Climate change -denial to doublespeak

The US Senate  is looking at a report that is meaningful per an article by Dharna Noor in The Guardian called “Big oil spent decades sowing doubt about fossil fuel dangers, experts testify.” The subtitle adds more concern: “US Senate hearing reviewed report showing sector’s shift from climate denial to ‘deception, disinformation and doublespeak.’”

The term “doublespeak” is of course borrowed from George Orwell’s “1984.” Here are the first few paragraphs:

”The fossil fuel industry spent decades sowing doubt about the dangers of burning oil and gas, experts and Democratic lawmakers testified on Capitol Hill on Wednesday.

The Senate budget committee held a hearing to review a report published on Tuesday with the House oversight and accountability committee that they said demonstrates the sector’s shift from explicit climate denial to a more sophisticated strategy of ‘deception, disinformation and doublespeak.’

‘Time and again, the biggest oil and gas corporations say one thing for the purposes of public consumption but do something completely different to protect their profits,’ Jamie Raskin, the ranking Democrat on the House oversight committee, testified. ‘Company officials will admit the terrifying reality of their business model behind closed doors but say something entirely different, false and soothing to the public.’

The findings build on years of investigative reporting and scholarly research showing that the sector was for decades aware of the dangers of the climate crisis, yet hid that from the public.

In the absence of decisive government action to curb planet-warming emissions, the impacts of the climate crisis have gotten worse, committee Democrats said. Several senators said the industry should have to pay damages for fueling the crisis.”

I have long believed this assertion as the industry makes far too much money and has put money in the pockets of legislators to just remain silent. After waning for a few years, the efforts to deceive have been stepped as renewable energy advancements continue. We hear the focus on all the hiccups and challenges, but the continuing increase in market share on electricity production of the renewable energy is still an undertold story.

So, is the story that shareholders have voted management at several fossil fuel companies like Exxon, Occidental Petroleum, eg. must report on what they are doing about climate change intervention. When I hear pushback that the activist shareholder groups are forcing this, I chuckle as the fossil fuel industry is the most subsidized industry in history. It is a key reason they can afford to sponsor so many climate change denial websites to overwhelm the far fewer peer reviewed scientific websites.

I fully recognize change cannot turn on a dime. But, we must be even more active in demonstrative climate change interventions. Renewable energy is just one large component. But, more trees, more mangrove buffers next to the ocean, more kelp farms, more moving traffic patterns, less meat eating, etc. must be part of the equation.

I must add that a key reason I left the Republican Party in 2008-ish is the party’s stance on climate change denial. That was 16 years ago. And, it continues today. I am reminded of the lyric from “Cabaret” which says it all “money makes the world go around, the world go around, the world go around.” Money can fund a lot of things – even denial.

A very energetic idea

In an article in Politico by David Ferris called “Big winner in Biden’s EV charging revolution: Gas stations,” an obvious trend is taking shape. Here are a few paragraphs:

“When Americans steer their electric vehicles off the highway and into shiny new charging stations — many paid for with federal tax dollars — they’re likely to find them in a curiously familiar place: the gas station.

More than half of the charging stations being built so far from the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law are rising at truck stops and gasoline stations, according to data exclusively provided to E&E News by EVAdoption, an EV data consultancy. In essence, the law’s $7.5 billion pot for charging is reinforcing the very fossil-fuel infrastructure that the EV era would seem to consign to oblivion.

That raises the prospect that money intended to cut emissions could throw a lifeline to companies that traditionally have raised them. Even so, many experts say the two industries are a natural fit.

‘I’ve always kind of assumed that the combination of fueling station and convenience stop would dominate,’ said Loren McDonald, the founder of EVAdoption. ‘They’re safe. They’re well lit. They have bathrooms on site. They have restaurants and stores. They check a lot of the boxes.’”

This is an idea that makes total sense. Having consulted with convenience stores, they make most of their profit when petrol users come in the store for food and drinks. This is a key reason these stores are fast food franchise holders as well. Since, charging a battery takes more time than gassing up, this should be a win-win for consumers and store owners.

Norway leads the way

Per an article by Sam Wallotson in The Guardian called “How did Norway become the electric car superpower? Oil money, civil disobedience – and Morten from a-ha,” a surprising result is discussed. The subtitle has the punchline – “More than 90% of new cars sold in Norway are electric. And it all started with some pop stars driving around in a jerry-built Fiat Panda.” A few paragraphs tease out the story.

“I’m in Stavanger to find out how, in a world where transport contributes about 20% of CO₂ emissions, Norway came to lead the world in electric car take-up. In 2023, 82.4% of private vehicles sold in the country were electric. In January, the figure was 92.1%. The goal is to hit 100% by next year.

