Crooked Bough News Round-up

— Reform Candidate Andrea Jenkyns Vows Climate Cuts in Flood Risk Lincolnshire

 

at 4/29/25 8:29am

Reform UK mayoral candidate Andrea Jenkyns has been condemned for rejecting climate science and promising Trump-style budget cuts, despite standing in a high climate risk area. The former Conservative MP, who defected to Nigel Farage’s party in November, is tipped to become Mayor of Greater Lincolnshire in Thursday’s local elections, polling at 40 percent with a 15 point lead on her nearest opponent according to YouGov. Jenkyns – who sits on the board of Net Zero Watch, an anti-climate campaign group – has claimed that carbon dioxide “is not pollution”, and has dubbed clean energy policies “bureaucratic nonsense” which should be scrapped. Jenkyns has campaigned heavily on a platform to stop pylons and solar farms from being built in Lincolnshire – both crucial components of the renewable energy transition. She has also promised to launch a “Lincolnshire DOGE” – a reference to the Department of Government Efficiency created by Donald Trump’s administration and overseen by far-right tech magnate Elon Musk, which has implemented a range of harsh public sector cuts, including to climate agencies. “Lincolnshire is on the front line of the climate crisis in the UK,” said Carys Boughton, a campaigner with Fossil Free Parliament. “We desperately need more politicians who understand that rising emissions are driving extreme weather in our coastal towns. “We need politicians to take action to protect our future. Of course, Jenkyns and Reform won’t act in our interests. Their climate denialism and senselessly anti-green policies are fuelled by donations from the fossil fuel industry and will only intensify the harm caused to residents and businesses.” 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); Reform advocates for clean energy policies to be scrapped, including cancelling the UK’s commitment to achieving net zero emissions by 2050. Its senior figures, including Farage and his deputy Richard Tice, have repeatedly questioned basic climate science. As DeSmog revealed, 92 percent of the party’s funding (£2.3 million) between the 2019 and 2024 elections came from climate science deniers or donors with polluting interests. Reform treasurer Nick Candy told the Financial Times last week that the party was seeking donations from the oil and gas industry, with £100,000 already pledged and more promised. Polling by More in Common last year found that 65 percent of the public are worried about climate change, including a majority (61 percent) of Conservative voters, and nearly half (44 percent) of Reform voters. Polling in the Lincolnshire Combined Authority region also found that 50 to 60 percent of local residents support the UK’s net zero targets, while 88 percent support renewable energy projects in the area. Lincolnshire’s Climate Risks According to XDI Systems, which analyses global climate risks, Lincolnshire is the most at risk county in England to built environment damage caused by extreme weather and climate change. Lincolnshire also came 12th in its ranking of at-risk areas in Europe, and along with Greater London features in the top 10 percent of climate risk areas globally. As DeSmog has reported, Tice’s constituency of Boston and Skegness in Lincolnshire has the highest risk of flooding in England, according to a Climate Risk Index published by insurance giant AXA. A Local Climate Impacts Profile produced by Lincoln Council in 2021 found that 16,450 properties in Lincolnshire were at “high, long-term risk of flooding”, and that 16 extreme weather events occurred in the county between 2010 and 2020, including “excessive rainfall, storms, heatwaves, and severe snow and ice”. As DeSmog reported in June, Nigel Farage’s Clacton constituency in Essex is at serious risk of flooding by 2030 due to climate change, while more than two-thirds (68 percent) of Clacton voters are worried about global warming. Despite this, Farage has claimed that local councils waste money on climate policies, and has vowed to cut these areas of spending in the style of Musk’s sweeping cuts in the United States. Between 2010–11 and 2022–23, during the period of austerity implemented by the previous Conservative government, English councils’ overall core funding per person fell by 26 percent in real terms – drastic cuts that have directly led to the crisis in public services experienced today, experts suggest. Jenkyns and Climate Andrea Jenkyns has also repeatedly attacked green policies and cast doubt on climate science. In a 2023 piece for GB News, Jenkyns wrote: “Carbon dioxide is not pollution; it is a naturally occurring trace gas essential to life on Earth. It is only one of many factors that might have an impact on the climate.” The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world’s top climate science body, has stated that carbon dioxide “is responsible for most of global warming” since the late 19th century, and has increased the “severity and frequency of weather and climate extremes, like heat waves, heavy rains, and drought”. Climate scientists working for the IPCC have also 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”. Jenkyns added in her piece that “many leading scientists” have “cast informed doubt on the concept of a ‘climate crisis’.” In fact, climate consensus studies between 2004 and 2015 found that between 90 and 100 percent of experts agree humans are responsible for climate change. A 2021 study which reviewed over 3,000 scientific papers found that over 99 percent of climate science literature says that global warming is caused by human activity. In a speech Jenkyns gave at Reform’s East Midlands conference in January, she said: “I say no to [Energy Secretary] Ed Miliband bankrupting Britain with his net zero madness” and “I say no to Lincolnshire being a dumping ground for pylons”. A month later, at Reform’s annual conference, she asserted that “net zero has become a religion” for Labour and the Conservatives, adding: “I say yes to ditching net zero full stop.” The post Reform Candidate Andrea Jenkyns Vows Climate Cuts in Flood Risk Lincolnshire appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— GB News Broadcast Almost 1,000 Anti-Climate Attacks Before and After 2024 Election

 

at 4/28/25 9:17am

GB News gave a platform to at least 953 anti-climate attacks in the immediate run-up and aftermath of the 2024 general election, DeSmog can reveal. Half of these featured attacks on clean energy policies, including that the goal of reducing emissions to net zero by 2050 is a “cult” and a “monster”. The broadcaster aired an average of around 4.5 anti-climate claims per day during the period from 31 May to 31 December, with attacks on climate science, policy, or environmental groups featuring in almost 12 percent of all half-hour segments. At least 74 of these anti-climate statements were made by current or former representatives of Nigel Farage’s Reform UK and its predecessor party, the Brexit Party, several of whom are GB News hosts. Reform UK, which opposes net zero, won five seats in the 4 July election, registering 14.3 percent of the vote – the best general election result achieved by one of Farage’s parties. There were at least 84 examples where hosts and guests cast doubt on the scientifically-proven idea that climate change is caused by human activity, with some calling it a “hoax,” a “load of nonsense,” “rubbish,” and an attempt to “gaslight” the public. Misleading statements about climate change frequently went unchallenged by GB News hosts. This is despite the TV regulator Ofcom stating in its Broadcasting Code that “views and facts must not be misrepresented”, and that “alternative viewpoints must be adequately represented” on air. “GB News is letting down its audience by giving platforms to individuals who have strong opinions about climate change but are unable or unwilling to tell the truth about it,” said Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics. “Robust debate about climate policies is good but needs to be based on facts and evidence rather than ideology and propaganda.” “This is especially important ahead of May’s local elections. 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); These anti-climate attacks were allowed on air even in the days leading up to the general election, which saw the Labour Party win an 170-seat majority on a manifesto that promised to “get Britain back on track to meet our climate targets.” On 1 June, comedian Lewis Schaffer, who is a regular GB News guest, said “the whole climate thing is a scam” in a discussion about Labour’s plans to form a publicly-owned energy investment company. One day before the election, Harry Phibbs, the local government editor of ConservativeHome, claimed that the Liberal Democrats and Labour agree on “climate change alarmism”. During an election campaign period, broadcasters are required by Ofcom to adhere to strict impartiality guidelines. Voters will be going to the polls again on 1 May with elections being held for 23 councils and six mayors in England. Since its election in July 2024, Labour has faced a range of attacks from hostile media outlets over its climate policies, in particular targeting Net Zero Secretary Ed Miliband. GB News broadcast anti-climate sentiments consistently throughout the seven month period, though the attacks peaked in November during the COP29 climate summit in Baku, Azerbaijan, when the government set a new target of cutting emissions by 81 percent by 2035. The week starting 11 November saw the most hostility to clean energy, with 28 percent of all half-hour segments on GB News featuring attacks on climate change science, policy, or environmental groups. DeSmog previously revealed that one-third of GB News presenters spread climate science denial on air in 2022, while more than half attacked climate action. GB News had a broadcast audience of 3.5 million in February this year, while it was the 19th most viewed website in the UK as of January – logging a readership of 9.3 million. However, Ofcom has so far refused to investigate the channel for spreading false climate claims. The campaign group Stop Funding Heat has submitted 46 complaints to Ofcom over GB News’s climate coverage over the last year, none of which have been successful. “GB News clearly can’t refute the scientific facts about climate change,” Richard Wilson, director and co-founder of Stop Funding Heat said. “Instead they’re pumping out increasingly wild and paranoid conspiracy claims which undermine climate action, while deflecting from the very real dangers we all face if climate change is not urgently addressed.” An Ofcom spokesperson said: “We carefully assess every complaint about specific programmes we receive to see if they raise potential issues under our Broadcasting Code, including our rules on due impartiality and relating to elections. However, it is for broadcasters to determine their overall editorial approach. “While our guidance considers the scientific principles behind the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming to be broadly settled, there is no general prohibition on representing alternative views. When assessing content, Ofcom will take into account the broadcasters’ and audiences’ right to freedom of expression as well as all relevant contextual factors.” Climate Science Denial “The truth is climate change is not a real thing,” said Lewis Schaffer on 16 June. Schaffer didn’t provide any evidence for this claim, and received no pushback from the show’s presenters or guests. This overt climate science denial was a common theme of GB News’s coverage throughout the pre- and post-election period. Jacob Rees-Mogg, a former deputy leader of the Conservative Party, hosts his own show on GB News, and said on 17 September in relation to climate change: “the assumption made that it is human in origin [is] not proven.” In reality, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world’s leading climate science body, concluded in its 2023 sixth assessment report: “it is unequivocal that humans are causing [global] warming.” Former army officer Stuart Crawford claimed on two occasions that climate change would be better referred to as “climate variation”. GB News also gave a platform to the claim that net zero policies risk power cuts due to the supposed unreliability of renewable energy – an assertion made by Alan D. Miller of Together, a conspiracy theory group, on 9 June when he suggested that net zero would “lead to blackouts”. The risk of blackouts decreased this winter compared to last, with the UK’s surplus energy increasing from 7 percent to 10 percent of demand. This comes as the share of renewable energy in the UK grid reached an all-time high, comprising 37 percent of total electricity production last year. Former Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg on GB News. Credit: GB News / YouTube Guests and hosts also regularly confused weather events for evidence against the existence of climate change. GB News presenter Neil Oliver argued on 9 June that “despite the snow in Scotland, there were headlines about it having been the hottest May on record here in the UK.” The Met Office’s temperature data is taken from the average temperature across the country – meaning it is still possible for there to be low temperatures and even snow in some places.  The channel also consistently gave voice to fossil fuel advocates who argued for more fossil fuel extraction in the UK, including fracking for shale gas. Carla Sands, U.S. President Donald Trump’s former ambassador to Denmark, called on 20 July for the UK to lift its ban on fracking because it is “actually a green thing to do because it’s renewable; it’s natural.” Fracked gas is a fossil fuel and produces carbon dioxide when it is burned, which contributes directly to climate change. GB News hosts also read out 42 viewer comments that attacked or undermined climate science, policy, or environmental groups. This included one comment read out by Bev Turner which labelled net zero as “rubbish” that would “destroy the country”. James Painter, a research associate at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, told DeSmog: “These findings on GB News are consistent with research on broadcast media in other countries. Most mainstream TV channels have virtually stopped giving coverage to voices questioning whether temperatures are rising, or the causes and impacts of climate change. “In contrast, right-wing channels such as Fox TV in the USA, Sky News in Australia, and GB News in the UK continue to offer platforms to what are widely called ‘evidence sceptics’. “This DeSmog research showing a sustained pattern of such climate denialism raises urgent questions as to why Ofcom is not paying more attention to GB News’s climate science coverage.” The Money Man GB News is co-owned by hedge fund magnate Paul Marshall, who also owns The Spectator magazine. Speaking at a conference in February hosted by the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC), a group funded by Marshall, he said that the UK’s net zero plans are “leading the way in wrecking our industrial base”, “impoverishing people”, “sacrificing our energy security”, and “sacrificing our ancient rural landscape.” The UK’s net zero sector is growing at three times the rate of the rest of the economy, according to the Confederation of British Industry (CBI). As of June 2023, Marshall’s hedge fund had at least £1.8 billion invested in fossil fuels, including in the oil and gas giants Shell, Chevron, and Equinor. Paul Marshall, owner of The Spectator and co-owner of GB News. Credit: ARC Forum (CC0 1.0) Anti-Climate Hosts  GB News hosts themselves regularly made false climate claims on air during the period, and failed to challenge those made by guests. Presenter Martin Daubney – who was a Member of European Parliament for Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party between 2019 and 2020 – made or supported 127 false claims, the most of any guest or host. “The climate has always changed,” Daubney said on 24 July in a debate with Jim Dale. “It’s actually cooler now than it was thousands of years ago and we’re actually in a period of interglacial warming.”  In reality, a 2023 UN report concluded that the earth is likely to be warmer now than it has been at any point for the last 100,000 years. 22 June 2024 was the single day with the highest average temperature observed in recorded history. On 29 July, Daubney made the claim that “there have been no deaths directly attributed to vehicle pollution, let alone pollution in London”. In 2020, an inquest into the death of nine-year-old Ella Adoo Kissi-Debrah found that air pollution “made a material contribution” to the asthma that caused her death seven years earlier.  Patrick Christys was the second-worst offender, spreading anti-climate sentiments 67 times in the 213 day period. On 31 December, he took aim at the UK’s pledge to provide £11.3 billion in overseas climate aid, claiming that some of the aid “is going to the Taliban,” which assumed rule of Afghanistan after the U.S. and its allies pulled out of the country in 2022. Guest and GWPF board member Allison Pearson responded by claiming that climate aid is “just basically code for dictators in Central African Republics buying a new Mercedes diesel, isn’t it, really?” “It’s just infantile – and hardly surprising – GB News leans heavily in favour of climate denial,” said Jim Dale, a meteorologist and media commentator who frequently appears on GB News and has been introduced on the platform as a “climate alarmist.”  A Platform for Anti-Climate Politicians The views expressed on GB News during this period often matched those articulated by Farage’s anti-net zero Reform UK, whose representatives were allowed to spread climate falsehoods on-air. On 17 September, Farage questioned the existence of climate change. After one guest listed the likely consequences of continued climate change, Farage said: “that’s all assuming climate change and global warming is happening and will continue to happen.” On 13 December, Reform UK chair Zia Yusuf claimed on GB News that the “religious obsession” with net zero is “one of the greatest acts of self-immolation in British history.” Farage and fellow Reform UK MP Lee Anderson have received hundreds of thousands of pounds from their roles as GB News presenters. Farage’s deputy Richard Tice is also a former GB News host. Reform UK’s prospective manifesto published in September 2023 included overt climate science denial, claiming that climate change is natural – “has been happening for millions of years” – and that “scientists disagree as to how much” it is driven by human activity. In March 2022, Farage used his platform on GB News to launch a campaign to hold a referendum on net zero. The Reform UK leader also suggested during the ARC conference in February that it is “absolutely nuts” for CO2 to be considered a pollutant, despite admitting that he knows little about the science of climate change. Appearing on GB News on 15 December, Reform UK’s immigration and justice spokesperson Ann Widdecombe claimed that “there is no climate emergency,” labelling the UK’s climate targets an “obsession with net zero” and a “dictatorship of nonsense”. In the same appearance, Widdecombe argued that the UK should not try to reduce its emissions because “we contribute less than 1 percent” to the global total. However, taking historic emissions into account, the UK has contributed the fifth most to climate change. GB News presenter Nigel Farage. Credit: SOPA Images / Alamy GB News also gave a platform during the period to current and former Conservative Party MPs to attack and undermine climate science. Rees-Mogg alone made 57 anti-climate statements in the last seven months of 2024. In July, the month of the general election, he claimed the Labour Party was “destroying the UK’s energy independence” and “increasing energy bills for the British people” via net zero, and lining “the pockets of overseas dictators” by refusing to extract and sell British fossil fuels. There is no guarantee that oil and gas extracted domestically will be used to supply the UK, given that it is mined by private companies that sell it on the open international market.  Fake Experts and Think Tanks The channel also portrayed climate opponents with limited academic credentials as climate scientists or experts. Representatives of anti-climate think tanks were welcomed onto GB News to attack climate policies, including staff from the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), the UK’s foremost climate denial think tank, and the group’s campaign arm Net Zero Watch.  Guests included the GWPF’s head of policy, Harry Wilkinson, board member Allison Pearson, Net Zero Watch director Andrew Montford, and directors Lord David Frost and Andrea Jenkyns. Jenkyns is running as Reform’s candidate for the Greater Lincolnshire mayoral election this May. DeSmog previously revealed that the GWPF had been handed dozens of appearances on GB News to attack climate policy. Mark Littlewood, the former director general of the Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA) think tank argued on 10 September that net zero is a “lunatic approach to energy, which is an absolutely pointless act of colossal self-harm,” saying that he would be “happy” with continued coal use. On another occasion, Littlewood said the UK should “get on with fracking”. The IEA received funding from oil giant BP every year from 1967 until at least 2018, as revealed by Greenpeace’s investigative outlet, Unearthed. Paul Burgess, the ex-environment spokesperson for the now-defunct far-right For Britain movement, was also regularly featured as a “climate scientist” on GB News. In a comment to DeSmog, Burgess claimed that For Britain was not a far-right party – despite its history of fielding former members of the far-right British National Party as candidates, as well as those that have expressed racist views online. Burgess said that he has never been associated with the BNP, “the motives and aims of which I deplore.” Burgess, a retired chartered environmental and water resources engineer, runs the YouTube channel ‘Climate Realism by Paul Burgess’. On the channel, he has suggested that net zero “is a lie designed to control you like sheep,” claiming that “the shepherds” are the UN, the World Health Organisation, the World Economic Forum, London Mayor Sadiq Khan, and Ed Miliband.  The argument that climate policies are an attempt to coerce people is a conspiracy theory based on the idea that a shadowy elite is attempting to exert secret control of society. Burgess appeared on far-right activist Tommy Robinson’s podcast ‘Silenced’ in February 2024, during which he boasted that he was the only voice in the British media saying that “the whole CO2 thing is a sham”. On GB News, Burgess made dubious claims about climate science, for example that climate scientists “can’t find any evidence on the rising sea levels due to mankind”. The IPCC has stated that the global mean sea level rose over the 20th century, that the rate of sea level rise has increased in recent decades, and that human influence is “very likely” the main driver of the increases since at least 1971. “Your criticism of GB News is unfounded,” Burgess told DeSmog. “I have to provide the evidence for all I say on air”. “My work involved having to study the climate to be able to predict long term droughts and storms over say 1,000 years or more,” he added. “Although GB News occasionally interviews genuine experts, most of their discussions about climate change feature cranks and propagandists who mislead the audience,” said Bob Ward. “It is well known that GB News gives undue prominence to individuals who promote falsehoods about climate change. This is clearly not in the public interest. “It is a systemic failure of the UK’s broadcast regulation, and highlights, in particular, the feebleness of Ofcom.” GB News was approached for comment. The post GB News Broadcast Almost 1,000 Anti-Climate Attacks Before and After 2024 Election appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Poilievre Campaign Has Links to Gas Industry Astroturfing Effort

