cheaper than we thought. According to new research published in Nature Climate Change, a strategic mix of natural regrowth and tree planting could be the most cost-effective way to capture carbon.
Researchers analyzed reforestation projects in 138 low- and middle-income countries to compare the costs of different reforestation approaches. They found it’s possible to remove 10 times more carbon at $20 per metric ton, and almost three times more at $50, compared to what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had previously estimated.
"It's exciting that the opportunity for low-cost reforestation appears much more plentiful than previously thought."
Neither natural regeneration nor tree planting consistently outperforms the other. Instead, the most cost-effective method varies depending on local conditions. Natural regeneration, which involves letting forests regrow on their own, is cheaper in about 46% of suitable areas. Tree planting, on the other hand, is more cost-effective in 54% of areas.
“Natural regeneration is more cost-effective in areas where tree planting is expensive, regrowing forests accumulate carbon more quickly, or timber infrastructure is distant,” said lead author Jonah Busch, who conducted the study while working for Conservation International. “On the other hand, plantations outperform in areas far from natural seed sources, or where more of the carbon from harvested wood is stored in long-lasting products.”
The research team estimates that by using the cheapest method in each location, we could remove a staggering 31.4 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere over 30 years, at a cost of less than $50 per metric ton. This is about 40% more carbon removal than if only one method was used universally.
“It’s exciting that the opportunity for low-cost reforestation appears much more plentiful than previously thought; this suggests reforestation projects are worth a second look by communities that might have prejudged them to be cost prohibitive,” said Busch. “While reforestation can’t be the only solution to climate change, our findings suggest it should be a bigger piece of the puzzle than previously thought.”
To reach these conclusions, the research team gathered data from hundreds of reforestation projects and used machine-learning techniques to map costs across different areas at a 1-kilometer (0.6-mile) resolution. This detailed approach allowed them to consider crucial factors such as tree growth rates and potential species in different regions.
Ecologist Robin Chazdon, who wasn’t involved in the research, praised the comprehensive approach but highlighted important considerations beyond cost-effectiveness.
“These eye-opening findings add nuance and complexity to our understanding of the net costs of carbon storage for naturally regenerating forests and monoculture plantations,” Chazdon said. However, she emphasized that “the relative costs of carbon storage should not be the only factor to consider regarding spatial planning of reforestation.”
Chazdon pointed out some of the ecological trade-offs involved in different reforestation methods. Monoculture tree plantations, while potentially cost-effective in certain areas, often create excessive water demand and provide poor opportunities for native biodiversity conservation. In contrast, naturally regenerating forests typically offer a wider range of ecosystem services and better support local biodiversity.
“Ultimately, these environmental costs and benefits — which can be difficult to monetize — need to be incorporated in decisions regarding how and where to grow plantations or foster natural regeneration,” Chazdon said.
The study’s authors acknowledge these limitations and suggest several directions for future research. They propose extending the analysis to high-income countries and exploring other forms of reforestation, such as agroforestry or planting patches of trees and allowing the rest of an area to regrow naturally.
Additionally, the researchers emphasize the need to integrate their findings on cost-effectiveness with data on biodiversity, livelihoods and other societal needs to guide reforestation efforts in different contexts.
While the study’s findings are promising, the researchers caution that reforestation alone won’t solve the climate crisis. Even at its maximum potential, reforestation would only remove as much carbon dioxide in 30 years as eight months of current global emissions.
Reforestation is very important, but it won’t solve climate change on its own, Busch said. Ultimately, “we still need to reduce emissions from fossil fuels.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy