End Fossil Fuels! The Battle Cry of Climate Protestors is Profoundly Impractical and Unreasonable

 

     Despite the record deployment of wind and solar around the world last year, fossil fuels remain the source of 82% of primary energy production. Thus, fossil fuels basically run the world. Climate activists are effectively demanding that we stop all human progress and return to pre-industrial times. Of course, I know it’s just rhetoric, that chanting “End Fossil Fuels” is not so unlike Iranians chanting “Death to America.”

     I was surprised when I heard a couple of interviews with Al Gore on the sidelines of the UN conference in New York. His focus was similar to his focus in the late 2000s – blame fossil fuel companies. He claimed fossil fuel companies were insincere in their attempts to reduce emissions, made fun of solutions like direct air capture (which is being pursued by other entities aside from fossil fuel companies), and praised the record deployment of wind and solar. He noted that wind and solar made up 88% of new power deployments and praised growing EV deployment. According to the Energy Institute Statistical Review of World Energy, wind and solar accounted for 84% of electricity demand growth. That means fossil fuels made up 16% of demand growth which in turn means that fossil fuel deployment is still growing. It also does not take into account that some retiring nuclear plants, underperforming wind and solar plants, and underperforming hydroelectric plants (of which there have been many in recent years due to droughts) were replaced by fossil fuels when needed. Cleaner fossil fuels like natural gas also replaced coal. Thus, it is likely that fossil fuels utilization grew even more than it would appear. The simple fact is that wind and solar are not replacing fossil fuels. They are not even covering demand growth, although they are getting closer to covering it. It is also true that EVs are not yet affecting oil demand. One reason might be that EVs are not generally driven as many miles as ICE vehicles. Range and charger available are issues that affect driving miles.

 

 

Demonization of Fossil Fuels: Same Old Story 

 

     Al Gore has been demonizing fossil fuels and fossil fuel companies for a long time. It is a main tactic of climate groups. Gore also expressed admiration for these protestors as he has in the past, suggesting that they are a major grassroots movement that shows massive public support. The reality is that they are a minority that is well organized and dedicated.

     Climate scientist Michale Mann is also a major demonizer of fossil fuels. I have heard him speak and was surprised by his high degree of politicization. I have read a couple of his books as well. I think he and Gore’s focus on this demonization is basically a cop-out, of placing the blame on a scapegoat. The sheer lack of support for decarbonizing fossil fuels, especially oil & gas is a red flag for me as is the lack of focus on coal and the strong focus on oil & gas, especially since gas is much less carbon-intense than oil and especially coal. I find it odd that oil & gas are demonized far more than coal. Of course, fossil fuels cover coal as well.  Oil companies are being sued, not coal companies. Why? It could be that many coal companies have gone through bankruptcy and oil companies are more economically healthy. I was at the Ohio Department of Natural Resources early this week and I encountered protestors. I saw several Stop Fracking signs but nothing about stopping coal. Nobody ever chants ‘make fracking safer’ or ‘lower emissions’ just ban, stop, eliminate, end.  

     It’s Climate Week again and protestors are outside Bank of America protesting a bank that loans money to fossil fuel businesses. All businesses get bank financing. Why should fossil fuels be any different? Fossil fuels are often quite profitable and good investments for banks. Vox’s Rebecca Leber writes: “These demonstrations are the biggest climate protests in years. But they are also bolder, more singular in focus, and have narrowed their attack on the fossil fuel industry in particular. Fossil fuels — and the companies that have profited mightily from extracting them — have long been the central villains in the climate crisis, but over the past decade or so, the movement’s message has been more diffuse. Consider the 2014 People’s Climate March, which didn’t focus specifically on ending fossil fuels but rather on broad global action and spreading awareness of global warming’s potentially devastating impacts. Today’s activists are angry. They want to name and shame.” 