 

at 4/25/25 1:11pm

A third-party advertiser that has bombarded Canadians with pro-gas messaging over the last few months has ties to the Poilievre campaign. Though Voice for Energy presents itself as a grassroots campaign intended to give Canadian consumers a choice and doesn’t disclose its funders, DeSmog has previously reported that they are in fact a creation of the Canadian Gas Association (CGA), a national lobby group representing the gas industry. The Canadian Gas Association is represented by Alberta Counsel Inc., a lobby organization. Heather Feldbusch, a member of the Conservative Party of Canada’s National Council — which governs the party’s federal election campaign — was formerly a lobbyist with Alberta Counsel Inc. As previously reported by DeSmog, the Poilievre campaign is awash in lobbyists with direct connections to the oil and gas sector. Among others, Poilievre’s chief of staff, Ian Todd, and the Conservative Party of Canada’s National Council Vice President Matthew Conway were both lobbyists with Maple Leaf Strategies, which in turn represents Enbridge, a member of the Canadian Gas Association. Feldbusch, Todd, and Conway are all part of Poilievre’s inner circle, according to DeSmog’s map on Poilievre. 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 Poilievre campaign is well connected to the oil and gas sector, with ties to Koch Industries, Suncor, Pembina Pipelines, Cenovus Energy, Tourmaline Oil Corp, and Pathways Alliance. Data from the Meta Ad Library reveals that Voice for Energy has spent tens of thousands of dollars on dozens of ad campaigns appearing on social media platforms like Facebook and Instagram in recent months, generating hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of impressions. Voice of Energy ads are running on Google as well. Voice for Energy’s ads claim, among other pro-gas pitches, that “Canadians need access to affordable, reliable energy options like natural gas,” “natural gas helps keep the lights on,” and “without natural gas, Canadians risk higher bills, more power outages, and fewer jobs.” Other ads insinuate that gas is more reliable than other energy products, that it’s best suited for Canadian winters, and that it supports Canadian jobs. The Voice for Energy website argues that governments are coming to take gas away from citizens. In November of 2024, Vancouver city councillors voted in favour of maintaining a ban on gas heating for new housing construction. Writing in the Vancouver Sun shortly before the vote, Seth Shonkoff, executive director of PSE Healthy Energy, an energy science and policy research institute based in Oakland, California, argued not only that continued fossil fuel use in the era of climate change is irresponsible, but also that the use of gas in homes for heating and cooking carries a wide variety of negative health effects, many of which are poorly understood by the general public. According to Shonkoff, natural gas is anything but natural, as it is comprised of at least 21 other hazardous air pollutants that leak from gas-burning household appliances such as fireplaces, stoves, water heaters, dryers, and boilers. These leaks occur even when the appliances aren’t on or being used. Of particular concern, Shonkoff notes, is the presence of benzene, a “known human carcinogen that attacks the bone marrow and is associated with leukemia.” The argument that gas is a more reliable source of energy for heating and electricity has been debunked numerous times, despite lobbyists as much as politicians arguing the opposite. The Union of Concerned Scientists noted in 2023 that gas plants are particularly susceptible to extreme cold weather events, and that several major extreme cold weather in the United States resulted in widespread grid failures and gas plant breakdowns. Renewables Saved Energy Grid Crash During a recent cold weather snap in Alberta, gas plants failed, and it was in fact renewable energy systems like solar and wind power that prevented the province’s energy grid from crashing. Despite this — and that fact that widespread implementation of renewables further buttresses electricity grids as much as provide alternatives for home heating (such as electric baseboards or heat pumps), both industry and its political supporters continue arguing it is the alternatives to gas that are not reliable. Many of the Voice for Energy ads encourage Canadians to write to their elected officials, and the organization’s website comes with pre-written text ready to be sent on an individual’s behalf to their federal, provincial, and/or municipal representatives. The subject line reads “Affordable and reliable natural gas must be part of Canada’s future.” The email opens with a line alleging “some cities and governments are proposing restrictions on access to natural gas, which means my current or future access to it could be at risk.” It further states that “removing access to natural gas would also leave us dependent on energy sources that are expensive and unreliable because of power outages.” The email insists that consumers be given a choice because “my family needs more than one source of energy,” and that natural gas is “low emission.” The letter also insinuates that only gas can provide reliable and inexpensive energy for home heating. According to Voice for Energy’s website, thousands of Canadians have used the platform to contact their elected officials, with notably high representation in Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan. Voice for Energy’s ads have been running on social media platforms such as Facebook and Instagram since December 2023, with most of the 820 or so ad campaigns running in 2024. About 35 campaigns have run this year, nearly all of which terminated around March 23, when the Canadian government issued the writ on the 45th federal election. Voice for Energy’s website and ad campaigns give the organization the appearance of being a grassroots effort intended to give Canadian consumers a choice and a voice against government encroachment. However, the campaign and site are in fact a well-funded and coordinated marketing effort by the CGA, using a tactic called astroturfing — a deceptive practice where the sponsors of an organization’s campaign makes it look as though it originated from unsolicited grassroots participants to give it credibility. The CGA’s board members include representatives from gas and pipeline companies like Enbridge, and TC Energy. The chief executives of both Enbridge and TC Energy were among the signatories of an open letter to the national party leaders, issued just before the official start of the election campaign on March 18, demanding the next prime minister eliminate regulations and federal oversight of most energy projects, ostensibly to unencumber Canada’s fossil fuel sector. The open letter included a list of demands, such as reducing regulatory timelines, overhauling the Impact Assessment Act and the West Coast tanker ban, as well as eliminating the emissions cap and carbon levy.  Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre was quick to endorse the fossil fuel sector’s demands, arguing they will end Canadians’ dependence on the United States. However, the widespread use of natural gas in Canada — particularly in Ontario — appears to have made that province more reliant on fracked gas imports from Ohio and Pennsylvania. The post Poilievre Campaign Has Links to Gas Industry Astroturfing Effort appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Farage’s Top Fundraiser Targets Oil and Gas Donations

 

at 4/25/25 3:59am

Nigel Farage’s Reform UK is attempting to raise money from the fossil fuel industry, the Financial Times has revealed. The newspaper reports that Reform UK treasurer Nick Candy has been launching a drive to raise funds from wealthy offshore donors in low-tax jurisdictions including Monaco, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Switzerland. Expatriates registered to vote in the UK can donate to UK political parties, as can foreign individuals with a business in the country. Part of this drive has involved soliciting donations from oil and gas executives. Candy told the Financial Times that an energy executive had donated £100,000 to the party last week, and pledged to give up to £1 million. Candy added that Reform was targeting oil and gas donors who are “very disillusioned” with current UK government policies. Prime Minister Keir Starmer yesterday said: “homegrown clean energy is in the DNA of my government”, as he pledged to accelerate the transition from fossil fuels to renewables. While the UK’s oil and gas reserves are dwindling, the country’s green economy grew by 10 percent in 2024. By contrast, Reform advocates for clean energy policies to be scrapped, including cancelling the UK’s commitment to achieving net zero emissions by 2050. “This is further evidence that Reform is copying Donald Trump and pretending that climate change does not exist,” said Bob Ward, Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics. “But the reality of making the UK more dependent on fossil fuels is that we would be more at the mercy of international markets and so would have energy that is more insecure, more unaffordable and more unsustainable.” 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); Reform UK and its senior figures have repeatedly questioned basic climate science. Speaking at the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship conference in February, while admitting that he knew little about climate science, Farage claimed it was “absolutely nuts” that CO2 is considered to be a pollutant. He also suggested on the BBC’s Today programme this week that climate change may not be caused by humans. Farage’s deputy Richard Tice, who has donated substantial sums to the party in recent years, has claimed that “CO2 is not poison; it’s plant food”. In reality, 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 IPCC has also stated that carbon dioxide pollution “is responsible for most of global warming” since the late 19th century, which has increased the “severity and frequency of weather and climate extremes, like heat waves, heavy rains, and drought” – all of which “will put a disproportionate burden on low-income households and thus increase poverty levels.” As revealed by DeSmog, Reform received at least £2.3 million from fossil fuel interests, polluters and climate deniers prior to the 2024 general election campaign – equivalent to 92 percent of its funding during the period. The post Farage’s Top Fundraiser Targets Oil and Gas Donations appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— ‘Canada First’ Conservative MP Attended Prayer Breakfast with Trump 

 

at 4/24/25 11:34am

Bob Zimmer, a Conservative Member of Parliament incumbent running in Canada’s federal election in the northeast B.C. riding of Prince George–Peace River–Northern Rockies, has long been known for his socially conservative views and strong advocacy for resource development. But since 2016 he has also been known to show his support and praise for Donald Trump. Zimmer tweeted “congratulations” when Trump was selected as the Republican nominee for president. And after Trump won the election against Hillary Clinton, Zimmer released a statement saying he looked “forward to working with President-elect Trump and his government as we facilitate trade deals that will be mutually beneficial for both countries.” In early 2017, Zimmer attended the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C., posting to social media that he was, “Honoured to be with POTUS.” However, as Canada approaches a federal election on April 28, Zimmer appears to have shifted his overt praise for Trump to align more with Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre’s narrative of a “Canada First” approach to dealing with U.S. tariffs. Zimmer seems to be distancing himself from his previous admiration for conservative policies south of the border. Zimmer posted on Instagram in April that “Canada needs to be in a position of strength to make us less reliant on the United States.”  Tracy Calogheros is a long-time resident of the Prince George area and ran against Zimmer for the Liberals in 2015 and 2019. Calogheros isn’t running this election. The last time a Liberal was elected in the riding was 1972. Over the past few months Calogheros has definitely seen a shift in the political rhetoric coming not just from Zimmer, but Conservative candidates across the country, some of whom in the past have been supportive of Trump. “You get Trump starting to threaten to take over Canada and threaten our sovereignty, calling us a 51st state,” Calogheros said. “And thats why now you have conservatives and Trump pretending that they never got along. You cant trust an about-face like that.” Local Concern About Zimmer’s Trump Views Zimmer’s previous support for Trump didn’t go unnoticed locally at the time. The Prince George Citizen’s managing editor wrote an opinion piece in 2016 arguing that “Trump is a political dead end.” The piece went on, “Hopefully Zimmer doesnt think that the Conservative Partys next leader, the one that will lead them in the next federal election against Justin Trudeaus Liberals, needs to Make Canada Great Again.” After Zimmer attended the prayer breakfast in 2017 and shared it on social media, one Prince George local responded on Facebook: “One of our MPs. Wtf is he thinking? Im embarrassed for us. In no way is this an honour.”  That previous support could be a political liability in Canada’s current federal election. The Conservative Party has adopted the “Canada First” policy, emphasizing the protection of Canadian workers and industries in response to escalating trade tensions with the U.S. The policy outlines measures to counter potential tariffs and secure Canadas economic interest. But this about-face of support for MAGA sentiments only came after a reversal of political fortunes for the Conservative Party of Canada, which is trying to scuttle a fourth Liberal term in Ottawa under former central banker, Mark Carney, who now leads the Liberal Party of Canada. At the beginning of the year, when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was still at the helm of the governing Liberal party, his approval rating was one of the lowest in Canadian history. But following Trudeau’s resignation and a short Liberal leadership race, which Carney won and assumed the position of prime minister, the Liberal Party’s political fortunes have shifted at the expense of Poilievre’s Conservative Party, largely due to the cozy relationship and endorsements from key Trump allies including Elon Musk.   Before the election was called the Conservatives were riding high in the polls, some polls even suggested that Poilievre and the Conservatives could form Canada’s first super majority, more than 20 points ahead of the Liberals. However, after Trump’s second inauguration in January, his suggestions that Canada should become the 51st state and the launch of trade tariffs on Canadian goods, the long-time political alignment between Canadian and U.S. conservative movements backfired, skyrocketing support for the Liberals under Carney. Even the Economist now gives the Liberals an 86 percent chance of winning the election, “thanks to Trump.” Although the overall support for the Conservatives has dropped significantly since earlier this year, with many polls now projecting a Liberal majority, it might not matter for Zimmer’s supporters. “The standing joke is that you could paint a rock blue and it would get elected here,” Calogheros said. “There hasnt been a Liberal elected here in my lifetime.” The post ‘Canada First’ Conservative MP Attended Prayer Breakfast with Trump  appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— A Rundown of Trump Allies That Have Endorsed Pierre Poilievre

 

at 4/23/25 2:45pm

A recent headline in the Wall Street Journal neatly summed up the current state of Canada’s federal election: “How Canada’s Trump-Style Candidate Blew a 20-Point Polling Lead.” Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre clearly has a Donald Trump problem. With only days left in the campaign, many Canadian voters can’t help seeing the obvious similarities in style and substance with the combative populist U.S. President. It is only helping Liberal leader and Prime Minister Mark Carney. Poilievre’s plight is compounded by his own party’s MAGA-adjacent base. Three quarters of his caucus and almost half of his supporters are at least latent Trump supporters, according to recent polling. Even as Poilievre tries to publicly distance himself from Trump, a high-profile cohort of Trump-friendly personalities have been heaping on untimely help and praise. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith outraged many Canadians with her comments to far-right U.S. media outlet Breitbart News that a Poilievre government would be “very much in sync with” the Trump administration, leading one commentator to describe her as “Mark Carney’s secret weapon.”  Besides Smith, what other MAGA-adjacent personalities have loudly touted their support for Poilievre? Elon Musk Billionaire Elon Musk took time of out his busy schedule eviscerating the U.S. public service to endorse Poilievre on his social media platform X and repost many of the Conservative leader’s tweets. Musk is arguably the most influential person in Trump’s inner orbit, badly eroding Poilievre’s public narrative that the President prefers Carney to win on April 28. Kevin O’Leary Kevin O’Leary, aka “Mr. Wonderful,” is also a big Poilievre fan and Trump supporter. Prior to the election, the Shark Tank celebrity told U.S. networks that Trump should invite “the Prime Minister in waiting” to Mar-a-Lago, referring to Poilievre, because Poilievre is “Trump’s kind of guy.” O’Leary was also an early apologist of Trump’s threats to annex our country, calling for an “economic union” with the U.S., which he proposed negotiating at Mar-a-Lago on behalf of all Canadians. “I think 41 million Canadians would trust me on this deal,” boasted O’Leary on Fox News. How was this idea received by Canadian workers? “Danielle Smith and Kevin O’Leary are traitors to Canada in the simplest sense of the word,” said Mark Hancock, president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees. “They’re happy to sell out Albertan workers and Canadian workers as long as it means keeping the bonus cheques rolling for their CEO friends.” Ben Shapiro  Ben Shapiro is a leading voice in the MAGA movement with over 7 million subscribers on his YouTube channel. Shapiro recently called Canada “a silly country” that should be annexed by Trump without voting rights. He also strongly supports Poilievre, posting a 9-minute video called “Pierre Poilievre is for the People” where Shapiro calls the Conservative leader a “tremendous politician” who opposes “radical sexual individualism.” Shapiro further expounds that women “owe it to men to be good wives and mothers” and that “Poilievre is talking about the dream that… can only be accomplished by families allowed to live free… without the heavy hand of government dictating every aspect of how they raise their children.” Shapiro’s endorsement is unlikely to help Poilievre close his 25-point deficit among female voters. Ezra Levant Ezra Levant, owner of Rebel News, was a mentor to a young Pierre Poilievre, according to recent reporting from CBC. Its reporter interviewed Mark Bourrie, the author of Ripper, a scathing biography of Poilievre that documented his ties to Levant dating back decades. Poilievre was cited as Levant’s communications director when campaigning in a 2002 byelection before Levant stepped aside for former Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Both Poilievre and Levant strenuously deny any recent connections. I havent had any meaningful dealings with Poilievre in nearly 25 years, Levant said in a statement to CBC. When asked whether Poilievre and Levant were still friends or have been coordinating around the election, his campaign responded: No. Your insinuations are false.” However, another Levant-controlled group called For Canada has registered as a third-party campaign with Elections Canada with a stated mission to “aggressively oppose Mark Carney in the upcoming April 28 election, using uncapped donations to fund hard-hitting ads and tactics beyond what political parties can do.”  By the way, if you are looking for a wide selection of pro-Trump merch, Rebel News has got you covered. Conrad Black Convicted fraudster and former prison inmate Conrad Black recently penned an op-ed warning that Liberal leader and Prime Minister “Mark Carney has poor values.” This is one of seven recent anti-Carney opinion pieces from Black that the editors of the National Post felt worthy to print. News enthusiasts will recall that Black was pardoned by his “friend” Trump in 2019. Alex Jones Alex Jones, celebrity conspiracy theorist, denier of climate change and the Sandy Hook shooting is another vocal supporter of Poilievre. Calling him “the real deal”, Jones was enthused that Poilievre “is saying the same things as me”. Jones seemed to be alluding to Poilievre’s conspiratorial insinuations about the World Economic Forum, something the Conservative leader’s supporters continue to loudly indulge in on the campaign trail. Matt Gaetz Another odious endorser of Pierre Poilievre from the MAGA-sphere is former congressman Matt Gaetz, who tweeted “Carney won’t do well in the upcoming debate. Take Pierre now!” Gaetz is seen as hard core MAGA loyalist who was nominated by Trump as US attorney general before withdrawing shortly after a damning congressional report documented that Gaetz engaged in paid sex with a minor and drug abuse.   Want some more questionable endorsements? Former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott supports Poilievre and is also a climate change denier who believes global temperature rise is “probably doing good.” UK Tory leader and “net-zero skeptic” Kemi Badenoch is strong supporter of Poilievre, describing him as “a new friend and ally”. Jordon Peterson, Joe Rogan, and Stephen Harper have all endorsed Poilievre, helpfully clarifying the numerous ties between the Conservative leader and the climate-denying MAGA movement. As election day nears, concerned Canadians should take note and vote accordingly. The post A Rundown of Trump Allies That Have Endorsed Pierre Poilievre appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Alberta’s First Commercial Hydrogen Fuelling Station Removed Ahead of Edmonton Expo