Why Stavanger? Because, as well as – irony alert! – being its oil capital, Norway’s third city, in the south-west of the country, has been pivotal in its road towards zero-emission transportation. They tried electric buses here in 1994. In 1998, the city was part of a European trial of electric vehicles (EVs) for goods distribution.”

I love this story because the Norwegians started back in the 1990s and just kept plugging away. It gets back to my favorite business book, “Built to Last,” where successful companies over time try things and keep doing the things that work. Norway started with electric buses and kept adding to the mix.

Cities in the US which are fully renewably energy powered built on previous efforts. They may have started with hydro power, added solar, then wind and eventually became 100% powered.

Norway should be commended for their focus and success.

Zero-sum thinking is antagonistic to growth

In an article by Patrick Wintour in The Guardian called “National self-interest stymying global cooperation, report finds,” a theme I have mentioned more than a few times is covered. The subtitle gives a little more context: “Survey by Munich Security Conference suggests nations define success as relative to others rather than the common good.” The first few paragraphs tell the gist of the story.

“The world has entered a new era marked by zero-sum thinking in which countries seek relative advantage through protectionism, self-interest and rejection of mutually beneficial cooperation, a report from the prestigious Munich Security Conference suggests before its annual meeting at the weekend.

The MSC attracts a host of world leaders and will this year see discussions about the Middle East crisis and the implications of a victory for Donald Trump for transatlantic security.

The report, setting the conference themes, identifies a trend away from global cooperation towards transactional thinking that rules out cooperation beyond narrow, short-term gains. Its publication came days after Trump claimed at a rally on Saturday that he had told Nato allies during his presidency he would ‘encourage’ Russia to attack any member state that failed to meet a defence spending target of 2% of GDP.

Amid consternation from allies, the Nato secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, said Trump’s comments undermined ‘all of our security, including that of the US’ and the White House described them as ‘appalling and unhinged.’ The EU foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell, on Monday said: ‘Nato cannot be an a la carte military alliance … depending on the humour of the president of the US.’”

Zero-sum thinking is very common in politics as well. In essence, the thinking is “I must win and you must lose.” It is a bilateral mindset which is at odds with multilateral goals. It also is limited thinking as it uses a narrow scope lens to define success.

But, don’t take my word for it. Let’s use John Nash’s view called “The Nash Equilibrium” that won him a Nobel Prize in Economics. Nash’s story was captured in the movie “A Beautiful Mind,” starring Russell Crowe as Nash who overcame his life long struggle with schizophrenia to develop this brilliant concept. The movie portrays Nash coming up with an idea in university pub where if he and his mates pursued the noticeably prettiest woman, then all or all but one would leave alone. So, the equilibrium focused on getting dates for each mate, rather the each one focusing on themselves.

Ironically, The Nash Equilibrium was and is used successfully in global trade matters. Multinational agreements are predicated on maximizing return for all parties, not just one country. The result is the pie grows larger than it wound with each country looking to maximize its own profit. A good example is the Trans-Pacific Partnership which started out with eleven countries, including the US, to compete better with China. When Trump pulled the US out of the initial agreement, the other ten countries went on without the US. Not ironically, Trump later lamented not having a tool to compete better against China. This was it, but Trump got us out because in his mind all agreements he was not involved with are all bad. That is shortsighted as well as a tad arrogant.

Many years ago, I made the observation in a multiple line of business corporate setting that “collaboration is hard work.” That is a key reason it is not done very well. The dividends of working together are much higher, but all too often people take the path of least resistance and go it alone. Going it alone may get a quicker result, but it is self-limiting. Think of a restaurant owner who is desirous of expansion into multiple locations. If he does not collaborate with others sharing his brand concept, then expansion will simply not work.

Those who want to retrench from multinational or multilateral thinking will also be self-limiting. And, one thing that is important to note – unless you are dieting, you cannot shrink to greatness.

Survey – Brexit has completely failed for UK

An interesting article caught my eye in The Guardian called “Brexit has completely failed for UK, say clear majority of Britons – poll” by Toby Helm. The subtitle has the key punch lines – “Only one in 10 feel leaving the EU has helped their finances, while just 9% say it has benefited the NHS, despite £350m a week pledge according to new poll.”

The first few paragraphs tell more of the gist:

“A clear majority of the British public now believes Brexit has been bad for the UK economy, has driven up prices in shops, and has hampered government attempts to control immigration, according to a poll by Opinium to mark the third anniversary of the UK leaving the EU single market and customs union.

