Crooked Bough News Round-up

— Alberta’s Energy Regulator Is ‘Fully Captured’ by Industry, Study Finds

 

at 2/11/25 3:06pm

The Alberta Energy Regulator says that there is a “perfect” spill recovery in 75 percent of the cases they review, but a researcher says that claim is not backed up by evidence. “It’s a fully captured regulator,” said Kevin Timoney, an ecologist who works as the principal investigator for Treeline Ecological Research. The report he has released was published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Monitoring Assessment. Timoney argues that the AERs data significantly underreport the number and scale of spills and their environmental impact, citing differences in reporting between the public records and Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. Discrepancies in Reporting  Timoney cites discrepancies between the public records and FOI data as evidence of the AER’s misreporting. The Alberta Energy Regulators (AER) Field Inspection System (FIS) database reports 514 tailings spills in the bitumen sands region. However, an FOI request, filed by Timoney, revealed that many of these incidents are composed of multiple spills. The FOI data presents the information as 989 primary spills. The practice of monthly reporting allows multiple spills to be recorded as one spill, the study found. This makes it difficult to track their true number. Tailings spills are also reported, haphazardly according to Timoney, under a variety of different names. FOI data reported 627 spills as “tailings,” 215 spills as “process water,” and 89 spills as “bitumen slurry,” in addition to nine other names for tailings spills. The report claims that “it has been shown that the AER and its predecessors are captured regulators working on behalf of the fossil fuel industry to maximize production while providing a façade of regulatory control.” In response to the report, the AER told DeSmog, “the AER routinely conducts inspections to ensure that releases have been cleaned up and remediated in accordance with the regulations. Impacts to wildlife due to the release of a reportable substance within the AER’s jurisdiction, must be immediately reported to the AER.” Photographs Show Evidence of Environmental Harm  The study found that approximately 41-54 percent of tailings spill sites with photographic documentation showed evidence of environmental harm. That is at odds with the AER’s claims that 75 percent of spills have a perfect recovery.  Timoney says that a perfect spill would require the amount released from the tailings spill to match the amount that is captured in a clean up.  “So if they said they spilled 100 cubic meters, they say they recovered 100 cubic meters,” said Timoney. More photos of a CNRL spill reported in August 2020. Credit: Kevin Timoney Timoney found an AER record of a CNRL tailings pond spill, called “Incident 20230872,” which was listed as a “perfect recovery.” Timoney’s report states: “Photos document extensive environmental damage yet no environmental data were gathered. Claims of perfect recovery, no environmental effect, and small footprint were not credible.” “They just simply say that [there is a 75 percent perfect spill recovery] but they don’t have data to support it.” The ecologist’s analysis reveals inaccurate spill locations, dates, and footprints, along with a lack of routine inspections and ecological data. Only 3.2 Percent of Spills Inspected The AER claims routine inspections of spills, but data shows only about 3.2 percent of reported tailings spills are inspected. And, even if the spills are reported the location or volume of the spill may not be accurate. “Well, my findings tell people that you will not know where the spills are, and you can be assured that there has been no environmental monitoring of the spill,” Timoney told DeSmog about his report. “The location data that the government provides for the spills is so grossly inaccurate and imprecise that you can’t actually find the spills on the ground,” said Timoney. Most of the spill sites are on lease land where people wouldn’t necessarily be walking in the area. But in addition to inaccurate locations of the spills, the number of spills is also underreported to the public. Timoney goes on to say that the AER, and Alberta’s energy regulators more broadly have “failed to provide complete, truthful, reliable, and timely information and failed in their responsibilities to provide effective monitoring, enforcement and protection of the environment” for decades. As a response asking about the inspection rate and clean-up, Renato Gandia, a spokesperson for the AER told DeSmog that: “The AER routinely conducts release inspections to assess potential adverse impacts to the environment and wildlife and to ensure that releases have been cleaned up and remediated in accordance with the regulations.” The post Alberta’s Energy Regulator Is ‘Fully Captured’ by Industry, Study Finds appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Trump Dissed Poilievre, Revealing Key Weakness for Conservatives

 

at 2/11/25 10:57am

Canadians breathed a sigh of relief after Donald Trump paused his threat of devastating tariffs for 30 days. That stalemate will hopefully hold for a few more weeks, even as Trump announced new tariffs on aluminum and steel Monday.  In the meantime, Pierre Poilievre might not be breathing easy. The crisis has revealed a crucial weakness for the Conservative Party leader who for months has been deemed Canada’s Prime Minister in waiting – that despite all of Poilievre’s ties to the mercurial Republican president and his team, he has clearly not earned enough respect from them to credibly defend Canada’s interests.  That was evident when Trump was asked by reporters what he thought of Poilievre’s bluster on social media that “Canada will never be the 51st state. Period.” Trump scoffed, “then maybe he won’t win. But maybe he will. Listen, I don’t care what he says.”  There was additional derision last December from Vice President J.D. Vance, who was overhead piss-taking Poilievre during a dinner with Elon Musk. “It’s not entirely clear it’s better for us to have a Mitt Romney with a French accent as prime minister,” mocked Vance. Dripping disdain aside, Vance also apparently knows so little about Poilievre he mistakenly believes he sounds like Jean Chrétien. The irony of the vice president’s diss is that a top Poilievre ally, the Conservative MP Jamil Jivani, has been “best friends” with Vance for years.  Friend or Foe? All this puts Poilievre in a supremely awkward position. He’s been coasting on a 25-point lead against the federal Liberals and was poised to run against a historically unpopular opponent, outgoing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and his signature climate policy, the carbon tax. But suddenly Poilievre must recast himself as a master negotiator and a credible opponent to Trump to defend Canadians against our newly menacing neighbour. This ambitious political pivot depends on voters believing he is not in Trump’s ideological shadow, despite years of evidence to the contrary. Poilievre must also show voters that he has the respect of the president and his team. During a nearly two-hour sitdown interview with the Canadian conservative influencer Jordan Peterson earlier this year, Poilievre bragged he could secure a “great deal” with Trump that “will make both countries safer, richer, and stronger.” That promise to stick up for Canada, hollow as it is, is undermined by the actions of people in Poilievre’s orbit. Peterson himself recently penned an op-ed titled “Canada must offer Alberta more than Trump could,” where he proposes that Premier Danielle Smith consider betraying Canada by negotiating succession terms to Trump even as he menaces our country with crippling tariffs or outright annexation.  This “hardball” negotiating tactic would be a win-win outcome for Alberta according to Peterson. “Why should Smith not take full advantage of this opportunity, to tell her fellow Canadians, in no uncertain terms, a few things that would both make Canada an attractive place for Alberta (and the rest of the West, perhaps) to stay…?” Peterson ends this verbose screed by smearing the country he recently abandoned as “contemptible, self-aggrandizing, moralistic, falsely green and socialist.” Performative Populism Poilievre must quickly disentangle his long-standing connections to Trump’s toxic agenda if he is to win support from newly nationalistic Canadian voters. This is a tall order given Poilievre’s long history of publicly cozying-up to MAGA-adjacent right-wing extremists on this side of the border.  His Trump-like habit of performatively stoking division included delivering coffee to the so-called “Freedom Convoy” that occupied Ottawa for more than three weeks – a semi seditious event featuring non-stop horn-honking and festooned with Donald Trump and “fuck Trudeau” flags. Poilievre was also photographed shaking hands with Jeremy Mackenzie, founder of the American-style militia group Diagalon. This neo-fascist organization was connected to an armed blockade of the Coutts border crossing in Alberta and a plot to murder RCMP officers.  Apart from his frequent refrain that Canadian institutions are broken, Poilievre has also promised to break them himself by defunding the CBC or firing the governor of the Bank of Canada. All of this performative populism is of course straight out of Trump’s political playbook. The real ballot question for Canadians is: who is the most capable leader to confront the hostile Trump Administration and chart the country through stormy economic waters?  Poilievre is not the person to stand up to Trump. He has been studying at his feet for too long.   The post Trump Dissed Poilievre, Revealing Key Weakness for Conservatives appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Ad Firms Make Oil Companies Look Green. Here’s Six Ways They Greenwash Themselves.

 

at 2/10/25 5:04pm

Imagine spending countless hours producing a catchy ad campaign that’s now blanketing the internet. Views are bubbling up like champagne fizz. The creative team is high-fiving each other down the hallway  —  But that’s where the celebration stops. At all-staff meetings, your work isn’t shared with the rest of the company. Your revenue is missing from the pie chart. And your carefully crafted messaging certainly won’t be nominated for any public awards. The reason? Your team was working on a contract with an oil and gas company.  And as the devastation caused by the climate crisis intensifies, fossil fuel clients are no longer a good look for an industry where image is all. Awards are a dangerous place to talk about fossil fuel clients, said one advertising industry insider who’s worked in the sector for more than a decade. If you win, that’s not necessarily good news because that becomes public. If the work does get spoken about, company leaders are tying themselves in knots to justify it, added the insider, who declined to be named for fear of professional repercussions. When their CEO reassured staff that an oil company client had a particularly low level of carbon emissions per barrel, the industry insider recalled thinking: Great, thats like saying this gun is going to kill you with a smaller hole in your head than this other gun. For more than two years, DeSmog has been investigating how advertising and public relations agencies profit from making oil and gas companies appear more sustainable than they really are. Our reporters and researchers have interviewed dozens of sources working across the industry and reviewed hundreds of industry documents, including corporate reports, press releases, social media posts, and media interviews. Our findings formed part of a complaint filed today against UK-based WPP, the worlds largest communications group by revenue, alleging that the companys work for clients such as Shell, BP and Saudi Aramco breached international corporate responsibility guidelines. Adfree Cities and the New Weather Institute, who lodged the complaint with the OECD, an intergovernmental body, argue that WPPs work drove up demand for polluting products and undermined global efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions. While the complaint is emblematic of growing concerns over the strategies used to give polluters a green sheen, we found that advertising companies are using similar tactics to make themselves seem climate-friendly, too. The trend is visible among each of the Big Six communications giants — Dentsu, Havas, Omnicom, Interpublic Group (currently being acquired by Omnicom), Publicis Groupe, and WPP — who had a combined revenue of $72 billion in 2023 and whose hundreds of subsidiaries dominate these industries globally.  DeSmog has published in-depth profiles of the Big Six in our Advertising and Public Relations Database — a freely accessible resource that profiles more than three dozen agencies working to promote oil and gas companies, with new entries added every few weeks. The profiles include details of many of the 280 contracts with fossil fuel clients the Big Six have held since the start of 2023 — a figure based on DeSmog research and findings from campaign group Clean Creatives. [For an interactive map showing some of the most significant deals, see below]. Here are six ways the Big Six portray themselves as climate champions: A culture of silence around fossil fuel contracts Presenting oil and gas work as climate-friendly Developing anti-greenwashing measures (but still greenwashing) Misrepresenting carbon emissions from running their businesses Ignoring advertisings role in boosting sales of polluting products   Running tokenistic green campaigns None of the six companies responded to requests for comment. Mad Men Fuelling the Madness Dressing some of the world’s biggest polluters up as responsible corporate citizens is big business. Oil and gas majors Shell, BP, TotalEnergies, Chevron, and ExxonMobil spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year on strategies to portray themselves as positive and proactive on the climate change emergency, according to research by InfluenceMap. The incentive for Big Oil to spend such vast sums is clear: If these companies can convince the public they are working hard to solve the climate crisis, they can retain their social licence to continue expanding oil and gas production.  But as the climate crisis worsens, the creative agencies paid to cast fossil fuel giants as the gatekeepers to climate solutions are themselves coming under growing scrutiny. In 2022, more than 450 scientists wrote an open letter urging major advertising firms, including WPP and Interpublic Group (also known as IPG), to stop producing disinformation and representing fossil fuel clients. And last summer, UN Secretary-General António Guterres echoed this call in strident terms — describing ad executives as Mad Men fuelling the madness,” and warning that oil and gas are toxic to your brand. Lucy von Sturmer, founder and CEO of Creatives for Climate, a nonprofit promoting sustainable creativity, told DeSmog that advertising and PR agencies are obviously wanting to, like big polluters themselves, maintain their own social license and image. New York-based Interpublic Group, for instance, said in its 2023 annual report to CDP, a nonprofit environmental disclosure system, that its visible commitment to sustainability … is viewed [by Interpublic Group] as an opportunity to enhance its reputation among clients. Green credentials also help attract and retain staff. A 2021 industry survey found nearly three-quarters of communications industry employees are hesitant to work with fossil fuel clients. Compared to previous generations, Gen Z and Millennials are especially eager to align their values with their work, according to von Sturmer. And obviously agencies rely on young, often cheaper, talent to retain the cultural zeitgeist, she added.  Here’s how the Big Six’s strategies work in practice: 1. A culture of silence around fossil fuel contracts Advertising companies often do their best to keep their fossil fuel work under wraps, even to their own staff, employees told DeSmog. For instance, managers may hold separate meetings for fossil fuel accounts teams to tout their accomplishments internally, rather than sharing at all-staff gatherings.  At the same time, these agencies sometimes loudly promote their sustainability achievements.  In 2023, French communications giant Havas made a public commitment to “an ambitious decarbonization trajectory.” But later that year, the company won a contract to run British oil major Shell’s ad placement strategy. In 2024, a Havas agency pitched (unsuccessfully) for Shells global PR account. One Havas employee told DeSmog reporters in 2023 that a culture of silence had existed around both pitches, with zero internal communications. Another said that, by contrast, there were “huge celebrations” when Havas London attained B-Corp status, an ethical business certification, in 2018.  Havas’ four B-Corp agencies had their certification stripped after the Shell deal sparked a backlash from campaigners and other B-Corp businesses, who said companies working with fossil fuel companies should not be eligible.  In November 2024, Havas warned investors of the possible “negative publicity” associated with its work for fossil fuel clients in its prospectus for its listing on the Dutch stock exchange.  Interpublic Group, meanwhile, publicized a 2022 Earth Day campaign encouraging its staff to take small actions supporting the environment, touting it on Instagram, in a trade magazine interview and reporting it as part of its climate emissions reduction efforts a year later. By contrast, Interpublic Group employees told DeSmog in 2023 that the agency had kept its work for Saudi Arabia’s state-owned oil company Saudi Aramco, one of the world’s largest polluters, quiet internally. Paris-based Publicis Groupe remains the only one among the Big Six to publicly advertise any fossil fuel clients (British Gas) on its main website. An Earth Day post by Interpublic Group. Source:  Interpublicipg on Instagram 2. Presenting fossil fuel work as climate-friendly Large deals, such as the one between Havas and Shell, can be hard to keep under wraps, and while the Big Six may outline lofty-sounding climate ambitions, loopholes and faulty justifications quickly emerge when they come under fire for taking on polluting clients.  In September 2022, Interpublic Group announced that it would now proactively review the climate impacts of prospective clients that operate in the oil, energy and utility sectors before accepting new work. However, the policy doesn’t apply to existing clients, allowing Interpublic Group subsidiaries including ad agency McCann to continue working for clients such as Saudi Aramco. Since the start of 2023, Interpublic Group has held 50 contracts with fossil fuel clients, according to Clean Creatives.  The CEOs of Paris-based Havas and London-based WPP, meanwhile, argue that their companies can help the fossil fuel industry embrace cleaner energy. In 2022, WPP CEO Mark Read told financial analysts, “We are there to support them [oil and gas clients] on that transition.” An October 2024 report by InfluenceMap, however, found that WPP had more clients obstructing net zero climate policies than supporting them — and revealed a similar picture at Interpublic Group, Omnicom, Dentsu and Publicis Groupe. Havas CEO Yannick Bolloré mounted a similar defence of his company’s work for the fossil fuel industry in response to questions from industry press about his decision to work with Shell in 2023. We believe the most effective change comes from within,” Bolloré was quoted as saying. Bolloré later told an audience at an industry conference: Our industry should be able to work with any industry as long as, and this is important, they are themselves on a meaningful transition journey. That same year, Shell stated that it was stepping back from its renewable energy portfolio, despite having previously promised to increasingly offer renewable power. Asked about Bolloré’s position on working with Shell at the time, Solitaire Townsend, co-founder of sustainability communications agency Futerra, told DeSmog that advertising agencies have nowhere near the competency, education, or knowledge to make a client meaningfully change their behavior. 3. Developing anti-greenwashing measures (but still greenwashing) While CEOs of the Big Six argue they are helping their fossil fuel clients transition to cleaner energy, regulators have looked askance.  In June 2023, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), the UK regulator, banned an ad in Shell’s Powering Progress series created by WPP’s VML (formerly Wunderman Thompson). The ASA ruled the ad could mislead consumers into believing renewable energy comprises a large portion of the oil giant’s business. A screenshot from VMLs Powering Progress campaign for Shell. Credit: @Shell on YouTube VML was also the creative muscle behind earlier Shell ads that the Dutch Advertising Code Committee banned in 2022 for misleading consumers about the impact of Shell‘s carbon offsetting programme. VML did not respond to a request for comment. That year, VML’s parent company WPP had launched its Green Claims Guide to ensure environmental statements in its advertising were not misleading in any way. Last August, the ASA received dozens of complaints that Shell’s most recent Powering Progress ad gave a misleading impression of the company’s commitment to clean energy. VML had also created the ad in question, while Havas Media (a subsidiary of Havas) worked on placing the ad in one of its first big projects since winning the account. The ASA is yet to deliver a ruling. Other agencies have also sought to present themselves as authorities on avoiding greenwashing.  After nearly a decade of making ads promoting U.S. oil giant ExxonMobil’s speculative algae biofuels research programme as a viable climate solution, Omnicom ad agency BBDO launched a sustainability consultancy designed to help clients navigate greenwashing concerns in 2023.  BBDO’s newest ad campaign for ExxonMobil, however, features a flood of social media ads suggesting that the company will use carbon capture and storage to fight the climate crisis. Currently, ExxonMobil uses the technology to pump more oil. There is also little realistic prospect of the technology being deployed at a scale that could make a difference to the climate: The emissions from burning the oil ExxonMobil alone sold in 2023 would outweigh the amount of carbon capture industry plans to deploy by 2035, according to an analysis of investment plans by BloombergNEF.  In 2022, Interpublic Group went a step further than the other holding companies when it announced it would not work on campaigns intending to shape policy to prolong fossil fuel use. However, in 2022 and 2023 Interpublic Group subsidiary Weber Shandwick lobbied the European Union over its climate policies on behalf of Shell, Eurogas, and a fuel supplier trade association. An InfluenceMap investigation had previously found that these fossil fuel companies were lobbying to include natural gas — a fossil fuel — in Europe’s energy future. Weber Shandwick did not respond to a request for comment.  Social media post from BBDOs campaign for ExxonMobil. Credit: @clint_davis on Instagram 4. Misrepresenting operational carbon emissions Each of the Big Six have made public commitments to reduce the carbon emissions from their operations — those caused by the running of the firm, such as employee travel or energy used to power office buildings. But just as they exaggerate green claims for their clients, how they report their own climate progress isnt always straightforward. In a report to the Interactive Advertising Bureau, a trade body specialising in digital marketing, Publicis Groupe stated that it managed to make its operations carbon neutral in 2022 using carbon offsets. However, a Bloomberg investigation found that a large proportion of the offsets Publicis Groupe had purchased the previous year were tied to low-cost, low-credibility renewable energy projects. Publicis Groupe has also offset carbon using credits from the Peru-based Verra Carbon Standard Madre de Dios program, which has been extensively criticized, both for being ineffectual and for hurting Indigenous rights. WPP, meanwhile, has promoted its involvement in the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), a global body through which businesses can set net-zero targets. However, in 2024, WPP was among one of almost 240 companies that SBTi delisted for failing to meet key reporting deadlines. Dentsu states on its website that by 2022 it had reduced its Scope 1 and 2 emissions — the emissions that the Japanese-based firm directly produces from its operations and services — by 52.8 percent since 2019. However, a table in its 2022 annual report painted a less rosy picture: In the same year, the companys Scope 3 emissions — those generated by Dentsu’s supply chain, including business travel and employee commuting — actually increased, meaning the net reduction in 2022 was a less impressive 3.8 percent. Dentsu has now published its 2023 emissions and its Scope 3 emissions have continued to climb. The companys total emissions footprint is now 7.8 percent larger than in 2019. Across multiple pages of its website, Dentsu says that its operations are powered entirely by renewable energy. Energy data in Dentsu’s 2023 annual report, however, show that this figure excludes its operations in Japan, where the company is headquartered, and where only 0.4 percent of energy use came from renewable energy that year. With Dentsus original operating country included, only 37.7 percent of the energy used by the company came from renewable sources in 2023. In its 2019 annual report, Dentsu defined greenwashing as the practice of using unsubstantiated information or partial data to give the impression that products or corporate activities are more environmentally friendly than they actually are. 5. Ignoring advertisings role in boosting sales of polluting products   In 2021, Interpublic Group subsidiary Carmichael Lynch boasted about its success in boosting sales by U.S. oil and gas producer ConocoPhillips. Carmichael Lynch wrote on its website that its Choose Go campaign resulted in the company selling 40 million more gallons of gas in the campaigns first five months compared to the year prior. The post has since been deleted. Campaigners argue that if ad and PR agencies take credit for increasing sales of polluting products, then they also bear responsibility for the associated emissions — and should therefore take steps to measure, publicly report, and reduce them. A screenshot from Ampols Far and Wide campaign, created by Dentsus iProspect and Publicis Groupes Saatchi & Saatchi. Credit: JH Walker on Vimeo Planet Tracker estimates that the advertised emissions attributable to the campaigns run by the Big Six on behalf of 39 of their biggest clients amount to more than 530 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year — larger than the UK’s annual emissions.   The Big Six, however, almost always omit these advertised emissions from discussions about their environmental impact.  WPP, Publicis Groupe, and Dentsu are all members of the United Nations (UN)-backed Race to Zero campaign, which focuses on rallying businesses to hit net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Race to Zero recommends that companies publish their advertised emissions. So far, Dentsu is the only member of the Big Six to have done so. In 2023, Dentsu estimated that its advertised emissions were 12.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent – 32 times the emissions generated by running its operations. Dentsu says “these emissions remain the responsibility of clients.”  Instead of advertised emissions, the Big Six have focused on tracking the much smaller carbon footprint associated with placing ads — such as from the electricity required to run a Facebook campaign.  6. Running tokenistic ‘green’ campaigns Last June, Londoners walking on Euston Road were greeted by a new mural — rendered with special paint designed to remove air pollution.  Announcing the mural’s unveiling, Dentsu, who created the “This Campaign Sucks” campaign, launched in partnership with the environmental nonprofit Global Action Plan, said: “Together we aim to tackle poor air quality in cities across the UK and Ireland – highlighting the links to health inequalities and the climate crisis.” DeSmog has identified 30 contracts between Dentsu and fossil fuel clients from the last five years, including work for oil and gas producers TotalEnergies, Chevron, Eni, and Indian Oil. Burning fossil fuels causes over 60 percent of an estimated 8.3 million global air pollution deaths every year, according to a 2023 study in the British Medical Journal.  Dentsu launched the mural in partnership with Global Action Plan. Credit: Dentsu Lisa Graves, executive director of True North Research, a political and policy research firm, said that ad and PR agencies that work for clients in “destructive industries” may also find “some client to hire them to do something good.” This approach allows firms to take credit “only for the good and not the bad.” Other Big Six companies have also won contracts from climate-focused groups while continuing to profit from lucrative relationships with fossil fuel clients.  In 2022, WPP’s Hill+Knowlton (now called Burson) was chosen by the Egyptian government to manage public relations for the United Nations climate conference COP27, held in Sharm El Sheikh. News of the contract prompted scientists to write the letter calling for the firm to cut ties with its oil and gas clients, including ExxonMobil, Saudi Aramco, and industry group the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative.  The WPP advertising agency Ogilvy works with 15 oil and gas clients, including BP and the oil lobby group the American Petroleum Institute — more than any other agency, according to research by Clean Creatives.  There is no mention of Ogilvy’s fossil fuel work on its website. But Ogilvy and its parent company WPP do proudly show-off a campaign the agency made for Greenpeace. Dentsu also showcases its work for Greenpeace on its website.  Graves, of True North Research, said ad and PR firms have an ability to reinvent their image so that poor conduct doesn’t stick to them. The agency “can then claim that its somehow good on climate, even if its spent 20 years aiding the climate denial movement,” she said. Shaping the narrative The Big Six’s tactics are working. Dentsu and Publicis Groupe, along with agencies owned by Omnicom and WPP, won prizes at the 2023 Ad Net Zero awards, intended to celebrate advertisers “who are helping to reduce emissions and pave the way to a net zero economy.” In the 2024 edition, WPP’s Wavemaker, and Omnicom’s EssenceMediacom and OMD — who held a combined 12 contracts with fossil fuel companies, according to Clean Creatives — all won awards. A DeSmog investigation found that three-quarters of the awards given to agencies at the Ad Net Zero awards went to those who also work for fossil fuel clients. Credit: Campaign Ad Net Zero Highlights 2023 The Big Six also rank highly in ethical investor scorecards, and Publicis Groupe, Interpublic Group, and Dentsu feature in the prestigious Dow Jones Sustainability Indices.  Narratives extolling the green credentials of the Big Six are also seeping into the advertising industry trade press, often unchallenged. In 2024, the magazine Marketing Week published a sponsored article by WPP agency GroupM about its efforts to reduce the carbon emissions generated by placing ads. The article did not include any reference to the agency’s advertised emissions — likely far larger in comparison. In April 2022, The Drum published a fluffy Earth Day article on “how the world’s top holding companies are celebrating,” consisting of statements from Publicis Groupe, Interpublic Group, Omnicom, Havas, and Dentsu, describing how they are “investing in environmentalism.” The article did not mention the 201 fossil fuel contracts collectively held by these five companies, according to Clean Creatives.  Marketing Week declined to comment. The Drum did not respond. Force for good? There are signs, however, that the tide of opinion is turning.  Ethical investors are lobbying major agencies, including Publicis Groupe, to acknowledge — and work to reduce — the climate impact of their work for fossil fuel clients. More than 1,000 agencies — mostly smaller, independent ones — and over 2,000 individual creatives have now taken the Clean Creatives pledge not to work with fossil fuel clients. When news broke of Havas’s 2023 deal with Shell, the Fossil Fuel Nonproliferation Treaty campaign terminated its contract with the agency. Havas’s pitch for further Shell work in 2024 sparked protests at Havas headquarters in London, and the subsequent loss of B-Corp certification for four Havas agencies further dented the company’s image.   As the Big Six have worked out, appearing green is good for business. If these giant companies made good on appearances, said Creatives for Climate’s Lucy von Sturmer, then the industry could become a force for good: “Imagine if we could use that amazing creative superpower to convince people, and to nudge them, and to mobilize them towards the regenerative future that we need.” Additional reporting by TJ Jordan and Ellen Ormesher This article was published alongside updates to DeSmog’s Advertising and Public Relations Database, where you can browse our research on the advertising and PR industry firms which have protected the reputation of their fossil fuel clients and created greenwashing campaigns to convince the public that climate change is not an urgent threat. The post Ad Firms Make Oil Companies Look Green. Here’s Six Ways They Greenwash Themselves. appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Ad Giant WPP Has Broken International Guidelines on Climate and Human Rights, Charge Campaigners