 

at 4/23/25 12:43pm

Alberta’s first commercial hydrogen fuelling station has been shipped back to the United States, and its American owner Nikola has filed for bankruptcy. The removal came weeks before a national hydrogen conference in Edmonton, beginning Tuesday.   DeSmog has previously reported on a fraud investigation that found the company’s founder Trevor Milton had used a staged video to create the false impression that the Nikola One prototype was capable of moving under its own power, when in fact the truck was rolling downhill. Milton has also been pardoned by U.S President Donald Trump. Nikola has featured prominently at the Canadian Hydrogen Convention with vehicle prototypes on display and company spokespeople in attendance on panels in previous years. The hydrogen station opened in March 2024 and was described as a “huge milestone” by the Alberta provincial government. The press conference that launched the newly closed Nikola station came long after the settlement of the fraud investigation became public. Nor was that the only bad press the company faced. Nikola made headlines in September 2020 when BP backed out of a hydrogen station partnership deal for a network of fueling stations. Trevor Milton then left the company. Attendees gather around the Nikola Tre FCEV truck at the 2022 Canadian Hydrogen Convention in Edmonton, Canada. Credit: Danielle Paradis The station was installed last year in a private deal between Blackjacks roadhouse, a truck stop outside of Edmonton, and Nikola. DeSmog reached out to Blackjacks owner Clarence Shields but did not receive a reply. This was at the same time as a $4.4-million investment from Prairies Economic Development Canada meant to enable the Alberta Motor Transportation Association and the University of Alberta to build access to fuel for hydrogen vehicles. According to reporting by the Canadian Press, in 2024 the Alberta government announced $57 million in funding for hydrogen fuel development. It said the 28 new technologies it’s supporting will reduce carbon emissions and power the economy. Funding for each individual project ranges from $300,000 to $7 million. Alberta Celebrated ‘Huge Milestone’ In March 2024, Alberta officials said the Nikola station was “a huge milestone in advancing Alberta as a global energy supplier,” Brian Jean, the minister of energy and minerals, said in a press release on Nikola’s page. “Hydrogen is the next step in our commitment to reducing emissions, and projects like this demonstrate that we have the resources, expertise, and interest in our province to drive innovation and become leading suppliers of responsibly produced clean hydrogen.” The federal Liberals also celebrated the installation. “This milestone is a testament both to the region’s strength and expertise in driving Canada’s hydrogen future, and also to our shared vision of supporting a healthy environment and thriving economy,” said Randy Boissonnault, then minister of employment. Both Jean and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith attended the opening ceremony for the fueller. Smith is pictured on the Nikola website smiling and holding large golden scissors. “This project is the beginning of an expanded hydrogen fueling network across Western Canada, which solves the hydrogen economy’s “chicken or the egg” dilemma — enabling fueling infrastructure to keep pace with demand,” said the press release announcing the installation.   Nikola filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in February and on March 24 announced plans to deregister with the Securities and Exchange Commission and therefore delist from the stock market. DeSmog reached out to the Alberta governement for comment on the closure of the hydrogen fueling station. “Albertas government is committed to building a hydrogen fuel network across the province and we worked closely with the proponent to try to get this project to completion,” reads a statement from a Municipal Affairs spokesperson. “Unfortunately, as the proponent was not able to provide the required documentation to verify that the equipment was built to Alberta’s safety standards, this project was unable to move forward.”  An investor FAQ page on Nikola’s website said the Chapter 11 filing will allow it to “wind down” the business “while conducting a structured process to solicit interest in the sale of all, substantially all, or a portion of its operations.” The company did not respond to request for comment. The City of Edmonton has also cancelled plans to install a hydrogen fueling station. The Canadian Hydrogen Convention runs until April 24. The post Alberta’s First Commercial Hydrogen Fuelling Station Removed Ahead of Edmonton Expo appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Donald Trump’s Fossil Fuel Executive UK Ambassador Donated $4 Million to President’s Inauguration Fund

 

at 4/23/25 11:01am

Donald Trump’s ambassador to the UK donated $4 million to the new U.S. president’s inauguration on the same day he was nominated for the diplomatic position, DeSmog can report. Billionaire Warren Stephens gave $4 million (just under £3 million today) to the Trump Vance Inaugural Committee on 2 December, according to the official record of donations. The committee is appointed by the president-elect to arrange the inauguration ceremony, when a U.S. president is formally sworn into office. “It’s not so surprising that a transactional president hands out favours to people who give him money, but that doesn’t make it any less outrageous,” said Agustina Oliveri, head of campaigns and communications at the Good Law Project. There is no direct evidence that Warren secured the position due to this donation. However, U.S. presidents have a long history of handing out diplomatic roles to major donors, while the Trump administration has bestowed his patrons with a number of senior positions. Of the 37 people who gave $1 million or more to the inauguration committee, six have either been given a role in the administration or have been nominated for a role. Tom Brake, a former Liberal Democrat MP and the director of the transparency campaign group Unlock Democracy, urged the UK government not to follow Trump’s lead. “Whatever approach the U.S. administration adopts towards the appointment of its ambassadors, the UK government should make it clear that when it comes to appointing UK ambassadors or high commissioners, donating substantial sums of money directly or indirectly to the party of government will block an appointment not facilitate it,” he said. “There must never be a question mark over whether UK appointments are made on merit, or driven by a donor’s deep pockets.” Subscribe to our newsletter Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts Name -- Email Address What content do you want to subscribe to? (check all that apply) All International UK Sign Up (function($){ $('.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); As DeSmog revealed on 5 December, Warren Stephens holds significant oil and gas interests. Prior to his appointment as Trump’s UK ambassador, he ran Stephens Inc. – one of the largest privately-owned investment banks in the United States. Stephens has since stood down as CEO, but remains its chairman. The firm’s portfolio includes a number of companies that make their money from oil and gas exploration and production — including one, Stephens Natural Resources, which “has a rich history of drilling and producing both oil and natural gas”, according to its website. The UK’s ambassador to the U.S. Peter Mandelson also co-founded a public affairs agency with major fossil fuel clients. Trump’s inauguration committee – which raised almost $240 million – received donations from fossil fuel giants Chevron ($2 million), ExxonMobil ($1 million), the U.S. branches of BP and Shell ($500,000 each), and Valero ($250,000). It also accepted donations from major tech platforms including Amazon and Meta, whose founders Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg received a front row seat to the event. Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and others at Donald Trump’s 2025 inauguration. Credit: WSJ / YouTube The inauguration committee received a further $1 million from the Heritage Foundation, a hard-right U.S. research and lobby group which drafted the “autocratic” Project 2025 blueprint for Trump’s second term. Trump denied knowledge of Project 2025 during the election campaign but has subsequently appointed Russell Vought, one of its advisory board members and co-authors, as director of the Office for Management and Budget (OMB), a key department within the president’s office that helps to oversee and co-ordinate policy. Project 2025 urged Trump to “dismantle the administrative state”, slash restrictions on fossil fuel extraction, scrap state investment in renewable energy, and gut the Environmental Protection Agency. Since his inauguration on 20 January, Trump has announced a series of policies that have mirrored these demands. The new president, who received more than $75 million from oil and gas interests for his re-election campaign, has pledged to once again withdraw the U.S. from the flagship 2015 Paris Agreement, which set an international target for limiting global warming. He has also declared a “national energy emergency” to allow the U.S. to “drill, baby, drill” for new fossil fuels. “When we look at the dumpster fire of U.S. government policy – from trashing the planet to attacking basic human rights – there’s no point in asking ‘What are they up to?’. The question we need to focus on is ‘Who paid for that?,’” said Oliveri. The U.S. embassy in London referred DeSmog’s enquiry to the U.S. State Department. The Heritage Foundation was approached for comment. The post Donald Trump’s Fossil Fuel Executive UK Ambassador Donated $4 Million to President’s Inauguration Fund appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— REVEALED: The Conservative Playbook for Bringing DOGE to Canada

 

at 4/23/25 4:01am

This article is being co-published with The Lever, an investigative newsroom. Click here to get The Levers free newsletter. Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has been on a rampage inside the U.S. federal government, laying off hundreds of thousands of workers, dismantling programs that provide people with life-saving vaccines and sparking nationwide protests amid steep cuts to the Department of Housing, Social Security and other arms of government that help keep the country functioning. Across the border in Canada, leading conservative voices and representatives from major tech and fossil fuel companies see much they admire. They believe the country should do its own version of DOGE, and they see potential for Pierre Poilievre, should the Conservative leader who draws frequent comparisons to Trump win Canada’s election on April 28, to actually move faster than Musk in eviscerating the federal bureaucracy. “There’s no reason why we cant move more quickly,” declared Ian Brodie, a University of Calgary professor who was chief of staff to former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper, at the Canada Strong and Free Network Conference, a gathering of conservative movement leaders and allies in Ottawa this month. Poilievre, who polls suggest is running in a close second behind Liberal leader and current prime minister Mark Carney, released a party platform this week promising to “trim bloated bureaucracy,” along with $75 billion in tax cuts. He said his government could cut 17,000 federal government jobs annually through attrition and “without mass layoffs.”  Brodie’s statement came from audio obtained of him speaking on a panel that included an executive from pipeline company TC Energy, a representative of Amazon Web Services, and a senior fellow at a libertarian think tank called the Macdonald Laurier Institute (MLI), which is part of a Virginia-based global coalition of free-market groups known as Atlas Network. Together, they discussed how a Poilievre government could unleash a DOGE-like assault in Ottawa while neutralizing political opposition, with Tim Sargent of MLI predicting that the federal cuts will come so fast and hard that critics “wont know which way to look.” Yana Lukasheh, senior principal in public policy at Amazon Web Services Canada, imagined Canada’s tech sector supplying “cloud-based” programs that could guide federal cuts, helping provide “the cover that you need to move forward and execute a lot of these initiatives.” All this could have obvious benefits for corporate Canada. “I hope everyone in this room would agree taxes on people and businesses are way, way, too high,” Sargent argued. “The administrative state just has a stranglehold on business in Canada.”  Learning from Trump in Canada The Canada Strong and Free Network Conference has long been regarded as the premiere annual meet-up for the country’s conservative movement. Though Poilievre didn’t appear at this year’s event, it has close ties to his Conservative Party. The previous president of Canada Strong and Free is Jamil Jivani, now a Conservative Parliament member who’s considered a top political ally of Poilievre and reportedly “best friends” with U.S. Vice President JD Vance. At this year’s event in Ottawa, Brodie appeared on a panel entitled “Government Waste and Finding Efficiencies,” which was moderated by Dave Forestall, an executive at TC Energy, the company behind the aborted attempt to build Keystone XL, a hotly contested pipeline that would have stretched from Canada’s oil sands to refineries on the Texas gulf coast. “Obviously we’ve seen the work of DOGE south of the border,” Forestall said. “What would the incoming prime minister and his political staff need to do if they wanted to move quickly to reduce the size of government?” Brodie replied with concrete instructions. “My advice is in week one, you need to get the Privy Council office under control, downsize to a more effective team of people,” he said, referring to the agency that provides advice and support to the prime minister. “And then in week two, get your ministerial and deputy minister team under control and give them the targets and let them run.”  He argued that Canada has advantages over the United States in terms of slashing the federal workforce, given that the country’s cabinet has more leeway in making cuts compared to the U.S. “The good thing compared to the United States is that for all sorts of constitutional legal reasons, the impediments to DOGE moving quickly, we don’t really have to worry about in Canada,” he said.  That’s important, according to Brodie, because newly elected governments have a higher tolerance for causing public outcry. “The earlier the mandate that you move on this sort of stuff, the more political pain cabinet is willing to absorb,” he said. How to Neutralize Opponents During the panel, Forestall from TC Energy pondered how to deal with civil society groups that receive federal government funding and might be hostile to a Canadian DOGE effort. “They tend to be almost exclusively anti-growth in their mindset, anti-development, anti-building anything at all,” he said. Sargent, the senior fellow at MLI, argued the best way to deal with opponents is to overwhelm them. “We could sit down with a list this afternoon. And we could come up with $20 billion of cuts. Just like that,” he said. “So how do you manage the politics?” He went on, “you cut these groups at the same time as youre doing all kinds of other policy changes that they’re going to dislike. So they won’t know which way to look. You’re pursuing a whole kind of big agenda.” Then there’s the matter of dealing with pushback from within the federal government. “We have a public service union that is resistant to change and risk averse,” said Amazon’s Lukasheh. But she speculated that cloud-based government spending technology would help in removing political roadblocks. “Imagine a scenario where a minister has an iPad or a dashboard in front of him looking at all the programs that exist in the department, what is under-leveraged, what’s over-subscribed, how much money is going to each program,” she said. “And then you’re able to give yourself that political cover as well,” she added, “because when you’re justifying certain policies that you are principled on, you have the hard data that is present to back it up.” The pipeline company executive offered another example that could guide a Poilievre government should the Conservative Party defeat the current Liberal prime minister Carney — Javier Milei. The far-right president of Argentina, widely seen as an inspiration for DOGE, has fired tens of thousands of employees and slashed federal programs, helping drive up the poverty rate and pushing the country deeper into a recession. “So, you know, Milei in Argentina has been very successful at taking the chainsaw and eliminating things altogether,” Forestall said. Making large decisive cuts to government all at once is definitely the way to proceed in Canada, he added. “Because if you just chip away at it, one year later, its all back to where you started,” he said. ‘Poilievre Needs to Be the One Leading’ The panel provides yet more evidence that the popularity of Musk’s fiscal onslaught is growing among conservatives and corporate executives — even as public opposition intensifies. Dozens of U.S. states appear to be moving forward with some version of DOGE, an effort encouraged by the hardline corporate policy group American Legislative Exchange Council. In Canada, a coalition of tech leaders known as Build Canada last month launched a website to track government spending that contained many similarities to Musk’s effort. But in a potential sign of how toxic these extreme austerity measures are becoming, the website stressed that “We’re not copying the DOGE playbook from the U.S.” Yet it seems that if Poilievre wins the election next week, he’ll have the backing of powerful corporate interests along with a committed conservative base to inflict chaos within the Canadian government. “Pierre Poilievre needs to start talking about forming a DOGE in Canada,” a right-wing YouTuber known as The Pleb Reporter, who is a fixture at Poilieivre’s campaign rallies, has posted on X. “Every single Canadian I talk to agrees our Government blows our money recklessly. We need a concrete plan to cut all the waste. And Pierre Poilievre needs to be the one leading this movement in Canada.” His post so far has more than 10 thousands likes. The post REVEALED: The Conservative Playbook for Bringing DOGE to Canada appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Climate Scientist Michael Mann Fights New Court Penalties in 2024 Defamation Trial

 

at 4/22/25 5:02pm

A D.C. Superior Court judge recently released a ruling accusing climate scientist Michael Mann and his legal team of deliberately making false statements about Mann’s grant money during the professor’s 2024 defamation trial against two right-wing bloggers — charges the legal team claims are false and unfair. Now Mann and his lawyers, Peter Fontaine and John Williams, are defending themselves against the judge’s sanctions filed in March, which condemned Mann’s and his lawyers’ behavior during the trial as “an affront to the Court’s authority,” and “bad-faith trial misconduct.”  Despite Judge Alfred Irving’s recent order, the trial had ended with a jury awarding Mann $1 million in punitive damages. But additional rulings from Irving from January to March reduced that damages award to just $5,000, and ordered Mann to pay half a million dollars in legal fees, the latest in a line of rulings against Mann throughout the trial. Mann and his legal team filed court documents April 8 asking Judge Irving of D.C. Superior Court to reconsider the sanctions he ordered against them. As far as the data errors, they claim they were using exhibits to show an accurate list of unfunded grants, not for the incorrect amounts of awarded grants that were listed in the exhibits, and that the judge erroneously found that Mann’s legal team had intentionally provided false evidence. “Neither Mr. Fontaine nor I ever denied that the grant amounts [presented at trial] differed,” Mann’s lawyer, John Williams, of Harty Williams, claimed in the court filings. “Indeed, the very reason the grant amounts differed in the first place was because we caught errors — and tried to correct them.” Fontaine’s statement also rejects Judge Irving’s claims of bad faith, saying that neither lawyer had “any intention to deceive” the court or the jury. “Evidence of a decline in grant funding post-publication was a proxy for injury to Dr. Mann’s reputation, not evidence of pecuniary loss, as grants go to the institution, not to the scientist,” Fontaine, from Cozen O’Connor, stated. Subscribe to our newsletter Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts Name -- Email Address What content do you want to subscribe to? (check all that apply) All International UK Sign Up (function($){ $('.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); Early in the litigation, Mann had submitted interrogatory answers detailing his history of obtaining research grants, which he claimed were reduced after bloggers Mark Steyn with National Review and Rand Simberg posted articles in 2012 calling Mann and his climate science research fraudulent and comparing the scientist to a known convicted child molester.   Mann’s initial answers about the grants contained data errors, which the team discovered and corrected well before trial. However, the judge didn’t allow exhibits reflecting the corrected grant amounts to be introduced into evidence for unrelated reasons. So Mann’s attorneys instead had to use exhibits containing the incorrect amounts as an accurate list of the unfunded grants.  Everyone in the courtroom — jury, judge, and litigants — knew Mann’s initial answers were incorrect. In fact, on the stand Mann specifically referred to his mistakes in testimony: Fontaine: “Dr. Mann, you testified that you went through and made some corrections to the information that had previously been submitted. What was the net effect on the numbers?”  Mann: “I think, in the end, it substantially decreased, the apparent loss of funding. We — because of that — there was that one proposal that was for $9 million, and I believe I said to you guys, that’s misleading, because there wasnt a $9 million contract coming to Penn State. Penn States contract was much smaller than that. We should get the numbers right, even if it actually would make a less compelling case for losing funding.” Mann’s testimony during the three-week trial was accurate and candid, and there’s nothing in Judge Irving’s order suggesting he testified falsely. But throughout the trial the defense continually demonized the well-known climate scientist. Judge Irving also ruled against Mann and his team several times.  For example, Irving at one point stated that the defendants were entitled to special treatment because the case involved the First Amendment, but the First Amendment does not protect defamatory statements. When Williams pointed this out during the trial, Judge Irving responded: “I think the slight difference is that the defendants have also argued that their criticisms, their statements are protected under the First Amendment. And so thats the nuance here that allows them to go a bit afield of where plaintiff is entitled to go. But lets deal with that once we get closer to . . .” Williams responded: “I certainly dont understand the First Amendment — the concept that the First Amendment would permit witnesses to testify on things that they otherwise wouldnt be entitled to.”  Judge Irving, a President George W. Bush appointee, has been serving in the court since 2008, and is no stranger to controversial rulings. In 2023, the judge notoriously banned testimony from a whole slate of expert witnesses who were going to support claims that cell phones can lead to brain tumors. That ruling in the 22-year-old lawsuit, Murray v Motorola, handed a victory to Motorola and the entire telecom industry in a case the Wall Street Journal estimated would have cost the industry $2 billion. In 2023, Judge Irving was appointed to serve another 15-year term for the D.C. Superior Court. In January, he announced his retirement as associate judge for the Court and is now being considered for an appointment as senior judge.  Judge Slashes $1 Million Award Earlier in March, Judge Irving had reduced Mann’s $1 million damages award against Mark Steyn to just $5,000, calling the original sum of $1 million “grossly excessive.”  The judge then ordered Mann to pay more than $530,000 to cover National Review’s legal fees over the 13 years of the lawsuit. The decision was based on statutes intended to protect free speech by shielding critics from overwhelming legal costs. Although Judge Irving held that the legal team and Mann had engaged in misconduct, he did not charge Mann’s lawyers with any monetary damages (the damage will come to their professional reputations if not overturned). But he did direct that attorneys for Steyn and Simberg could seek fees for time spent on litigating the grant evidence. Steyn asked for approximately $27,000 and Simberg $17,000 for costs and fees, which Mann would be responsible for. As far as misconduct charges, the Mann team’s April 8 filing says that Mann is not an attorney subject to the Rules of Professional Conduct and should not be held responsible for his attorneys’ conduct when he testified truthfully. Mann’s triumph at having a jury award him $1 million in damages in the 2024 defamation lawsuit was considered a victory for climate science, and a rebuke of the rise of climate science denial. “I hope this verdict sends a message that falsely attacking climate scientists is not protected speech,” Mann said in a statement following the verdict. “It’s a good day for science.” But now Judge Irving’s ruling would hand a victory back to climate deniers, at a time when the Trump administration is gutting climate change science and policy. “The current Trump administration is engaging in an aggressive effort to defund and marginalize climate science,” said Robert Brulle, professor of climate science and society at Brown University, in an email to DeSmog. “In this atmosphere, attacks on climate science and scientists have increased.” Brulle thinks Irving’s rulings in the Mann case is are in line with the political trend being set by Trump’s deregulation policies. “Mainstream climate science is now being pushed into a defensive stance to maintain its cultural credibility,” he said. William J. Murphy with Zuckerman Spaeder in Baltimore is representing Mann, Fontaine, and Williams in this sanctions case, according to court filings. Murphy has decades of experience defending lawyers against lawsuits. According to the April 8 filings, Judge Irving will now have to decide whether to vacate his ruling of misconduct by Mann and his legal team, reverse the sanctions imposed on Mann, or follow through with his original order.  The post Climate Scientist Michael Mann Fights New Court Penalties in 2024 Defamation Trial appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Industry Group with Conservative Ties Is Calling for Pipeline ‘Emergency’

