Tag Archives: lobbyists

“All of the Above” — Bad Energy Policy

From Bad Energy Policy – Master Resource

By John Droz, Jr.

“A key problem with the ‘All of the Above’ policy is that it purposefully bypasses the scientific assessment part. Why? Because lobbyists are acutely aware that their clients’ energy products will fail such an evaluation.”

The fundamental fight over enacting effective energy policies is between lobbyists and the public. A parallel perspective is that it is a contest between real Science and political science.

Lobbyists are paid to represent their clients’ economic interests or political agendas. The public consists of citizens, businesses, and the military.

Lobbyists are professionals who spend most of their time soliciting legislators on their client’s behalf. (See the The Wolves of K Street: The Secret History of How Big Money Took Over Big Government). The obvious question is: Who is balancing out this one-sided influence by competently and aggressively representing the public’s interests on energy policies (and other important issues)?  The unfortunate answer is almost no one.

The result of this striking imbalance is that most energy policies are essentially written by lobbyists — which means they are permeated with benefits for their clients, and then conveyed with carefully orchestrated marketing propaganda.

To keep their control, lobbyists full well know that they must maintain the impression that their self-serving policies are actually in the public interest — so they leave no stone unturned to creatively maintain that illusion.

Despite lobbyists’ carefully massaged messages, it is totally accidental if any parts of their policies actually happen to be advantageous to the public. A classic example of this is the well-known “All of the Above” energy mantra. This is saying that ALL energy sources should not only be allowed on the Grid but should also be supported. On the surface (especially to non-technical parties) it sounds reasonable, as who wouldn’t be in favor of investigating alternative energy options?

However, allowing an energy source on the Grid is a privilege, not an entitlement! Sound energy policies (i.e., those that would actually benefit the public) would ensure that the only energy alternatives that are permitted on the Grid would be those that have scientific proof that they are a net societal benefit.

Phrased another way, that would mean the only alternative energy sources that should be approved and supported are those that are: a) reliable, b) low cost, and c) environmentally friendly. [Note: Wind and solar are none of these!]

How do we do that? Well, it’s certainly not by taking a salesperson’s (lobbyist’s) word about their product! We assess the real qualifications of proposed alternative energy sources by conducting a scientific assessment.

A key problem with the “All of the Above” policy is that it purposefully bypasses the scientific assessment part…  Why?  Because lobbyists are acutely aware that their clients’ energy products will fail such an evaluation.

To avoid that exposé, they devised a clever end-run around the facts: no scientific assessment is needed if all options are pre-approved as acceptable!

If we buy the lobbyists’ energy mantra, we accept everything. These marketers have cleverly switched the focus from the actual merits of alternative energy sources, to such subjective intangibles as energy “diversity” and “security”…

On the surface, the “All of the Above” slogan sounds innocent enough and even has a ring of reasonableness to it. But, of course, that is the lobbyists’ raison d’etre: to subtly get preferential treatment for third-rate energy sources that otherwise would fall by the wayside.

We need to do some critical thinking about lobbyists’ sales pitches. In this example: does an “All of the Above” policy really make sense?

#1 – When we include ALL options, that would mean that unreliable alternative sources of energy would be put on the Grid.

#2 – When we include ALL options, that would mean very expensive alternative sources of energy would be put on the Grid.

#3 – When we include ALL options, that would mean environmentally destructive alternative sources of energy would be put on the Grid.

Do ANY of those make sense? How do we advance our economy and our society, by allowing unreliable, expensive, and environmentally ruinous alternative power sources on the Grid?

This is a 100% predictable result when political science replaces real Science.

Conclusion

Who benefits from an “All of the Above” energy policy? It certainly is not taxpayers, ratepayers, most businesses, the military, or the environment. Major beneficiaries would be foreign conglomerates who supply us with inferior energy sources, our enemies who are anxious to see our Grid and economy crippled, plus China to whom we will owe an even larger debt.

There is a BETTER path, and one that is in the public’s best interest…

An “All of the Sensible” energy slogan would go a LONG way towards putting some balance in the energy policy fight, plus it would send the message that citizens, businesses, and the environment are a top priority for legislators.

What are our “sensible” energy choices? Well, that is exactly the conversation we should be having. I would posit that “sensible” alternative electrical energy sources are those that are proven to have a net societal benefit — so let the discussion begin!

————–

This post originally appeared at Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues.

475 Carbon Capture Lobbyists Attending COP28

Lake Nyos, Cameroon

From Watts Up With That?

Essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Dr. Willie Soon; The Lake Nyos disaster demonstrated an uncontrolled urban release of concentrated CO2 has the potential to kill millions of people. But this risk doesn’t seem to bother companies chasing funding.

At least 475 carbon-capture lobbyists attending Cop28

Exclusive: Figures reveal growing push by fossil fuel sector for technologies that scientists say will not stop global heating

Nina Lakhani in Dubai @ninalakhaniFri 8 Dec 2023 23.33 AEDT

Cop28 organisers granted attendance to at least 475 lobbyists working on carbon capture and storage (CCS), unproven technologies that climate scientists say will not curtail global heating, the Guardian can reveal.

The figure was calculated by the Centre for Environmental Law (Ciel) and shared exclusively with the Guardian, and is the first attempt to monitor the growing influence of the CCS subset of the fossil fuel industry within the UN climate talks.

CCS, or CCUS (which includes “utilisation”) is being pushed hard at the summit by fossil fuel and other high-pollution industries, as well as by the biggest greenhouse gas emitting countries. CCS backers say the technologies will enable polluters to trap carbon dioxide emissions and bury them under the ground or the seabed, or use the CO2 in the production of fuels or fertilisers.

…Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/08/at-least-475-carbon-capture-lobbyists-attending-cop28

The Lake Nyos disaster has shown us what an uncontrolled release of concentrated CO2 can do to the surrounding area.

Lake Nyos disaster, Cameroon, 1986: the medical effects of large scale emission of carbon dioxide?

P. J. Baxter, M. Kapila, and  D. Mfonfu

Abstract

Carbon dioxide was blamed for the deaths of around 1700 people in Cameroon, west Africa, in 1986 when a massive release of gas occurred from Lake Nyos, a volcanic crater lake. The clinical findings in 845 survivors seen at or admitted to hospital were compatible with exposure to an asphyxiant gas. Rescuers noted cutaneous erythema and bullae on an unknown proportion of corpses and 161 (19%) survivors treated in hospital; though these lesions were initially believed to be burns from acidic gases, further investigation suggested that they were associated with coma states caused by exposure to carbon dioxide in air. The disaster at Lake Nyos and a similar event at Lake Monoun, Cameroon, two years previously provide new information on the possible medical effects of large scale emissions of carbon dioxide, though the presence of other toxic factors in these gas releases cannot be excluded.Read more: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1836556/

The reason only 1700 people were killed is Lake Nyos is sparsely inhabited – probably because every few centuries the lake belches CO2 and other volcanic gasses, and kills everyone living nearby. 

Some of the people who died were over 10 miles from the lake at the time of death.

Imagine a similar CO2 belch from a carbon capture containment facility near a major city. CO2 is heavier than air, so it hugs the ground. The released CO2 would spread across the land, creating an unbreathable layer of gas across a vast area, suffocating everyone unlucky enough to be caught in the affected region. People in tall buildings or on hills might survive, or anyone smart enough to realise what was happening in time to flee the gas cloud, but anyone caught at street level would have very little chance of escape.

A serious city scale carbon capture plan would have to capture CO2 on a similar scale to the lake Nyos disaster every few weeks.

Industry safety reassurances are unconvincing in my opinion, because there would be immense pressure on capture sites. Operating a demonstration plant is very different from attempting to operate a full scale system. In my opinion a full scale capture system would suffer inevitable backups and endemic near capacity storage in holding centres, as capture sites reached their geological limit and the difficulties handling such an immense volume of CO2 disrupted the chain of distribution. In my opinion, it would only be a matter of time until a terrorist attack or accident at one of these holding centres leads to an immense loss of life.

We no longer need the Cop circus – technology and markets are already solving the climate crisis

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

Whether the world cuts carbon emissions fast enough to secure a 1.5-degree planet depends on the arms race for clean-tech dominance between the US and China.

It does not depend significantly on anything done, and even less said, at the Cop28 summit in Dubai, a process that risks becoming a net negative for progress, if it has not already crossed that line as a full army corps of lobbyists converge with 97,000 others at petroleum ground zero, says The Telegraph.

The annual Cop gathering is itself a fossilised racket, an anachronistic showdown between the West and a victim category of “developing countries” that is frozen in time and contains some of the richest and most brazen polluters, or others that still build coal plants and persecute ecologists.

The environmental press corps will anguish over whether the text progresses from a “phase-down” to a “phase-out” of coal power plants, and whether petrostates lift their veto on such language for oil and gas. Passions will fly over a get-out clause for “abated” fossil fuels, and whether carbon capture really counts.

