Bjorn Lomborg and the Copenhagen Consensus: Deprioritizing Climate Change in Favor of More Pressing Human Betterment Issues

     HumanProgress.org, a libertarian group associated with the Cato Institute, just did a segment on Bjorn Lomborg by Marian Tupy. He first notes that Lomborg’s 2001 book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, which I have not read, got a lot of pushback from the climate change establishment. Lomborg has focused on prioritizing human and environmental problems. I did read his 2020 book False Alarm, about toning down climate change catastrophism, and his excellent 2023 book Best Things First, which was specifically about prioritizing sustainable development goals. I summarized and reviewed that book on this blog.

     It was the more liberal science groups, such as Scientific American and the Union of Concerned Scientists, who criticized Lomborg’s earlier works, such as The Skeptical Environmentalist. For a while, Lomborg was a sweetheart of the U.S. right-wing pushback against prevailing catastrophic climate change narratives. Lomborg was lambasted for challenging that narrative. He was branded as a climate change denier and was said to be in line with fossil fuel interests. However, that was never actually the case.

“The substance of Lomborg’s crime was simple. He took the environmental litany of doom and gloom and checked it against long-run data from the UN, the World Bank, and other official sources. He concluded that on most indicators human welfare had improved, many environmental trends were not as catastrophic as advertised, and that resources devoted to some flagship green causes would save more lives if redirected to basic health, nutrition and economic development. He accepted that global warming is real and largely man-made but argued that the standard policy mix of aggressive near-term emissions cuts was a poor investment compared with targeted adaptation, innovation and poverty reduction.”

     His branding as a “climate crisis denier” is probably more apt, as I, too, agree that calling it the climate crisis is not necessary. Much of his work, however, has been vindicated. Climate change is a problem and is important to address, but there are other, more pressing human issues also competing for funding that really need to be addressed first. Tupy notes that Bill Gates’ recent memo on deprioritizing climate change issues for more pressing problems utilizes arguments very similar to those used by Lomborg. It is also true that Gates and Lomborg have worked together in prioritizing human betterment issues.

     Lomborg noted that other human problems outweighed climate concerns, particularly in developing countries where quality of life and access to needed basic services were lacking. Tupy writes that Gates’ memo was right in line with Lomborg’s analysis:

“The key line could have been lifted from a Copenhagen Consensus report: “The biggest problems are poverty and disease, just as they always have been,” and limited resources should go to interventions that deliver the greatest gains for the most vulnerable. That is Lomborg’s central thesis restated by one of the most influential philanthropists on the planet.”

     Tupy also writes that Gates’ and Lomborg’s views are that “health and prosperity are the best defences against a warmer world.” Lomborg argues that the focus for poor countries should be on economic growth and adaptation to adverse climate and weather.

     Tupy focuses on three ideas that Lomborg’s opponents tried and failed to delegitimize. First is his emphasis of longer-term trends over recent headlines in assessing and ranking problems. Second, he considered climate change one problem among many, instead of some overriding issue that deserves all the attention. Lomborg is always focused on doing the most good with the lowest costs. Overly focusing on climate change does not do that at all, he argued. Thirdly, Lomborg focused on prioritization, specifically subjecting each human problem to cost-benefit analysis, to show where we could do the most good at the least cost. Tupy calls it putting analysis into a framework of applied welfare economics.

     Tupy concludes:

“That is what it means to say that Lomborg was driven by science rather than dogma or emotion. He did not deny problems. He asked how big they are, how fast they are changing, and what works best if we care about human flourishing. His opponents often responded not with better data but with attempts to brand him as illegitimate, to sic committees on him, and to deter others from asking similar questions.”    

“There is a broader lesson. Modern societies claim to revere science, but too often turn scientific disputes into moral battles in which heretics must be shamed or silenced. Lomborg’s experience shows what happens when a researcher challenges a powerful narrative with inconvenient numbers. The attempt to punish him did not change the data. It only delayed a necessary conversation about trade-offs, priorities and the best use of scarce resources.”

     Lomborg, like Gates, is deeply involved in understanding and solving human problems, especially those in the developing world, which are often dire and have life and death risks. He favors the promotion of health, education, the reduction of corruption, the development of durable institutions, and poverty reduction as human goals that simply should outrank climate change.

 

    

References:

 

A Vindication of Bjorn Lomborg: Lomborg’s experience shows what happens when a researcher challenges a powerful narrative with inconvenient numbers. Marian L. Tupy. HumanProgress.org. March 3, 2026. A Vindication of Bjorn Lomborg - Human Progress

 

Putin’s Unwavering Determination Amid His Massive Failure: Is It Enabled by Russia’s Totalitarian Government? So Much Lost and So Little Gained in Ukraine

     The war in Ukraine, or rather the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine, as it should be called, just passed its 4-year anniversary. The senseless war has resulted in the unnecessary deaths and injuries of millions of soldiers and civilians. All for what? Some Russian idea of entitlement based on an imperialist past? Russia has also ruined its economy, its international reputation, and strongly increased suppression of its citizens, all to rid Ukraine of the absurdity of perceived fascism.