 

at 4/22/25 12:38pm

Build Canada, a new public policy think tank seeking to solve Canada’s economic problems, has ties to the Conservative Party of Canada, and appears to be shaping their energy policy too. Created by major figures in Canada’s tech sector in February 2025, Build Canada bills itself as a non-partisan “platform of bold ideas for growth, innovation, and prosperity.” They are focused primarily on selling more Canadian resources internationally, as well as changes to boost productivity, and tax reforms to “drive innovation and investment.” Build Canada allegedly grew out of a WhatsApp group created by Tobias Lütke, the founder and CEO of Shopify, who had grouped together tech executives frustrated by what they believe to be impediments to innovation. According to The Tyee, former Shopify executive Daniel Debow is principally in charge of running the organization. Build Canada does not appear to be registered as a third party advertiser, nor does it seem to be running ads or soliciting donations. Instead, Build Canada asks people who support their policy memos to share them on social media. As of this report, about 30 policy memos have been published on the Build Canada website. Anti-Regulation Agenda Build Canada outlines its energy agenda in a memo entitled “Building to Secure Canadian Energy Independence.” Written by billionaire oil baron Adam Waterous, the memo advocates for failed energy infrastructure projects and lower government regulations. These anti-regulation proposals echo demands in an open-letter recently shared by Canada’s major oil and gas companies. Waterous is a signatory of that open letter as well. The five point plan is couched in the language of Indigenous empowerment and cutting red tape, but demands that whoever becomes the next prime minister eliminate any regulations that might impede fossil fuel infrastructure development, such as the Impact Assessment Act and West Coast tanker ban. It also insists on eliminating the emissions cap and federal carbon levies, and argues that “regulatory processes need to be streamlined and simplified” so that subsequent decisions can “withstand judicial challenges.”  Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre endorsed all five of Big Oil’s demands about two weeks after they first appeared, releasing a statement on the Conservative Party website on April 1 that was then covered by Canadian news media the same day. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith also appeared to endorse the demands during an April 1 press conference in which she defended her appearance at a PragerU fundraiser with American far-right activist Ben Shapiro. Though not identical, the language in the list of demands is similar to that in the memo written by Waterous for Build Canada. Both posit that Canada’s government has created impediments to the development of the oil and gas sector. This contrasts with expert analysis of federal government subsidies to the fossil fuel sector. Environmental Defence recently issued it’s annual report on the subject, revealing that Canada’s federal government contributed nearly $30 billion to the sector in 2024 alone, and nearly $80 billion over the last five years. In addition, both texts primarily emphasize crude oil pipeline and LNG infrastructure development, but omit other technologies — such as hydrogen and carbon capture — that Canada’s oil and gas sector have previously argued would help them corner developing markets for alternative and lower-emissions fuels. Both texts also emphasize the need for Indigenous participation, despite advocating for a removal of the regulations, consultations, and other checks and balances that have given Indigenous communities serious leverage in energy infrastructure negotiations. Conservative Connections Both Adam Waterous and Build Canada are connected to the Conservative party. Adam Waterous is the CEO of Waterous Energy Fund as well as the Executive Chairman of Strathcona Resources Ltd. Elections Canada donation records reveals both he and his wife Janet have been longtime Conservative Party donors, and that both donated to Pierre Poilievre’s 2022 party leadership bid. As previously reported by both the National Observer and the CBC, Waterous has made other financial contributions to the Poilievre campaign and has attended his fundraisers. Build Canada has several ties to the Poilievre campaign and the Conservative Party of Canada that aren’t mentioned on their website, nor have been previously reported. Ana Curic, whose position within the organization isn’t specified but is listed first and foremost on Build Canada’s website, is a former senior official with various responsibilities in the government of Stephen Harper, including chief of staff to former immigration minister Jason Kenney. Curic is also listed as a senior consultant with Maple Leaf Strategies. As previously reported by DeSmog, at least two members of Poilievre’s ‘inner circle’ are lobbyists connected to Maple Leaf Strategies. This includes Ian Todd, who is currently Poilievre’s chief of staff and who previously held the same position with Stockwell Day, a former leader of the Canadian Alliance Party who held various cabinet positions during the Harper Administration. Todd is formerly a registered lobbyist with Maple Leaf Strategies. Matthew Conway is another member of Poilievre’s inner sanctum that has served as a senior consultant with the firm. Conway is also a Vice President of the Conservative Party’s National Council. Responding to DeSmog’s questions, Ana Curic said that neither Todd nor Conway are currently employed by Maple Leaf Strategies, that she volunteers her time with Build Canada, and that Build Canada is completely separate from Maple Leaf Strategies. She said Maple Leaf Strategies did not create Build Canada, nor that any of Maple Leaf’s clients asked the firm to create Build Canada. She added Maple Leaf does not work for any political party, and they strictly follow Canada’s lobbying rules. Adam Waterous did not respond to DeSmog’s request for comment. Maple Leaf Strategies represents, among others, Enbridge, Canada’s mining sector, and Facebook. DeSmog has previously reported that Enbridge, the gas and pipeline giant, was found to have funded and supported an astroturfing group to advance a pipeline project in Minnesota. The campaign included considerable ad buys on social media platforms, such as Facebook, a common tactic employed by astroturfing groups. What About Renewable Innovation? While both Adam Waterous’ Build Canada memo and the five demands listed in Big Oil’s open letter are ostensibly intended to guarantee Canada’s energy independence, there is no mention of the renewable energy systems that could eliminate Canada’s dependence on both fossil fuel imports and exports by increasing domestic energy generation. This doesn’t fit Build Canada’s supposed interest in innovative solutions. A DeSmog analysis of the text in Adam Waterous’ memo reveals that the words solar, wind, renewables, and electricity don’t appear at all, while words such as pipeline is mentioned 17 times, oil is mentioned 15 times, gas is mentioned 11 times, and LNG is mentioned six times. Similarly, the words solar, wind, and renewables don’t appear in Big Oil’s open letter to the party leaders. Experts disagree on the main thesis of both Waterous’ memo and the open letter, namely that Canada’s energy security depends on building new energy infrastructure. The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) argues that Canada’s energy security in fact hinges on the development of solar and wind power resources, given that wind and solar energy can be generated within Canada’s borders and aren’t dependent on fuel imports. Moreover, the IISD argues that renewable energy is more stable than fossil energy, which fluctuates with global fuel markets and is susceptible to external geopolitical factors. If energy security is the product of energy availability and affordability, renewables ought to have been front and centre in the Build Canada energy security memo. Much like the Big Oil demand letter, Waterous’ memo narrowly focuses on government regulation as the principle impediment to oil and gas development. Waterous’ memo claims potential trade partners outside of the United States are “urgently seeking partnership” and argues that treating Trump’s illegal tariff war as an “energy emergency” would then allow “essential projects” to be pushed through. He lists Energy East, Northern Gateway, and the Gazoduq pipeline as examples, as well as potential new LNG terminals, and claims doing so would ensure Canadian oil and gas is available to Canadians as much has potential export markets. The reality of these projects doesn’t align with Waterous’ assessment: economic conditions, far more so than activism, were chiefly to blame for their cancellations. It isn’t clear how any reform of government regulations would change the underlying economic conditions to make these pipelines or the fossil fuels they could carry economically viable. Take Energy East as an example. Though politicians and Big Oil blamed regulations and the Liberal government of former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for what they termed the project’s cancellation in 2017, it was TC Energy that abandoned both it and the Energy Mainline projects. As noted by the Narwhal, Energy East’s challenges were far more than just it’s inability to surpass basic regulatory requirements. By far the most important reason Energy East never saw the light of day were the economic factors: there was insufficient global demand for Canadian crude exports, the price of oil was too low, and the pipeline was at serious unused capacity risk. Other projects mentioned in Waterous’ Build Canada memo similarly failed to meet the most basic of requirements, such as economic viability and passing the minimal standards of social acceptability. The Federal Court of Appeal overturned the Harper government’s approval of Northern Gateway because they determined the government failed at even the most basic level of Indigenous consultation. Despite this fact, Waterous mentions the necessity for “fulsome consultation” with Indigenous communities but suggests doing so can be fast tracked as well. This contradiction isn’t explained. Proposals for gas pipelines in Quebec have failed to get off the ground chiefly because they fail to meet the minimum of social acceptability in the province, even before considering the dubious business case of exporting LNG to Europe. According to a recent report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), European LNG imports declined by 19 percent last year, with gas demand reaching an 11-year low. The IEEFA further noted that half of the EU’s regasification terminals had utilization rates below 40 percent. Energy ‘Emergency’? The Waterous memo claims that by fast-tracking the aforementioned projects Canada could quickly become a global energy powerhouse, but ignores the reality that global demand for oil and LNG is declining. The most recent Oil Market Report from the International Energy Agency reduced their forecasts for global oil demand growth down by 300,000 barrels per day since the previous month’s report. They further expect this trend to continue into 2026. More significantly, they base this outlook on Trump’s trade war. The economic uncertainty caused by the trade war has not created any new opportunities for Canadian fossil fuels on the global market, but is in fact worsening any potential business case. According to experts, world oil supply is up, prices are down, and growth demand projections are being cut for now and the foreseeable future. A concerning point of commonality between Build Canada’s memo and the energy industry’s open letter is that both advocate using treating the development of energy infrastructure as a national emergency and using emergency powers to push through new infrastructure development. Big Oil’s open letter asks that an energy crisis be declared so that the federal government could use its “emergency powers” to ensure “that the dramatic regulatory restructuring required to expand the oil and natural gas sector is rapidly achieved.” Waterous’ Build Canada memo uses the word ‘emergency’ six times, stating “treating this as a national energy emergency will allow us to break free from regulatory stagnation.” Whether the Poilievre campaign endorses this extreme position is hard to say, as his office did not respond to DeSmog’s request for comment. The post Industry Group with Conservative Ties Is Calling for Pipeline ‘Emergency’ appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— BBC Blocks Evan Davis from Hosting Clean Heating Podcast

 

at 4/22/25 9:42am

The BBC has stopped Evan Davis, one of its senior presenters, from hosting a personal podcast informing the public about heat pumps, a flagship clean heating solution. Speaking on the final episode of the show, launched in January, Davis said that the BBC had become “concerned” that the podcast was “somehow treading on areas of public controversy”. He added: “I take their shilling; they dictate the rules. They know they have to try and keep their presenters out of areas of public controversy and they have decided heat pumps can be controversial so they’ve asked me not to be involved.” Heat pumps, powered by electricity, are currently set to play a key role in decarbonising heating and replacing gas boilers, which heat around 85 percent of Britain’s homes and account for 15 percent of greenhouse gas emissions nationwide. The government has set a target of 600,000 heat pump installations every year by 2028, up from just 55,000 in 2022. The Happy Heat Pump podcast co-hosted by Davis attempted to educate listeners about how to use a heat pump, how much they cost, and which properties are best suited to a heat pump. 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); Heat pumps can be more expensive to install than alternatives, though experts have blamed the government for not matching the incentives offered by its European counterparts. Heat pump uptake in the UK is among the lowest in Europe, with more than 500,000 heat pumps sold in France last year, and more than 400,000 in both Italy and Germany. However, gas industry lobbyists and sections of the right-wing media have attempted to stoke a “culture war” around the uptake of heat pumps in the UK. DeSmog revealed in July 2023 that a barrage of negative press about heat pumps had been funded by a gas lobby group. Davis’s podcast co-host, Bean Beanland, criticised the BBC’s decision. Beanland, the director for growth and external affairs for the Heat Pump Federation, said the corporation’s judgement was “extraordinary”. “It does seem to me that somehow the technologies we espouse have fallen victim to some sort of culture war,” he added. Davis said that he believes the BBC’s decision was “more about net zero than this particular form of heating”. The legally-binding target of reaching net zero emissions by 2050 has also been weaponised by campaigners and conservative media outlets, despite a broad public consensus for reducing emissions and building new green infrastructure. “Cars are controversial, they kill and maim thousands every year, but that hasn’t stopped the BBC glamorising car use in its decades broadcasting hundreds of episodes of Top Gear,” said Andrew Simms, co-director of the New Weather Institute. “Heat pumps, on the other hand, dont kill or maim, they just cheaply and safely warm homes. It’s been estimated that swapping all 23 million gas boilers in the UK to heat pumps could save roughly £11 billion in wholesale gas costs.  “The technology is already hugely successful in some of the coldest countries in Europe. In those with the longest, harshest winters like Norway, Finland and Sweden, heat pumps dominate. Already by 2022 around 41 percent of Finnish households had a heat pump installed, with two-thirds in Norway and nearly half in Sweden. Try telling them that their heating systems are controversial.  A number of commentators have expressed their dismay on social media at the BBC’s decision. Financial Times associate editor Stephen Bush accused the BBC of “muzzling one of its best presenters from making an excellent, wholly factual programme”. Bush added that the broadcaster was an “organisation badly in need of new leadership.” A BBC spokesperson told DeSmog: “The BBC editorial guidelines are clear that anyone working for the BBC who does an external public speaking or writing engagement should not compromise the impartiality or integrity of the BBC or its content, or suggest that any part of the BBC endorses a third-party organisation, product, service or campaign.” As previously revealed by DeSmog, the BBC’s commercial content arm, BBC StoryWorks, has been paid to promote oil and gas companies, agricultural giants, fossil fuel states, and high-emission transport firms. Experts have also highlighted that Davis’s podcast was simply reflecting basic facts about heat pumps.  Energy policy expert Jan Rosenow said: “Heat pumps are a mature technology that has been around for more than 100 years. All authoritative analyses indicate that we need to deploy millions of them to reach net zero. Public controversy stems from poor reporting – Evan tried to change that.” These sentiments were reflected by fellow climate expert Andrew Sissons, who said: “I’ve said this before but… heat pumps are really quite boring, and it says quite a lot about the state of debate in Britain that we’ve managed to make them controversial. Credit to Evan for trying to make them not controversial.” The post BBC Blocks Evan Davis from Hosting Clean Heating Podcast appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— AI Energy Demand Can Keep Fossil Fuels Alive, Tech Backers Promise World’s Two Biggest Oil Producers

 