 

at 2/10/25 5:01pm

Climate campaigners have filed a complaint against WPP, the London-based advertising giant, with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), stating that it has violated key corporate guidelines on climate and human rights. Adfree Cities and the New Weather Institute filed the complaint today with the UK branch of the OECD. They charge that WPP’s work for major fossil fuel polluters like BP, Saudi Aramco and Shell, along with its work for other heavily polluting industries such as carmakers, airlines, and plastics, makes the company accountable for enabling pollution as well as human rights violations. According to DeSmog’s research, WPP — the world’s largest advertising agency by revenue — also works with TotalEnergies, as well as a number of other oil and gas clients. “The complaint significantly raises the legal risks for advertising firms,” said Harj Narulla, a barrister representing the climate campaign groups and co-author of the complaint. “By continuing to work for polluting clients, WPP is failing to meet its own environmental commitments and contributing to harm on a global scale.” The groups filed the complaint at the OECD’s National Contact Point in the UK, where WPP is headquartered. The campaigners say this is the first time the OECD has received a complaint against an advertising company.  “While claiming to take the climate crisis seriously, WPP has become the chief propagandist for some of the most polluting corporations on the planet — many of whom are shredding their own, already limited green pledges,” Andrew Simms, co-director of the New Weather Institute, told DeSmog. This complaint is designed to compel WPP and its subsidiaries to comply with international rules it has signed up to, and the promises and claims it has made. Simms and his co-complainants say that WPP must disclose the emissions generated by its work for high-polluting clients, also known as “advertised emissions”; conduct due diligence to prevent damage to the environment and human rights as a result of its business operations; and drop clients not aligned with climate goals.  All this would just bring WPP into line with what it already claims to live up to, said Simms. As of 2023, WPP had more fossil fuel industry contracts — at least 55 — than its major ad industry rivals. WPP did not respond to a request for comment.  Enablers to Planetary Destruction In a June 2024 address, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres called on nations to ban fossil fuel advertising, and urged the advertising and PR industry “to stop acting as enablers to planetary destruction. Stop taking on new fossil fuel clients, from today, and set out plans to drop your existing ones”.   In 2022, WPP CEO Mark Read justified such work as supporting oil and gas companies to transition their business models from fossil fuels to clean energy, the trade publication Ad Week reported. In its 2023 annual report, WPP said that its “purpose” was to “use the power of creativity to build better futures for our people, planet, clients and communities.” The company also stated that taking on client work “designed to frustrate the objectives of the Paris [climate] Agreement” went against its internal policy.   UK ad regulators have banned several ads produced by WPP-owned agencies in recent years for making misleading green claims. In 2023, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) banned  Shell’s “Cleaner Energy” advert, created by Wunderman Thompson (now VML), for giving the impression that it was invested significantly in producing energy from low-carbon sources, which actually made up only a very small portion of Shell’s business.  In 2022, the ASA banned an ad created for UK bank HSBC, a leading financier of fossil fuels, by Ogilvy, for misleadingly portraying the company as doing a lot to fight climate change, while “omitt[ing] significant information about HSBCs contribution to carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions.” WPP agencies also work with major plastics polluters, including Coca-Cola, Danone, and Nestlé, which together are responsible for 17 percent of branded plastic pollution globally. Experts warn that plastic pollution is creating a global crisis for environmental and human health.  Reporting a company to the OECD triggers a five-stage process, beginning with an initial assessment to determine whether the OECD can accept the complaint. If it does, the OECD may then mediate a discussion between the complainants and the company to reach an agreement.  In 2019, BP stopped running a series of ads after the environmental legal group ClientEarth filed an OECD complaint charging that the ads misled the public by focussing on BP’s low-carbon products, and not the extent of its annual spend on oil and gas. While OECD guidelines are not legally binding, they are backed by the countries that are OECD members. If WPP were found to be in breach of the guidelines, it could have reputational repercussions.  Paris-based advertising giant Havas acknowledged that its work with fossil fuel clients could harm its reputation in a recent prospectus for its listing on the Dutch stock exchange. The company had faced a backlash since September 2023, when it won a major account with Shell, and four of its agencies lost their B Corp ethical business certification as a result of the deal. The post Ad Giant WPP Has Broken International Guidelines on Climate and Human Rights, Charge Campaigners appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Canada OKs ‘Massive’ $20 Billion Loan for Trans-Mountain Pipeline

 

at 2/10/25 4:00am

The Canadian government quietly approved a staggering $20 billion loan to support the Trans-Mountain Expansion (TMX) pipeline. According to Canadian environmental advocacy organization Environmental Defence, this raises the Canadian government’s total financial commitment to the pipeline to $50 billion, drawing sharp criticism from environmentalists and economists. “At a time when Canada should be accelerating its clean energy transition, providing $20 billion in public financing for the TMX pipeline is a step in the wrong direction,” Laura Cameron, a policy advisor with the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) who specializes in fossil fuel subsidies, told DeSmog in an email.  Cameron said the Trudeau government’s TMX loan places more long-term financial risk on taxpayers and further subsidizes a profitable industry amid an affordability crisis.  Subscribe to our newsletter Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts Name -- Email Address What content do you want to subscribe to? (check all that apply) All International UK Sign Up (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery); The pipeline, which the Canadian government purchased in 2018 for $34 billion CAD and began operating in May 2024, moves diluted bitumen from Alberta through the Rocky Mountains to terminals on Canada’s Pacific coast. The new loan comes on the heels of Donald Trump’s threats of a trade war and internal pressure for Canada to be less economically dependent on trade with the United States. Despite that, the loan was, in fact, authorized by the Trudeau government in December 2024.  Export Development Canada’s Canada Account is providing the funding. Environmental Defence notes that the crown corporation administers the account, but the federal government oversees it. “[The loan is] a violation of the federal government’s promise not to provide further public money to the project,” Julia Levin, associate director of National Climate with Environmental Defence, said in a statement.  According to Levin, this brings the total amount of the Canadian government’s financial support to the oil and gas industry last year to $28.5 billion. “This newest massive loan will only benefit CEOs from the oil and banking industry, while Canadians – already struggling with an affordability crisis – will be left on the hook to cover the costs,” said Levin.  Taxpayers End Up Supporting Big Oil Research by the IISD reveals that, despite Canada’s frequent pledges to end fossil fuel subsidies, the country continues funneling tens of billions of taxpayer dollars into the pockets of profitable oil and gas companies.  The IISD notes that it’s difficult to judge how much money Canada provides the oil and gas sector due to a consistent lack of transparency and failure to deliver on promises to publish a comprehensive list of direct and indirect subsidies.  “A recent IISD report found that TMX is operating at a loss and will only recover the full investment if government acts to make oil companies pay the full cost,” IISD’s Cameron said.  Instead of supporting the oil industry, “shifting public financing to support industries with long-term growth trajectories will bolster domestic economic security, create good stable jobs, and reduce our reliance on volatile fossil fuels,” she added.  Analysis by DeSmog reveals that TMX may never have been financially viable in the first place. The project was nearly abandoned by its original developer — Kinder Morgan — in 2018. Despite that, the Trudeau government capitulated to pressure from the fossil fuel sector and their lobbyists and political allies, who had long argued that the nation’s insufficient pipeline infrastructure made Canada overly reliant on the United States. In addition, anticipated Asian demand for fossil fuels from Canada never materialized and the pipeline has been operating at a loss since its launch in May 2024. TMX is now the most expensive infrastructure project in Canadian history, estimated to be roughly 40 times more than what Ottawa invested in renewable power generation between 2014 and 2020. Experts say it is unlikely to recoup its costs, let alone turn a profit, because the government charges tolls amounting to less than half of what’s required to pay the pipeline’s capital costs.  “Oil industry CEOs and their political supporters have been quick to exploit the current uncertainty sparked by President Trump’s tariff threat by insisting the answer is more oil and gas pipelines,” Environmental Defence’s Levin said in a statement.  “Let TMX be a warning: It’s taxpayers who end up paying the price, as multinational, foreign-owned companies reap the rewards,” she added. “More fossil fuel infrastructure is not a winning strategy for Canadians or the planet.”   The Fossil Fuel Playbook: Exploit the Crisis Trans Mountain has stated it expects Trump’s tariff threats to increase interest in its pipeline, which transports roughly nine percent of Canadian oil. Much of the rest flows south to U.S. refineries. In an emailed statement published by Reuters, the pipeline operator stated that exports to Asia will likely increase along with further discounts. Keith Stewart, senior energy strategist with Greenpeace Canada, thinks it’s possible that tariff threats from the Trump administration may lead to more Canadian oil flowing toward Asian markets. However, he is more concerned with how the fossil fuel sector will seek to capitalize on a crisis that may arise from tariffs to lobby for new pipelines. This is a very old playbook, where the oil industry is looking to take advantage of a crisis to brush aside environmental and health protections,” Stewart said in an emailed statement.  “[Fossil fuel leaders] backed Trump’s campaign for President with mega-donations, and now they want to bring Trump-style environmental rules here,” he said. “But we should no more accept this than we do his demand that Canada become the 51st state.” Stewart argues that Canada should look to Europe’s example when Russian President Vladimir Putin used oil and gas exports as economic leverage when his country invaded Ukraine in 2022. In response, Europe accelerated its shift to renewable energy, which ultimately protected its economy and environment.  “Doubling down on oil now, as the world is switching to electric vehicles and heat pumps, would be like buying a Blockbuster franchise as Netflix is taking off,” he said.  Environmental Defence’s Levin agrees the oil industry and its political supporters often try to profit from global crises. “We’ve seen it before, for example, in response to the crisis in Ukraine,” said Levin. “The response from the fossil fuel industry is always the same: Do away with regulations, build more pipelines, remove limits to pollution, and scrap environmental assessments,” she said in an email to DeSmog. “Of course, none of those things would actually help with the current situation.” Stewart notes that the oil industry supports Trump, who, while campaigning for president, promised Big Oil deregulation in exchange for campaign donations. The industry is estimated to have provided Trump’s re-election campaign with about $170 million (USD). In Canada, Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre also promises to deregulate the fossil fuel industry if he becomes Prime Minister, which is likely.  “He has said he will kill the oil and gas pollution cap, the clean electricity regulation, the low-carbon fuel rule, and the Impact Assessment Act while building pipelines in all directions,” Stewart noted. The post Canada OKs ‘Massive’ $20 Billion Loan for Trans-Mountain Pipeline appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Pierre Poilievre Keen on Canadian LNG Despite Economic and Environmental Risk 