     Al Gore thinks fossil fuel companies are insincere about decarbonizing. But they have to balance making a profit with decarbonizing under heavy scrutiny. People who work at fossil fuel companies are generally highly educated. Fossil fuel companies have done quite a lot in developing green technologies. The oil and gas industry was one of the main early users of solar panels. Exxon's research led to very important developments in battery technology. Methane emissions from the oil and gas industry are being addressed successfully. Many oil and gas companies across the value chain are utilizing renewables and electrifying drilling and hydraulic fracturing, electrifying LNG plants, enabling energy efficiency improvements, and buying carbon offsets. The technological improvements in the industry have led to lower emissions. Much more efficient large natural gas turbines in combined cycle plants are lowering emissions. Hydrogen blending is on the horizon. Carbon capture and sequestration is on the horizon. NET Zero’s sCO2 natural gas plants with carbon capture are on the horizon. Renewable natural gas from processed biogas from landfills and anaerobic digesters is growing and oil & gas companies are involved. Companies are focusing quite a lot of effort and private investment in these areas. I wrote a book about these efforts in 2022 – Natural Gas and Decarbonization. Many more improvements have happened since then. Thus, I would argue that Al Gore is simply wrong.  

     If the goal of climate activists is to punish and deconstruct the systems that provide 82% of global energy at an affordable cost, then their goal is really to harm the global economy. It’s really hard to argue against that. These groups want to stop all fossil fuel infrastructure and oil and gas exports and to shut down some existing infrastructure. Countries around the world in Asia, Europe, Latin America, and South America are counting on U.S. LNG exports, most of which are now certified as responsible natural gas. I would argue that the argument that we need to stop building natural gas infrastructure is flawed because that new infrastructure can support the replacement of coal plants as well as older less efficient natural gas plants. It can support needed exports of decarbonized LNG. It can keep natural gas available and affordable during cold snaps, thus improving reliability and preventing the burning of more oil and coal in power plants. Just as Al Gore has not changed so too does Bill McKibben continue to demand that we ‘keep it in the ground.’ He praised the new nonsense frivolous lawsuits against oil companies. Instead of promoting a California oil industry and buying oil from California oil companies, the state buys it from overseas. California is still the biggest oil & gas consumer in the country even if Governor Gavin Newsome got cheers for saying: “The Climate crisis is a fossil fuels crisis. It’s not complicated.” The loss of fossil fuel availability in Europe last year damaged the economies of several countries. It was considered to be a crisis simply because fossil fuels are needed. The so-called climate crisis may become a crisis at some point, but I don’t believe it is a crisis now, extreme weather events aside. Some activists are blaming Biden even as he was able to enact the most comprehensive decarbonization push ever enacted. For many reasons, it certainly won’t make an impact as fast as climate activists are hoping.

     Oil & gas companies have also been subject to shareholder demands to reduce emissions as have the banks that fund them. Protestors focusing on banks just increases that pressure. Movements of the past like the divestment movement and even the asinine degrowth movement are still around. The ESG movement has slowed down a bit due to backlash among the anti-woke crowd but perhaps also a bit due to some recognizing the need for the affordable reliable energy that natural gas can provide. As long as there is robust demand for natural gas, oil, and even coal, it will be pursued. That is the reality. To demand a system based on expensive direct subsidization, mandates, strict time schedules, and coercion that threatens higher costs and lowers reliability is not exactly a recipe for success.

 

 

Crisis vs. Manageable Problem

 

     The battle over decarbonization has become a battle over the speed of it. That speed includes the speed of deployment of wind and solar but also the speed of un-deployment of fossil fuels. But that is not a true equivalence. Aside from the fact that part-time wind and solar can only partly replace full-time fossil fuels, we still have to contend with the fact that fossil fuels are in increasing demand at current decarbonization levels. Since renewables are not yet even covering demand growth, they are not replacing fossil fuels. Thus, there is no logical reason to reduce fossil fuels. That means there is no logical reason to prevent new deployments since that will just result in shortage, in supply disruptions, which will increase costs. Thus, I would argue that much of the climate movement is the perpetration of rhetoric that promotes solutions that are impractical and will be expensive for consumers. The solution is simply to keep going at the current rate and not get ahead of our technological and financial capabilities.