     Putin’s conviction that Ukraine is an artificial construct with an illegitimate government is apparently what is driving him and his co-conspirators to force the death of millions of people as well as the mass propagation of torture, cruelty, poverty, imprisonment, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and human rights abuses. In an ideal world, we might say, bring NATO in to push the invaders out in a big way and allow Ukraine to join the EU and NATO.

     But Putin failed in nearly all of his goals aside from annexing territories after bombing towns and cities into rubble.  

     Lawrence Freedman writes about this in The I Paper:

“This is exactly the situation he was trying to prevent in 2013, which provides the measure of Putin’s failure. Then the Ukrainian president was a Russophile. Now, Russia will be hated and distrusted by Ukrainians for generations to come. Successive moves by Putin have ensured that his ideal end state of a compliant government in Kyiv is now beyond his reach. And this is before we bring into the equation the hundreds and thousands of dead, injured, and traumatised, the distortion of the economy and the impact on the well-being of the population, the break with the West and the loss of the European gas market, the dependence of China, and the need to ask favours from North Korea and Iran. In a democracy, a strategic blunder of this size would have been called out years ago. In autocracy, one man can have the power to keep this futile war going and not be called to account.”

     Note that at the end, he says that only in an autocracy would such failure be tolerated. In a country where a government has no accountability to its own people due to its control of those people, such toleration of abject failure can occur. The mass sacrifice of human life for small territorial gains is barbaric and needs to be stopped. As well as being barbaric, it is nonsensical. There is simply no way Putin can really win anything. The loss is so huge that few, if any, winning scenarios can replace it.

     The Kremlin is not interested in peace. It is seemingly locked in war mode, and there is no intention that it seeks to change that. Its demands of the rest of the land on the provinces it seeks is a demand that Ukrainians are not willing to accede to, nor will they or should they trust Russian peace efforts, which they have never lived up to in the past. Will Russia ever stop the endless “meat grinder” that the war has become for them?

     The Kremlin may get some reprieve with increasing oil prices due to the war against Iran. Hopefully, the risks of drone attacks in the Strait of Hormuz can be mitigated, and oil prices can come back down. Other forces are working against Russia, including tightening sanctions, more and better sanctions enforcement, more pressure on buyers of Russian crude such as India, and Ukrainian attacks against Russia’s energy exporting capabilities. Other factors working against Russia include its loss of Syria as a Middle East foothold, its loss of sanctions evasion partners Venezuela and Iran, and its vulnerability even in the Mediterranean, where Russian tankers have been interdicted and where a sanctioned Russian LNG tanker was attacked, presumably by Ukrainian drones. With polls showing Hungarian leader Viktor Orban trailing his opposition, it looks very possible that Putin will lose an ally, which would be good for Ukraine and the EU.

References:

 

Putin cannot disguise the true scale of his failure. Russia is on the brink. Lawrence Freedman. The I Paper. February 24, 2026.  Putin cannot disguise the true scale of his failure. Russia is on the brink

Utica Shale Drilling and Dry Gas Production in Northeastern Pennsylvania: Nearing 1TCF of Cumulative Production

     According to the latest Appalachian Basin Digest Monthly Overview, which I get via email subscription from Ayers Petroleum, the Utica Shale dry gas play in Northeast Pennsylvania is nearing a cumulative gas production of 1TCF. Currently, there are 127 producing wells in the play. The digest highlights an area or company every month, and this month it was the Northeast Pennsylvania Utica play. Drilling in the play is confined to just a few companies in just a few counties. Seneca Resources and JKLM Energy are the two main operators in the play, with Greylock Energy having a few producing wells as well. The bulk of the play is drilled by Seneca Resources in Tioga County. JKLM is drilling in Potter County. Greylock is drilling between the two in Eastern Potter County.

     The graph below shows that 2018 and 2019 were biggest drilling years in the play, as was 2024.

     The graph below shows both annual production and cumulative production. Cumulative production is nearing 1 TCF, which is an interesting milestone for the play. It looks like the new wells drilled in 2024 led to 2025 being the biggest productive year in the play, with over 160 BCF produced.

     As shown in the old Utica structure contour map below from 2016, the formation is about 9000 ft below sea level where it produces, and with high ground level elevations, it is below 10,000 ft in vertical depth. Thus, it is much deeper than drilling for Utica in Ohio.

     

 

References:

 

Appalachian Basin Digest Monthly Overview January 2026.

Structure Map of Utica Formation. Energy Information Administration. 2016. Utica play, structure map of the Utica formation

Road Salt and Mist Spark Pole Fires That Lead to Power Outages in Cuyahoga County, Ohio

      I had been unaware of the phenomenon of pole fires, or pole-top fires, on electric poles, and especially of the conditions that created them in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, yesterday. What is a pole-top fire, and what usually causes them?  Public Electric Cooperative explains:

“Pole-top fires can occur when moisture in the air combines with dust and dirt built up on power lines or insulators (used to attach lines to wooden poles) and creates a path by which electricity can travel from lines to the wooden pole or cross arm they are attached to. This is known as "tracking."