 

at 2/6/25 1:57pm

Despite the considerable environmental risk and a potentially oversaturated market over the next two years, Pierre Poilievre, the man who may be Canada’s next prime minister, wants to go all in on liquified natural gas (LNG). Poilievre, the leader of Canada’s opposition Conservative Party, discussed his outlook on LNG in December on noted climate-change denier Jordan Peterson’s podcast.  “Why are we still importing oil when we have the world’s third-biggest supply?” Poilievre asked rhetorically. “Why is it we can’t export our natural gas overseas?”  Peterson interjected, stating that Germany and Japan had both asked for Canadian natural gas, and Poilievre agreed. Both men argued that a lack of political will and what they claim is government interference and bureaucracy prevent Canada from exporting natural gas. Peterson claimed that both Japan and Germany offered Canada “multi-decade contracts [for LNG] at distressed prices because they’re so desperate for energy.” Subscribe to our newsletter Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts Name -- Email Address What content do you want to subscribe to? (check all that apply) All International UK Sign Up (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery); But is this vision rooted in reality — or is it simply another shortsighted play that ignores environmental urgency and market trends? Also, U.S. President Donald Trump has paused 25 percent tariffs on Canadian goods for 30 days, with a possible reduced tariff for oil and gas exports. But Canada’s fossil fuel market could be much more volatile if tariffs do go into effect next month. Logistical Hurdles Despite Peterson’s and Poilievre’s rhetoric, expert analysis consistently demonstrates that Canadian LNG faces considerable economic and logistical hurdles: An Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) report from October 2024 states that while Japanese politicians have stressed the importance of Canadian, American, and Australian LNG sources for what they claim is energy security, the IEEFA found that Japanese LNG imports have fallen every year for the last decade. Moreover, Japanese energy plans estimate LNG demand will drop another 25 percent by 2030, as LNG use gives way to nuclear and renewable energy sources. According to the report, Japanese interest in LNG is primarily to resell it to other Asian markets. Though Peterson and Poilievre say government bureaucracy stands in the way of LNG exports, in reality, the Trudeau administration supported some LNG projects, while arguing against federal government subsidies for the LNG sector. In March 2024, Energy and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson stated that the government would not invest in LNG facilities because it was opposed to funding “inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.” He claimed that such investments were for the private sector to make. Wilkinson acknowledged that LNG production would need clean energy for Canada to meet a 2030 goal of greenhouse gas emissions reduction. Still, he did not commit government funding to assist in this electrification.  Rhetoric aside, Canada’s federal government has, in fact, invested considerable sums in LNG development, particularly in British Columbia. LNG Canada Phase 1 – an LNG export facility on the shores of the Douglas Channel in B.C.s Kitimat – received at least $1 billion CAD from Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government and another $5.4 billion from recent British Columbia New Democratic Party (BCNDP) governments.  Government support in recent years helped develop LNG export facilities on Canada’s Pacific coast. But exporting Canadian natural gas to European markets would likely depend on considerable direct investment in developing new infrastructure. As with Asia, European demand for LNG also appears to be waning. A new report by the European Electricity Review published by the think tank Ember, reveals that European solar and wind energy production is replacing the use of gas. It also notes that gas use in Europe has declined for the past five years, since the start of the European Green Deal in 2019.  “Fossil fuels are losing their grip on EU energy,” said Chris Rosslowe, Ember senior analyst and lead author of the report, in an emailed statement to DeSmog.  “Gas power is in structural decline in the EU. Cheap homegrown renewables are already cutting Europe’s fossil fuel import bill,” Rosslowe said. “Europe will always pay a premium for LNG, so it is unlikely to find much favor, especially as cutting energy costs becomes a top EU priority.” Rosslowe cautions that Canadian politicians should keep a close eye on Europe’s clean power transition, which he argues is occurring much faster than many thought possible. Did Germany Want LNG from Canada? Peterson and Poilievre’s assertion that Germany has repeatedly asked Canada for natural gas doesn’t align with numerous statements from German leadership. In the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, politicians and industry leaders first seriously considered the idea that Canada might supply Germany with LNG. However, both Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz appeared cool to the suggestion at the time.  Trudeau said his government preferred to export green hydrogen to Germany, and also noted that shipping natural gas from Canada’s Western provinces to as yet unbuilt liquefication facilities on Canada’s Atlantic coast was further complicated due to a lack of infrastructure. Trudeau also pointed out that there wasn’t much of a business case to export Canadian LNG to Europe. More recently, in September 2024, Germany’s special envoy for international climate action warned that both German and European demand for Canadian gas was waning.    The belief that Canadian LNG could be used to displace fossil fuel use in other nations, particularly in Asia, is common among Canadian politicians as much as among advocates of the fossil fuel sector.  However, multiple studies indicate this is not the case: The oft-mentioned possibility of Asian energy juggernauts like China and India transitioning from coal to gas simply isn’t happening. Ember’s Global Electricity Review report estimated that electricity generation from gas was about three percent for each, and isn’t increasing. In both cases, India and China appear to be transitioning directly from coal to renewables. Arguments that Canadian LNG could help displace fossil fuel use in Europe and Asia fail to recognize that LNG is a fossil fuel, that transitioning to it would only delay the transition to renewables, and also that the production of fossil fuels for export is in and of itself carbon intensive.  A recent report from the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) also throws cold water on the idea that Canada can become a major global LNG superpower, and that doing so would help the environment. The report notes that the development of new LNG facilities would not only undermine Canada’s domestic and international climate commitments because of increased upstream and midstream emissions, it would further divert financial and clean energy resources away from more cost-efficient decarbonization efforts, and instead towards fossil fuel production. The IISD report further notes that by the time most Canadian LNG projects would come online by the end of this decade, global LNG supply is expected to have already far outpaced demand and that Canadian LNG would struggle to compete with other suppliers without considerable subsidies.   Could LNG Help India Wean Off of Coal? In his conversation with Jordan Peterson, Poilievre makes specific reference to a National Bank of Canada (NBC) financial markets briefing note issued in February 2024. That report, prepared by Stéfane Marion and Baltej Sidhu, posits an unlikely hypothetical to make the case for Canadian LNG expansion by suggesting that Canadian LNG exports could help India wean itself off the use of coal. Marion is listed as an expert who works with Canada’s C. D. Howe Institute, a conservative and often pro-fossil fuel think tank that has received financial support from Gwyn Morgan. Morgan, a former oil industry executive and climate-change denier, has made substantial financial contributions to right-wing media in Canada, as well as pro-fossil fuel lobby groups.  The report uses an announcement by the Indian government to double coal production by 2030 as its jumping-off point and argues that Canadian LNG is better for the environment than Indian coal because of “policy and stringent regulation.” What isn’t mentioned is the environmental impact of extracting, transporting, and liquefying Canadian LNG, or the cost of converting Indian coal power plants to natural gas. The NBC report concludes that renewables will not be easily deployed in India by 2030, but fails to recognize that supplying India with LNG will only further delay the deployment of renewable energy systems.  In May 2024, Canadas Ads Standards Council determined that advertisements claiming Canadian LNG exports would reduce global emissions — the central hypothesis of the aforementioned NBC briefing note — were misleading. Poilievre’s belief that Canada is on the verge of becoming an energy superpower — if only bureaucracy would get out of the way — is a central tenet of contemporary Canadian conservative platforms. The reality reveals considerable economic, infrastructural, and political obstacles stand in the way — to say nothing of the severe environmental consequences of doing so — urgent points that rarely get mentioned in conservative discourse. Also ignored is the ever-expanding volume of research and expert analysis proving that expansion of Canadian fossil fuel exports would be economically unwise and environmentally catastrophic.  Poilievre, like Peterson, is well known for his strong anti-climate action record. A 2024 analysis by DeSmog revealed that Poilievre voted against the environment and climate at least 400 times throughout his 20-year career as a politician. Despite considerable evidence demonstrating the environmental and economic benefits of carbon taxes, Poilievre has vowed to eliminate them. His amped-up rhetoric on the subject — supported in no small part by third-party advertisers and fossil fuel sector lobby groups parroting the same debunked talking points — influenced all three leading Liberal Party leadership candidates, as well as the current environment minister, to distance themselves from consumer carbon pricing.  The post Pierre Poilievre Keen on Canadian LNG Despite Economic and Environmental Risk  appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage to Speak at ‘Glastonbury for Climate Deniers’

 

at 2/4/25 11:03am

Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage have been announced as speakers at the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) conference later this month alongside close allies of President Donald Trump and his anti-climate agenda, DeSmog can reveal. ARC is a network of influential right-wing figures from across the world, and the group claims that its conference in London will “work to re-lay the foundations of civilisation”.  The Conservative and Reform UK leaders will be speaking alongside individuals who have called climate change a “hoax”, have said that global warming “is probably doing good”, and have called climate activists “eco fascists”.  ARC is backed by the UAE-based investment firm Legatum Group and British hedge fund millionaire Paul Marshall, who together own the right-wing broadcaster GB News. Marshall provided £1 million in funding to ARC in 2023, which is run by Conservative peer and UK government advisor Baroness Stroud.  ARC is fronted by Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson, who has said that climate change is a “scam”.  Subscribe to our newsletter Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts Name -- Email Address What content do you want to subscribe to? (check all that apply) All International UK Sign Up (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery); Badenoch and Farage will be speaking alongside Vivek Ramaswamy, who recently helped to set up Trump’s new U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) until he was sidelined by DOGE chief and Trump mega-donor Elon Musk. They will be joined by Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson, new U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright, tech founder and 2016 Trump donor Peter Thiel, and Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation, the group behind the radical ‘Project 2025’ blueprint for a second Trump term.  Badenoch and Farage have both vocally opposed climate policies in recent times. The Reform UK leader has said that the goal of achieving net zero emissions by 2050 should be scrapped, while the Conservative premier has called herself a “net zero sceptic”.  “This is like Glastonbury for climate science deniers, Trump acolytes, manosphere enthusiasts and nihilists in general,” Good Law Project campaigns manager Hannah Greer told DeSmog. “But the serious point is that some of the people that Paul Marshall has assembled in this right-wing rogues gallery have huge amounts of money and power over our media, medical data and the future of our planet – and they are set on creating a new oligarchy.” Trump’s Inner Circle The ARC conference, to be held from 17 to 19 February, will play host to a number of figures in Trump’s inner circle.  These individuals share the new president’s anti-climate convictions. Trump entered office a fortnight ago by declaring an “energy emergency” in order to “drill baby drill” for more fossil fuels – simultaneously directing the U.S. to withdraw from the flagship 2015 Paris climate agreement, and banning new offshore wind farms. Ramaswamy, who became a Trump ally after losing the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, used a debate on 23 August to claim that “the climate change agenda is a hoax”. He has also said that, “We need to abandon the climate cult that shackles America while leaving China untouched. Drill. Frack. Burn coal. Embrace nuclear.” House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson has called the Paris Agreement “a terrible deal for the United States” and supported leaving it. He has claimed that climate change is part of a normal cycle, adding: “we don’t need the UN dictating to us how to be responsible stewards of what God has given us”. In October, Johnson said that Trump “has more stamina and mental acumen and strength than any political figure probably in the history of the country that I can remember.” The House speaker has backed the president’s agenda and has expressed strong support for the new administration’s campaign to gut federal agencies. Since Trump entered office on 20 January, he has started to shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and has offered redundancy to two million federal workers. This agenda appears to draw from the blueprint laid out by Kevin Roberts and the Heritage Foundation in their Project 2025 agenda, which urged Trump to “dismantle the administrative state”. The 900-page plan also proposed reversing policies on climate action, slashing restrictions on fossil fuel extraction, scrapping state investment in renewable energy, and gutting the Environmental Protection Agency.  Trump’s energy secretary Chris Wright will also speak to the ARC conference via video link. Wright, who serves as the CEO of the oilfield services company Liberty Energy, told ARC’s inaugural conference in November 2023 that the UK should lift the ban on fracking for shale gas, which has been in place since 2019 due to environmental concerns.  Farage has openly supported ditching the ban on fracking, while Badenoch has expressed her sympathy for the practice.  Although he didn’t receive an invite to Trump’s inauguration, Farage is a close ally of Trump and spent election night at the new president’s home in Mar-a-Lago, Florida. Speaking in September at a 40th anniversary fundraiser for the Heartland Institute, a pro-Trump climate denial group, Farage bemoaned the levels of “net zero fanaticism” in the U.S. and UK – calling on both countries to unleash fossil fuel production. Badenoch, meanwhile, went on a tour of North America in December during which she met with several anti-climate figures, including new Vice President JD Vance. Farage will be joined at the 2025 ARC conference by Reform UK chairman Zia Yusuf.  Climate Science Critics The speakers at this year’s ARC conference also include a number of other influential critics of climate science and action.  Psychologist Jordan Peterson has regularly posted about “climate apocalypse insanity” and “eco fascists” to his online followers, while amplifying fringe climate deniers to millions of people via his YouTube channel. He will be joined by British journalist Douglas Murray, an assistant editor at The Spectator – now owned by Paul Marshall – who spent election night at Mar-a-Lago with Farage and Trump’s closest supporters. Murray has suggested that climate policies will “impoverish” Brits, and has argued that “terrifying our children with doom-mongering propaganda on climate change is nothing less than abuse”.  Another speaker will be former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott, who has been a director at the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) – the UK’s leading climate science denial group – since February 2023. Abbott has said that “climate change is probably doing good” and is a long-standing advocate for coal power, the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel. Abbott launched a new paper on energy security “on the outskirts” of the 2023 ARC conference, reportedly telling the Institute of Public Affairs event that climate change has “nothing to do with mankind’s emissions”.  He added: “The climate cult will inevitably be discredited, I just hope we don’t have to endure an energy catastrophe before that happens.” Abbott will speak at this year’s ARC conference alongside Conservative peer Lord Frost, a director of Net Zero Watch – the campaign arm of the GWPF – and former GWPF director Matt Ridley.  Tory peers Lord Young and Lord Hannan have also been given speaking slots. Both have a record of rallying against climate action. Young wrote in The Spectator in 2022 that, “it’s not the fact of climate change that I’m sceptical about, but the claim that it’s anthropogenic [caused by humans]. I think that could be true, but the evidence isn’t compelling enough to justify the net-zero policy.” Authors working for the world’s foremost climate science body, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), have said that “it is a statement of fact, we cannot be any more certain; it is unequivocal and indisputable that humans are warming the planet”. The speakers at ARC’s conference will also include Michael Shellenberger, a U.S. author who has downplayed the climate crisis via his think tank Environmental Progress and his 2020 book “Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All”. In a 2020 cover piece for Forbes, which was later retracted by the magazine, Shellenberger apologised “on behalf of environmentalists everywhere” for what he called “the climate scare”, and claimed that “climate change is not making natural disasters worse”.  At the inaugural ARC conference, Shellenberger asserted that “renewables are not able to provide the reliable energy we need” and advocated gas and nuclear energy, claiming that fracking for shale gas had been “demonised” by climate activists.  Shellenberger will be joined by Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish writer who has regularly downplayed the threat posed by climate change and has been called a “friend” by new energy secretary Wright. The ARC Network The 2025 ARC conference will also provide a platform to those involved in other projects supported by Paul Marshall and the Legatum Group.  In addition to GB News presenter Farage, the conference will host Charlie Peters, who is a reporter on the channel.  GB News has been a prominent opponent of climate action since it launched in June 2021. A DeSmog investigation revealed that one in three GB News hosts spread climate science denial on air in 2022, while half attacked climate policies. GB News presenters claimed that net zero will cause “death by poverty and starvation”, that the policy “poses an existential threat to the free world”, and called for the UK to “drill, baby, drill” for more fossil fuels.  The summit will also platform a number of figures associated with The Spectator – the conservative magazine purchased by Marshall for £100 million in September – including its editor, former Tory minister Michael Gove, and its publisher Freddie Sayers. Although ARC’s policy prescriptions are vague, Baroness Stroud has given an indication of where the alliance stands on climate change in a blog on its website. She states that “we risk driving policy interventions to address environmental concerns without having an honest conversation about the trade-offs for the poor at home or in developing and emerging nations”. The notion that green reforms unduly punish the poor is a common refrain among those who oppose climate action. In reality, poor and indigenous groups in developing countries will be hit hardest by the impacts of climate change. As revealed by DeSmog, Paul Marshall’s hedge fund held £1.8 million worth of shares in fossil fuel companies – including in oil and gas giants Chevron, Shell, and Equinor – as of June 2023. One of Marshall Wace’s biggest investors, U.S. private equity firm KKR, also has a large fossil fuel portfolio, including 188 assets in oil, gas, and coal. The list of speakers at this year’s ARC conference also sheds more light on the ideologies and alliances of the group beyond the issue of climate change. The summit will welcome Peter Thiel, an ally of JD Vance and the founder of the tech firm Palantir, which has been heavily criticised for its role in U.S. immigration deportations, and its processing of healthcare data. Thiel will be joined at the conference by Palantir’s executive vice president Louis Mosley. The speakers also include Alan Miller, founder of Together – a UK group founded to oppose the mandatory Covid vaccine. Since launching in July 2021, GB News has given air time to anti-vax conspiracy theories – including the claim from its presenter Neil Oliver that Covid vaccines are causing “turbo cancer”. In recent times, Together has spread climate science denial and runs a campaign to scrap the UKs net zero targets.  ARC, Together, the Conservatives, and Reform UK were approached for comment. The post Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage to Speak at ‘Glastonbury for Climate Deniers’ appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Finger-Pointing Over Funding Freeze May Lead Trump to Drop Lawyer Linked to DOGE and Project 2025

 

at 2/3/25 6:47pm

The recent federal funding freeze spurred immediate finger-pointing inside the Trump administration, with anonymous sources telling major news outlets that attorney Mark Paoletta was responsible for drafting the infamous memo that briefly paused trillions in federal funds. Paoletta, newly returned as the White House Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) general counsel, is connected to a wide range of powerful figures on the right, including multiple conservative Supreme Court justices, the organizers of Project 2025, and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Multiple anonymous sources said Paoletta’s job was at risk, “though no final decision has been made,” ABC News reported on Friday. With the OMB memo, the Trump administration threw a wild punch it claimed was aimed at the “green new deal” and other abstract concepts — but landed as a very real blow to American doctors, teachers, and a dizzying array of public services and programs whose federal funding access was abruptly thrown into question. The OMB memo was rapidly rescinded — but not before it unleashed chaos, upending the work of thousands of government agencies that issue grants and loans to organizations providing services across the world. From Medicaid reimbursements to early childhood program payments, some of the most significant and immediate disruptions hit at the very agencies the White House later claimed it had specifically intended to leave unaffected. The memo sparked multiple legal challenges and court orders blocking OMB’s freeze from taking effect, at least for now. Paoletta did not respond to a request for comment from DeSmog. The blame placed on Paoletta is a sign that infighting is already emerging within the Trump administration, just two weeks after the new president assumed office. Stephen Miller and other senior Trump officials never reviewed the OMB memo before it went out, anonymous sources also told the major media organizations that reported on Paoletta’s involvement. Tensions inside the Trump administration may be heightened by internal contradictions between its stated priorities on energy and power struggles between Musk’s DOGE project, which aims to impose widespread austerity measures (amid massive fossil fuel subsidies), and supporters of Project 2025, which seeks, for example, to shift federal energy spending towards “increasing energy security and supply through fossil fuels.” The government’s fossil fuel subsidies pose a thorny problem for the Trump administration’s efforts to slash spending. “These handouts to the oil and gas industry, which allows these multinational corporations to earn billions of dollars a year, fly in the face of everything else they talk about,” Matthew Tejada, a senior vice president at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told Grist in early January. Paoletta has worked with both DOGE and Project 2025’s backers. “Mark will work closely with our DOGE team to cut the size of our bloated Government bureaucracy, and root out wasteful and anti-American spending,” President Donald Trump said in December as he announced Paoletta’s return to the OMB.  “I am thrilled to be rejoining my friend @russvought at OMB where we will once again be the tip of the spear to implement President Trump’s agenda, including working w/ @DOGE to cut wasteful government spending!,” Paoletta posted on X that day, drawing a “Congratulations” reply from Musk. Until recently, Paoletta was also listed as a senior fellow at the Center for Renewing America, a far-right think tank led by Russell Vought, one of Project 2025’s key architects and Trump’s nominee to lead the OMB. The Center for Renewing America, DeSmog previously reported, counts oil billionaire Tim Dunn among its funders. Though the Trump administration has sought to publicly distance itself from Project 2025, the organization’s Mandate for Leadership, marketed as a roadmap for Trump on his return to the presidency, foreshadowed this week’s funding freeze. “The President should use every possible tool to propose and impose fiscal discipline on the federal government,” Vought wrote in a chapter devoted to the OMB. “Anything short of that would constitute abject failure.” Many of the organizations that contributed to Project 2025 have extensive histories of climate denial, DeSmog reported shortly after the election in November. High Court Connections  Paoletta brings close connections with Supreme Court justices to Trump’s OMB. Especially notable: Paoletta is a “long-time friend” to Justice Clarence Thomas, according to Politico. Paoletta not only helped to usher Thomas through his fraught confirmation process in 1991, he also defended Ginni Thomas, Justice Thomas’ wife, before the January 6 select committee.  He’s cozy enough with both Justice Thomas and billionaire and conservative activist Harlan Crow to be depicted in a portrait hanging in Crow’s Adirondack’s lodge, a 2023 investigation by ProPublica found. The painting shows Paoletta seated next to Thomas, accompanied by Crow, the Federalist Society’s Leonard Leo, and attorney Peter Rutledge.  Justice Thomas was dubbed “fossil fuels’ best friend on the Supreme Court” by Law Students for Climate Accountability, which called for his resignation citing his ties to Crow, the Koch network, and other “oil tycoons.” Paoletta also worked to confirm two other current Supreme Court justices — Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Expansive Sweep of Presidential Power The two-page memo Paoletta allegedly drafted for the OMB sought to exert presidential control over trillions of dollars in Congressionally approved spending, requiring agencies to review “all Federal financial assistance programs and supporting activities” for their consistency with the President’s priorities. Federal agencies were told to identify activities “implicated” by Trump’s flurry of executive orders “including, but not limited to, financial assistance for foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal.” Instructions circulated with the memo list 2,600 federal programs required to undertake a review — including over 500 that didn’t report actually spending a dime in 2024, according to The New York Times. Federal employees involved in everything from regulating consumer product safety standards for pools and spas to Pentagon research into detecting chemical, biological, and radiological weapons were asked to scrutinize their work for “gender ideology” or “an undue burden on… domestic energy resources” — with no hints as to what either term might mean. Environmental regulators were among those impacted. “At [the Environmental Protection Agency] EPA, this means that funds for safe drinking water projects, Superfund cleanup, and sewage construction will halt, costing jobs and harming public health,” Environmental Protection Network Executive Director Michelle Roos said in a statement on the funding freeze. “These measures are illegal and come on the heels of President Trump firing the Inspectors General at 17 government agencies, including EPA.” “These unparalleled actions are being advertised as temporary, but that doesn’t mean that things will get better,” Roos said. “These will likely be the foundation of even more extreme actions to follow.” The post Finger-Pointing Over Funding Freeze May Lead Trump to Drop Lawyer Linked to DOGE and Project 2025 appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Q & A: Jared Yates Sexton on the ‘Weaponized Abuse’ of Authoritarianism