The survey of more than 2,000 UK voters also finds strikingly low numbers of people who believe that Brexit has benefited them or the country.

Just one in 10 believe leaving the EU has helped their personal financial situation, against 35% who say it has been bad for their finances, while just 9% say it has been good for the NHS, against 47% who say it has had a negative effect.

Ominously for prime minister Rishi Sunak, who backed Brexit and claimed it would be economically beneficial, only 7% of people think it has helped keep down prices in UK shops, against 63% who think Brexit has been a factor in fuelling inflation and the cost of living crisis.

The poll suggests that seven and a half years on from the referendum the British public now regards Brexit as a failure. Just 22% of voters believe it has been good for the UK in general.”

What has long frustrated me is these findings were highly predictable BEFORE the Brexit vote. Analysts in the financial sector in London projected Brexit to be dilutive to the British economy. And, they made their opinions known. This is what I was reading that instead of the platitudes of what Brexit advocates like Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage were spouting. People who wanted to leave were sold on a memory of life in the old UK rather than the projected impact on the economy.

It did not take a financial analyst to realize non-EU companies that had EU headquarters and distribution centers in the UK would move them to places like Dublin, Frankfurt, Brussels, etc. This is what happened for more than a few.

One of the old sayings that seems to apply is pride appears before the fall. All countries need to think about this including my own. What drives jobs is customers. When you make it harder to sell to them, it will come back to haunt you. Brexit made it harder to sell to others. It made it harder to travel and migrate within the EU. Leaders should enable commerce not block it. Countries cannot shrink to greatness.

I am not sure if Brussels will take the UK back, but a Prime Minister with some chutzpah should try to make it happen.

Fossil fuel industry increases the fight to keep their revenue stream

The fossil fuel has upped the fighting with a vengeance. Losing a history of subsidized revenue does that to people. In an article on Politico called “Anti-green backlash hovers over COP climate talks” by Karl Mathieson, Charlie Cooper and Zach Coleman, the effort to water down climate change fighting objectives is discussed.

The subtitle provides the forewarning – “War, a fossil fuel boom and populist revolts are sapping the optimism from the fight against climate change. And then there’s Trump.”

Here are the first two paragraphs.

“LONDON — World leaders will touch down in Dubai next week for a climate change conference they’re billing yet again as the final off-ramp before catastrophe. But war, money squabbles and political headaches back home are already crowding the fate of the planet from the agenda.

The breakdown of the Earth’s climate has for decades been the most important yet somehow least urgent of global crises, shoved to one side the moment politicians face a seemingly more acute problem. Even in 2023 — almost certainly the most scorching year in recorded history, with temperatures spawning catastrophic floods, wildfires and heat waves across the globe — the climate effort faces a bewildering array of distractions, headwinds and dismal prospects.”

A few logical truths should be mentioned and heeded:

The fossil fuel folks don’t donate to politicians for their health. The ROI on buying influence is huge. Just a few thoughts:

– an industry that makes money off environmentally polluting plastics gets a law (to stop the use of more plastics) changed to grease the skids for more plastics and money, *

-an industry that makes money off people driving motor vehicles prevents where possible expanding mass transit to sell more petrol,

-an industry that was found guilty (many years too late) of collusion with the tire and car industries of getting rid of electric trolley systems across the US to make more money selling petrol, and

-an industry who allegedly colluded (at a minimum influenced the mission) with then California Gov. Schwarzenegger to get GM to pull its electric car pilot in California as it retrieved all of its leased EV-1s and shredded them. Even GM’s Board questioned management on this as they instead made gas guzzling Hummers until people stopped buying the less-than-ten-mpg vehicles.

Fossil fuel. They have been the most subsidized industry in history. The industry gets its well-funded puppet politicians to complain about government picking winners and losers when it funds renewable energy, has hugely benefited from government picking them to fund. It is OK to pick winners and losers if you win. The problem is in the end, we lose.

*****
Note: Per the Conservative Law Review:

“Plastics and fossil fuels are two sides of the same polluting coin. This connection becomes more apparent as the momentum for clean energy depletes Big Oil and Gas’ profits. Now that we’re calling for the end of climate-damaging emissions, the very industries at the root of our climate crisis have their backs against the wall. These corporate polluters now find themselves losing money to electric vehicles, heat pumps, solar, wind and other clean and electrified climate solutions.

But unsurprisingly, the fossil fuel industry values cash over human health. So, in a desperate attempt to maintain (and of course, grow) profits in the face of our strengthening climate movement, these greedy, corporate polluters have found a new opportunity: plastics.