“When this happens, the pole or cross arm can heat up and catch fire. The fire damage or the resulting short circuit can cause an outage, as poles damaged by fire usually need to be replaced, or the line may need to be repaired. Drought and humid weather (without rain) contribute to the risk of pole top fires, and fog, light rain, or light, wet snow can provide the right conditions for pole-top fires to occur. Insulators damaged by lightning or other issues may also cause a pole fire.”

     An article for Manitoba Hydro notes that pole-top fires are a major source of spring power outages.

“Pole fires happen as humid air joins forces with dirt, salt, and grime, usually from traffic kicking up dirty mist that coats insulators, making a path for electricity to go from the line to the pole.”

     Thus, it is airborne dust, grime, and salt that accumulate on insulators, along with moisture in the air that initiates pole-top fires.

     The pics below show the effects of a pole fire. The ceramic things that look like springs are the insulators.

Mitigating Pole-Top Fires

     Electrical Safety Authority notes that one way to help prevent pole-top fires is pole washing, or more specifically, insulator washing, where the contaminants are simply washed off the insulators.

“Insulator washing has been found to be effective in removing contamination and eliminating leakage current from ceramic equipment and should be considered as a pole fire mitigation measure in areas with this equipment material.”

     A preferred method of preventing these fires is known as pole framing. This is designing the pole so that the rain naturally washes it. Of the pole framing configurations below, the armless configuration is best for preventing pole fires.

     Utilities have plans in place to track pole fires. These often involve getting calls from those who have seen the fires. They can then restore the line to limit future fires as well as investigate the cause. It is important to pinpoint the contributing causes, such as aging and cracking insulators.

     Safegrid is a company that provides digital intelligence to locate faults. Below, they explain the usual factors leading to pole-top fires.

     Safegrid’s Intelligent Grid System is designed to provide predictive maintenance and to monitor the grid to detect and locate faults. Early fault detection can prevent further problems from developing and reduce outage times.

     Yesterday, in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, near Cleveland, an outage affected 47,000 customers due to a pole fire or fires. A strong contributing factor in these cases was determined to be road salt used to melt the significant snow that has fallen this year. Combined with a humid day, the conditions were right for pole fires.

“The misty rain combined with salt on the road can cause contamination on utility poles. When that happens, electricity can travel across the pole and cause small fires.”

  

 

 

References:

 

Road salt, mist spark small fires and power outages in Cuyahoga County. Amy Russo, cleveland.com. Cleveland Plain Dealer. March 3, 2026. Road salt, mist spark small fires and power outages in Cuyahoga County

Pole fires: a leading cause of springtime outages. How do they happen? Manitoba Hydro. April 3, 2024. Pole fires: a leading cause of springtime outages

Prevent pole fires with Safegrid. Safegrid. March 26, 2024. Prevent pole fires with Safegrid — Safegrid

What is a pole-top fire? People’s Electric Cooperative. 2026. What is a pole-top fire? – People's Electric Cooperative

Mitigation of Pole Top Fires: Best Practice: Version 1. Electrical Safety Authority. Worker safety - Outreach to Municipalities - Electrical Safety Annex

The Battle for a Prevailing International Order: Civilizationalism vs. Universalism and Enforcement vs. Tolerance

Civilizationalism vs. Universalism

     The analysis from this section of my post comes from an article in Jacobin, a fairly far-left publication associated with the Democratic Socialists. Though I am no fan of Socialism, including Democratic Socialism, the article is thought-provoking and offers an interesting analysis of conservative political trajectories and positions. The author of the article is Michael C. Williams, who teaches politics at the University of Ottawa and is a research fellow at Queen Mary, University of London. According to the article, civilizationalism is:

“…the idea that world politics revolves around culturally bounded civilizations led by great powers.”

     The article notes that the U.S. 2025 US National Security Strategy (NSS), released in December 2025, was praised by Russia and China and dismissed by the Europeans. Those should be red flags right there. The NSS sees politics as regional great powers ruling their spheres of influence, something China and Russia would naturally prefer. This is one reason why Putin felt justified in invading Ukraine. The article explains that civilizationalism is bound by cultural homogeneity.

“At its core, the NSS lays out a civilizational view of world politics. The world should be seen as a series of civilizational complexes centered around great powers that anchor their civilizations and exercise hegemony in their regions. The West is not just a geographic location: it is a distinct historical and cultural sphere. Crucially, this civilization is threatened less by external military threats than it is from dangers within — the corrosive culture and politics of liberalism and the economic and social dislocations and depredations of market globalism. This is a strikingly divergent and, in many ways, troubling vision of world politics. The universalism underpinning liberal globalism and human rights is explicitly rejected. Developing ties between sovereign states united by a common civilization and exclusionary cultures is its priority.”