at 4/22/25 4:00am

Just before the November 2024 election, the International Energy Agency (IEA) released its flagship annual report on global energy markets – and the agency’s forecast suggested a new era was dawning. Over 150 years of growth in demand for fossil fuels has nearly reached its end, the IEA’s forecasts showed for a second year in a row. Fossil fuel demand will peak by the end of this decade, the organization affirmed, concluding that clean energy like wind, solar, and storage look increasingly capable of driving fossil fuels out of global energy markets – and soon. That would be relatively positive news for the climate – but for fossil fuel producers, that message posed a major threat, given that even the prospect of stagnating demand on the horizon could chill investment. But in recent months, artificial intelligence (AI) proponents have begun talking up the idea that AI and data centers can drive a surge in fossil fuel demand, prolonging the fossil fuel era – big tech’s earlier climate pledges notwithstanding. After successfully convincing Saudi Arabia, the world’s second-largest oil producer, to relax regulations and support AI development, tech industry advocates are now bringing that same promise of endless fossil fuel demand to the world’s largest oil producing country, the U.S. 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); “We need energy in all forms,” Eric Schmidt, the former CEO of Google, now chair of the pro-AI think tank, Special Competitive Studies Project, told a Congressional hearing on April 9. “Renewable, nonrenewable, whatever.” Schmidt, whose organization published a roadmap on AI for the Trump administration, was testifying before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Schmidt has a history of shaping U.S. laws on AI, previously serving as chair of the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence, which under his watch wrote legislative proposals that later became law. The committee’s hearing on AI was inspired, according to its chair, Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY), by Schmidt’s recent work. “If you think about it, it’s going to take enormous energy to beat China to AI,” Guthrie said as the hearing kicked off, emphasizing his desire to make AI rules that would endure beyond the next two to four years. “Dr. Schmidt, you said all energy resources are needed,” he said, “and then AI will develop solutions to deal with climate change.” Climate experts have warned that it’s not that simple. AI is at best a double-edged sword for the climate — in part because the technology requires so much energy.  Just the day before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s hearing, Trump signed a raft of executive orders promoting coal, the latest in a volley of executive orders and administrative moves to deregulate and subsidize fossil fuels, citing AI demand expectations. Schmidt has carried the same promise to top Saudis – drawing a similar positive response.  Saudi Arabia’s climate plan – which earns a failing grade from climate watchdogs – involves the use of carbon offsets and net-zero math, including the country’s Voluntary Carbon Market, backed by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF), the nation’s sovereign wealth fund. Before Trump took office, the U.S. earned slightly better marks than the Saudis – meaning that the more the U.S. follows the path forged by Saudi Arabia, under the influence of AI advocates, the worse the climate impacts can be expected to be for the entire world. ‘We’ll Take Everything You’ve Got.’ Earlier this year, President Trump appeared in person to give a presidential address launching the Future Investment Initiative (FII) Priority conference in Miami, which was attended by roughly 10,000 representatives from companies and organizations around the world. On the conference’s final day, Schmidt held a “special conversation” with Saudi Arabia’s Yasir Al-Rumayyan, chairman of Saudi Aramco’s board of directors, the governor of PIF, and chair of the FII. Schmidt speaks with Saudi Arabia’s Yasir Al-Rumayyan, chairman of Saudi Aramco’s board of directors, at the FII Priority Conference. Credit: FII Institute/YouTube “We are very well positioned to be a major modern champion when it comes to AI, for the following reasons,” Al-Rumayyan told Schmidt during the panel. “One, we have the political will. With that comes all easing the regulations,” Al-Ramayyan said. Two, he said Saudi Arabia has the funds to be invested; and three the nation has people, “Saudis and otherwise.” “Four, which is the most important — and I remember when we started talking about AI, everyone was looking at the AI stack and they were forgetting the most important element — which is energy,” the businessman continued. “And energy we have so much of.” “We can use it all,” Schmidt responded. “AI people, we’ll take everything you’ve got.” The friendliness between AI boosters like Schmidt and Saudi officials comes despite a host of concerns outside experts raised during the conference over the Saudi PIF’s record on human rights. “Our warning is: This fund is directly associated with human rights abuses and is facilitating human rights abuses,” Nicole Widdersheim, deputy Washington director of Human Rights Watch, told reporters outside the conference, citing the 2018 murder and dismemberment of journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. The Saudi government has denied U.S. allegations that crown prince Mohammad bin Salman approved Khashoggi’s killing. Widdersheim also pointed to human rights issues faced by foreign workers in Saudi Arabia. “The fund has led the massive investment of these huge mega economic projects domestically inside Saudi Arabia,” she noted, like Saudi Arabia’s Neom project. “These investments have attracted and recruited immigrant workers from all over the world who paid exorbitant fees to come there and work, and who work under extreme heat exhaustion and unsafe conditions,” she said. “Many have died. They are not earning their salaries when theyre working there and then when they die, their families are not even compensated.” Voluntary Carbon Market: Same Oil Tricks Many big tech companies have historically balked at building out new fossil fuel infrastructure, given the growing climate impacts. At the conference, Al-Rumayyan himself hastened to point out that the energy Saudi Arabia produces isn’t all oil and gas. “And the good thing, it’s not fossil fuel-based energy only,” he told Schmidt. “It’s renewable. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is really big. And it works very well with solar energy. Wind is also there. We have some spots — one of the best spots for wind turbines.” PIF also owns 80 percent of the Saudi company, Voluntary Carbon Market (VCM). “One of the things we think of Saudi Arabia as is a petrol state,” Riham ElGizy, the CEO of VCM, said during a side panel at the FII Priority conference. “But we forget Saudi Arabia is one of the most vulnerable regions to climate change.” “The impact of desertification has extended heat waves,” she said. “That’s why you find a lot of companies aware of climate change. They are taking action and they want to participate.” Carbon markets like VCM operate by offering buyers the chance to offset their emissions by buying “credits” for greenhouse gas reductions elsewhere. VCM is a path for developing nations, regardless of credit score or high interest rates, to add liquidity to their financial portfolios as 60 percent of climate finance is borrowed. Through gaining points in the market from meeting climate pledges, global shifts in energy use and types of energy are expected to follow. However, with kickbacks from pledges followed through, the use of fossil fuels can sustain without negatively disturbing a country’s carbon score. But experts say the industry’s been plagued by questionable math and a lack of transparency. “There has been a lot of integrity issues coming out,” ElGizy acknowledged at the conference. “Navigating around that, we needed to double down in scrutiny. We have no room for mistakes in this.” In November, VCM auctioned off carbon credits it said were created from a range of projects, including efforts to capture methane from landfills “from across the Global South,” an Ethiopian forest restoration project, and an unnamed U.S. company that VCM says is “aiming to capture, inject and embed carbon dioxide into fresh concrete.” Saudi plastics makers, petroleum refiners, energy traders and others were among the buyers, according to VCM. ‘Insufficient’ Climate Policies Its first three auctions included enough carbon credits to cover the emissions produced by six million cars in one year, the company says – which, using U.S. federal estimates for vehicle emissions, would imply VCM has auctioned off credits offsetting nearly 10 million tons of carbon dioxide per year since it launched in 2022. That 10 million tons, however, represents a vanishingly small fraction of the carbon produced each year by Saudi oil. Roughly 3.3 billion barrels of crude flowed out of Saudi Arabia in 2024 – enough oil to spew about 1.4 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide into the Earth’s atmosphere last year, based on federal greenhouse gas equivalencies. Roughly 3.3 billion barrels of crude oil flowed out of Saudi Arabia in 2024, much of it from Saudi Aramco in Dhahran, seen here. Credit: Vocal Media Climate Action Tracker, a scientific project that compares countries’ climate policies against Paris Agreement standards, rates Saudi Arabia’s climate policies as “critically insufficient,” which means the country’s climate policies “reflect minimal to no action and are not at all consistent with the 1.5°C temperature limit.” “Saudi Arabia has not implemented any policies that would substantially bring down its greenhouse gas emissions and reduce its reliance on fossil fuels,” the group says. “Previously announced plans to cut emissions through expanding renewable energy are failing to materialise. Despite its ‘Vision 2030’ diversification plan, initiated nearly a decade ago, the Saudi economy remains highly dependent on the production, use and export of hydrocarbons.” And in fact, Saudi Arabia’s national oil company, Saudi Aramco, said at the PIF conference that it has “stayed the course” throughout the energy transition — the implication being the company has little intention to shift away from fossil fuels. Fahad Al-Dhubaib, an Aramco senior vice president, emphasized the national oil company’s carbon capture and hydrogen plans, plus the company’s “carbon intensity” (an often-critiqued measure of how much pollution is generated from its own operations, shifting the focus away from the climate-altering pollution that comes from burning that oil). But the company’s first objective, Al-Dhubaib said, is “How do we meet the increasing energy demand?” Artificial Demand The AI industry, of course, has been on a meteoric rise since ChatGPT was first released to the public in 2022. “In the past few years, AI has gone from an academic pursuit to an industry with trillions of dollars of market capitalisation and venture capital at stake,” the IEA wrote in a report released April 10. An AI data center. Credit: Wim Klerkx But as a share of global energy demand, AI remains still just a tiny sliver, the IEA noted, reflecting about 1.5 percent of world electrical consumption in 2024. AI is expected to continue to expand faster than other sectors – but the IEA predicts the lion’s share of that demand can be met with renewable energy, which the agency noted enjoys a number of advantages over fossil fuels, including faster deployment, lower costs, and smaller climate impacts. By 2035, the agency projects renewables’ electrical generation will grow by over 450 terawatt hours to meet data center demand – compared to 175 terawatt hours for natural gas. There could be climate advantages from an AI boom, the IEA noted. “Energy innovation challenges are characterised by the kinds of problems AI is good at solving,” it wrote. “For example, only 0.01% of next-generation solar PV materials have been experimentally produced, leaving a huge set of possible materials still to be explored. AI could allow scientists to dramatically accelerate the process of finding and testing promising materials, battery chemistries and carbon capture molecules.” That said, it’s not clear that the biggest barriers for a renewable energy buildout at this point are technological, given the advantages the IEA noted that wind, solar, and storage already enjoy over natural gas. In fact, as the nation’s power grid expands, public policy could play an even bigger role, potentially overshadowing advantages that renewables might have over fossil fuels. “House Republicans are poised to vote on a budget resolution that would set the stage to repeal the energy tax credits incentivizing well over 90 percent of the electricity generation poised to come onto the grid,” Frank Pallone, ranking member of the Energy and Commerce committee noted at the committee’s April 9 Congressional hearing, referring to tax credits for renewable energy. It’s also far from clear that the tech industry will prove to be as hungry for fossil fuel power as some predict. First, advances in AI technology could drive energy consumption down. Concerns are emerging that the technology may not fully live up to the hype, at least from investors’ standpoints, with Alibaba Group chairman Joe Tsai  telling a Hong Kong investment summit in March that data construction may have already reached “the beginning of some kind of bubble.” Plus, the Trump tariffs have injected extraordinary levels of uncertainty into global markets, leaving some experts wondering if the upheaval could derail an AI boom. When it comes to domestic AI policy, U.S. Republicans have signaled their intent to look beyond European institutions as they think about energy policy and AI demand. “I believe you said in your presentation, Europe has chosen not to grow,” Rep. Guthrie said to Schmidt at the April 9 hearing, “so we can’t look there as an example.” And indeed, it seems, the path on AI and fossil fuels that the Trump administration is taking the U.S. down just might look strikingly similar to the one forged by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The post AI Energy Demand Can Keep Fossil Fuels Alive, Tech Backers Promise World’s Two Biggest Oil Producers appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Climate Crisis Deniers Explain Why They Like U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright

 

at 4/21/25 4:00am

In mid-February, U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright described the global effort to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions in dark and conspiratorial terms. “Net zero 2050 is a sinister goal,” he told the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC), an international gathering of conservatives convened by Canadian podcaster, author, and anti-climate powerbroker Jordan Peterson. “It’s certainly been a powerful tool used to grow government power [and], top-down control, and shrink human freedom.” Then in March, Wright did a speech at the 43rd annual CERAWeek where he attacked the Biden administration’s climate policies as a “quasi-religious” agenda “that imposed endless sacrifices on our citizens.” Those views put Wright, formerly a CEO with the fracking company Liberty Energy, far outside the Paris Agreement consensus among many world leaders and heads of major corporations that climate change is an urgent issue that requires fundamental changes to our global energy system. But Wright’s reactionary statements are winning him praise from fossil fuel advocates who acknowledge that human-caused climate change is real but deny that it presents existential threats to civilization – what watchdog nonprofits such as the Center for Countering Digital Hate refers to as “the new denial.”  In exclusive interviews with DeSmog and Canada’s National Observer conducted during the ARC conference, three prominent figures who deny there is a climate emergency explained why they’re excited that Wright holds one of the most consequential cabinet posts in the Trump administration, with one referring to the U.S. energy secretary as “a good friend.” Bjorn Lomborg speaks about his most recent book during a press briefing at ARC. Credit: Marc Fawcett-Atkinson Bjorn Lomborg One particularly influential climate crisis denier is Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish political scientist who for decades has been trying to convince policymakers and the public that there are more important global challenges to address than climate change. This is the subject of his most recent book, Best Things First, which Lomborg was promoting at ARC. Last year, Peterson personally presented a copy of the book to Elon Musk. “Well have to wait and see if he actually reads it,” Lomborg said of Musk in an interview with DeSmog and Canada’s National Observer at the conference. Lomborg, who is an advisor to ARC, said during a keynote speech that efforts to transition off fossil fuels are a “green fantasy.” Lomborg acknowledges that climate change is real but claims, contrary to decades of scientific and economic evidence, that it will be relatively easy and painless for humankind to adapt. Those arguments have resonated with Wright, who during a 2020 podcast referred to Lomborg’s previous book False Alarm as “fantastic,” and earlier this year described him as a “friend” on LinkedIn.   Asked what he thinks about Trump’s pick for energy secretary, Lomborg replied: “Look, Chris Wright is a great guy and hes very smart. And Im very happy that we can get a more sense-based approach to how we do energy.” Part of that, according to Lomborg, is acknowledging — despite low-carbon investment surpassing $2 trillion in 2024 — that a transformative global shift to green energy isn’t happening anytime soon. “Were not there yet,” he said. “And that, I think, is what Chris Wright can help us to do, which is to say, ‘lets be realistic now and lets find smarter ways to have greener energy sources in the future.’” Scott Tinker does a speech at ARC. Credit: Marc Fawcett-Atkinson Scott Tinker During his 13-minute presentation at ARC, Scott Tinker outlined his view that energy has to be affordable, reliable, and clean, criteria that in his view disadvantages renewable energy. “If you want 100 percent clean you don’t get much of these other things,” he told the conference. “There are trade-offs in the real world.” Tinker runs an organization called Switch Energy Alliance that creates videos about energy and climate change for classrooms, museums, and professional training sessions. The organization says that it wants an “energy-educated future that is objective, nonpartisan, and sensible.” But Tinker tends to promote the benefits of fossil fuels while downplaying the urgency of addressing global temperature rise. During a podcast interview in March, Tinker said it was “a very strange form of economic colonialism” to argue against developing world countries burning fossil fuels “because we’ll wreck the climate.” We shouldn’t fear a bit of atmospheric warming, Tinker added, urging listeners to instead consider “all the positive things” countries gain from oil, gas, and coal. Wright has used similar language, telling a gathering of African leaders in March that it would be “a paternalistic post-colonial attitude” for the U.S. to stand in the way of their fossil fuel resources. The similarities between Wright’s and Tinker’s views aren’t a coincidence. Tinker told DeSmog in an interview at ARC that he and the U.S. energy secretary have known each other for years. “Chris is a good friend,” Tinker said. “We’ve bounced a lot back and forth.” One other area they seem to agree on is rejecting carbon dioxide’s legal status as a pollutant in the U.S., which helps provide the basis for the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate emissions. That’s been a long-time goal of climate denial organizations such as the CO2 Coalition and Heartland Institute. “We shouldn’t confuse [CO2] with being a pollutant,” Tinker said. Robert Bryce speaks at ARC. Credit: ARC / YouTube Robert Bryce For years Robert Bryce has been on a mission to convince the world that renewable energy can never replace or out-compete coal, gas, and oil. Previously a senior fellow with the Manhattan Institute— a think tank with a long history of accepting fossil fuel money and questioning the scientific consensus on climate change — Bryce now attacks climate solutions as an author, speaker, and filmmaker. During his speech at ARC, he claimed that “we are inundated with climate catastrophism,” and argued without evidence that the primary motivation for environmentalists to be opposed to fossil fuels is because their organizations have “enormous” budgets, saying “it’s a big business.” Bryce is a long-time proponent of nuclear energy, something he shares in common with Wright, who stepped down as a member of the board of directors at the nuclear company Oklo after he was confirmed as energy secretary in February. “Chris gets it,” Bryce said in an interview with DeSmog. “Chris knows what the score is. He’s a natural gas guy, a hydrocarbon guy. He’s promoting nuclear power. Hopefully this administration, now that they’re actually talking about nuclear, can actually move the ball forward, it’s overdue.” Bryce and Wright also seem to share opposition to carbon capture and storage, a technology widely favored by oil and gas producers, which tout it as key to reducing emissions from their operations despite it being widely used to pull more oil from the ground. Under Wright, the U.S. Department of Energy is considering cutting billions of dollars’ worth of funding for projects utilizing the technology. “There is only one reason why any of these hydrocarbon companies are doing carbon capture,” Bryce said. “Subsidies, that’s it.” “It will never work at scale,” he added. “Once you get that CO2 super-compressed and you’re pushing it down underground, there are very few places where you can actually sequester it. So it’s a lot of money wasted.” This special investigation between Canada’s National Observer and DeSmog was produced in collaboration with the I-SEA and TRACE Foundation. The post Climate Crisis Deniers Explain Why They Like U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— No, Canada’s So-called ‘No Pipelines Bill’ Didn’t Block These 16 Energy Projects

 

at 4/16/25 3:38pm

U.S. President Donald Trump famously bragged on the campaign trail that he would end inflation and the war in Ukraine “on day one.” Simplistic claims sometimes sell, as seen by the fact that Kamala Harris is not occupying the Oval Office. Yet after less than four months of the chaotic Trump presidency, many American voters may wish they could build a time machine to revisit their choice on November 5, 2024. Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has made his own Trump-like claims of easy future energy project accomplishments. He has also trotted out a very revisionist narrative of how the Liberals ruined everything, especially around oil and gas development. To prove his point he recently posted a list on social media of 16 oil and gas proposals totalling over $175 billion that he implied were killed by bill C-69, Canada’s updated Impact Assessment Act. Specifically, Poilievre posted “Mark Carney says, ‘we do not plan to repeal Bill C-69.’ This Liberal law blocked BILLIONS of dollars of investment in oil & gas projects, pipelines, LNG plants, mines, and so much more – all of which would create powerful paycheques for our people.” Is this true? Hardly. Not one of the projects he listed was subject to the so-called “no pipelines bill” because all were submitted to regulators prior to C-69 becoming law on June 19, 2019. As a result, all these projects were instead assessed under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012. And who was prime minister in 2012? Former Conservative leader Stephen Harper. Let’s go through Poilievre’s posted list to pick apart what is actually true. Grassy Point LNG This $10 billion proposal was submitted to regulators in 2014 but was withdrawn by the company in 2018 before a decision was rendered by provincial or federal governments, and a year before C-69 became law. West Coast LNG According to Poilievre’s own graphic, “Exxon Mobil and Imperial Oil withdrew this proposed LNG facility in Prince Rupert B.C. from the provincial and federal environmental assessment processes in 2018” – a year before the much-maligned C-69 was passed. Aurora LNG This $28 billion project was abandoned by their investors in 2017 – not because of Ottawa inaction – but due to plunging world prices for liquified natural gas that had dropped to $6 per million British thermal units due to a glut in global supply. According to the proponent Nexen, “Our decision was market-based and driven by capital discipline. We require every business investment to meet minimum criteria including sustainable, long-term profitability.” Prince Rupert LNG Shell pulled the plug on this project around the same time that the Aurora project was abandoned by investors, and for the same reason. According to a CBC report on the cancellation, “LNG expectations have taken a hit in recent years as the global markets have been flooded by supply.” This news came a day after Shell also dumped their $8.5 billion stake in the oil sands, citing the need to reduce their company’s carbon emissions. Pacific Northwest LNG Three years before C-69 was even passed, this proposal from Malaysian giant Petronas was approved by the Trudeau government in 2016 over strong objections of environmental groups. Rather than heaping climate considerations on the project as Poilievre alleges, it came to light in court documents that Ottawa did not even consider cumulative impacts. Ottawa apparently opted instead to approve the contentious proposal in a “horse trade” exchange for B.C.’s consent for the Trans Mountain pipeline. In the end Petronas pulled the plug, citing “prolonged depressed prices and shifts in the energy industry.” KwispaaLNG This $18 billion proposal for the west coast of Vancouver Island was abandoned by the company in February 2019, before C-69 became law. The federal government page states, “The proponent has not provided the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada with the required information or studies within the legislated time limit.” Frontier Oil Sands Mine Tech Resources abruptly abandoned their pre-C-69 federal environmental assessment in February 2020 for this massive bitumen mine proposal. Why? Unrealistic oil price projections. In 2016, Tech submitted documents optimistically stating, “Prices are forecast to be US$80 to US$90 per barrel by 2020, and increasing thereafter.” The COVID pandemic tanked oil prices to below $20 per barrel shortly after Tech cancelled the project and they have remained below $90 ever since except for six months in 2022. Still, it must somehow all be Ottawa’s fault. Aspen Oil Sands Exxon dumped this in-situ bitumen extraction project in 2019, less than a year after it was first proposed. The company said the project could not go forward until the Alberta government phased out their self-imposed production curtailment brought in to prop up sagging prices. Muskwa SAGD Koch Oil Sands walked away from this project in 2016 citing “regulatory uncertainty” – not from the yet-to-be passed C-69 – but from the Alberta government’s Climate Leadership Program. Andrew Read, a senior analyst at the Pembina Institute described the Muskwa cancellation as “a political maneuver to undermine the climate policies being implemented in Alberta.” Interestingly, Koch applied for a new oil sands lease two days after cancelling Muskwa, presumably under the same regime of “regulatory uncertainty.” While Koch was obviously no fan of the NDP government at the time, the real reason for the $600 million cancellation was likely crude prices hovering around $50 per barrel. Fredrick Brook Shale Corridor Resources cancelled this $70 million fracking proposal in New Brunswick in 2019. Why? Because the provincial government had a moratorium on new fracking projects since 2014. A newly elected Progressive Conservative government quietly granted Corridor an exemption from fracking ban but the deal fell apart due to lack of Indigenous consultation and public opposition – not from C-69. Northern Gateway Pipeline This contentious $7.9 billion proposed pipeline to the north B.C. coast was cancelled two years before C-69 was passed. While resource revisionists enjoy blaming this on oil-hostile policies from Ottawa, the primary nail in the coffin was lack of credible consultation with First Nations. Stephen Harper was the prime minister for the vast majority of the approval process, and he learned the hard way that neglecting Indigenous rights will lead to a drawn-out legal defeat. In a stinging decision, The Federal Court of Appeal found “Canada offered only a brief, hurried and inadequate” consultation with First Nations. Exactly zero of these energy project cancellations can credibly be blamed on C-69. If Poilievre is so brazenly loose with truth, what kind of elected leader would he be? American voters are learning that facts matter and simplistic claims from populist politicians are not to be trusted. Canadian voters should take note and vote accordingly. The post No, Canadas So-called ‘No Pipelines Bill’ Didn’t Block These 16 Energy Projects appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— How 77 Tons of Radioactive Waste Ended Up in Brooklyn