Looking at how companies create plastics, this isn’t that surprising. Plastics are part of a sector called “petrochemicals,” or products made from fossil fuels like oil, coal, and gas. That’s right, corporations make plastic using dirty fossil fuels. So instead of directly selling climate-damaging fossil fuels – products rapidly losing value for energy production – companies like Exxon use their fossil fuels to pump out plastics.

Offsetting the loss of profits by switching to another polluting source? Sounds like “business as usual” to me. A scenario where Big Oil and Gas keep us addicted to plastics and fossil fuels.”

Earthshot prize for environmental preserving actions

The Earthshot prize has been an annual recognition of various initiatives to improve our planet. It started at the impetus of Prince William and The Royal Foundation in 2020. The third annual awards were aired last night on PBS. The name follows the “Moonshot” goal of John F. Kennedy to put someone on the moon by the end of the 1960s.

Per Wikipedia,

“The Earthshot Prize is a global environmental award that is rewarded to five winners each year for their contributions towards environmentalism. It was first awarded in 2021 and is planned to run annually until 2030. Each winner receives a grant of £1 million to continue their environmental work. The five categories were inspired by the UN Sustainable Development Goals; they are ‘restoration and protection of nature’, ‘air cleanliness’, ‘ocean revival’, ‘waste-free living’, and ‘climate action.’”

Prince William’s father King Charles is also big on taking care of our environment and battling climate change, but after becoming King, he has to acquiesce to what the Prime Minister wants to do. So, it seems Prince William had taken up the baton to run with. At the awards ceremony, he briefly spoke to emphasize the importance of the efforts.

The prize winners by category were selected from three finalists and can be found on the Earthshot website.

https://earthshotprize.org/winners-finalists/

My wife and I were pleased to see all the efforts being acknowledged, including each of the finalists. We seem to read more about what is not being done, so to see positive actions being taken and prize winners rewarded with more funding is comforting. Yet, so much more needs to be done.

Capitalism and Socialism can coexist (a needed repeat)

The following is a needed repeat of an old post. Too many times arguments are painted in either/ or extremes, when often the issue is what is the ideal balance of various positions.

On more than one occasion, I have seen letters to the editor speak of setting up beachheads in the coming election around capitalism vs. socialism. To me, this is a name-calling gimmick to persuade a voter who does not do much homework. Voters that are prone to listen to name-calling as debate will buy into this logic time and again. The irony in this debate is the United States’ economy is a blend of “fettered” capitalism with socialistic underpinnings. So, both co-exist here.

For readers in either camp, this observation probably surprises them, especially those who are gung-ho capitalists. But, the word in quotes is also important as we do not have unfettered capitalism. If we did, the (now former) US President would have run out of money long ago with his many bankruptcies. I believe in capitalism as well, but we need to understand why we ventured down the path of the socialistic underpinnings.

These underpinnings spoke to a nation that was in a great depression and who seemingly got lost in poverty later on. Social security is a low-income weighted pension, disability and survivor benefit program that is funded equally by employers and individuals. To determine the base level benefit, 90% of average wages are used for the earlier wages then added to 32% of the next tier of wages which are added to 15% of the highest wages up to a limit.

In the 1960s, LBJ’s “War on Poverty” added Medicare and Medicaid to the mix, with Medicare helping retirees and Medicaid focusing on people in poverty. Then, we can mix equal measures of unemployment benefits, workers’ compensation and food stamps which are now called SNAP benefits. Each of these programs are forms of “social insurance” benefits. That is socialism designed to keep people fed, housed and protected.

Taking this a step further, utilities are so needed to our communities, they are either co-ops or fettered capitalistic models where rate increases must get approved by a state governing board. Companies like Duke Energy and Con-Ed must get permission before they change their rates. For the co-op model, the customers own the business.

But, the word “fettered” enters into the mix on other businesses as well. To prevent monopolies, insider trading, interlocking boards, collusion, the misuse of insider knowledge by investors, etc. rules are set up to provide governors on capitalism. Then, there is that bankruptcy thing, where a business or person can claim bankruptcy to pay debtors what they can and restart. I use the (now former) President as an example, but his experience is a good one, as he filed for bankruptcy six times on various investments.

I want people to think about our country in this context. We want people to earn their keep and be fully functioning tax paying citizens. Yet, we have programs in place to keep them out of the ditch. As we considering changes to programs, we should consider what they are accomplishing and how changes could make them more effective. And, we must understand that things must be paid for, so how do we get the best return on the investment into those stated goals?

For those that have followed my blog for some time, you know I have been involved for many years in helping homeless working families find a path back to self-sustainability. We help the homeless climb a ladder, but they climb it. Yet, we are also successful in keeping people housed on their own after two years of leaving our program because we measure things and make improvements. The ultimate goal is self-sustainability, so we measure how we can be the best financial stewards toward helping people achieve that purpose.