 

at 2/3/25 4:08pm

It’s a ‘coup in plain sight.’ That’s political analyst Jared Yates Sexton’s verdict on the news that Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, was granted full access to the systems that handle trillions of dollars in federal payments at the weekend — despite having no official role in government.  The speed at which U.S. President Donald Trump and his tech billionaire backers have overturned democratic, legal and institutional norms since his inauguration two weeks ago has left his opponents reeling.  To help make sense of events in Washington, and parse their implications for the climate fight, DeSmog’s global investigations editor Matthew Green interviewed Sexton, who has spent years documenting the rise of authoritarianism in the U.S. and globally in his newsletter and latest book The Midnight Kingdom: A History of Power, Paranoia, and the Coming Crisis.  Jared Yates Sexton. Credit: Lisa-Marie. Combining on-the-ground reporting from campaign rallies and political conventions, with historical and psychological analysis, Sexton has long been warning of the threat to democracy posed by a second Trump administration. His Dispatches From A Collapsing State newsletter has provided a prescient account of both the new dangers posed by the combination of tech oligarchy and autocracy — and the cost of the corporate capture, empty gesture politics and strategic myopia that, in his analysis, has hobbled the Democrats.  Below is an edited transcript of Sexton’s conversation with Green, which took place on January 24 — four days after Trump assumed office. A video version can be seen at Resonant World, Green’s newsletter serving the global movement to heal individual, inter-generational and collective trauma. Matthew Green: Were obviously going through an epochal moment in the wake of the U.S. election. I was hoping that you could paint a picture of what you see happening, particularly from the point of view of anyone whos interested in a safe climate future? Jared Yates Sexton: In the work that Ive been doing, Ive been trying to actively organize some resistance to whats going on. Ive been talking to groups, whether its nonprofits or political organizations. And in these conversations, what keeps getting communicated is a feeling of frustration, of fear and demoralization. Were sitting here talking about making sure that we dont suffer a species-type disaster — something that will make the future so much harsher and more deadly.  That is not something to actually debate. This isnt actually even truly political; its not left or right. It should just be something that we have a conversation about and come together. But while that has been politicized, people have been made to feel like theres absolutely nothing they can do. I just want to lay the cards on the table: To talk about climate change right now is to have a hard, demoralizing conversation at the heart of it. That has happened for decades. But what were watching right now is an acceleration of the efforts to make people feel like that. Ive heard people say, “it feels like Im being attacked”. Well, thats because youre being attacked. Thats because right now, we as individuals and we as groups, we have more or less been attacked by a group of people that have used weaponized abuse, and weaponized, terroristic intimidation tactics, to overwhelm us, to leave us in a dysregulated state — in which we dont feel like theres anything that we can do, that we feel alone and we feel powerless, and theres nowhere we can possibly go. Its an overwhelming blitz. It is an attempt to overwhelm us and make us feel like we have already lost any type of a battle that we have to fight. And just to go ahead and reiterate it, this is weaponized abuse. Thats how authoritarianism works. Its meant to undermine any sort of resiliency that we have, or any sort of optimism, and to narrow our worlds and leave us with a choice, which is either join or get out of the way. Matthew Green: Could you speak about how we got to this point and your analysis of the rise of authoritarianism in the U.S.? Jared Yates Sexton: If we had unlimited time and unlimited attention, we could sit here and talk about the rise of capitalism. And you cant fully understand how weve gotten to the point of this climate change threat without understanding the industrialization of the modern world, and how that went hand in hand with the accruement of resources and power among a very few people. But for the purposes of this conversation, and the rise of authoritarianism that were dealing with, Ill just go ahead and go back to the late 1970s, early 1980s. And this was a period of time in which capitalism morphed into its current state. The term neoliberalism gets thrown around all the time. To make it more accessible, I will say that our philosophy in the United States, also Great Britain, and all of the other supposed Western democracies, and eventually the world through the creation of global capitalism, eventually we were brought into a system in which governments that had had a requirement to keep markets in check, and to protect people who were vulnerable against the wealthy and the powerful, they changed over their philosophy to the point where they started emphasizing deregulation. They started emphasizing this aggressive profit-seeking motivation. Eventually, the government works on behalf of the people who have the wealth and the influence. And over time, because theres a need for more and more profit, what you end up seeing is basic protections and liberties, as well as social programmes, they all start getting cut. The motivation behind neoliberalism is that were supposed to feel more and more precarious. Were supposed to feel isolated from one another. That way we dont organize, whether its political organizations or labor unions. And eventually, this terror that we all feel just starts to grow and grow and grow. And authoritarianism, which has been used against so-called Second and Third World countries on behalf of the so-called First World countries, it boomerangs back around. And eventually, those major powers that created this, they become subject to the exact same things that theyve created. So now people have lost faith in liberal democracy for a good reason, to a certain extent. Now they are looking for demagogues, who are providing easy solutions, easily identifiable political enemies, who are never the people who created the situation in the first place. So we are now in what I would term — this is technical — a Hell of a Mess. And basically, we have to dig ourselves out of this, recognize what has happened, and start learning from history in terms of what we can do differently. Matthew: Could you speak also to the role of the billionaires, of the oligarchs? What is new about this particular alignment that were seeing? Jared Yates Sexton: Well, weve seen this in the past. It just so happens that our present conditions exacerbate the problem. So in the United States, at the turn of the 20th century, going back to industrialization, when we started having electricity, we started using fossil fuels. We had trains bringing resources everywhere. We had to build skyscrapers in cities with steel and all that good stuff. As that took place, a lot of people started bringing together their resources and their power, and then they became exceedingly wealthy. These industrialists became known as ‘robber barons’ because they controlled our politics. Eventually, in the 1920s, there was a moment where we had a financial collapse, and we ended up in the Great Depression. And guess what happens when these people have so much power and so much wealth and so much influence? They learn to hate democracy. They dont want people voting against them because it will interrupt their political agendas. And by the way, they have all this money, and all this wealth — why do they only deserve one vote, that can be canceled out by the many people who have more votes than them? This is a cycle that just plays out over and over. Were in a new industrial age. And with the rise of tech and the Internet, surveillance and manipulative capitalism, these people who were aided by the neoliberal project, they have more money than even the robber barons had. Whereas the robber barons were able to control communication via owning radio stations and newspapers, they now have this new system of algorithmic technology, which basically defines every conversation that we have, how we interact with one another, but also our politics. On top of that, they have more or less merged with our major governments. So in the United States, the most powerful empire in the history of the world, you have to have this technology in order to carry out the functions of empire, whether its logistics, or how trade works, or surveillance in order to ward off threats. So these people more or less attached to the imperial capitalist structure like leeches, and they grew very fat and very large. And now, we are in a situation where that much wealth, that much power, and that much inequality, has created the perfect opportunity for them to take this to the next level — which is not just working in concert with the Imperial machine, but effectively taking it over, which is what individuals like this, oligarchs like these, always end up attempting to do. Weve entered a new chapter. Matthew:  What does this mean for the climate crisis? Jared Yates Sexton: The majority of climate change is caused by states and militaries and corporations. So this is a growing crisis that is so overwhelming for the individual that some people are aware of it and theyre demoralized about it, theyre immobilized because they dont feel like they can do anything. Theres another group of people that psychologically have just come to deny it — even though deep down in the marrow of their bones, they know full and well that its happening. The problem at this point is that there are no incentives whatsoever for the major powers to really do anything to push back against climate change. You can go ahead and make the argument that there will be trillions of dollars that will need to be spent in order to take care of the damage. Well, that’s good news for those people, because weve now gotten to the point where theyre not even going to give people assistance. Donald Trump is talking about getting rid of FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Agency[, which takes care of disaster areas after major disasters have happened. Theyre now pitting areas against each other. In North Carolina, we had this massive flooding disaster where supposedly a lot of Republicans live. We just had these fires in California where a lot of Democrats live. Well, what are they doing? Theyre pitting the Republicans versus the Democrats in terms of who gets help and who doesnt. Meanwhile, the oligarchs are using vast amounts of resources and contributing at an unprecedented clip towards the conditions that lead to climate change. And what have they done? They have now taken over the government, essentially, to get more resources, more wealth, more assistance. So now theyre getting the resources that would have gone towards helping people, or creating the structures that could have helped climate change. [These resources] are now being handed over to the tech oligarchs who have created a large part of the modern problem to begin with. Theres another component to this, which is, instead of dealing with climate change, we are now being invited to engage in a religious-like faith that we cant do anything about it, But guess what? Were gonna get off this planet, right? Theyll get us to Mars, right? Theyll get us right off this rock before it burns to a cinder. On top of that, everyone says, “well, were not addressing climate change,” but we are. Were putting in the structures that will allow authoritarianism to take care of the consequences.  So for instance, all of this fear in the United States of America and in Great Britain in terms of immigrants, this is about racism and white supremacy, but its also about creating apartheid structures so that climate refugees — who are both from outside the country in the Global South, and also Americans, and the British who are going to deal with these disasters – closed borders are going to keep people from seeking safety. So what were essentially doing right now is were watching an unconscious [decision] among the populace, and a conscious decision among the elite, to create the structures that are going to deal with the disastrous and violent consequences of climate change. Matthew Green: Could you speak to the relationship between this authoritarian system and disinformation with respect to the climate crisis? Jared Yates Sexton: Im going to take us back to 1971. And for anybody listening or watching this and they havent seen it before, go and look up something called the Powell Memo. The Powell Memo was released in the early 1970s in response to what had happened in the 1950s, 60s and early 70s. This, of course, comes from the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement, the pro-democracy movement, the feminist movement, the gay rights movement. Basically, the wealthy looked around and they said, “were losing right now.” And they decided that they were going to pool their resources and put together an operation that could then aggressively move culture. They learned from corporate maneuvers in the past towards disinformation, including the tobacco industry, which knew that it caused cancer and hid that, but also the fossil fuel industry, which knew very early on that it was contributing to what would eventually be known as climate change. They realized that they needed to fund a bunch of operations that could create false, skewed research that would help them, as well as to start taking over everything from universities to politics. We now think of disinformation as social media campaigns; conspiracy theories; relatives on Facebook believing in Satanic cabals.  That is the modern narrative. But that has been seeded for decades now because the wealth class got together, and instead of changing what they were doing, and even reforming themselves and creating an environment that could have headed off climate change, they doubled and tripled down, put all the resources towards think tanks, institutes, fake experts, narrative campaigns, gaming the entire system through the media and politics. And basically they created an alternate reality that was conducive to their profit margins. Matthew: You wrote a really powerful post back in October, entitled Ecofascism is here, tracking some of the statements that some politicians in the U.S. were making in response to the various climate disasters, and that was even before the LA fires. I wonder if you could elaborate a little more about what you mean by ecofascism, and how it’s playing out in the U.S.? Jared Yates Sexton: Real quick, on the subject of the think tanks and institutes that have engaged in these campaigns, I want to make it very clear because I get asked this a lot, people say, “do they really believe what theyre doing?” No, they dont. They know that climate change is real. And you can tell that by the contradictions that are taking place. The reason why they want Greenland? Because its thawing. And they know that its thawing and they know that there are going to be minerals and resources that are going to be advantageous to take over and hand over to the tech oligarchs. So in the midst of all of this, what were seeing is sort of a dual action. Were seeing, on one hand, this alternate reality thats being weaponized. So, for instance, with the California fires, were being told by Republicans, and the right, and disinformation artists, that it was leftist agents setting fires so that they can realize some sort of a ‘deep state’ plot. Weve heard Marjorie Taylor Greene [a Georgia Republican first elected to Congress in 2021]  who is just like this bizarre dullard agent provocateur who talks about weather manipulation.  And people need to understand that before the Enlightenment, which is where we started looking at information and basing our decisions on empirical data, people didnt understand what was going on. If you would have a hurricane or you would have a flood, God was angry, right? And so as a result, the people who suffered from it, they deserved it. So what we are dealing with right now is something called mystification. We are dealing with a world in which naturally occurring and man-made events are being obscured behind narratives that activate people and make them hate and want to commit violence. So if climate change is real and everyone agrees on it, you have to deal with it. You have to make choices. And thats going to require widespread change. Its going to require reform. Its going to basically require a revolutionary sea change of how we operate as a society. It is much easier to create these narratives that will then divide people and pit them against one another, so it frees up the resources to be given to the people who are creating the problem in the first place. So were now creating a situation where people are not going to receive aid. Theyre not going to receive resources. And every time that this happens and theres internal frictions and tensions that develop, they always get vented elsewhere. So all of a sudden you see a rising tension among nations. You start to see people fighting for resources and land and materials and all of that good stuff. Ecofascism is a sort of ideology in which basically the strongest survive at that point. And you need to get together with other people, primarily behind white supremacist, patriarchal-led sort of movements, including everything from MAGA [Trumps Make America Great Again movement] to what is now referred to as Reform in Great Britain, or Alternative for Germany, or any of these countries that you go to. At the heart of it, it is about creating the structures that will help government not actually aid people, but actually divide them, and while theyre at it, unfortunately, profit off the destruction. Because the think tanks and institutes that you just brought up, the ones that are sowing this disinformation, not only do they know climate change is real, theyre devising ways to profit from it, which is to gobble up cheap territory, to fund private disaster relief, which is potentially a $10-trillion industry in the waiting. So its the creating of an environment that is going to be conducive for the powerful who created the problem to not address the problem, while also profiting and gaining more and more power from it. Matthew: Maybe you could speak to the state of the counterforce, if there even is one, to these dynamics, because they can sound so overwhelming? Is there any possibility of turning this around? Jared Yates Sexton:  The problem is that there is at this moment not an organized opposition or alternative. There is no real push at this point to say, not only can we address climate change, but by addressing climate change, we will have a better, healthier, more fair society. Its also the fact that people are not able to save any money anymore. Theyre not able to buy homes. Theyre not able to enjoy life the way that they used to. Its the deterioration and the decline that weve been talking about. They get paid less. They work more. Theyre mistreated. On top of that, their neighborhoods and their communities are being destroyed. And theyre being left in the lurch as this happens. They also feel alone. They also feel powerless. They also feel that they dont have a purpose. Its a big interconnected knot, thats the issue. And just to lay out some straight hard talk very quickly: The fact is that opposition to this has now been centered into a nonprofit world where you have to choose what youre doing. So its like, “well, Ill take care of climate change. Well, Ill take care of food deserts. Ill take care of healthcare.” Well, the truth is that all of those disparate movements are all interconnected, and they are now all trying to fight over the resources that would be delivered by the people who created the problem in the first place, and decide who it is that gets funded or otherwise. This should be taken care of by government. This should be taken care of by leaders. It shouldnt even have to be the current situation that were in.  What gives me hope is this: One, that were having a conversation like this. That a lot of us are coming together. Were comparing notes. Two, it is the lack of trust in institutions. People say to me, can you believe how Donald Trump has made us distrust institutions? No, Donald Trump was made possible by an existing distrust in institutions, an earned distrust, which is that capitalism controls all of these institutions, and it has since their very beginning. So when you take a look at that, all of a sudden you start to realize all these things are interconnected. The labor movement that is currently growing — that is going to undergo incredible travails, and there are going to be battles between them and the oligarchs that weve been talking about. There are community mutual aid organizations that are trying to take care of the consequences of what weve talked about, and are preparing for things like climate change. And by the way, the people who support people like Donald Trump, the people who support this authoritarianism, a lot of those people have been misled. They do not understand that Donald Trump and these right-wing organizations, that they are being controlled by the wealth class. Theyre against that wealth class. They understand intuitively and emotionally and personally what has happened: They just havent had political representation that has fought for them.  Were now looking at a tipping point in which were going to see whether or not people recognize their interconnected struggles, and start piecing together this exploitative framework that has hurt all of them together. Were seeing people start to dialogue about it. The question now is: What are the oligarchs and what are the authoritarians going to do to try and head that off? And it is going to be a battle, but I remain optimistic that eventually we are going to win that battle. Matthew:  We touched earlier on the role of trauma underlying this whole story. Jared Yates Sexton: To just go into my own experience. I was raised in an extremely abusive childhood, so when Donald Trump goes out, and he is abusive to members of the press, he invites people in the audience to enjoy humiliating people, and enjoy the suffering of other people, what I recognize are family dynamics, psychological dynamics. And what we find when experts have taken a look at this, is that people who embrace authoritarianism, they were raised often in abusive environments, abusive communities, abusive religions, whatever you want to call it, however it happened. In order to survive in an abusive environment, as a child, you have to take parts of yourself that offend the abusers and make them small and destroy them. What is happening is that a lot of people dont think they deserve better. They think that what is currently happening with authoritarianism is what they deserve. Theyre actually being invited to engage in sort of a manic fantasy world in which America is now great, or Great Britain is now great because it left the European Union. All of these things are just going further and further into an enabling fantasy that keeps them from recognizing that they have hurt within themselves, that is making them act irrationally and against their own interests. And they are being enabled, and through the cycle, enabling this cycle of abuse. And so many people are completely unaware of how these sort of born-in systems that have been placed upon us and heaped upon us, they change how we behave. And our politics never, ever touches on any of this. Matthew:  There is a hunger for change  a recognition that there is something deeply wrong, and there should be a better future available? Jared Yates Sexton: I think a really important thing for people to remember before we finish up is this. All scams, grifts, and cults answer an actual need, And its important to understand that things like MAGA or Reform or any of these right-wing groups that are lying to these people, that they are being accepted by many of them because people are desperate. And its almost like dying of thirst and accepting dirty water, over having nothing at all. And there is an opportunity here, and there is a place that we can make a difference. And we can win this fight. For more analysis and books from Jared Yates Sexton, please visit Dispatches From A Collapsing State. The post Q & A: Jared Yates Sexton on the Weaponized Abuse of Authoritarianism appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Russia ‘Spread Conspiracy Theories and Attacked Climate Scientists in Poland’