     Decarbonization would be a much easier problem to solve without the time constraints, which may not be correct as there are still considerable uncertainties about things like climate sensitivity and impacts.  In any case, adaptation to extreme weather events should be prioritized over decarbonization of our energy systems. I think we are putting enough effort and financial resources into that decarbonization. Emissions are stabilizing in many places and globally they are not rising nearly as fast as previously. We should continue decarbonizing at current considerable levels rather than foolishly accelerating it. Ever since the IPCC put out that 1.5 deg report in 2019 it inadvertently set the new target as well as the new point of no return. The net-zero 2050 pledges are aspirational as are many of the goals of the climate movement. The problem arises when they begin to demand what is aspirational, what is technologically very challenging at the least, and financially unfeasible.

 

 

Phase-Out vs. Abatement

 

     The focus on phasing out fossil fuels is likely to continue and grow it seems. But where are the details? There is often little mention of focusing on the highest-emitting fossil fuel, coal, ahead of the lowest-emitting fossil fuel, natural gas. This is important because much of the decarbonization that has occurred in the world has been through replacing coal with natural gas for power. This is especially true in the U.S. as the demonized process of “fracking” enabled the U.S. to lead the world in decarbonization and has the potential to do the same in Asia especially. The president-designate of COP28, Sultan al-Jaber, did mention “abated fossil fuels” at the UN conference. Of course, he is head of a fossil fuel producer in a country built on fossil fuel profits. Climate activists have long called abating fossil fuels with things like carbon capture and storage or hydrogen false solutions to keep them viable for longer. Al Gore says it’s a mistake to think that oil and gas companies are part of the solution to emissions, but the alternatives can’t even keep up with demands even as they take up huge chunks of government spending.  

     As every extreme weather event becomes evidence of climate change regardless of the other factors that are often more influential than climate change, it emboldens climate activists and their sense of the problem as a crisis or emergency. The influence of climate change on extreme heat is undeniable. The influence of extreme heat on droughts and wildfires is undeniable. But there are other influences on wildfires and droughts. The influence of climate change on hurricane precipitation and storm surges is undeniable but not massive. However, the influence of climate change on hurricane strength and frequency is not statistically significant according to the data, despite many news stories to the contrary. The influence of increasing populations in areas prone to hurricanes and wildfires on increasing damage from those events is also undeniable. The influence of flammable invasive plants, inadequate power line maintenance, arson, carelessness, and inadequate preventive maintenance on wildfires is also undeniable. It’s more complicated than dramatic news stories convey.

 

 

Voluntary Decarbonization vs. Mandated Decarbonization

 

     There is still quite a lot of uncertainty about climate change impacts, sensitivity, and the degree of influence of the anthropogenic component of climate change. However, as countries, states, and cities consider bans and mandates and banks and businesses consider pledges and goals they are basing them on the crisis-level events. Mandates and bans will result in backlash. Rishi Sunak acknowledged this when he cited “unacceptable costs” on ordinary people as the reason he set back the 2030 ban on ICE vehicles to 2035. Germany is already considering backtracking their renewables push, which many say has been a failed policy overall, as it could lead to the current government being replaced by a more right-leaning government. Decarbonization through technological advancements and voluntary actions with strong government support is more feasible, more sensible, and less dangerous politically than decarbonization through mandate and regulatory coercion.  

 

      

References:

What climate activists mean when they say “end fossil fuels”. Rebecca Leber. Vox. September 21, 2023. What climate activists mean when they say “end fossil fuels” (msn.com)

We’re past the point of no return on climate emissions — it’s time we turn to carbon removal. Sir David King and Sware Semesi. The Hill. September 21, 2023. We’re past the point of no return on climate emissions — it’s time we turn to carbon removal (msn.com)

UN puts fossil fuels. Andrew Freedman. Axios. September 21, 2023. UN puts fossil fuels (msn.com)

Governments and individuals debate: Are mandates needed to reach climate change targets? Wayne Parry. Associated Press, September 21, 2023. Governments and individuals debate: Are mandates needed to reach climate change targets? (msn.com)

Natural Gas and Decarbonization: Key Component and Enabler of the Lower Carbon, Reasonable Cost Energy Systems of the Future. Strategies for the 2020’s and Beyond. Kent C. Stewart. Amazon Publishing. 2022.