 

at 4/16/25 11:30am

New York City’s second largest utility is being sued in federal court for the alleged inappropriate handling of at least 77 tons of radioactive waste at a 120-acre site located in Brooklyn, the city’s most populous borough. The radioactive waste, as well as other hazardous coal waste, is a leftover of a bygone era, more than a century ago, when the parcel was the location of Equity Works, a manufactured gas plant (MGP) that derived gas from heating coal, and then piped it across the city to power lighting, cooking, and heating. Cooper Tank & Welding, which purchased the site from London-based National Grid in 1987, is seeking “no less than $2,000,000” in damages, charging in its lawsuit that the multinational electric and gas utility’s “negligent operating and waste management practices resulted in contamination” from  “concentrated radioactive materials,” as well as “coal tar and other hazardous substances.” The facility is located at the edge of the Greenpoint and Williamsburg neighborhoods, though the New York State Department of Health (DOH) responded with assurances that no communities are at risk from the radioactive waste at the former Equity Works site. These neighborhoods have already received significant contamination connected to the oil and gas industry. At nearby Newtown Creek, a waterway that serves as a border between the boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens, refineries spilled tens of millions of gallons of oil and other petroleum products from the early to mid-20th century. The EPA listed the spill as a Superfund site in 2010. The contaminated former Equity Works MGP site is near the Brooklyn neighborhoods of Greenpoint and Williamsburg. Credit: Equity Works Former Manufactured Gas Plant (MGP) Site public meeting announcement,October 2021. Credit: NYSDEC The newly revealed radioactive coal waste, which dates back to the late nineteenth century, stands as concerning evidence that fossil fuels have a contaminating life-span that reaches forward decades and even centuries. Cooper’s suit alleges that the utility has refused “to take responsibility for” the “technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive materials,” or TENORM, sitting on the expansive site, which occupies several city blocks. TENORM refers to naturally occurring radioactive wastes brought to the surface by mining for coal, oil, gas, and other minerals, which can often include substantial amounts of uranium, thorium, radium, and radon. Industrial processes can accumulate and concentrate this radioactivity at facilities and infrastructure that transport, treat, and process these minerals and fuels. Unless sites are cleaned up, the radioactive contamination may linger for centuries, perhaps millennia. Cooper also alleges that National Grid intentionally withheld information regarding the presence and management of TENORM at the site, and that the utility’s negligence in “transporting, handling, storing, and/or disposing” of the waste “resulted in the release of radioactive materials.” Sive, Paget & Riesel, the attorneys representing Cooper Tank & Welding, have not responded to questions about the lawsuit.  The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) says there are 242 manufactured gas plantsites across the state, dating from the late 1800s to the mid-1900s, and that the agency has been working to clean them up since 1984. While there are approximately 75 former MGPs located within New York City, this Brooklyn site is the only known location in the city contaminated by TENORM,  according to DEC spokesperson John Salka. The state has a “proven track record of successfully investigating and cleaning up contaminated sites across New York City and the state,” said Salka. DEC ensures that “the cleanups are fully protective of public health and the environment,” Salka said, “and works closely with partners, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the New York State Department of Health (DOH), to ensure requirements are in place to protect communities.” “The contractors working at the site are experienced in dealing with sites contaminated with radioactive materials,” said Erin Clary, a deputy communications director at DOH, and “there are procedures in place to prevent migration of radioactive materials offsite.” “Workers passing through or even spending several hours at the site would not receive a radiation dose that would result in any health consequences,” Clary added. 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); An EPA assessment of the site performed in mid-November 2024, at the request of the DEC, “found elevated radiological survey readings in the areas [where] National Grid discovered elevated radiological readings in previous surveys,” said Nikita Joshi, a spokesperson for EPA Region 2, which includes New York. Heating coal to create gas has left behind a toxic legacy at MGP sites, according to a DEC website. Surface and subsurface soil, groundwater, and organisms have been contaminated by toxic coal tar. Some locations, like the former Equity Works site in Brooklyn, are also contaminated with “purifier waste,” which has a very strong odor and a tendency to spontaneously ignite.  “It was a filthy process,” said Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University. “Hundreds of contaminated sites were left behind for future generations to clean up.” *** From 1892 through 1921, Brooklyn Union Gas operated the Equity Works plant at this site, which sits on what is today Maspeth Avenue, at the edge of the Greenpoint and Williamsburg neighborhoods. It is within walking distance of two popular local green spaces, McCarren Park and McGolrick Park, and several blocks from the Cooper Park public housing complex. “At 120 acres, National Grid’s Brooklyn site has the largest footprint of any fossil fuel facility in the city of New York,” said Kim Fraczek, director of the Sane Energy Project, a New York City-based environmental advocacy group that has been working for years to curtail fracked gas infrastructure in the city. The Sane Energy Project was part of a coalition of environmental and community groups that successfully shut down a National Grid project to transport fracked gas from Pennsylvania through — and beneath — Brooklyn, to a liquified natural gas storage facility in Greenpoint. The Maspeth Ave. site was included in that project, which the coalition argued would encourage and enable additional fracking, prolong the city’s dependence on fossil fuels, and pose the threat of a gas leak or explosion to the largely Black and Latino/Hispanic neighborhoods along the pipeline’s pathway. “They should be shutting [this site] down and remediating the land, and we have overwhelming community support for that,” said Fraczek. “But National Grid doesn’t want it shut down because they don’t want to be left with the bag of cleaning it up,” she said, “and now we know cleaning it up includes cleaning up long-standing radioactive fossil fuel waste.” “National Grid will not be providing a statement on pending litigation related to this matter,” said spokesperson Alexander Starr. One of two liquefied gas storage tanks on the former Equity Works site, seen from a Little League baseball field, not currently in use, at one corner of the property. Credit: Sane Energy Project TENORM can be a challenge to clean up, because the concentrated radioactive substances adhere to piping, pumps, and valves, and contaminates soil and water. Sites may include tanks and impoundments containing radioactive sludge. “It is common that these wastes come in very large volumes but low radioactivity, so it costs a lot to manage and dispose while posing a chronic, low-dose hazard,” says Phil Egidi, a former staff scientist in the EPA’s Radiation Protection division. “EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation has been focused on keeping the planet from turning into an air fryer,” said Egidi, “and frankly did not have the bandwidth, funding, or political clout to do anything with TENORM [in] the eleven years I was there — the sludge has to wait.” Since the mid-2010s, a number of companies have been involved in either disposing of or removing both toxic and radioactive wastes from the Brooklyn site. According to a November 2017 Equity Works MGP remediation report prepared by AECOM, a geotechnical services company, an environmental services company called Tradebe removed more than 11,000 gallons of flammable coal tar-contaminated wastewater between 2015 and 2017. At least a portion of that waste was disposed of at a Tradebe facility located in Bridgeport, Connecticut. From March 2017 through July 2019, a New Jersey-based waste hauling company called Environmental Transport Group, Inc., transported more than 9,000 gallons of coal tar-contaminated wastewater to an industrial facility in Middlesex, New Jersey, operated by the French environmental services firm Veolia.  Other companies have handled the radioactive materials. “Seventy-seven tons of soil were excavated by National Grid’s contractor as part of the Former Equity MGP interim cleanup work,” said Salka. This soil, which included TENORM, was transported by truck in mid-April 2024 to the Fairless Landfill in Morrisville, Pennsylvania, 30 miles north of Philadelphia. The landfill is operated by Waste Management, the nation’s largest solid waste disposal company. The website for the Fairless Landfill says it is “conveniently located in Falls Township, Bucks County, Pennsylvania” and that it “does not accept hazardous waste or liquid waste.” Waste Management has not replied to questions regarding the TENORM waste from the National Grid site. DeSmog has filed a Freedom of Information Law request with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation to obtain additional information regarding the nature of the waste. “This facility is at the epicenter of our fight,” said Fraczek. “Our desired outcome is for them to retire it and create a stakeholder group of local residents, professionals and regulators to come up with a decommission plan that makes sense.” The post How 77 Tons of Radioactive Waste Ended Up in Brooklyn appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Climate Disinformation ‘Normalised’ on French TV and Radio, Report Finds

 

at 4/15/25 10:02am

Climate disinformation was routinely broadcast in news programmes across French TV and radio in the first three months of 2025, with 128 verified cases identified by an alliance of NGOs. Using AI to identify misleading narratives, which were then reviewed by fact-checkers, the alliance assessed programmes classed as “news” by the French broadcast regulator ARCOM from 19 TV and radio stations. A preliminary report was produced by the French NGOs Data For Good, QuotaClimat, and Science Feedback. The study also identified 379 cases of ‘discourses of delay’ – arguments intended to slow the transition to carbon neutrality by undermining climate science, solutions or experts – which focused particularly on discrediting advocates of net zero. The final results will be published in September. “We expected to find cases, but not a finding of this magnitude. It truly reflects how climate disinformation has been underestimated as a threat by the news media,” said Eva Morel, secretary general of QuotaClimat. “This is a call to action: climate disinformation is being normalised, and we need trusted sources of information to counter it before it is too late.” 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 majority of these attacks (61 percent) were aimed at discrediting solutions to the climate crisis, while 13 percent attempted to deny or minimise the scientific consensus on climate change. Private media companies were responsible for 81 percent of climate disinformation broadcast. One station – Sud Radio – broadcast one-third of all the cases identified by the researchers.  The station, owned by the consultancy firm Fiducial, attracts over 4.5 million monthly listeners, and was the first to receive a warning from the French broadcast regulator ARCOM in 2024 for broadcasting climate science denial. Sud Radio was approached for comment. The same year, the regulator levied at €20,000 fine against another TV station, CNews, for a similar broadcast violation. The report highlights how the success of anti-climate political parties across the Western world is fuelling climate disinformation on the news. The researchers found a “significant spike in climate disinformation” during the week of Donald Trump’s inauguration in January, with almost half of the disinformation referencing the new president’s views on climate change. “Given the growing influence of governments that openly deny climate change around the world, and the rising media and electoral traction of political parties positioning themselves on this issue, the permeability of traditional media to climate disinformation during geopolitical events is alarming,” the report states. For example, Philippe Karsenty, the spokesperson for ‘Trump France’, said during an interview with BMFTV on 21 January: “we’ve been lied to for years” about climate change, which the interviewer did not correct. The report alleges that broadcasting such a comment without a correction is in direct breach of an agreement that BMFTV renewed with ARCOM in December 2024. Namely, the agreement states that BFMTV commits to “ensuring honesty of information in its programming” and “distinguishing between facts and commentary” when presenting on “controversial issues”. BMFTV was approached for comment. The alliance recommends that newsrooms expand coverage of environmental issues, support journalist training in environmental literacy, and introduce live fact-checking teams for interviews. The alliance also urges ARCOM to respond to complaints of climate disinformation with “speed and proportionality”. It encourages advertisers to reassess their partnerships with broadcasters who spread climate disinformation and raise concerns with the stations. The growing prominence of climate disinformation on broadcast channels is an issue across the Western world. As revealed by DeSmog, one-third of presenters on the right-wing platform GB News expressed climate science denial on air in 2022. GB News, which is co-owned by the hedge fund manager Paul Marshall, has given dozens of appearances to groups that reject basic climate facts. However, the UK’s broadcast regulator Ofcom has so far refused to investigate the channel for spreading false climate claims. The post Climate Disinformation ‘Normalised’ on French TV and Radio, Report Finds appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— From Farms to Data Centers: The Natural Gas Industry’s Newest Sales Pitch Comes to Virginia’s Pittsylvania County

 