     The author states that civilizationalism is the dominant geopolitical discourse of radical conservatives in the U.S. and in Europe. The difference between civilizationalism and universalism is that the latter advocates for “universal values open in principle to all,” while the former exalts the value and lineage of so-called “Heritage Americans” above others. He also notes that Europe’s radical right is embracing civilizationalism:

“On the continent, assaults on “globalist EU elites” and calls to reassert exclusive national identities, values, and interests have been a staple of right-wing political rhetoric for years. However, appeals to Western civilization now play a prominent role in attempts to reconcile nationalism with Europeanness, offsetting charges of unrealistic national autarky by crafting an alternative Christian or Enlightenment-based European civilization. This vision provides a degree of international unity while excluding its civilizational others, particularly Islam.”

     We see this in paranoid fears in the “Great Replacement” theory that says diluting the dominant civilization and its world views is weakening it in favor of having no dominant civilization and world view, or of other worldviews. I have written elsewhere about the idea of “Western” values. Many non-Western countries, like South Korea, Japan, some Latin American countries, and facets of many other countries, also exhibit those same values. Thus, it is probably no longer correct or useful to continue to call them Western values. I prefer the term Free World.

     Williams notes that currently, universalism has been degraded, and appealing to civilizationalism is a currently popular political tactic on the right:

“In sum, what we are seeing across right-wing politics is not an expression of a civilization or civilizational state that already exists in any simple sense. Rather, it is the use of civilizational claims in political struggles at home and abroad, alongside the development of novel transnational strategies that seek to influence political identity, electoral politics, and foreign policy.”

     The current U.S. government seeks to influence Europe and venerate those powers in Europe that see things the same, namely, Hungary and Slovakia, which Marco Rubio visited after his somewhat conciliatory speech at the last Munich Security Conference. Hungary’s government controls its press, and both countries’ current governments favor capitulation to Russia.

“The strength of the Right’s civilizational narrative is reinforced by the fact that a traditional liberal response to a counter-civilizational argument based on universalism has been undermined not only by the Right, but also by critics on the Left and in the Global South, who connect it with Western imperialism. The difficulties faced by the EU Commission in attempting to craft a counternarrative demonstrate the challenge, as well as the risk, that pursuing such a path may inadvertently amplify the civilizational arguments of its opponents. Civilizationalism is suddenly everywhere in the rhetoric of international affairs. That alone should alert us to the likelihood that its popularity is not innocent.”

     Of course, the migrant issue has been huge and has powered the right in the U.S. and Europe. While leaders like Angela Merkel may have been inspired by compassion to let in migrants, the particular qualities of some of those migrants have been problematic, and in places, they have not integrated well. Do we want to bring in religious fanatics? In the U.S., the problem is perhaps more about criminals.

     While civilizationalism may have some appeal, especially when we consider so-called Western values, it also has several potential downsides, including unfairness, possible racism, and a kind of cultural arrogance. That cultural arrogance can lead to military adventurism, ala Putin, or radical anti-immigration sentiment. It also carries the danger of aligning with religious fanaticism. Those dangers make it unstable as a worldview or as a basis for international order. While the UN is not in vogue these days, I think we should continue to venerate basic ideas like the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This might be seen as a document in favor of universalism, which also seems to favor a secular approach to world problems.  

 

Enforcement vs. Tolerance: The Challenges of Policing the World

     This section of my post involves how we deal with the breaking of rules, norms, and basic human rights assurances. It is my own analysis. The U.S. has often been hailed and/or condemned as the world's policeman, the chief enforcer of those rules, norms, and rights assurances.

     I think perhaps that several issues are testing the current international order and its health. These include the effects of oil sanctions and the sanctions-evasion networks that have been developed to circumvent them. Stronger enforcement is now beginning to take effect, and we will see how it plays out. This is one example of the struggle between enforcement and tolerance. Ukraine’s Zelensky has recently advocated for seizing shadow fleet tankers. After all, Russian oil is a prime funder of the war against his people. He has called the tankers Moscow’s “floating purse.”

“Russia operates like a mafia organization, and the response must match that reality. If they reject the rules for the sake of war, the rules must foresee a clear and firm answer.”

     Although I am generally against the idea of civilizationalism that the Trump administration seems to embrace, I am in favor of enforcement, which the Trump administration also embraces. Why make and have rules if they can’t be enforced? Why tolerate violent narco-traffickers and the Mexican cartels? Why tolerate massive human rights abuses and the killing of civilians by armed government assassins? Why tolerate organized crime networks? We should work to fix these problems even if it won’t be easy. We need to act against brutality. We need to be wary of military buildups and militantism, especially by what have become known as “bad actors.” Those folks need to be called out at the UN rather than coddled and being projected as legitimate. Back in 2022, when Russia commenced its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, there were very few countries that supported them, even by abstention in UN votes. That was somewhat encouraging. It was also annoying that some countries like India, China, and South Africa were not condemning the Russians enough. Sadly, the U.S. abstained on the fourth anniversary of the full-scale invasion to condemn the invasion. The tally was 107 in favor, 1 opposed, and 51 abstentions. I don’t know the actual wording, but I find it shocking that we would fail to condemn Russia.  