The language matters, and the precise wording can be mobilised for climate lawfare in civil courts, at least in rule of law states. But technology and geo-economic reality are already moving faster than the Cop curriculum can keep up.

“A global, irreversible, solar tipping point may have passed where solar energy gradually comes to dominate global electricity markets, without any further climate policies,” concluded a recent paper by the World Bank and Europe’s leading universities.

The “technological learning rate” of solar, wind, and now batteries is so relentless that a 24/7 mix is already cheaper than new coal in most of the world, and will become massively cheaper almost everywhere over time.

The report said the priority now is to sort out the details, upgrade grids, and channel the necessary funds to Africa. It is also a ferocious indictment of the “energy modelling community” that failed to see this coming.

China is rolling out 210 gigawatts (GW) of solar this year, not far short of the entire installation worldwide the year before. Carbon Brief says it is expanding its solar panel capacity to 1000GW by 2025, and increasing its battery capacity six fold.

This is not the result of altruism. It is happening because China a) wants a cheap and secure source of home-grown power beyond American naval reach, b) has acquired manufacturing dominance of renewables and wishes to leverage the advantage, and c) aims to dethrone the West’s auto industry.

America is responding with $2 trillion of manufacturing rearmament because it a) cannot let this happen, b) still leads in applied sciences, and can win the fight, and c) recognises that clean tech is the economic prize of our time. 

Europe is responding because its industries will be obliterated if it does not. None of this has much to do with the Cop process.

“The transition to clean energy is happening worldwide and it’s unstoppable. It’s not a question of ‘if’, it’s just a matter of ‘how soon’,” said Fatih Birol, head of the International Energy Agency.

The pace depends on whether vested interests succeed in delaying the rollout of technology that already exists, and whether they can head off investment in new technology at the point of critical breakthrough.

Electric vehicles are already there. Decent EVs retail today in the Chinese mass market for $10,000-15,000 without purchase subsidies. Credible analysts in China think EVs will surpass 50pc of sales within two years.

Europe will catch up as cheaper models flood showrooms circa 2025, albeit nearer $20,000-25,000. This is before the arrival of solid-state batteries and other variants that should triple range before the end of the decade, without the need for cobalt.

The US Energy Department is targeting green hydrogen at $1 a kilo by 2030. Anything from $1.50-2 opens the way for a displacement of fossils in dirty hydrogen, and then for fertilisers, steel, shipping, etc, going down the Liebreich “hydrogen ladder”, covering some 20pc of emissions.

Cell-grown chicken and lab-fermented milk is on the market today in the US, the first of a wave of bioidentical meats and dairy likely to undercut Big Meat on cost within five years, disrupting the industrial-scale market for sausages, burgers, nuggets, and so forth, with a fraction of the water needs and CO2 emissions. 

This will alleviate the strain on croplands used for animal feed. It may enable some reforestation and surplus biofuel for jet travel.

More exotically, nuclear fusion at competitive cost may not be as far away as people think. The Fusion Industry Association says 65pc of its members think commercial fusion power – at viable cost, and the radioactive waste of a hospital – could be a reality by 2035, and 90pc by 2040. They are eyeing costs of $60-80MWh. That would seal the argument.

The Cop process was necessary to kickstart clean technology and bring it to scale. The Paris Agreement in 2015 sent the message that the game was up for the carbon economy. It was the moment when Big Money grew wary of fossil finance. It defected to the other side, discerning larger fortunes to be made in the new industries. 

This pulled forward investment and brought us to where we are today.

The baton has by now passed. With each year the Cop process is more clearly becoming a venue for vested interests – Big Oil, Industrial Meat, Old Auto, you name it – trying to slow down the post-carbon juggernaut.

Sultan Al-Jaber has proved a capable president of Cop28, earning plaudits even from some green activists. He is right that you need “smart decarbonisation” and political “buy-in” from fossil producers and users. What are we going to do about the 2,000 coal-fired plants in Asia built mostly between 2005 and 2018 with a lifespan of 40-45 years that must keep burning to pay off project debt?

But he also presides over Abu Dhabi’s national oil company, which is expanding crude output from three million to five million barrels a day over the next seven years, with emissions to match, and “no credible plan whatsoever to reduce them”, in the words of climateer Al Gore.

Al-Jaber said two weeks ago that there was “no science out there, or no scenario out there, that says that the phaseout of fossil fuel is what’s going to achieve 1.5”.

He is right. We will still need some oil and gas in 2050. The CO2 will be offset by removal technologies, or captured and sequestered.

Read the full story here here.