 

at 2/3/25 6:51am

Russia has been spreading climate disinformation in Poland as part of a “long-term cognitive war” to sow division. This is according to a major new report by Polands military counterintelligence service, which reviewed over 2,000 unclassified and classified documents from 2004 through to 2024. “The conclusions are alarming,” said the commission of 11 independent experts in a press release. The “cognitive war” waged by Russia, with the help of Belarus, would “lead to increased social polarization and devastation of trust in democratic structures and, as a result, to weakening and disintegrating the West.” The commission pointed to an onslaught of Russian-driven conspiracy theories and other forms of online disinformation over the 20-year period, “based on criticism and undermining confidence in democratic institutions and processes, including the government, NATO and the European Union”. Subscribe to our newsletter Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts Name -- Email Address What content do you want to subscribe to? (check all that apply) All International UK Sign Up (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery); Russia and Belarus had also tried to undermine public confidence in climate science, net zero and the EU’s Green Deal – the bloc’s flagship plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 55 percent by 2030 – over a critical period for global energy policy, the report found. Between May 2022 and May 2024, Russia was the main “communication creator” in online discussions about green energy on Polish social media and news sites, the authors said. In the two years following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Kremlin sought to “undermine green policies, promote conspiracy theories and [] attack climate activists directly”. The report, released in January, suggests that the Russian government and non-governmental groups were behind the misinformation drive. It also claimed that Moscow spent up to $4 billion a year on disinformation and “propaganda”.  Russia wants to destabilise the situation in Poland via cyberspace,” said Poland’s deputy prime minister Krzysztof Gawkowski in an interview with news platform Onet. “Russia wants to create a panic in the infosphere, but that also concerns critical infrastructure.”  This was particularly concerning in light of Poland’s upcoming presidential elections in May, Gawkowski added. “Russia has planned massive operations of various kinds concerning the Polish infosphere for the next five months, especially before the presidential elections,” he claimed. “This is being done by Russian military intelligence and this cannot be hidden.” Moscow and Minsk did not respond to DeSmog’s requests for comment. Modes of Influence The commission found that false narratives were spread through Russian state media outlets like Sputnik, as well as in comment sections on social media and Polish news media sites. Blogs spreading disinformation were amplified on social media, with bots, trolls and cyber attacks used to disrupt climate discussions. The authors identified four main methods they claimed were used by Russia and Belarus to undermine green policies – including Poland’s ambitious goal to slash emissions by 90 percent by 2040 in line with EU targets. These included undermining the value of scientific research and making accusations against the scientific community, engaging politicians as ‘climate experts’ while ignoring the views of experts, and using conspiracy theories to undermine climate science and trust in Poland’s public institutions. Researchers identified one conspiracy theory which suggested that the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), a mechanism intended to regulate the bloc’s greenhouse gases, was a ploy by western bankers to bankrupt Poland.  Russian climate disinformation was identified in articles and discussions across a range of policy areas – from energy prices to food and farming, the ETS and the COP26 climate summit. Professor Szymon Malinowski, a climate scientist at the University of Warsaw, said he had noticed a surge in online disinformation. “I started to notice an increasing number of internet trolls, fake accounts that exist for a short time and are poorly established in the community, undermining research results, expressing negative opinions about scientists and science,” said Malinowski in an interview with the Polish newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza.  “They promote ‘conspiracy theories’ and discourage pro-climate action. Unfortunately, this tactic seems to be having an impact on public opinion.” The report’s authors characterised Poland’s response to the misinformation drive as “insufficient, ad hoc, inconsistent” – and prescribed new government-led policies to counter disinformation “as a matter of national security”. The set of recommendations include provisions to better regulate online spaces, protect journalistic integrity and provide media literacy education. The Polish government should also work more closely with the media, granting journalists “access to direct witnesses of events and to uncensored visual materials”. “Above all, there is a need for a strategy to counteract misinformation that takes into account the voice of expert, journalistic and non-governmental communities,” the authors added. The sole responsibility for any content supported by the European Media and Information Fund lies with the author(s) and it may not necessarily reflect the positions of the EMIF and the Fund Partners, the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation and the European University Institute. The post Russia ‘Spread Conspiracy Theories and Attacked Climate Scientists in Poland’ appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Global Football’s Dirty Climate Tackle

 

at 2/2/25 11:01pm

When seemingly hardened observers watched in horrified awe at the record Los Angeles wildfiresturning whole neighbourhoods into hot, charred, post-apocalyptic remains, cold sweats were almostcertainly running down the backs of the city’s event planners. Why? Next year Los Angeles hostsmultiple games for the next men’s football World Cup, and player’s health is set to be threatened byextreme heat at 14 out of 16 of the 2026 World Cup venues. The city is also host to the 2028 Olympics, by which time many of its burnt-out communities will still not be rebuilt. But the problem, bad as it is, doesn’t stop here. The FIFA World Cup is sponsored by one of theworld’s biggest climate polluters, oil and gas giant Aramco, the national oil company of Saudi Arabia,a state that has consistently obstructed climate action. More than that, under FIFA’s plans to expandinternational competitions, football itself has a growing carbon pollution footprint. A new scientific report, Dirty Tackle the growing carbon footprint of football, commissioned bythe New Weather Institute from Scientists for Global Responsibility, has found that the carbonfootprint of the global football industry is around the annual emissions of Austria or about 60 percent more than those of Uruguay, the nation that hosted the first World Cup in 1930, and equal tothe emissions from burning 150 million barrels of oil. After a year of flooded pitches, air pollution, and heatwaves threatening players’ health, football’spollution is increasingly part of the climate threat to the game’s own future. The new research presents a first industry-wide global assessment of football’s carbon emissions. Itcovers stadium-level emissions, including those due to construction, all travel-related emissions,merchandise, and the environmental impact of key sponsorship deals with polluting companies. Itassesses international and club competitions across the men’s and women’s games. Previous estimates of football’s environmental impact have been relatively basic, excluding key elements of the sport’s emissions. Poor data and omissions have led to a widespread underestimation offootball’s impact and, perhaps as a result, just piecemeal attempts to address the game’s pollution,such as only looking at direct, operational emissions. But even these partial efforts are beingundermined by the major expansion of international tournaments, the number of matches played,and the exploitation of football by corporations to promote high carbon products and lifestyles.Making real reductions therefore means tackling those issues, and taking responsibility for thetransport of those attending matches — so-called scope 3 emissions.  According to the new data, just one match at a FIFA Men’s World Cup Finals is estimated to emitbetween 44,000tCO2e and 72,000tCO2e. This is equivalent to between 31,500 and 51,500 averageUK cars driven for an entire year. These figures do not include high carbon sponsorship-relatedemissions, which are estimated, on average, to increase total emissions by over 350 percent per fixture. In the English Premier League, a single match fixture is estimated to emit approximately 1,700 tCO2e,with travel-related emissions comprising around half of the total. This goes up by about 50 percent for a match in an international club competition, mainly due to air travel by spectators, and even moreonce sponsored emissions are included.  Sponsorships that promote heavily polluting activities are by far the largest contributor to football’scarbon footprint, making up 75 percent of the total. These sponsored emissions increase the demand for polluting products and lifestyles, such as long distance air travel, among the game’s global audienceof billions.  Excluding the emissions derived from sponsorship, the global total carbon footprint of football’sactivities is estimated to be 13-15 million tCO2e per year, equivalent to the emissions of a nationsuch as Costa Rica. The activities which contribute most to this total are fan travel to matches andthe construction of new stadiums. Air transport and car transport are particularly problematic. Thereis clear evidence that the expansion of international football tournaments, and the increase in airtravel that they drive, are increasing emissions. The production and sale of merchandise, energy useand catering at stadiums, and team and employee travel also all add to the total. Over 93 percent ofthese emissions are due to the activities of elite domestic leagues — those with annual attendancesabove one million — and international tournaments. The FIFA Men’s World Cup alone has in recent years been responsible for 6.5 million tCO2e over itsfour-year cycle, which includes both the qualification and the finals, with most emissionsconcentrated during the finals. But this total excludes sponsored emissions which can varyconsiderably from tournament to tournament. To date, the emissions from women’s footballrepresent a tiny fraction of the men’s game, creating an opportunity to take a much less pollutingdevelopment path. Professional footballers are using the new data to demand greater climate action from football’s governing bodies and decision-makers. Tessel Middag, a professional football player for Rangers FC with 44 caps for the Dutch national women’s team, said, “Football needs to wake up to the threat posed to it by climate change. From each flooded pitch to players endangered by extreme heat, climate impactsare beginning to erode the foundations of football. Without urgent change, it is only going to getworse. Instead of being a source of pollution, football can be a powerful tool for change, using asport that is so loved and adored around the world to secure a healthy, habitable planet.”   David Wheeler, a professional player at Wycombe Wanderers FC, and a leading climate voice in themen’s game, sees the threat from a personal and professional point of view. He says: “As a playerand a parent, I want kids to have the same opportunities to play the game that I had growing up. Theclimate crisis is threatening that. Addressing football’s growing environmental impact, and cutting itsemissions, is essential for securing a future where football can continue to excite and inspire newgenerations. There are green shoots that are starting to spring up on football pitches around theworld, where fans and players are coming together to demand ambitious and immediate action.What is needed, though, is real leadership from governing bodies.” So far, however, the lack of acknowledgement from football’s governing bodies over the climatethreat posed to the entire football pyramid is symbolised by FIFA entering its huge, unprecedentedcommercial partnership with Aramco. The sponsorship deal was criticised by more than 130 femaleplayers due to concerns for womens rights, the safety of LGBTQ+ communities, and Aramco’scontinued pollution. While both FIFA and UEFA have signed up to the UN Sports for Climate Action Framework, which commits them to a 50 percent reduction of emissions by 2030, expanding tournamentsand polluting sponsorship clearly show that emissions are neither going down, nor remotely oncourse to hit such a target.   Immediate action is needed. It should include a reversal of the recent expansion of internationalcompetitions, a commitment from clubs and governing bodies to make more realistic assessments ofpollution that include sponsored emissions, and a phase out of sponsorship deals with majorpolluters such as fossil fuel companies, airlines, and car makers. Other measures could improve theexperience for fans and cut pollution, such as giving a bigger share of match tickets at internationalcompetitions to local fans, and aligning the schedule of games to make fan travel by public transportmore realistic. Meanwhile player welfare could be improved by reducing the burden of more andlarger international competitions, with similar, wider benefits. Crucially, players should also have freedom of speech to talk publicly about their environmental concerns and take a leadership role, to use their platforms to speak out on climate threats and be able to criticise polluting sponsors without fear of censure. Everyone wants sport to be clean, but until actions like this get taken, the global game is committing a dirty tackle on the climate, fans, players, and its own future. This scientific report was commissioned by the New Weather Institute, an independent think-tankbased in the UK. The research was led by Dr. Stuart Parkinson, executive directorof Scientists for Global Responsibility, a UK-based research and advocacy organisation,and co-authored by Andrew Simms of the New Weather Institute. The post Global Football’s Dirty Climate Tackle appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Protesters Blockade DNC Party Meeting, Demand Democrats Put Workers and Climate First 

 

at 1/31/25 4:07pm

Spurred on by the recent wildfires in Los Angeles that experts say were climate-change related, the activist group Climate Defiance held a protest on January 31 at the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center in Washington, D.C., against the Democratic National Committee (DNC), calling on it to get dirty fossil fuel money out of Democratic politics forever. The protest started inside the resort’s main atrium with a three-story banner drop from a hotel room that said, “Oil $$$ Out of the DNC.” Dozens of protesters then marched around the hotel’s ground floor, chanting, “Which side are you on?” and “We need clean air, not another billionaire.”  Climate protesters hung a three-story banner inside the resorts atrium. Credit: Zach D. Roberts The DNC is holding a meeting at the ritzy $400-a-night resort over the weekend to choose a new party chair, a move that took on urgency after the Democrats took a beating at the ballot box in November. State party chairs Ben Wikler of Wisconsin, Ken Martin of Minnesota, and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley have the most votes so far, according to Hill Heat. All three leaders are advocating support for advancing moves on climate change.  While U.S. Capitol Police observed protesters while not interacting, the hotel security aggressively tried to corral the activists – at one point one officer took a swing at a protester filming on his cell phone.  MGM Resorts hotel security takes a swing at a man filming the protest. Credit: VisuNews Climate Defiance is a youth-led environmental activist organization that uses direct action to disrupt events that lawmakers and newsmakers attend to draw attention to insufficient action on the climate crisis. They regularly “blockade” events by disrupting the entrances of buildings and getting arrested. They previously blockaded the White House Correspondents Dinner in 2023.  Founder of Climate Defiance, Michael Greenberg said on a call to activists a few days before the protest, “The DNC has been, in many ways, an obstacle to progress. And yeah, we are trying to tell them to fight for us.”  The activists marched through the hotel’s cafe, receiving some support but many angry glares, with one conference attendee telling them that they were “protesting the wrong [party’s] event.”  Activists marched through the hotels cafe in the atrium. Credit: Zach D. Roberts Climate Defiance argued that they are protesting the right event – Greenberg told reporters after the action that the group has protested Republicans, too, describing the GOP as “ecocidal planet-killing fascists,” he said. “And we need Democrats to actually step up and fight for us and not bend over backward to the fascists.”  This week, the Senate confirmed Doug Burgum, a billionaire with ties to the fossil fuel industry, to be secretary of the interior, with more than half of Senate Democrats joining all Republicans in the vote.  Climate Defiance member Evan Drukker-Schardl reiterated the frustration in a speech outside the hotel,  that the group has with Democrats allowing wealthy, right-wing politicians to serve on Trump’s cabinet. “The presidents billionaire friends are throwing Nazi salutes on national stages and rolling back every single environmental regulation. And tell me, what have the Democrats done? They voted to confirm Lee Zeldin” to be head of the Environmental Protection Agency Climate Defiance member Evan Drukker-Schardl tells the crowd how frustrated his group is with Democrats approving Trumps right-wing cabinet picks. Credit: Visu News Democratic  Sens. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, and Ruben Gallego and Mark Kelly of Arizona voted for Zeldin, who is part of Trump’s right-wing American Policy Institute.  Climate Defiance protesters join with other demonstrators outside the hotel. There were no arrests. Credit: Zach D. Roberts Activists left the hotel without any arrests, and joined another group of protesters who had been rallying outside in the rain. Drukker-Schardl  asked the drenched activists a rhetorical question, “If Democrats cant demonstrate that theyre fighting for actual people and not a couple of weirdo-like billionaire friends, theyll keep losing to the fascists, right?” The post Protesters Blockade DNC Party Meeting, Demand Democrats Put Workers and Climate First  appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Peter Mandelson’s Consultancy Lobbied New Government on Behalf of Shell

 

at 1/31/25 6:54am

Labour’s top diplomat to Donald Trump’s United States leads a public affairs firm that has attempted to influence the new UK government on behalf of the oil and gas giant Shell, and the coal mining company Anglo American. Peter Mandelson – who was a Cabinet minister under former Labour prime ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown – has been accepted as the UK’s ambassador to the U.S. by Trump’s new administration. In addition to his new diplomatic role, which he will formally begin in February, Mandelson is president and chair of Global Counsel, a London-based political consultancy and lobbying organisation. He will retain shares in the company even after taking up his new position in Washington DC, the Financial Times has reported. According to official records, after July’s general election Global Counsel lobbied the new Labour government on behalf of Shell, one of the world’s most polluting companies. Subscribe to our newsletter Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts Name -- Email Address What content do you want to subscribe to? (check all that apply) All International UK Sign Up (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery); Shell is still committed to exploring for new sources of oil and gas and does not have any plans to reduce the overall amount it produces by 2030, in contravention of climate science. In 2021, the District Court of the Hague found that the total CO2 emissions of the Shell group exceeded the emissions of many states, including the Netherlands. Lobbyists must declare if they have attempted to arrange meetings or influence ministers or senior civil servants on behalf of their clients. However, the contents of these discussions are not publicly available. Global Counsel seemingly has close ties to the Labour Party. Prior to the 4 July election, the company supplied a staff member to Tulip Siddiq, who served as financial secretary to the Treasury until 14 January, a donation in kind worth £35,835, according to the register of MPs’ financial interests.  Global Counsel is one of seven consultancies with a history of donating to Labour that have lobbied on behalf of fossil fuel clients since July’s election. The client list at Mandelson’s lobbying firm also includes Anglo American, a British mining multinational which is a major producer of coal, and U.S. multinational bank JP Morgan, which has financed $430 billion in fossil fuel projects since the 2015 Paris Agreement, including $40 billion in 2023, according to the NGO Banktrack. Another client, UK bank Standard Chartered, has financed $71 billion in fossil fuel projects in the same period, including $7 billion in 2023.  Other Global Counsel clients include food and beverage giant Nestle, which has emissions three times the size of its home country Switzerland, and the controversial tech firm Palantir, founded by Trump ally Peter Thiel.  Mandelson, who called Trump “reckless and dangerous to the world” in 2019, this week told Fox News his previous remarks were “ill-judged and wrong”, and that he has a “fresh respect” for the new U.S. president. Global Counsel, and the Cabinet Office were approached for comment. Transatlantic Ties Mandelson’s appointment comes at a crucial time for climate policy, with a transatlantic network of political actors working increasingly closely to derail global action to achieve net zero emissions.  Since his inauguration last week, President Trump has removed the U.S. from the flagship 2015 Paris climate accord, banned offshore wind farms, and declared a “national energy emergency” in order to open new oil and gas projects.  His plans could add an extra four billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent to U.S. emissions by 2030, according to the climate publication Carbon Brief.  Trump received more than $32 million from the oil and gas sector for his 2024 campaign. The fossil fuel industry spent $445 million on political donations, lobbying and advertising between January 2023 and November 2024 to influence Trump and Congress, according to the green advocacy group Climate Power.  As DeSmog revealed last month, Mandelson’s counterpart, Trump’s ambassador to the UK Warren Stephens, runs a firm with investments in several oil and gas companies, including one wholly owned by his family business.  The UK government is committed to removing fossil fuels from the UK’s power system by 2030, but this week approved a third runway at Heathrow Airport – the second most polluting airport in the world, according to a 2021 study – and pledged to remove environmental regulations on new building projects.  According to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world’s foremost climate science body, the next few years are crucial if we want to limit the worst effects of global warming, including drought, flooding, and heat waves. To keep within the 1.5C warming limit set by the Paris Agreement, the IPCC says that emissions need to be reduced by at least 43 percent by 2030 compared to 2019 levels, and at least 60 percent by 2035. The post Peter Mandelson’s Consultancy Lobbied New Government on Behalf of Shell appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Cenovus Funded ‘Grassroots’ Groups That Oppose Climate Laws, Document Reveals