     The whole notion of BRICS and the unholy alliance of Russia, Iran, and North Korea are offered up as alternatives to the current international ways of doing things in service to some kind of multipolar order. It is nonsense. It was annoying to me to hear that Russia and especially China were giving Iran cyber-capabilities to shut off domestic dissent through controlling communication, and that China was set to make a deal to give Iran hypersonic missile capabilities. I am not happy that India and China are profiting immensely from Russian and Iranian oil sanctions through buying sanctioned oil. I am not happy that Brazil is importing lots of Russian wheat and petroleum distillate products from Russia. Is some of that wheat coming from occupied Ukraine?

     Positions in favor of tolerating the rulebreakers often involve “not poking the bear,” or not risking worse outcomes of inadvertent suffering. But, as we have seen over the years as oppressive regimes build up and expand their capabilities, the results suggest to me that we need to act. We have seen what happened when Israel lowered its guard to the threat of Hamas. We have seen what happens when Iran encounters protestors. We see how Russia treats its people and soldiers and how it conducts warfare. We know how poorly its residents, as well as those from Iran, North Korea, China, and other oppressive regimes, are treated. We know who is profiting from sanctions. We know the Mexican cartels have been buying guns and ammo from U.S. big box stores and that they possess drones and rocket launchers. It has also been reported that cartel members have volunteered to fight for Ukraine in order to develop their drone warfare capabilities. There are good arguments for enforcement, while most arguments in favor of tolerance are geared toward limiting collateral damage.

     We have evolutionary relics at play within us that are no longer useful. We also have religious prayers and edicts that are not merely un-useful but also potentially harmful. Examples are Islamic prayers calling for the death of infidels, or roughly, ‘non-believers,’ and Evangelical Christians praying for the deaths of those with whom they disagree. In a way, these are like relics, too, no longer applicable. Of course, cultures have long had those who used religion and magic against their adversaries. Religious justifications, edicts, and prophecies have long influenced militantism. The Shia Islamo-fascist theocracy of Iran utilizes the apocalyptic al-Mahdi prophecies to prefer martyrdom to failure. The Sunni mujahedin (holy warriors) have a similar ethos. Christian evangelicals also often cite Biblical prophecies. It has been noted that those with strong religious convictions also develop strong wills and fearlessness. Islamic Jihadist suicide bombers are an example. Their religious convictions guide them to blow themselves up in order to kill others, to commit mass murder, probably the most un-religious thing a human can do. They are deluded by their fanatical religious convictions. 

     The U.S. armed forces are not officially or operationally religious, but it has been noted that sometimes there are strong religious elements present. Apparently, many of our American warriors, including those bombing Iran, are apocalypticists as well, believing they are fighting for the return of Jesus. They are supported from the top by Pete Hegseth and his cultish version of Christian evangelicalism. Consider the following from Jonathan Larsen at Substack:

“A combat-unit commander told non-commissioned officers at a briefing Monday that the Iran war is part of God’s plan and that Pres. Donald Trump was “anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth,” according to a complaint by a non-commissioned officer.”

“From Saturday morning through Monday night, more than 110 similar complaints about commanders in every branch of the military had been logged by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF).”

“The complaints came from more than 40 different units spread across at least 30 military installations, the MRFF told me Monday night.”

“The MRFF is keeping the complainants anonymous to prevent retribution by the Defense Department. The Pentagon did not immediately respond to my request for comment.”

     This is one reason among several that I believe Pete Hegseth is not a good leader. He has put evangelical Christianity at the highest levels of the U.S. military. How is such a Christian “end times” eschatology any better than that of the Shia eschatology? It’s bullshit. We don’t need Christian mujahideen. Replacing one set of religious fanatics with another is not a solution.

     One might ask what is being enforced. Is it a rule, a norm, an assurance of rights? Or is it an ideology, a certain moral code, or a biased and not universally agreed-upon rule? One would expect the detractors to argue that it's ideological, and the Russians and Iranians typically do when dismayed. In most cases, the criterion for breaking the rule is the causing of harm, which in many cases is clear-cut. It is often easy to see who is the oppressor and who is oppressed. Shooting unarmed civilians is an example. The current war against the Iranian regime is justified in my opinion due to the mass execution of up to 40,000 unarmed protestors over a two-day period – January 8 and 9, 2026. The regime is a murder cult and must be held accountable. Thus, enforcement is also justice. Without it, justice is not served.   