at 4/14/25 9:00am

“In all my days here, this is the biggest black eye that Pittsylvania County has experienced,” says Amanda Sink Wydner, leader of the local opposition to plans for a massive new power plant and data center complex in Chatham, a small town in southern Virginia.  On April 15, the county government will vote on whether to rezone hundreds acres of farmland to heavy industrial use, which would allow Balico LLC, a natural gas power developer, to proceed with the project. As planned, it would have the biggest power demand of any data center complex in the world, according to rankings from Data Center Magazine.  The plans have left county residents deeply divided, says Wydner, between those who see the project as a threat to their rural way of life, and those who envision it as an economic opportunity that will increase tax revenues. The Town of Chatham, the Chatham Garden Club, the NAACP Pittsylvania County Branch, and local community groups Concerned Citizens Chalk Level, Friends of Whittles, and the Coalition for the Protection of Pittsylvania County have voiced their opposition. Some opponents say that the conflict is not about data centers themselves, but where to site them: on farmland or in established industrial parks. Most locals first heard about the plan in October, when Balico made its initial request to rezone more than 2,200 acres (890 hectares) of agricultural land for an 84-building data center campus. By that time, Balico had signed contracts with various landowners willing to sell their land that gave the company special power of attorney to request the rezoning on their behalf, according to documents shared with DeSmog by residents, who obtained them via a freedom of information (FOI) request. The documents showed that Balico has been meeting confidentially about the project with county officials, local landowners, Virginia state representatives, and other major stakeholders since at least as far back as December 2023. Opponents of Balicos request to rezone hundreds of acres of farmland to build data centers have been making their views known at meetings of the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors, which is expected to vote on the proposal on April 15. Credit: Coalition for the Protection of Pittsylvania County Opponents of the project have criticized a nondisclosure agreement between Pittsylvania County and Balico, signed on December 13, 2023, alleging a lack of transparency on the part of local officials. Pittsylvania County Director for Economic Development Matthew Rowe says that nondisclosure agreements are standard practice when companies want to discuss doing business in the county, because they give county officials a seat at the table so they can directly learn every intricate detail possible as they weigh a given proposal and determine if it meets the needs and expectations for county residents at-large. “The process is working as it’s designed,” says Rowe. “The county wants to explore any and all opportunities for its residents, while also respecting the right of due process for any potential private individual or entity pursuing a rezoning and/or special use permit. Pittsylvania County’s elected officials review every single project on its own merit.” In November, Balico downsized its rezoning request to about 760 acres (308 hectares) — but left the size of the original plan’s 3,500-megawatt gas-fired power plant unchanged. If built, it will be the second-largest gas fired power plant in the United States and the largest in Virginia, rivaling the entire power demand of northern Virginia’s “Data Center Alley,” where over 200 data centers carry 70 percent of worldwide internet traffic, the Oxford American has reported. Balicos proposed data center is part of a data center boom in suburban and rural communities across the United States, spurred on by massive investments in artificial intelligence (AI), and often fueled by a natural gas industry hungry for new customers. Developers are in search of land, water, energy, and regulatory support to build a new generation of massive gigawatt-sized data centers in states including Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Louisiana, and Texas. Artificial intelligence is driving a data center boom across the U.S., and many plans include dedicated gas-fired power plants. Credit: Sabrina Bedford With the power demand from the data center build-out rapidly increasing, new natural gas, nuclear, and renewable energy projects are being planned nationwide to fuel the surge. A U.S. Department of Energy report published in December estimates that between 2023 to 2028, the growth of artificial intelligence could triple data center power demand from 4 to 12 percent of total national power demand.  Dominion Energy, Virginia’s largest electricity producer, projected in a 2024 report that the state’s overall power demand will double by 2039. Ed Baine, a senior Dominion Energy executive, termed this “the largest growth in power demand since the years following World War II.” Data center growth is largely driving the surge. The report lays out an “all the above” approach for sourcing that energy. President Donald Trump is making AI development a top priority. “We’re letting people build their own power plants. A lot of them are being built with the AI and beyond the AI,” Trump said At an April 10 cabinet meeting. They couldn’t believe it when I told them that we’re going to get you your approvals very fast.” A Troubling Message The scale of Balico’s plans has left some Chatham residents stunned. Wydner, the local opposition leader, recalls that during an informal meeting in October with the county community development commissioner, two of her elderly neighbors burst into tears when they saw maps of Balico’s extensive plans. “There was a feeling of hopelessness, frustration and misunderstanding in the room,” Wydner said. Among the concerns of hundreds of local residents opposed to the project: bulldozing over farmland, unsightly buildings, air and water pollution, heavy construction traffic, constant noise from data center operations, and the guzzling of millions of gallons of water a day, needed to cool both the power plant and data center servers. In a video posted to Facebook, a 16-year-old county resident told the board of supervisors during a public meeting that Balico’s project “sends a troubling message to the next generation.” Noting risks to the local community, including depreciating land value, loss of farmland, impacts on farm animals and wildlife, and increased emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other air pollutants, the teenager said: “It will be a struggle for younger people such as myself to call this county my home in the future if we cannot take control of this problem before it spreads like wildfire.” Balico’s proposal would site the data center campus, including its 3,500 MW gas-fired power plant, close to many rural homes.Credit: Sabrina Bedford Balico did not respond to multiple requests for comment concerning the environmental impacts of its plans. The company wrote in a March 28 Facebook post that the project has been “designed to integrate seamlessly with the existing community” and “will preserve the area’s peaceful atmosphere.” Local supporters of Balico’s plans can be found in the town of Hurt, 19 miles to the north of Chatham. Hurt’s mayor, Gary Hodnett, has been a vocal supporter of the project, noting the improvements that Balico says it will make to the town’s water infrastructure, including a new water treatment plant, as well as the tens of millions of dollars of projected tax revenue. At a March public meeting, Hodnett told the Pittsylvania County board of supervisors that you have an opportunity to bring development to our county, something you should savor, adding that, We are geographically the largest county in the state, and yet we remain among the poorest. On December 3, the Town of Hurt announced its support for the Balico project and released a letter of intent to supply two million gallons of water a day to the data center campus. Big Bets While many data center projects are led by big names in tech such as Amazon and Microsoft, smaller developers with no known experience in the data center industry, like Balico, are also pitching multi-billion dollar investments.  Balico LLC was incorporated in 2005 and registered to the address of a residential townhouse in Herndon, a Washington suburb, according to Virginia state business records. According to Fairfax County property records, the townhouse was owned until 2023 by Balico CEO Irfan Ali. Balico’s public address leads to an office building near Dulles International Airport. Balico has its roots in the natural gas industry. Ali previously worked on the development of a large-scale coal power project in Pakistan (which appears not to have been constructed) as well as other natural gas power projects in the U.S. Timothy Seibert, the president of a large Ohio natural gas pipeline contractor, has made repeated appearances alongside Ali on calls with county officials in the past year. Balico did not reply to a question about his involvement with the company. During a January public meeting in Pittsylvania County, Balico attorney Steven Gould stated that the company has seven employees. “As Balico undertakes larger development projects, that number will grow,” said Gould, “The company is set up to flex as project needs dictate.” Ali is also the founder and CEO of a company called CarbonKerma, which sells CO2 pollution offsets, a business he describes on his LinkedIn profile as “promoting climate pragmatism.” Milton Catelin, who was the secretary general of the International Gas Union, an industry trade group, from 2022-2024, is listed on CarbonKerma’s website as a member of its board of advisors. A former executive at North Carolina-based power company Congentrix, Richard Gray, was involved in Balico’s ultimately unsuccessful effort to develop a 1,600-megawatt gas-fired power plant in Charles City County called Chickahominy Power, according to call transcripts obtained in the FOI request. It is unclear whether he is involved with the project in Pittsylvania County. The project also included construction of a natural gas pipeline in five Virginia counties. At the time, Balico did not disclose the source of the money behind the Chickahominy Power project, which had the support of the Charles City County board of supervisors. “I am the investor, and the investors behind this are multinational institutions that cannot be named,” Ali told the Richmond Times Dispatch in 2021. State lobbying records show that in 2019-2020, Balico spent $12,500 on lobbyists to weigh in on Virginia laws regulating pipelines, electric utilities, and CO2 emissions. In 2020, a Charles City County citizen group called C5 mustered opposition against the Chickahominy Power project, in which “1,199 individuals commented or participated in the public hearing on the ‘Special Exception’ for water to supply the Chickahominy gas plant,” according to the group’s website. A 2021 archived screenshot from the now cancelled Chickahominy Power project website. Credit:Balico LLC, Chickahominy Power LLC, The Internet Archive In Louisa County, which was in the path of the Chickahominy Pipeline, the board of supervisors challenged Balico’s proposal during a contentious October 2021 public meeting, according to video of the event on the county website, asking the company’s representative why public officials had not been informed before the company started contacting local residents to conduct surveying work on their land. “I’ve been in business for 42 years, sitting on this board for four. That’s the worst presentation I’ve ever seen in my life, one of the supervisors told Balicos representative. Balico dropped the Chickahominy Power project in 2022, after the Virginia State Corporation Commission, which regulates utilities, denied the company’s request for an exemption from the agency’s rules regulating the construction of pipelines. Balico’s search for an alternative location to develop a major gas power project led it to Pittsylvania County, where two major natural gas pipelines intersect. Letters, emails, slide presentations, site plans, and call transcripts dating between December 2023 and October 2024, obtained under the FOI request, document Balico’s efforts to get key county decision-makers to support the project. In an early e-mail exchange, dated December 7, 2023, Ali asked Rowe, the Pittsylvania County director for economic development, “to keep our enquiries [sic] as quiet a possible” to develop the power and data center project. “My experience has been that if word gets out to various political factions in Richmond” — Virginia’s state capital — “they start organizing right away and come up with delaying tactics,” Ali added. 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); Ali suggested in a June 3 conference call with Pittsylvania County officials that a changing political climate had improved Balicos chances of success in building a large gas-fired power plant. The difference though… this time from last time, is that we have the entire government, state government, ready to support us, Ali said during the call, adding that “the governor’s office is on board,” according to a transcript.  Virginia’s governor, Glenn Youngkin (R), supports expanding the state’s data center industry, saying in a January address that it has brought 74,000 jobs and $9.1 billion to the state. On May 22, in a meeting titled “Project Ballyhoo Discussion,” Balico met with Darrell Dalton, who at the time chaired the county board of supervisors, as well as then-vice chair Robert Tucker, who now leads the board along with other county officials. In the following months, Balico would meet with county officials regarding rezoning requirements, along with state environmental regulators, according to the documents, which show Balico’s concerns over potential opposition and the company’s efforts to engage with state lawmakers. Notes from an August 8 meeting between Balico and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, a state agency known by its acronym VADEQ, say that: “Concerns were raised about opposition from anti-fossil fuel groups, leading to discussions on project phasing versus a single large permit project.” A transcript of the meeting was not provided. Another document indicates a meeting titled “Coffee with Delegates Marshall and Phillips, Balico LLC” on August 22, 2024 at the Institute for Advanced Learning and Research in Danville, and lists Virginia state delegates Danny Marshall (R) and Eric Phillips (R) as attendees. This meeting was followed by a request by Balico to the state delegates on August 30 for a “meeting to discuss necessary changes needed to the utilities act.” Marshall and Phillips’ offices did not respond to requests for comment. That meeting, originally set for September 13, appears to have been cancelled, but further documents show that Balico continued to communicate with the state delegates, informing them in October of a major gas deal signed for the project and the importance of legislative support. The exchange also included Chief Stephen Adkins of the Chickahominy Indian Tribe, whom Balico referred to as a “partner” in the project in a May 16 email to county officials. Adkins did not respond to a request for comment. In January, Philips voted against a bipartisan bill requiring data center developers to submit an assessment of noise, land, and water impacts of proposed facilities before obtaining rezoning approval. Marshall was absent for the vote. In March of this year, the state’s General Assembly passed the bill, which is the only survivor out of more than two dozen bills introduced this year concerning data center planning. Gov. Youngkin has since proposed an amendment that would weaken the legislation, according to reporting by Virginia Public Radio, likely pushing any moves to implement the bill into 2026. Concerns raised by Virginia residents about the growing presence of data centers range from local environmental impacts to climate-heating CO2 emissions, as well as the strain that data center power demand is putting on Virginia’s grid, often leading to increased electrical costs. Data center and power companies such as Balico are increasingly looking to bypass the power grid by bringing natural gas directly from the gas wells to the power plants. The fracked gas for Balico’s project in Pittsylvania County would come from the shale formations of the Appalachia region of the eastern U.S., taking advantage of a well-established fracking industry and gas pipeline infrastructure. On July 6, Pittsburgh-based EQT, a major gas producer, signed a letter of intent with Balico to supply gas to the planned Pittsylvania facility, according to a document obtained through the public records request. EQT owns the recently completed Mountain Valley Pipeline, a 303-mile-long (488 km) pipeline that begins amid the fracking wells of West Virginia and terminates in Pittsylvania County. In a 2024 interview with Hart Energy, an energy industry trade publication, EQT CEO Toby Rice called the artificial intelligence boom, a significant driver of the surge in data center projects, a “really amazing technological revolution” that will be “powered by Appalachian gas.” Fueled by EQT’s shale gas, the full-scale 3,500-megawatt power plant described in Balico’s revised rezoning request could become one of the largest sources of CO2 emissions in the U.S. A similar-sized gas-fired power plant in Florida — the 3,750-megawatt West County Energy Center, built in 2009 and currently the nation’s largest  —  produced 7.9 million tons (7.1 million metric tonnes) of CO2 in 2023, the last year on record from the Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA) emissions database. That’s the equivalent yearly CO2 emissions of about 1.5 million cars, according to EPA figures. . The largest gas-powered data center in the U.S. emits 7.9 million tons (nearly 7.2 metric tonnes) of CO2 pollution. Balicos proposed gas-fired tech campus would have nearly as much energy capacity, but its unclear what its CO2 emissions would be. Credit: Sabrina Bedford For the first phase of its operations, Balico plans to power the growing data center site with 300 megawatts generated by what are known as aeroderivative gas turbines — which are designed similarly to jet engines — until the larger 3,500 megawatt facility is built. In a March 24 Facebook post, Balico said that new natural gas power plants pollute less than “filling your car up at a gas station.” Despite Balicos statements that it is committed to sustainable development and minimizing environmental impact, many Pittsylvania County residents and groups remain worried about how much its project would increase both local air pollution and global CO2 emissions. Source: Balico company account on Facebook Opponents on Edge Since November, local residents have packed into monthly board of supervisors meetings, united under the slogan “No data centers, no power plants in rural neighborhoods.”  Now many are on edge ahead of Tuesday’s rezoning hearing, uncertain of what the outcome will be. In anticipation of an overflow crowd, the meeting has been moved from its usual location to Chatham High School. In January, the Pittsylvania County Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the board of supervisors reject Balico’s rezoning request, noting a “lack of transparency by the applicant, the timing of the proffers being submitted, concerns about the availability of water, the size of the power plant and that the project does not align with the County’s comprehensive plan.” The county board of supervisors has granted Balico two extensions since Feburary to rework its proposal, further worrying the projects opponents. In a statement to the Chatham Star Tribune published on April 4, Pittsylvania County spokesperson Diana McFarland said that the county has “historically allowed rezoning applicants the freedom to postpone a public hearing or vote on their application” and that “the County is providing Balico, LLC with the same courtesy it has granted rezoning applicants in the past.”  If it goes forward, this will not be Pittsylvania County’s first big data center project to win rezoning approval. In July, Anchorstone Advisors SOVA LLC obtained approval from the county to rezone 950 acres (380 hectares) near the town of Danville, 16 miles south of Chatham, to build a 200-megawatt data center campus. While Anchorstone’s proposal passed with far less public opposition, the wide-ranging community debate about the Balico project has raised questions about the future of Pittsylvania County’s rural character.   Large-scale solar power installations already cover thousands of acres of county farmland, feeding power to other parts of Virginia — all the way to Arlington, a northern Virginia suburb of Washington that is home to Amazon’s corporate headquarters. Some rural residents see the intensifying competition for land as a wake-up call to preserve their way of life. “All I’ve heard in the past months is money, money, money,” said Darrell Campbell, pastor of Mill Creek Community Church, at the board of supervisors meeting in March. “I think the issue is location, location, location.” The border of Balico’s planned data center campus would be only a half a mile away from the church. “Robbing Peter to pay Paul doesn’t work”, Campbell told the officials. “We have  to be very careful what we ask for. We may get it and we may very well have to pay for it.” The post From Farms to Data Centers: The Natural Gas Industry’s Newest Sales Pitch Comes to Virginia’s Pittsylvania County appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Group Behind ‘Autocratic’ Trump Agenda Working on Albanian Election

 

at 4/14/25 6:00am

The Heritage Foundation, the U.S. group that produced a key blueprint for Donald Trump’s second term, is trying to shape the upcoming Albanian election, DeSmog can report. The opposition candidate Sali Berisha of the Democratic Party has openly boasted of the group’s involvement in his campaign, posting pictures online of his meetings with Heritage Foundation executives and claiming that it has helped to “design” his policy platform. Berisha, who previously served as the country’s president from 1992 to 1997 and its prime minister from 2005 to 2013, is hoping to return to power after the 11 May vote. The Democratic Party chair, who spent the majority of 2023 under house arrest on corruption charges, is running on a conservative, anti-tax platform that echoes several of Trump’s key talking points – including the pledge to “make Albania great again”. The Democratic Party is a right-wing institution with no links to the U.S. party of the same name. The Heritage Foundation has been expanding its European footprint following Trump’s victory in November. On 11 March, the U.S. think tank gathered hardline conservative groups to hear how the current structures of the EU could be dismantled. “With Trump, the Heritage Foundation has proven to be highly capable of setting governments on course to trample on migrants, the rule of law and social rights,” said Kenneth Haar, a researcher and campaigner at the transparency watchdog Corporate Europe Observatory. “To see them play this role in Albania certainly opens a new chapter. Which European country will be next, one might ask?” 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 Heritage Foundation led the way in creating Project 2025, the 922-page guide to radically retrenching the U.S. government. The blueprint urged Trump to “dismantle the administrative state”, reverse policies on climate action, slash restrictions on fossil fuel extraction, scrap state investment in renewable energy, and gut the Environmental Protection Agency. Project 2025 also proposed limiting reproductive rights, including further restricting access to abortions as well as access to contraceptives. Also consulting with the Berisha campaign is the German research group Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (KAS), which is funded by the German state and is affiliated with the country’s ruling centre-right party, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU). In February, Berisha revealed his economic programme with “the support” of KAS and, a month later, claimed in a speech that his platform “bears the seal of the Adenauer Stiftung”. “It is quite something to see the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung alongside the Heritage Foundation,” said Haar. “To see them side by side, playing a seemingly big role in determining the future of Albanian politics, is alarming. This coalition raises new questions about the members of Trump’s European network.” The Heritage Foundation and KAS are not the only foreign operatives tied to the campaign. Chris LaCivita, Trump’s former campaign chief, is now orchestrating Berisha’s operation. “We are here today because we want to help elect a prime minister who is a true friend of the United States and who will successfully work with President Trump,” LaCivita told a press conference in February as he was presented by Berisha. Since his re-election, Trump has repeatedly criticised the EU for its alleged opposition to U.S. trade interests. In March, he called the EU “one of the most hostile and abusive taxing and tariffing authorities in the world”. Albania is currently applying for EU membership. A version of this story was published by Correctiv ‘Continued Support and Assistance’ Berisha has been touting the role of the Heritage Foundation and KAS in his campaign for several months. On 16 February, Berisha’s Democratic Party presented its election policies to a “panel of experts” featuring a video message from Thomas Kunze, the director of KAS’s Albania office. According to the KAS website, Kunze used the opportunity to reiterate “the continued support and assistance of the KAS to the Democratic Party over the years.” The event was also attended by Steven Bucci of the Heritage Foundation, who was pictured on Berisha’s Facebook page at the Democratic Party’s headquarters the day before. In the post, Berisha acknowledged the Heritage Foundation’s role in drafting Trump’s agenda and thanked the group for its help in “rebuilding the Albanian right”. “The American Heritage Foundation continues to provide its expertise with recommendations for the Democratic Party of Albania’s electoral program and is a bridge worthy of communication with the administration of President Donald Trump and the Congress of the United States of America,” he added. Albanian Democratic Party chair Sali Berisha and Steven Bucci of the Heritage Foundation. Credit: Sali Berisha / Facebook This bridge between Trump and Berisha is buttressed by LaCivita, the political strategist who helped to run Trump’s 2024 campaign. During the Albanian campaign, LaCivita and Berisha have been repeating some of the key grievances of Trump’s supporters. “The current prime minister [Edi Rama] is nothing more than a puppet of George Soros,” LaCivita said, when he was announced as Berisha’s campaign advisor. “You cannot be a puppet of George Soros and a friend of United States. It is just not possible.” Berisha alleges that he has been targeted by a campaign led by Joe Biden’s former administration and the financier Soros – a prominent Hungarian-American philanthropist who has donated heavily to liberal causes. “Soros and his puppets have done everything to destroy Albania’s conservative opposition,” Berisha has claimed – echoing a prominent conspiracy theory about Soros manipulating global politics. Despite receiving the backing of the Heritage Foundation, KAS, and LaCivita, the polls suggest that Berisha is unlikely to stage another political comeback as he continues to trail Rama’s Socialist Party. However, the country has a history of political corruption and the election may prove to be volatile. Project Europe The Heritage Foundation appears to have been increasingly turning its attention to Europe following Trump’s victory in November. Speaking at a side event during the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) conference in London on 17 February, the group’s president Kevin Roberts spoke about its new European focus – calling for closer collaboration between national-conservative politicians across the Western world. Roberts claimed that the Heritage Foundation would support “our friends from Europe” to “reclaim” their institutions, suggesting that supranational organisations like the EU, United Nations, and World Health Organisation “rob us of our individual sovereignty”. “This is all about reclaiming sovereignty, reclaiming the spirit, the sovereignty of each of our nation states,” he said. “And so I can speak for a lot of Americans here and certainly all of us from the Heritage Foundation… We’ve drawn a line in the sand and we’re ready to lead the world again.” A month after the ARC conference, the Heritage Foundation held a summit in Washington DC featuring the Hungarian and Polish lobby groups MCC and Ordo Iuris to discuss how to overhaul the current structures of the EU. As revealed by DeSmog, the Heritage Foundation has also been holding private meetings with European politicians in recent months, including those close to Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, whose government funds MCC. The Heritage Foundation “seeks to steer America towards autocracy under Trump’s rule,” Martin Schirdewan, a Member of European Parliament (MEP) for Die Linke and the co-chair of The Left group, previously told DeSmog. “Since his election we have seen that they intend to follow through on those plans to the very end. We now know that the Heritage Foundation and their allies in Europe want to replicate that model here. We must protect our services, rights and liberties from these oligarchs at all costs.” Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts speaking at CPAC Hungary in 2023. Credit: Credit: Elekes Andor / Wikimedia Commons (CC-BY-SA-4.0) The Heritage Foundation’s connection in Albania to KAS has been seen by some observers as worrying and unexpected. KAS is affiliated with the CDU, which is set to form a government in Germany under the leadership of Friedrich Merz following February’s federal election. Both the CDU and KAS are pro-EU, while Merz has claimed that the U.S. “is no longer the America we used to know” following Trump’s return to the White House and his enaction of Project 2025. Albania is currently in the process of joining the EU, and Berisha said in a speech on 18 March that he was “fully committed” to Albania’s integration. KAS told DeSmog that its work in Albania helps to promote the country’s accession to the EU, the Democratic Party’s “internal democracy”, and that its co-operation “does not include any institutional financing”. By contrast, LaCivita called Europeans “stupid” in a Politico podcast in March. “There is no co-operation between the KAS and the Heritage Foundation in Albania,” KAS added. The Democratic Party “has had its own links with the Heritage Foundation for some time. KAS was not involved in initiating these links.” However, like the Heritage Foundation, KAS is active abroad. It claims to have a presence in over 100 countries, collaborating with local partners. MCC – which is largely funded through Hungary’s state oil company – is one of these partners, while the German think tank also gave around €250,000 to the political foundation of Orbán’s party Fidesz between 2004 and 2012. KAS stated that its ties to MCC form part of its work “examining authoritarian regimes”, and that “MCC has a particularly wide reach” among young people – a valuable “target group” for KAS. The Heritage Foundation and the Democratic Party were approached for comment. Berisha’s Background In his 18 March speech, Berisha also expressed “special gratitude” to “my friends from the CDU, Adenauer Stiftung, and Heritage Foundation, who supported us in our most difficult days.” These “difficult days” have included corruption allegations directed at Berisha, as well as alleged links to organised crime. He denies all wrongdoing. The Democratic Party candidate, who is banned from coming to the UK, allegedly approved a special law while in office from 2005 to 2013 that helped his son-in-law to earn millions from a construction development. Berisha and his U.S. allies claim these charges were cooked up by the Biden administration in concert with Soros – suggesting that Berisha’s opponents were funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which has recently been gutted by Trump’s “government efficiency” chief Elon Musk. In March, Berisha said that Trump was one of the politicians who inspired him – in particular Trump’s belief that “the most dangerous enemy is the internal enemy”. Berisha’s election platform has also reflected Trump’s. He has proposed introducing a law recognising only two genders, mirroring the new U.S. president’s edict. He has also campaigned on a “made in Albania” farming policy, echoing Trump’s concern over foreign imports. Berisha also reportedly keeps a red “Make America Great Again” cap behind his desk. The post Group Behind ‘Autocratic’ Trump Agenda Working on Albanian Election appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— New Reform Think Tank ‘Resolute 1850’ Run by Mining Magnates