 

at 1/30/25 12:38pm

A “grassroots” group called Canada Action has run nationwide ads on billboards, buses and social media promoting fossil fuels. An industry organization known as the Conference Board of Canada has produced reports claiming climate policy will cause dire economic impacts. The Fraser Institute think tank has questioned whether the climate emergency is real.  These groups may differ in their strategies and audiences. But they and several other anti-climate organizations across the country share something that may not be obvious to the public or policymakers – they’ve all received funding from Cenovus Energy, the country’s second-largest producer of oil and gas.  That’s according to a corporate “advocacy” document from Cenovus that reveals the company contributed financially in 2023 to prominent advocacy groups in Canada that have disputed climate science, pushed for exports of climate-harming fossil fuels and fought legislation aimed at shifting towards cleaner forms of energy.  The document, which was posted on the Cenovus website and newly reviewed by DeSmog, doesn’t give specific dollar amounts, other than to note whether contributions are above or below $25,000. But to climate advocates like Leah Temper of the non-profit Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, it’s evidence of a “a very tried and true strategy” – an oil and gas company that publicly says it supports climate solutions while quietly backing groups doing everything they can to undermine those solutions.    “It shows you how this entire playbook works, a major oil producer funding these astroturf groups to get its message out without being the voice itself,” she said.  Cenovus, which last year produced 586,000 barrels of oil per day from Canada’s oil sands, didn’t respond to detailed questions from DeSmog about its contributions.  ‘Not Grassroots at All’ Cenovus reported donating to dozens of organizations. Many of them are trade associations and local chambers of commerce. But some are explicitly political, regularly arguing in public against transformative climate action. Several of those groups portray themselves publicly as movements representing the concerns of everyday Canadians.  Canada Action ads appearing on Ottawa transit shelters in 2024. Credit: Helen Hsu (left) Andrew Dumbrille (right) The advocacy group Canada Action is one of the most prominent fossil fuel advertisers in the country and has been named in city efforts to ban false oil and gas ads. Though previous reporting from The Narwhal has revealed that it’s received funding from the fossil fuel company ARC Resources, the group continues to describe itself “as a grassroots organization that encourages Canadians to work together to take action in support of our vital natural resource sectors and the communities and families they support.”  Another organization called the Consumer Energy Alliance, which has a long history of fighting climate laws in the U.S. and promoting Canadian oil and gas interests, calls itself “the voice of the energy consumer” and says it represents a “grassroots coalition.” Both groups are listed in Cenovus’ “advocacy and memberships” document. “They are obviously not grassroots at all,” Temper told DeSmog.  The company explains on its website that “we urge the third-party groups we support to be fact-driven in their public positioning and solutions-oriented. Cenovus supports groups that are generally aligned with our corporate objectives, strategy, targets and ambition, recognizing that industry groups must balance the diverse views of their members and perfect alignment with Cenovuss priorities is not always possible.”  Neither Canada Action nor the Consumer Energy Alliance responded to questions from DeSmog. Ridiculing the Climate Emergency Cenovus has stated publicly that it supports aggressive action to confront the climate emergency. It’s a founding member of the Pathways Alliance, an industry marketing and lobbying group that throughout 2023 blanketed Canada with advertisements and press statements claiming that the industry was “on the journey to net zero emissions.”  A Pathways Alliance ad appears on a Vancouver bus in 2023. Credit: CPTDB Wiki Yet some of the third-party groups Cenovus contributed to tell a much different story. Cenovus made a contribution in 2023 worth more than $25,000 to the Fraser Institute, a Vancouver-based libertarian think tank whose senior fellow Kenneth Green argued that year in the Calgary Sun that net-zero is “the pathway to Canadian decline.” The Institute had previously promoted an op-ed ridiculing the idea of a climate emergency, calling it “an abuse of language and common sense.” The Fraser Institute is a top Canadian purveyor of climate disinformation, bragging in 2009 that one of its biggest intellectual contributions over the course of several decades was bringing “to public attention the uncertainties of climate science.” A report published by the group in 2014 incorrectly claimed that “there has been no statistically significant temperature change for the past 15 to 20 years.”  Cenovus also contributed to the Macdonald Laurier Institute, a libertarian think tank whose senior fellow Chris Sankey in 2023 argued that the federal Liberal goal of achieving net-zero emissions in Canada was an “anti-growth agenda.”  The Fraser Institute and the Macdonald Laurier Institute didn’t respond to questions from DeSmog.  Fighting the Oil and Gas Emissions Cap Cenovus has been outspoken in its opposition to the federal cap on oil and gas emissions proposed by Canada’s federal government, with its current president and CEO Jon McKenzie telling the Narwhal last year that “We’ve been pretty clear that we don’t need a cap.” Throughout 2023, the company contributed to groups that have also advocated against the policy, which is designed to reduce the industry’s greenhouse gas emissions to 35 percent below 2019 levels.  Cenovus donated to the Indigenous Resource Network, an organization that has campaigned against the cap, claiming in 2023 that it “would limit Indigenous communities in a number of ways.” (DeSmog has reported on Cenovus’ previous support for the group).  In an interview with DeSmog, Indigenous Resource Network executive director John Desjarlais said the 2023 contribution from Cenovus supported the group creating podcasts and digital video shoots in Fort McMurray, the Alberta city at the heart of the oil sands industry, aimed at championing Indigenous involvement in the industry. “We did some projects out there and we sought funding for that and Cenovus was pretty eager to support us,” Desjarlais said. “That’s kind of the extent of the involvement. They partner with us, they support us, it’s not something we hide or anything like that, we have a good relationship.” Cenovus contributed to other organizations that have argued against the emissions cap, including the Conference Board of Canada, which has produced reports warning of dire economic impacts from the policy. “I can confirm Cenovus is a subscriber of our economic and HR research insights,” a spokesperson wrote in an email to DeSmog. The oil sands company contributed to the C.D. Howe Institute, one of whose directors wrote an op-ed last year addressed directly to federal Environment and Climate Change Minister Steven Guilbeault, claiming that the emissions cap is “unnecessary, expensive, and likely to do more harm than good.” “Cenovus Energy is a member of the C.D. Howe Institute and participates in the Institute’s Energy Policy Council, which convenes industry leaders, policymakers, and academics,” a spokesperson wrote to DeSmog. “The Institute seeks support from diverse donors to ensure that no individual, organization, region or industry has or appears to have undue influence on its publications and activities.”  Another recipient of Cenovus’ support is the industry advocacy group Resource Works, which has frequently argued against the emissions cap. It recently fought unsuccessfully to overturn a ban on gas stoves in new Vancouver homes by preparing sample comments for its supporters to submit to city council. It didn’t respond to DeSmog’s media request. These groups play different roles in a network of Canadian groups fighting against climate action. But the Cenovus document reveals that they’re all received support behind the scenes by the same company “to advance arguments of the fossil fuel industry, Temper argued.  “It’s a way [for Cenovus] to get the argument out there in the political realm without having to overtly make the argument themselves, because that would undermine their credibility,” she said. The post Cenovus Funded ‘Grassroots’ Groups That Oppose Climate Laws, Document Reveals appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Danielle Smith’s Capitulation to Big Coal Echoes Her Fawning Interactions with Donald Trump

 

at 1/29/25 5:20pm

Should Canada’s leaders stand up to powerful foreign bullies or simply give them what they want and hope for the best? Alberta Premier Danielle Smith revealed her preference this month when her Energy Minister Brian Jean quietly instructed regulators to once again rescind a moratorium on coal mining on the eastern slopes of the Rockies – a widely unpopular decision in the province and will benefit the richest person in Australia, billionaire coal baron Gina Rinehart.  Rinehart has long lobbied for open pit coal mines in western Alberta – something that 70 percent of Albertans oppose. Well-founded fears of selenium contamination of local rivers, and of despoiling some of the most striking vistas in Canada mean that public support for coal mining is always going to be a hard sell.  But who needs public support when there is unlimited money for lobbyists and lawsuits? Four Australian coal companies sued Alberta for $13.8 billion in damages after Alberta reinstated the coal moratorium in 2022 following massive public backlash to its original cancellation in 2020. Rinehart launched separate lawsuits seeking $2 billion in damages for the revived moratorium, and her rejected Grassy Mountain coal mine. She also poured money into lobbying firms with close ties to the United Conservative Party (UCP) to hound elected officials.  Smith’s quick capitulation to Big Coal mirrors her recent dealings with President Donald Trump. She was the only premier not to sign a pan-Canadian solidarity pact to retaliate against Trump’s threatened 25-percent tariffs. Smith also made an unscheduled ring-kissing journey to Mar-a-Lago prior to the inauguration to seek a tariff carve-out for Alberta oil, presumably at the expense of the rest of Canada and Alberta’s non-oil economy.  Did Smith get anything in return for this undignified display of fealty? Trump continues to threaten crippling tariffs and has repeatedly said the U.S. requires nothing from Canada, including Alberta’s oil. Trump also regularly muses about making Canada the 51st state after Smith helpfully demonstrated which province is the weakest link in national unity. Support for joining the U.S. is highest in Alberta but still is opposed by 82 percent of people polled there.  A Poor Negotiating Tactic Smith would be wise to remember that cancelling Canada remains an unpopular idea even in Alberta, and that quickly caving into bullies like Trump is a poor negotiating tactic. However, the same capricious capitulation was on display when Smith’s government gave in to Australian coal companies without a fight. If you look at the lawsuits that have been filed, its $16 billion with the potential liability, Smith said. We have to take that seriously, and we have to make sure that the taxpayers are protected.” So did Alberta really need to silently accede to Australian coal companies simply because they were sued in court? Nigel Bankes, professor emeritus with the University of Calgary’s Faculty of Law told DeSmog that Rinehart’s lawsuits regarding the Grassy Mountain project had “zero” hope of success since federal and provincial regulators had already rejected it. “They have absolutely zero case because their project was turned down by the Joint review panel, and there is no world in which government is an insurer for bad projects,” he said. And what about the other lawsuits? Bankes believes that the former UCP government of Premier Jason Kenney created this mess when they abruptly lifted the coal moratorium in 2020, which had been in place since 1976. Within months, companies that had exploration applications on the books were awarded over 186,000 hectares of coal leases they paid nothing for and are now somehow claiming are worth $13.8 billion.  “It was not just bad environmental policy, it was bad economic policy because they didnt put those lands up for bid,” explained Bankes. “They just said, ‘Heres the lease.’ There were no bonus payments. There was no attempt to extract rent from this decision, it was just a giveaway to people who happened to be in line.” Because of UCP’s incompetence around suddenly lifting a legal moratorium or embracing coal mining as the rest of the world rapidly decarbonizes, Bankes believes the Alberta government is not without some liability. “When government actively encourages stupid behavior, then I dont think its entirely unreasonable saying they should be on the hook for something.”  However, he described the claimed damages of $13.8 billion as “total nonsense” and “ludicrously speculative.” Rather than rolling over for foreign coal giants, or forking over billions in taxpayer-funded damage claims, Bankes believes Alberta should simply fix this case through special legislation that would “offer companies a fraction of compensation based on costs incurred since 2020.”  “How do you determine the market value of metallurgical coal in a world that is quickly becoming allergic to coal?” Bankes asked on how to best determine reasonable compensation due to companies for the government’s ill-conceived flip-flop on coal mining. “Its entirely possible that value could be zero. Costs incurred could be more generous than value.”  This opinion is shared by mining experts who provided expert evidence during hearings for the rejected Grassy Mountain project regarding the poor quality of coal from Alberta’s eastern slopes compared to competing existing mines in nearby British Columbia. “These speculative mines don’t meet the requirements to be viable by any economic analysis,” warned Cornelis Kolijn, a process mining engineer with 40 years of experience in metallurgical coal.  Kolijin colorfully dispelled the oft-repeated fantasy that metallurgical coal mining will make Alberta rich in markets like Japan in an article in the Tyee. “The Japanese are a very polite people but even they called the coal from the Crowsnest Pass ’shit coal’.” Blowback is building in the province against the latest capitulation to Big Coal. Will Premier Smith side with the vast majority of Albertans who oppose coal mining on the eastern slopes of the Rockies? Or with bullying foreign billionaires? Pretending that her hands are tied on this issue due to dubious lawsuits is not just dishonest; it is cowardly. And nobody respects a coward – especially a bully. The post Danielle Smith’s Capitulation to Big Coal Echoes Her Fawning Interactions with Donald Trump appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— We Need a Data Revolution to Avert Climate Disaster

 

at 1/28/25 10:57am

The fires in Los Angeles represent a catastrophic failure to anticipate and respond to environmental threats. In the aftermath of such devastation, an obvious question looms: How did we miss the warning signs? The answer is clear. Unlike other feedback systems designed to drive immediate response — think of the life-saving equipment in intensive care units, or even a car’s fuel gauge — the tools we use to monitor climate resilience and risk are dangerously, and indefensibly, outdated.  Take the Planetary Boundaries framework, one of the most recognized global indicators of humanity’s transgression of critical ecological thresholds, such as climate stability and biodiversity. Despite its importance in signaling the health of Earth’s living systems, the Boundaries graphic is a 2D, static radial chart thats updated once a year and buried deep on the Internet.  The Planetary Boundaries, produced by the Stockholm Resilience Centre at Stockholm University. This is mid-20th century data visualization technology. Unlike even the most basic consumer stock market apps, which digitally connect people to the signals that matter most to them, the Boundaries remain static and untethered, offering no built-in response mechanism for the billions of people whose actions could materially affect the status of its critical signals. This is not just a technological failure; it’s a failure of vision. Evolutionary systems — whether biological or technological — thrive by minimizing the lag between signal and response.  Markets, in particular, are mercenary about reducing this lag. Traders famously spent hundreds of millions of dollars to lay 827 miles of fiber-optic cable from Chicago to New Jersey to reduce data transmission time from 17 milliseconds to 13. Why? Because the smallest delay in responding to a signal can mean the difference between profit and loss. Markets function as they do because the feedback loop is instantaneous, enabling small actions to amplify through networks. This principle of live signaling is foundational to any system that aims to adapt and survive. Hedge funds arent executing trades based on annual reports, so why are climate leaders reliant on such outdated tools? In Los Angeles, indicators of the co-factors fuelling the flames in any live signal system would have all been flashing red: prolonged drought exacerbated by the climate crisis; growing urban encroachment into the wild; depleted water reserves; invasive species that created highly flammable conditions; aging infrastructure; poorly maintained evacuation routes; unprepared communities; underfunded fire departments, and of course the approaching Santa Ana winds. But these risks were fragmented, invisible, and unaggregated into a single, actionable live signal. There was no easy way for residents, governments, or organizations to see the cumulative danger or to proactively mitigate it. Screens on a Bloomberg terminal show the vast range of real-time signals available to decision-makers in financial markets. The Case for Live Signals What we need is a live data signaling system — akin to a stock ticker for the planet — that aggregates diverse climate and ecological data points into a unified, real-time visualization.  Such a system could be applied at different scales to allow people to see, at any given moment, the current resilience or vulnerability of their city, ecosystem, or even the entire world. For Los Angeles, this could mean a dashboard that integrates dozens of fire-relevant co-factors, visualized dynamically, to provide a clear, actionable picture of how close the city is to a disaster.  Crucially, a live signal does more than inform. It engages. When people have access to a dynamic digital signal — one they can see and understand — they feel a sense of agency. Just as a car’s fuel gauge prompts a driver to refuel, or a stock ticker prompts a trader to buy or sell, a live environmental signal would enable individuals and organizations to take specific, measurable actions to boost their community’s resilience and see their efforts register immediately in the signal. If Los Angeles residents had access to a live signal showing their city’s contextual vulnerabilities, they could have acted in ways that materially affected the outcome: reducing water consumption; removing flammable brush; or advocating for increased fire department funding. They most certainly would have done whatever they could to ensure the Palisades fire hydrants — which ran dry due to the overwhelming demand on the water system and the unavailability of key water resources — were better maintained. These kinds of live signals don’t just engage individuals; they unlock what are known as scalar dynamics — interconnected mechanisms within complex systems that amplify small actions into large-scale outcomes. This principle is what allowed the GameStop short squeeze of 2021 to ripple through global markets, driven by real-time signals and networked decision-making. Imagine applying that principle to improve climate resilience. This isn’t theoretical. Signaling systems powered by live data already exist in other domains — such as healthcare (tracking patient vitals in real-time to prevent crises), logistics (optimizing supply chains to adapt to disruptions), and finance (enabling instant trading decisions through live market data). Pushing the Boundaries One year ago, the Planetary Boundaries group published a paper calling for a new form of global commons governance, recognizing the urgent need to integrate resilience and unlock scalar action at a biospheric level.  Yet in the year since, no meaningful progress has been made. Instead, the group released a simplistic, and yes non-dynamic, thermometer graphic. They went from a sleepy circle to a dead rectangle — a perfect signal of the flatline of creativity in climate leadership. Thermometer graphic from the 2024 Planetary Health Check report from Planetary Boundaries Science. This failure of imagination underscores a broader problem. Climate scientists have not yet embraced the tools and systems necessary to engage the public and catalyze action. Instead of static, disengaging visuals, we need dynamic, interactive systems that empower individuals to act and see the impact of their actions in real time. The Los Angeles fires are a stark reminder that we can no longer afford to rely on outdated tools. Resilience cannot be built on annual reports or static graphs; it requires live, actionable signals that connect people to, and mirror the living complexity of, the systems they inhabit. By creating these signals, we can transform how cities, governments, and individuals respond to threats, making resilience a shared responsibility and a tangible, collective achievement. Imagine a world where environmental dangers are monitored and communicated with the same immediacy and precision as financial markets. A global live signaling system would aggregate real-time data on critical ecological factors — such as deforestation rates, greenhouse gas emissions, and biodiversity loss — into a dynamic, interactive platform accessible to all. This system would be managed by an international consortium of governments, research institutions, and technology companies, ensuring transparency and broad participation. Funding could be secured through a combination of public investment and private partnerships, recognizing that safeguarding our planet is a shared responsibility with mutual benefits. The impact of such a system would be revolutionary. Policymakers could enact data-driven environmental regulations, businesses could adjust practices to align with sustainability goals, and individuals could make informed choices to reduce their ecological footprints. This collective awareness and action would harness scalar dynamics, where small, individual efforts coalesce into significant, systemic change. Climate and environmental scientists are increasingly recognising the need to think in such scalar terms, as demonstrated by Professor Karen O’Brien’s recent work on fractal agency and quantum social change. A Call to Action Historically, the establishment of global weather monitoring systems offers a compelling precedent. In the 1960s, the World Meteorological Organization initiated the Global Observing System (GOS), creating a network of land-based, maritime, and atmospheric weather stations equipped with automatic recording instruments. This collaborative effort allowed meteorologists to monitor weather conditions in real-time, even in the most remote corners of the world. Similarly, the advent of the electric telegraph in the 19th century enabled simultaneous weather observations across vast regions, leading to the creation of synoptic weather charts. Vice-Admiral Robert FitzRoy leveraged this technology to set up 24 weather stations across Britain and Europe, allowing for the prediction of storms and laying the foundation for modern weather forecasting. Dramatically expanding this legacy by implementing a live, dynamic global environmental signaling system would not only provide real-time data but also serve as an objective foundation for policy discussions and negotiations. By offering transparent, up-to-date information, such a system enables stakeholders — including policymakers, industry leaders, and the public — to engage in informed debates grounded in shared data. This transparency is crucial for building trust among parties with divergent interests, such as climate advocates and industries reliant on fossil fuels. Moreover, a live signaling system can facilitate scenario modeling and simulations, allowing stakeholders to visualize the potential impacts of various policy decisions. For instance, tools like MIT’s En-ROADS platform have been used to test how different actions affect global temperatures, providing a common ground for discussions. By integrating such capabilities, the system can help bridge gaps between opposing viewpoints, fostering collaborative efforts toward sustainable solutions. In essence, establishing a live environmental signal would not only enhance our ability to monitor and respond to ecological threats, but also transform the landscape of climate governance. It would create a shared, objective basis for negotiation, enabling diverse stakeholders to align on strategies that balance economic and environmental priorities. This approach is vital for developing policies that are both effective and equitable, ensuring a resilient future for all. The tools exist, the data exists, and the infrastructure exists. What we lack is the courage to move beyond static charts and outdated paradigms into a world where resilience is alive, dynamic, and actionable.  The time for live signals is now. Stephen Marshall is group leader and system architect at ora.systems. The post We Need a Data Revolution to Avert Climate Disaster appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Climate Denial Group Aided Legal Defense of Alleged Exxon Hacker-for-Hire