     It can be argued that Europe has been excessively tolerant of dictators like Putin and the Iranian leadership. Part of the reason for that is that they have reveled in the “Peace Dividend” after the Cold War ended. That all came tumbling down when Russia invaded Ukraine, and the Europeans have let their military apparatus fall into disrepair even as Russia continued its militancy. Europe is now doing what they need to do in building up its military, but it will take time. Europe’s inability to confront Putin without the U.S. is a testament to the failure of tolerance as a strategy for international order. It is no strategy at all. If you want to have a rules-based order, the rules must be enforced. Strongly worded statements won’t work.

     The Russian Foreign Ministry recently commented about the attack on Iran, saying that the goal of the campaign was:

"to destroy the constitutional order and destroy the leadership of a state they do not like, which has refused to submit to forceful dictate and hegemonism."

     This is Russia complaining that they do not like the rule and ‘refuse to submit’ to it. However, they would be outnumbered in a UN vote of countries. Of course, it would be better if the UN did not coddle countries that routinely break the rules. Then again, the U.S. has broken some rules as well, arguing that the rules are nonsensical. I agree with the current U.S. government that several of the UN agencies are compromised by obviously trying to punish the wrong parties in several cases. In both the cases of Russia and the U.S., both are complaining that they are unfairly being forced to be subject to rules, but in the Russian case, the preference is for tolerating human rights abuses and in the American case it is more for stretching the rules a bit here and there, which suggests that it is the rules that are the real issue for the Americans. While there are some human rights abuses in America and perpetrated by America, they are very small and mild compared to countries like Russia, Iran, China, and North Korea. Those are the countries that should be coerced into respecting human rights. The anti-Israeli sentiment and the coddling of dictatorships and authoritarians have permeated some UN agencies. They can be quite vulnerable in some cases, as the UNRWA fiasco in Gaza showed.     

 

 

References:

 

The Right’s Civilizational New World Order. Michael C. Williams. Jacobin. February 21, 2026. The Right’s Civilizational New World Order

Zelenskyy proposes confiscation of Russian shadow fleet vessels. Oleksandra Bashchenko. RBC Ukraine. March 1, 2026. Zelenskyy proposes confiscation of Russian shadow fleet vessels

U.S. Troops Were Told Iran War Is for “Armageddon,” Return of Jesus: Advocacy group reports commanders giving similar messages at more than 30 installations in every branch of the military. Jonathan Larsen. March 2, 2026. U.S. Troops Were Told Iran War Is for “Armageddon,” Return of Jesus

Nurdle Patrols Lead to Nurdle Pollution Containment in Pennsylvania, the Shell Ethane Cracker’s Air Pollution Exceedances and Possible Sale: The Appalachian Petrochemical Hub Has Not Manifested as Predicted

     Back in January 2018, more than eight years ago, I wrote in my previous energy blog about the evolving Appalachian petrochemical hub, which was set to include plastics feedstock production, related industries, and underground storage of ethane and other natural gas liquids. Much of what was planned has not been built, including two of three potential ethane crackers, ancillary industries, and underground NGL storage.

     The Shell Ethane Cracker in Beaver County, Pennsylvania, has been operational for a few years but has also faced many fines for exceeding air pollution allowances, along with other violations. Shell has recently expressed interest in selling the facility in order to focus on other priorities.   

     Ethane crackers and other plastics facilities often emit tiny plastic beads, known as nurdles, into the environment. They are very light and hard to contain and often are released through outfalls of wastewater. One such facility near Shell’s facility, Styropek, produces polystyrene beads for Styrofoam. It was found to be the source of numerous beads that entered the environment through outfalls and traveled into a tributary of the Ohio River to be deposited nearby. It is a legacy company, owned and operated since 2020 by Styropek.

     Environmental organization Three Rivers Waterkeeper led “nurdle patrols” in 2022 by boat to look for and map the distribution of nurdles and to find the source. They were supported by PennEnvironment and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. The data collected resulted in a lawsuit against the company, which plans to shut down very soon. They were fined $2.6 million and agreed to make technological upgrades that would monitor for and prevent nurdle releases. Nurdles tend to be a problem where they are produced, and better containment to keep them out of the environment is needed. They have negative effects on wildlife and water quality.

     Since opening in 2022, the Shell Ethane Cracker has received 45 notices of violation from state regulators for air and water contamination. In 2023, it paid the state $10 million and admitted that it had routinely exceeded its emissions allowance.

     The article in Capital & Main notes:

“Communities around Shell’s facility have complained of foul smells from the facility, and feared the health risks that come from exposure to its emissions, like particulate matter and volatile organic compounds. Exposure to these pollutants has been linked to cancers and respiratory, cardiovascular, liver and nervous system damage.”

     There was a fire at the plant in June 2025 that released smoke.

     Meanwhile, Shell and other oil majors are reevaluating their commitment to plastics and petrochemicals. Shell is seeking partnerships or a possible sale of facilities, including its plant in Beaver County.

     The Appalachian Petrochemical Hub has not manifested as envisioned. Styropek was not able to remain economical, has ceased production, and laid off workers. More support industries were expected to aid the region, adding jobs and synergies. By one estimate, a mere 400 permanent jobs were created by the Shell plant. The Gulf Coast ethane crackers and massive petrochemical industry complexes can currently outcompete the fledgling Appalachian hub.