We need social underpinnings to help people be fed, housed and protected. Some need to be temporary in nature, while others are longer term like Medicare and Social Security. There is a cost-benefit to these equations, but we should understand that we have poverty problem in our country. We must also understand technology advances will continue to change the paradigm on employment as it has throughout the industrial age placing additional pressures to even more wage earners. Not providing ladders out of poverty or ways to avoid it would be a bad path to follow for our country.

Bloomberg directs funds to energy transition

An article in Reuters caught my eye by Valerie Volcovici called “Michael Bloomberg pumps $500 million into bid to close all US coal plants.” Bloomberg, the creator of Bloomberg News and former Mayor of New York City, has been a long time advocate of advancing the causes to fight climate change. For a few years, he chaired a group of 750 or so global cities to share ideas to reduce emissions and energy use. A few paragraphs from the article provide the gist.

“Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced on Wednesday he will pump $500 million into the next phase of his energy transition campaign, aiming to shut down ‘every last’ coal plant in the United States and slash gas-fired capacity in half by 2030.

The $500 million infusion into his decade-long Beyond Carbon initiative aims to ‘finish the job on coal’ by working with state and local organizations to force the closure of the roughly 150 coal plants that have not yet retired, slash current gas generation in half and block the construction of new gas-fired plants.”

Bloomberg has written a book with Carl Pope, the retired executive director of the Sierra Club called “Climate of Hope.” Pope was very active in helping the states close older, high emitting coal plants for each new one that was built which operates more cleanly. Previously, the industry was not asked enough questions by regulators. Pope helped change that and the push back accomplished change.

Coal has been on the demise for years. The number of jobs has declined along with that. The first nail in the coffin was natural gas which is cheaper and burns cleaner but not cleanly. Renewables are now making a dent and should continue to do so. The cost of production of renewables has declined and when all costs are factored in (acquisition, environmental, maintenance, litigation, production, etc.) easily are cheaper than coal. The cost to manage coal ash continues beyond the life of the plant. US Solar and wind jobs now well exceed coal jobs by several multiples.

So, the acceleration of the efforts to diminish coal use is a huge positive. Bloomberg’s efforts should be applauded.

Atlantis will become a reality – a much needed repeat post

The following post was written five years ago. With the current Florida governor sanctioning a disinformation video naysaying climate change and renewable energy, it needs to be repeated. Back in the early 1970s, an interesting and different song by Donovan called “Atlantis” hit the airwaves. It spoke of the destroyed world consumed by the sea. As sea level rises, the city of Miami will become a future Atlantis.

Earlier this week, on a PBS Newshour piece called “Will climate change turn Miami into a future Atlantis?”, Henry Briceno, a research scientist from Florida International University, used the phrase to define his city, “we are doomed.” Sadly, this is the second scientist I have heard define Miami’s future demise.

Hurricanes have caused Miami planners to build for strong winds. Yet, they have not paid enough attention to the encroaching seas. Miami is built on porous limestone, so sea water can more easily come in. Sunny day flooding has occurred more frequently and pumps and pipes attempt to take the water back out to the bay. It is even worse during the spring and fall when the moon’s impact on tides is stronger.

Miami’s Dade County and three adjacent counties are investing $200 million to recycle the water back to the bay. Yet, It is not enough and maybe too late. New Orleans is taking advice from Denmark on their water management lessons, but Miami’s limestone is a huge problem. Plus, the sea water will find its way into the Biscayne aquifer which will cause drinking water issues.

This is no longer a future issue. Sunny day flooding causes the streets of Miami Beach to be several inches deep in sea water quite often. Other coastal cities are seeing more sunny day flooding, as well.

Future models show an alarming picture for Miami and the Everglades. Sadly, too many are turning a blind’s eye. In the sequel to “An Inconvenient Truth,” Al Gore and the Miami Beach mayor were standing in flooded streets, while the governor (this was now Senator Rick Scott, another climate change denier*) would not take their calls after asking staff to never use the term climate change. You would think the governor of a state surrounded on three sides by water would be concerned about climate change.

Donovan’s song may need to be re-released. Or, maybe the words can be updated for new coastal cities like Miami.

Note: Then Governor Rick Scott ordered all government staff to avoid using the term “climate change” in papers, press releases and speeches. It resembled a Harry Potter-like mandate not to mention the name “Voldemort” as if not speaking the term would make it go away. Of course, the GOP naysaying front runner lives in Mar-a-lago, so one would think he would be more openly concerned with climate change.