 

at 1/27/25 3:03pm

An Israeli private investigator wanted by U.S. authorities for allegedly carrying out a hack-and-leak operation commissioned on behalf of ExxonMobil is fighting against his extradition to a Brooklyn, NY, detention center.  During a packed hearing last week at London’s Westminster Magistrates’ Court attended by DeSmog, lawyers for Amit Forlit used a legal strategy that one climate accountability advocate is referring to as “bizarre.” The defense is arguing that Forlit, who is accused of being hired by the Washington D.C.-based public relations and lobbying firm DCI Group to illegally hack into the emails of environmental activists and others involved with climate change litigation against Exxon, shouldn’t be extradited on the grounds that the charges against him are politically motivated. Last Wednesday was the first time Exxon and DCI were officially named in connection with the allegations – part of the defense’s claim that Forlit is “a form of collateral damage” in the legal pursuit of ExxonMobil. Subscribe to our newsletter Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts Name -- Email Address What content do you want to subscribe to? (check all that apply) All International UK Sign Up (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery); To support his case, Forlit’s lawyers sought to present evidence from “expert” witness Scott Walter, president of a conservative U.S. think tank called the Capital Research Center (CRC) that for years publicly argued that the science of climate change is faulty and uncertain – including publishing a post last year disputing that “climate change” is “settled science.”  In his affidavit, Walter claimed that current efforts to hold ExxonMobil accountable in court for lying to the public about the dangers of climate change are at their core a political project connected to the U.S. Democratic Party.  Forlit is facing up to 45 years in prison for allegedly carrying out cyberattacks and hacking against groups and individuals involved with efforts to file lawsuits against ExxonMobil for misleading the public over the impact of burning fossil fuels on the earth’s climate, and spearheading public communications efforts to undermine the science.  Drawing on Walter’s affidavit, Forlit’s UK-based lawyer Rachel Scott stated in court, “we submit that these lawsuits are politically motivated.”  “It’s a bizarre strategy,” said Kert Davies, director of special investigations at the nonprofit Center of Climate Integrity, which has been involved with climate litigation. “Trying to claim that this guy is facing political persecution when, in fact, he was allegedly paid large sums of money to execute a massive hacking operation aimed at hundreds of employees at environmental nonprofit organizations and even those peoples spouses and kids.” Davies was one of the 128 individuals targeted by the hackers. ‘Opinion presented as fact’ On a grey January day, journalists packed into the London courtroom gallery where prosecutors representing the U.S. Department of Justice argued that Forlit should be extradited to New York. Upon his extradition, Forlit faces a federal indictment charging him “with three offences consisting of conspiracy to commit computer hacking, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and wire fraud,” according to prosecution documents. “The maximum sentences are five, 20, and 20 years’ imprisonment, respectively.”  The indictment has not been made public. Wearing casual trousers and a blue shirt, Forlit watched from the side of the courtroom as lawyers argued about the political implications of his case. Acting on behalf of U.S. authorities, lawyer Adam Payter, with the firm 6KBW, took aim at the affidavit from CRC’s Walter,  calling it “opinion presented as fact” and arguing that it was “inadmissible” as evidence.  Payter presented written material from the CRC’s website claiming that “environmentalist groups” and others are attempting to “undermine Americans’ freedoms.” The lawyer pointed out that CRC has on multiple occasions professed skepticism about human-caused climate change and advocated against solutions to the crisis by publishing a newsletter titled “Green Watch,” which outlines these positions. Payter then informed the court that, according to publicly available filings, Walter’s group has previously received funding from ExxonMobil – a conflict of interest Walter did not disclose in his affidavit.  In a blow to Forlit’s defense, District Judge John McGarva ruled that Walter’s affidavit could not be admitted as evidence. Contrary to the defense’s claims that the charges against Forlit are politically motivated, Forlit “has been sought to be prosecuted for straight-forward criminal allegations that he orchestrated the hacking of persons for money,” the prosecution argued in a legal document submitted to the court. “That Forlit, as the alleged orchestrator of a hacking scheme designed to politicise Climate Change Litigation,” should claim that he cannot be extradited and prosecuted because this Climate Change Litigation is politicised, “may be thought ironic,” stated Payter in a written submission to the court. While the judge dismissed Walter’s statement, he agreed to consider supplementary reports and other material provided by Walter. This supplementary material included a report by Christopher Horner a former senior fellow with the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), another group whose representatives  have historically expressed climate skeptic viewpoints. According to publicly available data, CEI received at least $2.1 million in funding from ExxonMobil between 1997 and 2006. In 2018, when CEI published Horner’s report, five of CEI’s eleven board members had links to groups funded by present or historic players in the fossil fuel industry. In court, Payter stated that he would like to add further context on CEI on the final day of the hearing scheduled next month. Paid $16 million  The allegations against Forlit come from a Department of Justice investigation started in 2018. According to federal investigators, Forlit was the leader of several Israeli-based intelligence-gathering firms that specialized in “offensive and defensive cyber capabilities, including computer intrusions.”  In a court filing, Payter alleged that Forlit’s firms were paid $16 million between 2013 and 2018 by a Washington, D.C.  lobbying firm, which, in turn, was acting on behalf of one of the world’s biggest oil companies, a company based in Irving, Texas, that wanted to undermine groups connected to climate litigation.   Scott, the lawyer representing Forlit, filed papers that named the names that Payter, the U.S.government’s lawyer, did not; she wrote that the hacking effort is alleged to have been commissioned by DCI Group, a lobbying firm representing ExxonMobil…”  Some of the specific hacking initiatives were led by another Israeli private investigator named Aviram Azari, who oversaw hackers in India who in turn illegally accessed the electronic accounts of environmental campaigners. Azari was arrested in 2019, and sentenced to 80 months’ imprisonment after pleading guilty to computer hacking, identity theft, and wire fraud. (Azari’s sentence incorporated lengthy time in pre-sentence custody, and on January 3, he was released from prison and briefly transferred to the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, after which he was sent to Israel.) News: Israeli private investigator Aviram Azari, a key figure in the hack-for-hire industry, is being released from U.S. prison today and will be sent back to Israel. (Screenshot is from a Department of Justice email to one of Azari’s victims)— Raphael Satter (@raphae.li) 2025-01-03T13:23:00.469Z Prosecutors contend that DCI provided the hacked documents to Exxon and selected media outlets, including the Wall Street Journal. Exxon has used the allegedly stolen materials – which include a proposed legal strategy against the company – in its defense against ongoing climate litigation in Hawaii.  Both ExxonMobil and DCI have previously stated that they were not involved in the hacking operation. Forlit was arrested in April 2024 under an Interpol Red Notice at London’s Heathrow Airport as he was attempting to board a flight to Israel. He was released on bail, forced to surrender his passport and make a security payment of £200,000 ($257,370). The allegations in this case suggest oil and gas producers are willing to go to extreme lengths to discredit their environmental opponents, explained Robert Brulle, visiting research professor of environment and society at Brown University.   “The climate change countermovement is a sophisticated effort, involving multiple organizations engaging in a wide variety of strategies to obstruct climate mitigation efforts and to maintain business as usual,” he wrote in an email to DeSmog. “Climate litigation represents a threat to the business model of fossil fuel corporations, and so opposition to it is a core part of their efforts.” The hearing will continue in early February.  Rebecca John is a research fellow at the Climate Investigations Center founded by Kert Davies, who is mentioned in this story. The post Climate Denial Group Aided Legal Defense of Alleged Exxon Hacker-for-Hire appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Trump Interior Nominee Doug Burgum Hosted ‘VIP Dinner’ for Oil, Gas, and Coal Execs Last Year, Emails Show

 

at 1/27/25 9:58am

Doug Burgum, one of President Donald Trump’s cabinet nominees, held a dinner for fossil fuel CEOs at a private event during the Williston Basin Petroleum Conference, held in Bismarck, ND, from May 14 to 16, 2024, emails obtained by the research group Fieldnotes and shared with DeSmog show. During his Secretary of the Interior Senate confirmation hearing on January 16 before the Committee on Natural Resources, Burgum’s favorable stance towards fossil fuel energy and his skepticism about renewable energy was on display – with the former North Dakota governor suggesting that renewable energy storage wasn’t quite ready for game time, while also talking up the potential for “clean coal.” That’s disconnected from the current state of the U.S. electrical grid, where over 13,700 megawatts of energy storage like batteries, often paired with wind or solar, were already deployed by the end of last year. Meanwhile, the only commercial coal power plant to use carbon capture, Petro Nova, can supply up to about 240 megawatts when it’s up and running, but the carbon capture project spent much of the past half-decade offline. Subscribe to our newsletter Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts Name -- Email Address What content do you want to subscribe to? (check all that apply) All International UK Sign Up (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery); But Burgum is no stranger to advocates for carbon capture. At his May 2024 dinner, the then-North Dakota governor was seated with Harold Hamm, the oil tycoon and CEO of Continental Resources, and Liberty Energy’s Chris Wright — now Trump’s nominee to lead the Department of Energy. Todd Slawson, chair of the North Dakota Petroleum Council, and Danny Brown, CEO of Chord Energy, one of the Bakken shale’s largest oil producers, were also assigned seats near Burgum. Loren Kopseng, one of the men behind Rainbow Energy, – a North Dakota company with big “clean coal” plans – was a last-minute addition to Burgum’s table, the documents show. Reviving ‘Clean Coal’ Claims “We have an opportunity to decarbonize, produce clean coal, and with that produce reliable baseload [electrical power] for this country,” Burgum testified at his Senate confirmation hearing. Burgum’s mention of “clean coal” was striking in part because Trump himself seems to have moved on from talking about coal — any kind of coal. The heavily polluting fossil fuel’s use has slumped dramatically over the past decade and a half, sinking to less than 15 percent of America’s power supply in the first 10 months of 2024 (a smaller share than either renewable energy or nuclear power). Burgum’s repeated “clean coal” references drew immediate fire from energy watchdogs, who say there’s a good reason the term has fallen out of favor. “Industry has been talking about ‘clean coal’ for more than a quarter century with no action — because the technology is insanely expensive and it doesn’t work,” Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen’s Energy Program, said in a statement in response to Burgum’s testimony. “Make no mistake: When Burgum talks about ‘clean coal,’ he’s really pushing to revive dirty, old, expensive, and climate-destroying coal power plants to power AI.” Burgum did not respond to a request for comment. During his testimony, Burgum, who made his fortune in part from running tech companies, alleged that the nation faces a “shortage of electricity” driven by what he called “the AI arms race.” He also has a history of rubbing shoulders with coal execs — including, for example, top executives from the owners of North Dakota’s largest coal-fired power plant, Rainbow Energy’s Coal Creek Station. The roughly 45-year-old plant, which had been unprofitable for years, was expected to be shut down by the end of 2022 — before the privately owned Rainbow stepped in. Rainbow has big plans to build data centers at its coal power plant and has called carbon capture “vital” to its plans for the coal plant (vital, at least, for Rainbow’s funders). Dining at the Governor’s Residence On May 15, while attendees at the Williston Basin Petroleum Conference were at a networking social, Burgum and a few dozen others on a VIP List headed to the Governor’s Residence — a multimillion-dollar home built with a mix of public and private funding — for the dinner. Burgum was slated to offer “host remarks,” and then Hamm, Wright, and others were to offer comments to the full group, according to an agenda circulated with the invitation, obtained by Fieldnotes via an open records request The small handful of fossil fuel executives joined Burgum at the head table of the May 2024 dinner, where the menu included walleye fish cakes, a beef entree, and peach cobbler “with vanilla bean ice cream and bourbon caramel,” plus wine and beer supplied by Ron Ness, the president of the North Dakota Petroleum Council (NDPC), according to emails Fieldnotes also obtained. Contacted for comment, Kopseng told DeSmog he was on a private jet, a Cessna Citation CJ4, and referred questions to Stacy Tschider, Rainbow’s CEO. “Doug Burgum has been a strong advocate for innovation in energy and carbon capture technologies, recognizing their potential for supporting economic growth and reducing emissions,” Tschider told DeSmog in an email. “Rainbow Energy remains committed to advancing projects like the work at Coal Creek Station to incorporate carbon capture as part of a broader strategy to transition to cleaner energy solutions. However, it’s too early to speculate on how Burgum’s appointment might specifically affect Rainbow or other coal projects.” “We remain confident in the potential of emerging carbon capture technologies, which are grounded in extensive research and real-world testing,” Tschider added. “While challenges exist, Rainbow is working with industry leaders and researchers to ensure these technologies are scalable and effective. Our approach is guided by science and a commitment to balancing energy reliability with environmental responsibility.” Crypto, Coal, and Carbon Capture With Coal Creek Station’s long-time customers shifting away from fossil fuels, Rainbow has moved to put its coal plant to use, at least in part, by powering data centers, which can be used for artificial intelligence, cloud computing, or mining cryptocurrency. Asked about cryptocurrency, a Rainbow executive told The Washington Post in 2022 that he “wouldn’t identify it as bitcoin,” but acknowledged plans to add data centers at Coal Creek. The company has drawn over $42 million in federal funding to study adding carbon storage to Coal Creek. Rainbow Energy says its Coal Creek project would be “the largest post-combustion CCUS project in the world,” referring to carbon capture and utilization storage. The Department of Energy, which is funding the research under the Biden administration’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, expects studying and permit preparation to continue through 2027. The Coal Creek Station was the 25th largest source of greenhouse gas pollution in the U.S., data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for 2023, the most recent available year, shows. Based on permits sought by Rainbow Creek, the Bismark Tribune noted in May that the company is looking to build a data center near the plant. Carbon capture for Coal Creek Station’s coal operations remains on the drawing board. A federal grant has begun partially funding plans for potential carbon storage at the power plant —  but the grant is aimed at “investigating the feasibility” of storing captured carbon at Coal Creek Station, according to a September 2024 fact sheet, and that work is expected to continue through September 2026. Historically, coal plants have struggled to retrofit for carbon capture —  and Rainbow has faced criticism for being vague about how it plans to actually capture the carbon it plans to sequester. Even before the Infrastructure law grant was announced, Burgum touted the project as “a model of clean baseload power for the world,” adding that he was “deeply grateful to Loren Kopseng” and others associated with the buy-out. The VIP dinner was far from the only time Burgum connected with Rainbow’s executives. “Great to have a productive discussion with the CEOs of MinnKota, Basin, and Rainbow Energy to discuss concerns about federal overreach and its impact on our states energy sectors,” he tweeted in March 2024. “North Dakota is fully committed to protecting our baseload power from unlawful regulations.” During his  confirmation hearing with the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Burgum seemed to use the word “baseload” as a stand-in for coal or other fossil fuels, to the point where he drew pushback from one member of the committee. “I don’t want the word ‘baseload’ to be code for no renewables,” Sen. Angus King, an Independent from Maine, told Burgum. Burning coal for electrical power in the U.S. peaked the year before the financial crisis of 2008, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, a time when Trump himself was airing the sixth season of “The Apprentice.” Coal use in the U.S. has plunged from over a billion short tons in 2007 to just 387 million in 2023 — with more than one-third of the fuel’s decline occurring during Trump’s first term. Data on U.S. coal consumption for electrical power in short tons from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Credit: DeSmog. During his time as North Dakota’s governor, Burgum actively fought to prevent Coal Creek Station from closing. Coal Creek burns a form of coal called lignite — and while North Dakota is hardly known as a coal state, it is home to two lignite coal mines that produced over 4 million short tons of coal apiece in 2023 (making them “major” U.S. mines by federal standards). “Governor Doug Burgum has been a staunch supporter of North Dakota’s coal industry and has worked tirelessly to secure and foster jobs for the more than 12,000 North Dakotans that rely on the industry,” the Lignite Energy Council said in a statement endorsing Burgum’s run against Trump in the Republican presidential primary in 2023. In addition to Rainbow Energy’s plans, Burgum has also supported Project Tundra, a plan to retrofit North Dakota’s Milton R. Young coal-fired power plant with carbon capture. Project Tundra hit a major setback in December, when TC Energy, the project’s lead contractor, departed without offering a public explanation, according to Inside Climate News. Rainbow officials have previously acknowledged that carbon capture can be costly. “Another question we always get is, who runs towards fossil fuels?” Tschider, Rainbow’s CEO, said as he presented at the Williston Basin Petroleum Council conference on May 14, 2024, the day before Burgum’s VIP dinner. “We do.” “Nobody’s talking about building a coal plant. Nobody,” Tschider added. “Any coal plant that is built has to have carbon capture on it, and that can be very, very, very expensive.” But despite those concerns, Burgum nonetheless talked up the potential for carbon capture at his Interior secretary nomination hearing. “We know that we have the technology to deliver clean coal,” he told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. “It’s reckless for someone who is seeking a cabinet position to throw around fictional solutions to a very real problem,” said Sierra Club legislative director Melinda Pierce in a statement.  “We urge Doug Burgum to move on from his ‘clean coal’ fairytales and get serious about the problems that our communities are facing by helping our nation responsibly transition to clean energy.” The post Trump Interior Nominee Doug Burgum Hosted ‘VIP Dinner’ for Oil, Gas, and Coal Execs Last Year, Emails Show appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— The Rising Hunger of AI Data Centers Accelerates the Need for Clean Energy to Meet Demand