     Underground ethane storage, thought to be imminent in 2018, was delayed. In 2023, there was some revitalization of the idea to be codeveloped with the ARCH2 hydrogen hub, a Biden-era project that is still in play, though scaled down by the Trump administration. ARCH2 is largely subsidy dependent. The petrochemical hub also benefits from tax credits and other business subsidies. Shell got record tax benefits for the cracker. However, the petrochemical industries can turn a profit, although that has been difficult in competition with the Gulf Coast, which led to the slowing of petrochemical hub development. The hydrogen hub may never be profitable and stay reliant on some government and private support. Another competitor in the region, due to the same availability of cheap natural gas, is data centers.

 

 

    

References:

 

Pennsylvania Spent Big on a ‘Petrochemical Renaissance.’ It Never Arrived. Audrey Carleton. Capital & Main. February 16, 2026. Pennsylvania Spent Big on a 'Petrochemical Renaissance.' It Never Arrived.

The Evolving Appalachian NGL Storage Hub and Petrochemical Hub. Kent Stewart. Blue Dragon Energy Blog. January 19, 2018. Blue Dragon Energy Blog: The Evolving Appalachian NGL Storage Hub and Petrochemical Hub

Oil & Gas E&P Accounting Methods: Full Cost vs. Successful Efforts: Effects on Earnings, Asset Value, Depreciation, and Depletion: RBN Energy Analysis

     This post is a summary of a post on the RBN Energy Blog by Nicholas Cacchione. I don’t have much familiarity with or knowledge of this subject. He first notes that when comparing different oil & gas exploration and production (E&P) companies, one might compare their annual reports. However, this is complicated by the fact that there are two differing accounting methods generally used to value the companies. He compares the two methods: Full Cost (FC) and Successful Efforts (SE), to different tax accounting methods approved by the IRS. The goal for those comparing companies is to get an accurate idea of the real value of the company. Such valuations can inform possible merger and acquisition decisions.

     He notes that while both methods are permitted under U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), they offer different opinions, particularly of exploration successes and failures. He also explains how methods used changed after the shale revolution, where shale is a “resource play” tapping a continuously present, repeatable resource, while mainly vertical pre-shale wells had significant dry hole risks not encountered in shale drilling.

“These differences influence reported earnings, asset values, depreciation and depletion rates, impairment behavior and, ultimately, how companies are perceived by the market. For decades, FC and SE accounting methodologies were viewed largely through the lens of conventional exploration. In that Pre-Shale Era, dry holes were common, exploration risk was high, and accounting methodology played a major role in determining financial results. FC tended to smooth results by spreading failures across large cost pools, while SE forced companies to recognize losses immediately.”

“Today, the most important differences between FC and SE appear in impairment timing, depreciation profiles, reserve revisions, and the way capital costs are embedded in balance sheets over time. However, it is important to recognize that despite whichever accounting methodology a company subscribes to, cash flow and cash flow-related metrics will still tell the economic truth about a company’s financial fortunes.”    

     Pre-shale oil & gas was high risk and high cost. Shale drilling is low risk and high cost. The Successful Efforts (SE) method ensures “project-level accountability and rapid recognition of failure.” This method is transparent and conservative. The Full Cost (FC) method does not operate at the project level, but pools capitalized exploration and development costs into larger portfolios, typically by country.

“Proponents of FC argue that this approach better reflects the long-term economics of resource development. Individual failures are expected to be offset by future discoveries, and capitalizing costs smooths earnings over time. In their view, expensing dry holes immediately creates excessive volatility that does not reflect underlying business value.”

     He gives some history of these methods. In the 1960s and 70s they were hotly debated. Large integrated oil companies, the “majors,” generally favored SE, while smaller independent producers often preferred FC. FC serves to reduce short-term earnings volatility and enable better access to financing.

     As noted, shale drilling brought repeatability and is largely seen as developmental drilling rather than exploratory drilling. The geologic risks are much lower with shale. Shale also benefits, he notes by the density of drilling, which provides much more geological data and information, which further lowers risks.

     The graph below depicts different companies and the accounting method used alongside capitalized costs. Those in red use FC and those in black use SE.

     He notes that in the Shale Era, what has changed mainly is how impairments, or cost write-downs, are accounted. He explains that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) requires the “full cost ceiling test” to limit excessive asset capitalization under FC accounting.

“A ceiling test write-down occurs when a FC company’s net capitalized oil and gas costs exceed the present value of its proved reserves (PV-10), requiring the excess to be written off immediately. These write-downs are often triggered by lower commodity prices or reserve revisions rather than changes in underlying operations.”

     He suggests that SE accounting is more accurate in the sense that it flushes out failures more quickly with the resultant asset valuations being more accurate. The implication is that delaying impairments can be deceiving. He explains that SE accounting is especially more accurate in that asset valuations will better match inventory quality. This is especially important for maturing shale plays.