 

at 4/10/25 10:00pm

A new research group set up to support Nigel Farage’s Reform UK is run by investors with business interests in the energy and metals industries, DeSmog can reveal  Resolute 1850 is reportedly being launched in the Spring to “support Reform with policy development, briefing and rebuttal”, according to plans seen by the Financial Times. The think tank is focused on building trans-Atlantic ties and aims to seek funding from allies of U.S. President Donald Trump, tech interests, and “religious conservatives”. According to the Financial Times, the think tank has already raised over £1 million. A version of this article was published by the Financial Times DeSmog can now reveal that Resolute 1850 was set up by Mark Thompson, an investor with interests in metals, fossil fuels, and renewable energy. It is also backed by his business associate David Lilley, a senior metals trader and former Conservative donor who has given £200,000 to Reform UK since June.   Thompson is a non-executive director of VSA Capital, an international investment and brokering firm with “deep knowledge across all aspects of mining and oil and gas”, according to its website. However, he also holds interests in renewable energy. Thompson is the director of Godolphin Exploration – a mining company that claims it produces “metals for the green energy transition”. VSA Capital trades in “transitional energy”, saying that it works in particular on battery storage – a crucial component in the rollout of renewable energy. Lilley is also invested in renewables – owning a hydro power project in Scotland via a company called Allt Power. These business interests conflict with the policies of Reform UK. The party, which often denies the science behind human-induced climate change, has proposed scrapping emissions reduction policies, removing subsidies for renewable projects, and banning battery storage systems. Farage’s party is polling neck-and-neck with Labour ahead of the 1 May local elections, when it will be standing in council and mayoral seats across the country. “Farage and his party often make the very dubious claim that they are in touch with the general public. Now it will be even harder for them to repeat that with a straight face, if they choose to take policy advice from a think tank run by commodities traders and mining magnates,” said Agustina Olivieri, head of campaigns at the Good Law Project. Thompson was approached for comment. Lilley declined to comment. Resolute 1850 Thompson incorporated Resolute 1850 Ltd. on 20 December – the same day that resolute1850.org was registered. The Financial Times reported on 28 March that Resolute 1850 will seek to develop and test policy ideas for Farage’s party. The plans seen by the newspaper suggested that Resolute 1850 would formulate ideas about how to cut state services, oppose DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion), and “reform healthcare”. Farage has previously suggested that the UK should move away from a state-funding NHS and should instead embrace an insurance-based system. The group will be run by Jonathan Brown, the former chief operating officer of Reform UK. According to PoliticsHome, Resolute 1850 has met with Farage and his deputy Richard Tice in recent weeks, and has hired “half a dozen” staff ahead of its launch. The think tank will be based in Millbank Tower, Westminster, the same building as Reform’s headquarters. A senior party figure confirmed to the Financial Times there was a plan to create a think tank and that they were involved in that plan. The party responded by saying that it is “not associated with any think tanks”. “We are developing policy internally with renowned experts in each field,” they added. 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); Despite their influence on policy, UK think tanks are not required to declare their funding sources, leading to accusations that they can be used as vehicles for foreign interests. “Foreign money sloshing into a think tank with excellent access to senior UK politicians will be bad for our democracy,” said former Liberal Democrat MP Tom Brake, director of the campaign group Unlock Democracy. “This is particularly true when think tanks are under no requirement to reveal whether they are getting their money from uber-rich industrialists or religious fundamentalists, with their own agenda. Think tanks are part of the lobbying industry and should be regulated accordingly.” An opaque network of right-wing think tanks exists in the UK, based in and around 55 Tufton Street in Westminster. Although none of these groups are transparent about their funding sources, investigations have revealed that they have received millions in anonymous donations from the U.S. over recent years. The owner of 55 Tufton Street is a Reform donor, while multiple Tufton Street think tanks held events at the party’s annual conference in September. Extractive Investors Thompson is a former partner at Apollo Management, one of the world’s largest asset management firms. He currently sits on the board of VSA Capital, which has acted as a financial advisor and broker to a number of oil and gas companies. And, despite his renewable energy interests, Thompson has publicly criticised the energy transition, posting in 2021: “Climate policy is legislating the end of CO2 emissions forcing the end of cheap energy production.” Thompson’s fellow Resolute 1850 director David Lilley is the CEO of investment fund Drakewood Capital, which has a strategic partnership with VSA Capital. Lilley is a major Reform donor, having given £100,000 to the party during the 2024 general election campaign, and another £100,000 this year. DeSmog and The Mirror reported in June that Lilley’s companies own 12,000 hectares of farmland in the Stavropol region of Russia, in the south west of the country. Lilley previously told DeSmog that he has been unable to sell the land due to “Russian state bureaucracy” and that he has written off the assets. “I utterly condemn Putin’s immoral and illegal invasion of Ukraine,” he added. “It has caused untold suffering and economic damage.” Lilley has been a political donor for years, having given £580,000 to the Conservative Party and its candidates between 2013 and 2023, as well as £150,000 to the pro-Brexit Vote Leave campaign. An experienced metals and mining trader, Lilley is the former business partner of Tory peer Lord Michael Farmer, whose son George is a major Reform donor. Farage was himself a metals trader in the City of London in the 1980s before entering politics as leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP). Reform’s Anti-Climate Politics Reform campaigns to “scrap net zero”, extract more oil and gas, and reopen coal power plants. The party has been campaigning ahead of the local elections on an anti-climate agenda. Farage has claimed that the UK’s policies to reach net zero emissions will be “the next Brexit”, and has suggested that Britain is “being deindustrialised through a moronic policy”. In reality, the clean energy transition has the potential to develop new, fast-growing industries. According to the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), the UK’s net zero economy grew by 10 percent in 2024, employing almost a million people in full-time jobs with an average wage of £43,000 – £5,600 higher than the national average. As revealed by DeSmog, Reform received £2.3 million from fossil fuel interests, polluters and climate science deniers between the 2019 and 2024 general elections – 92 percent of its funding during the period. In January this year, Farage helped to launch a new UK-EU branch of the Heartland Institute, a notorious U.S. climate denial think tank. Farage has described himself as an “environmentalist in the old school sense”. However, interviewed at the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship conference in February, the Reform leader claimed it was “absolutely nuts” that CO2 is considered to be a pollutant, while admitting that he is “not a scientist”. Farage’s deputy Richard Tice has also claimed that “CO2 is not poison; it’s plant food”. Climate scientists at the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world’s leading climate science body, have stressed that “it is a statement of fact, we cannot be any more certain; it is unequivocal and indisputable that humans are warming the planet”. A version of this article was published by the Financial Times The post New Reform Think Tank ‘Resolute 1850’ Run by Mining Magnates appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Revealed: Meat Industry Behind Attacks on Flagship Climate-Friendly Diet Report

 

at 4/10/25 10:00pm

In January 2019, world-renowned food and nutrition experts published a groundbreaking study. The culmination of two years’ work by 37 authors, the EAT-Lancet report set out to answer the question: how can we feed the world’s growing population without causing catastrophic climate breakdown? The publication was high profile. Launched in the prestigious peer-reviewed Lancet medical journal, the report came out in 12 languages, and a flagship event at the World Health Organisation (WHO) in Geneva, Switzerland was planned for March. But in the days leading up to the launch, the WHO pulled out. The health agency’s withdrawal followed a massive online backlash, which had concentrated on one of the report’s recommendations: to cut global red meat consumption by 50 percent.  A version of this story has been published by The Guardian New evidence seen by DeSmog suggests this surge of outrage against the report was stoked by a PR firm that represents the meat and dairy sector.  A document seen by DeSmog appears to show the results of a campaign by the consultancy Red Flag, which catalogues the scale of the backlash to the report.  The document indicates that Red Flag briefed journalists, think tanks, and social media influencers to frame the peer-reviewed research as “radical”, “out of touch” and “hypocritical”. It highlights that negative coverage outnumbered neutral or positive stories, with thousands of critical posts shared on X about the research, alongside more than 500 negative articles. “Red Flag turned EAT-Lancet into a culture war issue,” Jennifer Jacquet, professor of environmental science and policy at the University of Miami, and expert in lobbying, told DeSmog. “Instead of having nuanced conversations about the data, Red Flag takes us back to mud slinging.” “This document is a portrait of what we’re up against – as people who care about the truth, about climate change, and about the future,” she said. 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); Based on DeSmog’s review of the document, Red Flag’s attack campaign appears to have been conducted on behalf of the Animal Agriculture Alliance (AAA), a meat and dairy industry coalition that was set up to protect the sector against “emerging threats”. The AAA counts representatives from Cargill and Smithfield Foods – two of the world’s five largest meat companies – on its board. Red Flag is known to have previously worked for members of the AAA. Red Flag’s campaign overview evaluates the success of social media posts from the AAA attacking the EAT-Lancet report, including a paid advertising campaign launched on behalf of the alliance that reached 780,000 people. The surge of criticism had adverse consequences for the report’s authors. Scientists involved in the report told DeSmog that the “media storm” resulted in a swell of “nasty” comments directed at the authors. There is no suggestion that Red Flag was involved in or encouraged personal attacks against the EAT-Lancet authors . In some cases, the backlash led them to withdraw from promoting the research in the media, and undermined their academic careers.  Livestock accounts for over 14 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, and scientists agree that fast and drastic cuts to the sector’s pollution – which includes methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide released by deforestation – are required to limit global heating.  An updated EAT-Lancet report is due to be published later this year, aiming to achieve greater “local legitimacy”. Red Flag and the AAA did not respond to multiple requests for comment. ‘Remarkable Success’ The EAT-Lancet report recommended that individuals – particularly in wealthy countries – increase their consumption of nuts, pulses and other plant-based foods, while cutting meat and sugar from their diets. The document reviewed by DeSmog – a five page evaluation of the communications campaign launched against the EAT-Lancet study – describes the “remarkable success” of Red Flag’s efforts in undermining the findings.  The document’s meta data indicates that it was authored by Melissa San Miguel, the head of the Red Flag’s U.S. branch.  The full extent of Red Flag’s influence over the online backlash is unknown, but the document suggests that the PR firm played a key role in seeding opposition to the EAT-Lancet study.  It highlights the success of what it calls “hypocrisy criticisms” to discredit high-profile individuals involved in the report. This included Gunhild Stordalen, the CEO of environmental advocacy group EAT which funded the research alongside the Wellcome Trust.  In the document, Red Flag highlights that more than 100 articles criticised Gunhild or her husband Petter Stordalen, a Norwegian property mogul. The articles mocked Petter Stordalen for posing on Instagram eating a large burger, while other stories criticised the couple’s high-carbon lifestyle, including owning a private jet. Red Flag also “directly briefed” research groups, even before the report was published, who publicly criticised its recommendations.  According to the document, the campaign involved “advance press engagement” with the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), with multiple hostile articles about the EAT-Lancet study quoting the libertarian think tank.  Appearing on Sky News, the IEA’s then-associate director Kate Andrews said that those involved in the study “want us to essentially move to vegan lifestyles in which we don’t eat meat, we don’t have Coca Cola, in which people who can’t afford it are taxed out of being able to do this, whilst they fly around on their jets.”  In the weeks following its publication, nearly half of the 1,315 articles about EAT-Lancet included Red Flag’s “campaign messages and quotes”, the PR firm reported. Gunhild Stordalen, founder of the EAT Foundation, speaking at the launch EAT-Lancet report at United Nations headquarters. Credit: Lev Radin/Pacific Press/Alamy Live News The EAT-Lancet report was groundbreaking within the scientific community, and has been cited over 9,000 times in the four-and-a-half years since its publication.  Yet, responses online took a very different tone. Opponents of the research dominated discussions and used “misinformation, conspiracy theories, and personal attacks” to discredit the work, according to a study published in The Lancet. Red Flag’s document highlights social media posts claiming that the report was “dangerous” and told “poor people to eat dirt”. The PR firm’s role in seeding or amplifying these posts, if any, is unknown.  Multiple experts told DeSmog that the online backlash was one of the earliest examples of a “culture war” around dietary change that has become well-recognised in more recent years. In March 2019, Italy’s mission to the UN wrote an open letter to the WHO calling the research “extremely controversial” and urging the organisation to pull out of its Swiss launch event. The Italian mission accused EAT-Lancet’s authors of advocating for “the TOTAL elimination of the freedom of choice by consumers” – echoing the negative media coverage fuelled by Red Flag.  Victor Galaz – associate professor at the Stockholm Resilience Center (Stockholm University), which was involved in shaping the EAT-Lancet report – studied the online response to the report.  “Everyone was shocked by the volume and tone of the tweets: the aggressiveness and degree of lying, to put it very bluntly,” he told DeSmog. “Climate change science has faced this kind of backlash for a while,” he said. “But in this domain – diets and meat – that was new to people. Everyone was shocked.”   Undermining Science For those involved in the report, the backlash came at a high price.  One of the co-authors, Marco Springmann, said he faced serious burnout following the “media storm” that went on for a year after publication.  A senior researcher at the Environmental Change Institute at the University of Oxford and a professorial research fellow at the Institute for Global Health at University College London (UCL), Springmann was repeatedly accused of bias against the meat industry for eating a plant-based diet. “Usually I lead on two to three studies a year, but in the year following EAT-Lancet, I wasn’t able to lead on one,” he said. Springmann was clear that he welcomed legitimate critiques of the report that were raised in the academic world. In the years since publication, researchers have questioned whether the recommended diet meets vital micronutrient requirements, and if the study sufficiently accounted for variations between different countries and contexts. But online articles and social media posts often did not engage with, or overblew, these nuanced debates.  “We are not perfect. It’s good to hear constructive criticism – that’s part of academic discourse,” Springmann said. “But if it gets into an ideological shouting match, we don’t get anywhere.” Line Gordon, another author of the EAT-Lancet study, said she was “overwhelmed” with “really nasty” comments in the immediate aftermath of its publication. “I was excited about the research we had done and how important it was and how much work we had put into it,” she said. “However, when we launched, I remember waking up in the morning and I’ve never been attacked in so many ways.” The backlash was “exhausting”, she added. There is no suggestion that Red Flag was involved in personal attacks against the EAT-Lancet authors. However, Jennifer Jacquet from University of Miami told DeSmog that the PR firm’s campaign likely helped to make the report so divisive.  “The industry doesnt make investments like this whimsically,” Jacquet said. “They know that this affects the tenor of the conversation. It’s a really illustrative example of how PR firms operate in the 21st century.” Industry Opposition Although the Red Flag document does not name the funder of the PR firm’s work, it contains indications that it was conducted on behalf of or at least in partnership with the Animal Agriculture Alliance.  The document catalogues posts from the AAA about the EAT-Lancet report that received hundreds of thousands of impressions on social media – signalling that they were produced as part of the campaign. According to minutes of AAA meetings seen by DeSmog, the alliance was concerned about the report over a month before publication.  “We have heard that this report will be extremely negative toward animal agriculture and will encourage people to adopt a vegan diet and urge farmers to shift to growing fruits and vegetables instead of animal proteins,” the minutes stated. So, as the report was being launched in January 2019, the AAA created a webpage and hashtag, #climatefoodfacts, criticising EAT-Lancet’s publication. The following year, the AAA’s then vice-president for communications Hannah Thompson-Weeman told attendees at an industry event that the group had “worked with industry partners to develop statements, talking points, engaging issue experts, media and social media engagement, [and] shared intel with international stakeholders” on the EAT-Lancet report.  Red Flag’s campaign overview shows that the PR firm also led a communications campaign against a second peer-reviewed study, ‘The Global Syndemic of Obesity, Undernutrition, and Climate Change’, which was published the same month and identified red meat as a major driver of diet-related disease. “Targeted briefings and stakeholder activation ensured the very first articles on the ‘Global Syndemic’ connected back to EAT-Lancet and framed both reports as radical and out of touch”, Red Flag stated. This adds to a growing body of evidence showing that the livestock industry is behind attacks on academic research, including the EAT-Lancet study.  In 2022, Greenpeace’s environmental investigations outlet Unearthed found that the CLEAR Center at the University of California (UC) Davis – a U.S. research institute set up in partnership with the meat sector – had launched what it called a “massive campaign” against EAT-Lancet. Meat and Dairy Clients Indeed, the AAA and Red Flag are part of a wider web of meat and dairy industry groups that have sought to counter critical coverage of the sector. Red Flag has worked for the Meat Institute since 2015 when it represented the U.S. industry group in consultations by the WHO on whether certain types of meat should be considered to be carcinogenic. Until 2022, the Meat Institute claimed on its website that the “degree [to which] human activity on Earth lead[s] to climate change” is “unknown”. Its board of directors includes staff from meat packing giants JBS and Tyson Foods.  The Meat Institute’s chief strategy officer, Eric Mittenthal, sits on the board of the AAA. The institute is also part of an advisory committee for the CLEAR Center at UC Davis. More recently, Red Flag also led the promotion of a controversial open letter in 2022 defending the livestock industry against calls for the world to reduce its meat and dairy consumption.  Known as the Dublin Declaration, the open letter was signed by over 1,000 scientists, but faced fierce criticism from other academics who accused it of being deliberately misleading.  An investigation by Greenpeace’s investigative division Unearthed found that the declaration had been penned by academics with “close ties” to the industry, including those at the CLEAR Center. It’s unknown who funded Red Flag’s campaign to promote the letter. Melissa San Miguel, the head of Red Flag’s U.S. branch and the author of the Eat-Lancet campaign overview, has also repeatedly represented the meat sector.  San Miguel attended the 2024 United Nations (UN) COP28 climate summit in Dubai as part of the AAA’s delegation, and was involved in lobbying efforts coordinated by multiple livestock industry groups. She has also spoken at events held by the Meat Institute and, in 2021, referred to efforts by intergovernmental organisations like the UN to support dietary change as “death by a thousand paper cuts”. New Opportunities The industry’s campaign against EAT-Lancet appears to have been successful.  Yet – in spite of the online backlash – the report has also been one of the most influential of its kind in recent decades. It is among the papers most often cited by governments and in policy briefs across all topics, used in over 600 such documents since its launch.  With the second EAT-Lancet report due out this year, Marco Springmann – who joined the second research group despite having reservations – told DeSmog he hoped the new research could spark a more constructive conversation. “It’s a big opportunity to put the debate back on a better track,” he said. A version of this story has been published by The Guardian The post Revealed: Meat Industry Behind Attacks on Flagship Climate-Friendly Diet Report appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

As of 4/30/25 4:45am. Last new 4/29/25 9:51am.