 

at 1/27/25 4:00am

In just seconds, a click and a prompt can conjure a song or a compelling story lede as if by magic. But behind the seamless convenience of AI tools lies an insatiable appetite for energy. Data centers powering artificial intelligence consume as much electricity as entire cities, straining grids and reshaping energy landscapes.  To meet demand, in Louisiana and elsewhere, utilities are rushing to build fossil fuel-powered plants that are pushing off sustainable energy goals, while exposing struggling communities to more greenhouse gas emissions from these energy-hungry data centers. President Donald Trump’s recent announcement that he is forming a partnership with three AI companies to spend up to $500 billion for data centers across the country shows this problem for low-income communities will be even more pronounced over the next four years, and spurs the need for clean energy to meet the rising demand. Subscribe to our newsletter Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts Name -- Email Address What content do you want to subscribe to? (check all that apply) All International UK Sign Up (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery); A major issue is that regulators face mounting pressure to provide reliable power while trying to avoid being locked into long-term commitments to fossil fuel projects — which is what many communities prefer.   “We are in a race,” Davante Lewis, the Democratic wunderkind elected in 2022 to the powerful Louisiana Public Service Commission (PSC) that regulates utilities, said to me in an interview.  Lewis is referring to Louisiana’s largest incumbent utility, Entergy Corp., proposal to build a massive AI data center in an impoverished section of north Louisiana, whose energy needs would equal a third of all Louisiana households. The $10 billion project is being touted as the largest single investment in Louisiana history. Shrouded in nondisclosure agreements for weeks, the project promises 300 to 500 jobs with fat salaries while obscuring a darker subtext: a surge in energy demand that would lean heavily on fossil fuels. Even as Entergy touted nuclear, wind, and hydrogen “co-firing” as part of its late October proposal to the Louisiana Public Service Commission (PSC), most of the power would be supplied by two new gas-fired generators whose $3.2 billion price tag will be shouldered by ratepayers. Entergy is asking the PSC to approve plant construction by October 2025 without a competitive bidding process. The Southern Renewable Energy Association, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and other groups immediately filed motions to intervene, arguing that renewable power could be provided at lower costs without new generators that increase greenhouse gas emissions. In November, officials revealed that the owner of the mysterious data center is Facebook’s parent company, Meta, which plans to build a 4-million-square-foot facility outside of Monroe.  Meta is pledging to offset some emissions with purchases of 1,500 megawatts of solar power and financial support for a carbon capture and storage project at Entergy’s power plant in Lake Charles, according to Entergy’s filings to the PSC.  “[Entergy] expressed the need to get this done quickly and get the data center to market quickly,” Dana Shelton, an attorney advisor to the PSC told the commission at a November 20, 2024, PSC hearing. Public Service Commissioner Foster Campbell, a Democrat representing north Louisiana and a perennial skeptic of utilities’ plans to build expensive power plants, said at the meeting that he will champion the project in his home territory. “I back the project 1,000 percent,” he said. “The parishes of North Louisiana are the poorest in the nation. Poorer than Appalachia,” he added, referring to the fact that the new plants promise to bring jobs to the region. Monopoly Utilities Have No Incentives for Net Zero It’s an old tale: weighing the lure of new jobs against long-term strategies for a livable planet. Under the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, which Trump once again withdrew the U.S. from this month, the world’s nations pledged to reduce their emissions to net zero by 2050 to stave off the worst effects of climate change. These effects are expected to hit poorer communities like north Louisiana the hardest.  Utilities are considered one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions. So, the road to net zero runs through the grid. (“Net-zero” emissions refer to the point when emissions equal the amount of carbon stored.) Currently, the world emits twice the amount of greenhouse gases it stores in oceans, forests, and other natural sequestration sinks. We have to do two things to reach net zero: expand the planet’s natural systems by limiting ocean acidification, reversing deforestation, and lowering emissions. Like most people, as a captive ratepayer, I don’t have much say about the monopoly utility that supplies my energy. Entergy charges me for the cost of producing electricity or buying it on the open market. It charges me for its infrastructure maintenance and repairs. I also pay to build its giant power generators — like the Nine Mile Point natural gas turbines in Westwego, LA, that tower over the Mississippi River and release plumes of smoke that a child might mistake for a cloud factory. Yet, I do not own any of it. Entergy does, which is a pretty good deal for Entergy.  “We created this regulatory compact in the early 1900s when we were trying to incentivize private utility companies to invest in the infrastructure for the social good,” Lewis told me in our interview. “In return, they were guaranteed a return on their investment. The compact as it is doesnt de-incentivize them to stop building.” Utility companies have little financial incentive to support initiatives to save energy, improve the intelligence of the grid, or diversify sources of energy, he added. An Outsider Takes on an Unmonitored Authority A progressive Democrat, Lewis is an unlikely politician in deep-red Louisiana. He is young, Black, and openly gay. But his policy expertise and pragmatic vision have united odd bedfellows in a district that includes the state’s largest petrochemical plants and refineries alongside environmental justice communities. From grandma on a fixed income to the chemical plant next door, all want reliable electricity that doesn’t cost the farm, he said to me. Louisiana Public Serices Commissioner Davante Lewis says from fixed income residents to chemical plant owners, all want reliable electricity that doesnt cost the farm. Credit: Facebook To get on the PSC, Lewis had to unseat an 18-year incumbent and former New Orleans councilman, Lambert Boissiere III, who had strong ties to utility interests. According to the Energy and Policy Institute, almost 75 percent of Bossiere’s campaign contributions came from entities regulated by the PSC, including Entergy itself. Lewis beat him by 20 points in an election runoff, which thrust the commission into the spotlight in a way that hasn’t been seen in a century — since a 25-year-old firebrand named Huey Long from hardscrabble Winn Parish attempted to declare Standard Oil a public utility in 1922. Long, Louisiana’s populist demagogue, would become governor at age 34 and a U.S. Senator at 38. Four other Public Service commissioners followed Long to the governor’s mansion, most recently Kathleen Babineaux Blanco in 2004. But the utilities authority has been a quiet board in recent years, as predictable votes back utility interests, such as rolling back discounts for solar net metering, and passing large repair costs and capital expenses onto ratepayers. The results of an unwatched regulatory commission have been grim. Renewable power produces just 4 percent of Louisianas electricity, which is among the nation’s lowest. Of that, wind and solar account for a mere 1 percent of electricity. Customer utility bills are chock full of pass-through charges approved by the PSC to cover hurricane repairs, late fee hookups, and other miscellaneous expenses. Entergy is currently seeking to recoup damages from Hurricane Francine from ratepayers who are still repaying Entergy for six storms that date as far back as 2012. Louisiana’s low-income residents also have the dubious distinction of being the most “cost-burdened” by energy, meaning that they spend a higher percentage of their paycheck on electricity and heating than anyone else, according to Lewis and Home Energy Affordability Gap data.  “They are sharks,” a commission insider who asked not to be named told me in an interview. “Entergy is the only Fortune 500 company in the state of Louisiana. That is a moral failure. It profits on the backs of captive ratepayers who have no other choice.”  The utility companies outgun the undermanned commission staff at every turn. Meanwhile, the education program that newly elected commissioners receive is provided by the Edison Electric Institute, which is the trade association for utilities. “So they were the ones to teach me how to regulate them,” Lewis said at Tulane University’s energy forum in November 2024. While other areas of the country have introduced competition for wholesale generation and decentralized technologies that favor renewables like wind and solar, Louisiana’s grid largely remains closed to competition. The fossil fuel industry, which influences Louisiana’s political class, has long dampened the momentum for renewables, either by allowing the state tax credit for solar panels to expire in 2016 or by directly obstructing it.  But the biggest obstacles are the incumbent utilities themselves, who resist being interconnected with one another, Lewis told me. “You go build another gas power plant, youre talking about a 30-year generation asset with depreciation,” he said. Expanding Louisianas energy grid to competition would provide more options for inexpensive, reliable power. Credit: Marvin Nauman/FEMA Opening Louisiana’s grid to competition or expanding access to regional grid exchanges would provide more options for inexpensive, reliable power. But Entergy does not want that to happen, Logan Burke, executive director of the Alliance for Affordable Energy, told me in an interview. The Department of Justice ordered the company in 2012 to enter into an independent regional grid. Entergy elected to join the Mid-continent Independent System Operator (MISO), which is one of 10 regional grids. MISO connects power sources from the upper midwest down through Arkansas and Louisiana. However, the grid map resembles an hourglass with a singular bottleneck right at the northwest confluence of Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Indiana that prevents scaled power movement from MISO North to MISO South.  Some observers say that Entergy picked MISO because it allowed the company to remain centered in MISO South to control the power sources it delivers to customers. And as far as selling off its transmission lines, Entergy never did it, says Burke, whose organization is pushing the PSC commission to establish a greater presence on the MISO board to expand connections between North and South. “We are right where we were 12 years ago,” she told me. The longer Entergy drags its feet on renewables, the more it will perpetuate the “urgent” need for dirty power as electricity demand for data centers around the country increases, Monika Gerhart with the Gulf States Renewable Power Association told me.“We have to get in front of that for our load requirements”  An Electrifying Prospect Looking at a chart from the World Energy Outlook 2024 report by the International Energy Agency (IEA), electrical demand over the next decade will resemble an upturned hockey stick if you can picture it. The IEA projects electricity demand will grow by six-fold between now and 2035. “The utility sector will make or break Americas clean energy future,” Lewis told me. The good news is that solar and wind cost less per kilowatt hour than natural gas and nuclear, Brad Ives, the director of the LSU Energy Innovation Institute (EII), said during the 2024 Louisiana Energy Outlook webcast. Shell funded the EII with a $27.55 million grant. “I think thats not something thats widely known,” Ives said. But as sectors of the economy move to renewable energy sources and increased electrification — demand on the grid will increase, International Energy Agency (IEA) projections show. More heat pumps and EVs means higher loads per household and per street.  Greening the grid by producing electricity from renewable sources is the low-hanging fruit of the world’s decarbonization strategy. If it doesn’t happen in electricity production, it’s not going to happen, experts say. “Grids are very important,” said Adair Turner, the chairman of the UK’s Energy Transition Commission. Speaking at a June 2024 sustainability event in London, Turner forecasted that the grid would need to be fully decarbonized by 2035 if the world hopes to clean up polluting industries like cement, steel, shipping, and aviation by 2050. “Investing in the grids is required to support higher levels of electrification,” Adair said. AIs exponential growth — underscored by the $500 billion data center moonshot Trump announced — suggests that the electrical grid will be under exponential pressure to meet this growing demand. That leaves commissioners like Lewis stuck with Entergy’s deal to turn to gas-powered plants. Or they could push against the interests of monopoly utilities to open their transmission lines to more sources of renewable power to avoid being locked into long-term investments in coal and gas-fired power plants in perpetuity, as Lewis advocates.  “I don’t think there’s any other way to decarbonize,” he said. The post The Rising Hunger of AI Data Centers Accelerates the Need for Clean Energy to Meet Demand appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Alberta’s ‘Zero Tolerance’ Enforcement Strategy Doesn’t Apply to Polluters

 

at 1/23/25 4:31pm

“Alberta is taking a zero-tolerance approach to crime,” bragged Alberta Premier Danielle Smith in 2023 on social media after her government announced more enforcement, greater emphasis on public safety, and limited discretion of prosecutors to let offenders off the hook. “  “There is an increasing sense that the system is not holding criminals properly accountable and letting the public suffer the consequences,” chimed in Alberta Minister of Justice Mickey Amery during the announcement. “This is simply unacceptable.”  If only the governing United Conservative Party applied those laudable principles to oil sands companies that repeatedly flout legal requirements not to pollute waterways, air and land. Major petroleum companies stacking record profits seem to have little to fear regarding enforcement – no matter how egregious their conduct.  Regulators failed to inform local First Nations for over eight months of a known toxic tailings leak from the Imperial Oil Kearl bitumen mine into tributaries of the nearby Athabasca River. This dangerous delay from May 2022 to February 2023 occurred despite the UCP’s stated commitment to prioritize public safety when dealing with violators.  Only after a second spill occurred at the Kearl mine in February 2023 was the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation warned of poisonous effluent contaminating the primary watercourse that has sustained their hunting and fishing for generations. As for tough enforcement, the Alberta Energy Regulator – entirely funded by the companies it allegedly oversees – waited over two years to assign a fine of $50,000 on Imperial Oil for the initial leakage. Lawyers for the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation noted the AER could have fined the oil giant at least $1.3 million based on the scale of the pollution. Instead they gave Imperial a “95 percent discount.”  ‘Highest Cancer Rate in the Province’ To put this piddling penalty into perspective, $50,000 represents a mere 0.004 percent of Imperial Oil’s $1.13 billion Q2 profits from 2024. This would also amount to less than one day’s work for CEO Brad Corson, who was paid $14,831,530 in 2023.  After months of negative press coverage and almost two years of delay, the AER this month announced charges against Imperial Oil for the second spill of 5.3 million litres of toxic tailings and 670,000 litres of contaminated water – larger in size than two Olympic swimming pools. The regulator also commissioned a third-party review of their much-maligned Kearl spill enforcement, which concluded “there were no areas of non-compliance.” Problem solved.  Tailings are the thick toxic waste stream from bitumen production consisting of contaminated water, suspended clay, heavy metals and naphthenic acids with the consistency of yogurt. With no current treatment solution, tailings are instead stored behind leaky earthen dams in ever-growing volumes now exceeding 1.4 trillion litres.   This growing crisis threatens the Athabasca River that flows 1,200 kilometres through seven provincial and national parks. The watershed is also home to over 150,000 people in 12 towns and 14 Indigenous settlements. Those downstream from leaking tailings ponds are particularly at risk from being harmed by poisonous chemicals in their water and harvested food. “It’s no surprise that we live with the highest cancer rates in the province,” said Chief Allan Adam of Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation. “Over twice that of the rest of Alberta.” Many Spills Not Reported This Kearl incident is part of an ongoing record of disregard for pollution from bitumen mine tailings ponds. A recent study by biologist Kevin Timoney reported on by APTN showed that the AER had only done field investigations on less than 4 percent of over 500 reported tailings spills from 2014 to 2023.  Despite this record of rarely straying far from the office coffee pot, regulators seemed certain there was no cause for alarm. “[AER] made the statement that in all 514 of the spills that they divulged to the public, that there were no environmental impacts. None,” Timoney told APTN. “And of course that is also another red flag.”  After six-months of sifting through 6,000 pages of internal AER documents accessed by Alberta Freedom of Information laws, Timoney found that many spills were simply not reported. “There were another 454 spills of tailings of one sort or another that were not part of the publicly available database.” Effective law enforcement also needs to earn the respect of the public – particularly among those impacted by crime. Aboriginal leaders whose communities are bearing the brunt of ongoing tailings pond pollution travelled to Ottawa in 2023 to testify at a federal committee hearing. Here are some of their public comments regarding AER oversight:   The [AER] has zero credibility outside Calgarys echo chamber. They actively dismiss and downplay impacts of oilsands on communities and their Aboriginal and treaty rights, Daniel Stuckless of the Fort McKay Métis Nation said. “The [AER] is completely broken and should be dismantled,” said Chief Allan Adam, who broke down in tears describing what it was like telling his people their water may be contaminated. “Albertas reaction throughout is to simply say this is a communications issue…The Alberta Energy Regulator is a joke. A complete joke.   Timothy Clark of the Fort McMurray Métis had this to say: [The AER] is more concerned about protecting the image of the industry and the investment than it is about protecting the health and rights of the people who live in this area. Tailings pond pollution remains a gargantuan and growing problem with no effective solution in sight. Alberta regulators have clearly demonstrated they are prioritizing continued oil production over public safety. Does Alberta have a “zero-tolerance approach” to enforcement? Apparently, it depends on who’s breaking the law. The post Alberta’s ‘Zero Tolerance’ Enforcement Strategy Doesn’t Apply to Polluters appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— The Coming Climate Uncertainty Conundrum

 

at 1/23/25 3:00am

This piece is about what we talk about when we talk about ‘climate change. Mostly, whether in the campaigning world or the policy world, the tech world or the business world, the everyday world or the world of international summitry, we mainly talk about cutting carbon emissions. And if we talk about impacts, we talk about the impacts of global heating, plus the impacts of the growing chaos. But we don’t talk enough about climate impacts, our vulnerability to them, let alone how to prepare adequately for them, or to tackle them ‘upstream’ before they land or get worse. And if we talk about chaos, we virtually never talk about it in a big enough context, or in terms of its full potential dimensions. This article is designed to start to change that situation. The recent unprecedented worldwide epidemic of flooding, followed swiftly by the dire Los Angeles fires has woken another significant tranche of people up. Devastating climate impacts are here. Climate chaos is here. The adaptation challenge should now be getting strategic pre-eminence. That it isn’t is a key marker of how far off the pace the dominant (still decarbonisation-centric) climate narrative now is. And the growing evidence of the true scale and nature of the coming chaos should decisively change that narrative.  As Ice Melts, Some Places Can Cool Our future is far more complex than the simple narrative of ‘global warming’ suggests, and we need to be prepared for a range of outcomes, distributed in different regions, that include both extremes of hot and cold. Our knowledge concerning the climate is of course growing all the time. But it would be fatal hubris to assume that this means that the level of uncertainty concerning what will happen in the future is concomitantly reducing. If anything, the uncertainty surrounding our climate is growing at present, because we are finding that the Earth-system is behaving in novel (and dangerous) ways as it moves literally into Terra Incognita that we didn’t fully anticipate; and because the destabilisation of our climate is having some very counter-intuitive effects. Our actions have inadvertently created a hot new world that is more and more difficult to understand, let alone predict, let alone ‘control’. In short, the uncertainty surrounding our climate is growing, and with it, the probability that countries such as Britain and (the eastern seaboard especially of) the United States (like other countries bordering the north Atlantic) might face a future that’s not just hotter, but ironically also (before long) colder.  Why? Because of the escalating Arctic ice-melt, which could lead the North Atlantic Gyre ocean current system, and perhaps the larger system known as the ‘Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation’ [AMOC], to slow, or even stop. These alarming, growing possibilities have entered the media recently; but they’re yet to be absorbed into the vast majority of climate campaigning, preparedness, and policy.  Most people know these complex ocean current systems mostly only through the phrase ‘The Gulf Stream’, which Britons understand keeps our climate warmer than Labrador in Canada (which is on the same latitude as us). If the Gyre caves in, or worse still if AMOC collapses, in the coming decades, our climate could plunge us into conditions more akin to Siberia than to Spain. What is known as ‘the Gulf Stream’ would more or less switch off. The question then is not merely the already tough one of how we prepare for the coming global overheating; the far more complex question is, how do we simultaneously prepare for both hotter and colder climates?  Why This Matters Consider this in terms of kinds of adaptation measures that require multi-decadal planning: the planting of orchards and the initiation of reforestation projects, for instance. We literally don’t know whether our climate in the UK will be hotter or colder, by the time any trees we plant now mature. The core of any answer to this particular conundrum teaches us an exemplary lesson: Plant highly diverse species and varieties.  It is certain that some (probably, many) trees and tree species will be knocked out by the coming global overheating with potential regional cooling (we don’t know which, yet). We of course need our ecosystems to remain relatively functional and resilient no matter which future comes. So in the UK we need to plant native species and varieties; and Mediterranean ones; and Scandinavian ones. A shift in thinking such as this represents a profound change in how we view our role in shaping (and in being shaped by) the environment. We must move away from trying only to prevent change, and instead focus increasingly on actively shaping the — uncertain — biotic transformations that are now coming and that in one way or another are inevitable.  In short, the challenges ahead demand that we think bigger, more diversely, and more proactively. We can’t afford to cling to outdated conservation strategies, for instance. Instead, we need to embrace a new approach, one that recognises the full spectrum of climate (and wider ecological) breakdown, and prepares our ecosystems to adapt, no matter what the future holds.   Policy-makers are to an astonishing degree missing the point about the situation we’re in: which is one of far greater uncertainty than most like to admit. Which only makes our situation more parlous, and genuine precaution more urgent. Consider a very pertinent example in the UK: the drive to decarbonise our electricity supply, one of the new Labour governments flagship policies. Remarkably,there are no plans for the new pylons and power lines to be hardened against a colder future. Why? Because the powers that be and the National Grid are assuming that the future here will be hotter. Or take a more prosaic example: Consider a TV show like the BBC’s widely watched Gardeners’ World. The emphasis there is nearly all on ‘how we will cope with a warming climate’. This is encouraging insofar as it shows quotidian adaptation in the making. But as I’ve noted, some models now suggest that there is about a fifty-fifty chance that actually within the lifetimes of most of us, and possibly very soon, we could well have to be coping with a cooling climate, here in the UK. We are so badly unprepared for what may be coming. We badly need a major mindset — and practice — shift, towards strategic adaptation. Psychological Barriers Why has this kind of change, which is so utterly critical to how we adapt and prepare (and to our understanding of the degree to which we have, to use a technical term, f**ked up our climate), not yet been absorbed into public consciousness? I suggest that it’s because people (elites and the public alike) have only just started factoring in the epochal shift to genuinely thinking of our future in terms of a trend of dangerous overheating. It’s proving too much, for nearly everyone, so far, to make a big further shift, into the bitter truth: of wild uncertainty about what our future climate holds. The mind recoils at such uncertainty; it seems to leave so little to cling onto. We need a degree of hedging, and to allow ourselves to live in a world we accept that we’ll never fully understand. But that’s in direct tension with central narratives — of ‘predict and control’, of progress, of human hegemony — that have dominated our thinking since the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment. No wonder so many of us resist the shift to a more accurate emerging paradigm of climate breakdown and radical uncertainty, requiring in its wake deep precaution and a new (and, in truth, also old) humility. Perhaps it isn’t just that we’ve left the Holocene behind. Arguably, we’re already leaving the Anthropocene behind too. We’re entering into a long period in which our efforts to be as gods have actually produced the opposite: a chaos that outstrips our understanding, let alone our control.  Call it the Chaoscene? Emeritus Prof. Rupert Read is co-founder of the Climate Majority Project, which seeks to activate the silent majority, and whose report on Strategic Adaptation is out this Spring. Before moving on from academia, he worked mainly on the Precautionary Principle and the risks of financialising nature. The post The Coming Climate Uncertainty Conundrum appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

As of 2/12/25 8:44am. Last new 2/11/25 3:43pm.