“In mature shale plays — where core inventory is gradually depleted and development moves outward — this distinction becomes increasingly important. Companies with significant net capitalized costs may appear well-capitalized while facing deteriorating drilling economics.”

     On the other hand, companies involved in exploratory drilling projects, such as those in the Gulf and in offshore plays around the world, must invest large amounts of money in projects that take years to develop. For those companies, FC accounting is most apt.  

     Below, he reiterates that accounting method differences mainly affect the timing of expense recognition and that cash flow is the best indicator of financial performance.

“Because accounting policy primarily affects the timing of expense recognition rather than underlying economics, cash flow remains the most reliable indicator of performance. Investors and analysts evaluating upstream companies should emphasize operating and free cash flow, reinvestment rates, finding-and-development (F&D) costs, reserve replacement efficiency, payout ratios and capital returns. These measures are less distorted by accounting treatment and more closely reflect economic reality.”

     The table below compares the differences between FC and SE accounting in a hypothetical scenario. The result is mainly a difference in profit declared due to the difference in impairment timings. Note that cash flow is the same in both scenarios.

“Shale development narrowed the most visible historical differences between FC and SE by reducing traditional dry-hole risk, but it did not eliminate the importance of accounting methodology. Instead, it shifted the battleground toward impairment timing, DD&A profiles, reserve revisions, and the accumulation of embedded capital on balance sheets.”

“Accounting determines when results are recognized, but cash flow determines whether value is created. In the end, cash flow — not accounting methodology — is the only true measure of success or failure in the upstream oil and gas business.”

     Thus, cash flow is king. I am glad to have learned a little about this topic. The author notes plans for RBN Energy to augment its reporting of year-end reserve reconciliations in future blogs based on accounting methods.

   

 

References:

 

You Go Your Way, I’ll Go Mine – Why Accounting Methods Matter. (No, Seriously, You Gotta Read This). Nicholas Cacchione. RBN Energy. Blog. February 26, 2026.  You Go Your Way, I’ll Go Mine – Why Accounting Methods Matter. (No, Seriously, You Gotta Read This) | RBN Energy

AEP Ohio Plans to Deploy a Fixed-Wing Drone With a 12-Foot Wingspan and LIDAR to Inspect for Potential Power Line Tree Damage

    This post comes from my local power provider, AEP Ohio, via its monthly newsletter, The Wire. Below, AEP Ohio Project Manager Principal Jake Reed explains the new fixed-wing drone deployment plan, which is equipped with LIDAR and a twelve-foot wingspan and intends to inspect power lines, particularly in rough terrain. We have some of that here in the Appalachian foothills of Southeastern Ohio.

“This year, we’re deploying an innovative fixed-wing drone with a 12-foot wingspan —the largest in our fleet — to inspect vegetation along the power lines that bring electricity to homes and businesses. What sets this drone apart is its high-resolution camera and lidar sensors.”

     The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) describes LIDAR as follows:

“Lidar, which stands for Light Detection and Ranging, is a remote sensing method that uses light in the form of a pulsed laser to measure ranges (variable distances) to the Earth. These light pulses—combined with other data recorded by the airborne system — generate precise, three-dimensional information about the shape of the Earth and its surface characteristics.”

“Lidar systems allow scientists and mapping professionals to examine both natural and manmade environments with accuracy, precision, and flexibility.”

     AEP Ohio’s Center for Customer Reliability plans to use the data generated from the LIDAR measurements to “identify vegetation — down to a single tree branch — that may be too close to equipment and needs trimming to prevent future outages.” The goal is to prevent outages before they happen.

     AEP employs certified drone pilots who have completed advanced training and are familiar with all FAA regulations.

     According to the newsletter:

“The fixed-wing drone enhances our capabilities, flying up to 400 feet, reaching speeds of 45 miles per hour and staying airborne for up to two hours while collecting critical data. That information helps crews make proactive repairs before outages occur. This year, the fixed-wing drone will travel roughly 8,000 miles of our distribution power lines, capturing images and data on vegetation within our rights of way.”

“The fixed-wing drone is supported by a mobile command center, where crews operate the aircraft autonomously while a certified pilot monitors each inspection remotely.”

     AEP Ohio also employs traditional, or multi-copter, drones for powerline inspection. Drone inspections improve safety by reducing the need for field personnel to work at heights, “minimizing the risk of accidents and injuries, and allow large areas — especially challenging terrain — to be covered more quickly than with traditional methods.” 

     The newsletter also notes that AEP Ohio is utilizing AI image processing along with LIDAR to map out power lines.

 

 

 

References:

 

Faster, Farther, Stronger: Fixed-Wing Drones Increase Reliability. AEP Ohio. The Wire. February 2026. Faster, Farther, Stronger: Fixed-Wing Drones Increase Reliability - AEP Ohio Wire

What is lidar? Lidar — Light Detection and Ranging — is a remote sensing method used to examine the surface of the Earth. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. What is lidar?