Posts Tagged ‘climate’

… this New York state legislation is perfect.

NY State Senate Bill S9612 (proposed)

§ 328-a provides that no fossil fuel industry member, as that term is defined in the bill, shall knowingly or recklessly create or contribute to a condition that endangers the safety or health of the public by
extracting, storing, transporting, refining, importing, reporting, producing, manufacturing, distributing. compounding, marketing, or sale of a "qualified product".

328-b declares that a violation of the new article that results in any harm shall be deemed climate negligence regardless of when the underlying conduct occurred.

328-c prohibits governmental enforcement. (i.e. prohibits govt intervention on behalf of the accused company)

328-d provides that any person, firm, corporation, or association that has been damaged as a result of a fossil fuel industry member's acts or omissions in violation of this article shall be entitled to bring an
action for recovery of damages.

This non-attorney suspects that the legislation might conflict with the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3), which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” New York produces little oil, gas, or coal, so the legislation would largely affect operations that are conducted in other states, on Federal lands, or in foreign countries.

Read Full Post »

Rep. Rashiba Tlaib: “Does your bank have a policy against funding new oil and gas products?” (I assume her script said “projects,” and that she misread it. She also butchered “Celsius,” a word that should be very familiar to such a climate expert.)

Jamie Dimon: “Absolutely not and that would be the road to Hell for America.”

Read Full Post »

When Congress seems slow to solve problems, it may be only natural that those in the Executive Branch might seek to take matters into their own hands. But the Constitution does not authorize agencies to use pen-and-phone regulations as substitutes for laws passed by the people’s representatives.

Justice Gorsuch in concurrence

Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible “solution to the crisis of the day.” New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 187 (1992). But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme in Section 111(d). A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body.

Justice Roberts for the majority

At first glance, the SCOTUS decision would seem to affect the regulation of GHG emissions on the OCS and possibly the Lease Sale 257 decision (now being appeal), which was based on BOEM’s failure to estimate the effect of reduced OCS production on GHG emissions outside the US.

Read Full Post »

His speech began with a slide declaring that “unsubstantiated, shrill, partisan, self-serving, apocalyptic warnings are ALWAYS wrong.”  Stuart Kirk, HSBC

Financial Times

Here is the presentation that caused the furor:

Sadly, any oil industry exec who dared to publicly question climate orthodoxy would face a similar or worse fate.

I do like this very sensible quote:

A former Blackrock executive focused on sustainable investment said Kirk’s remarks had “done us a service” in discussions on climate change risk by “infusing a dose of honesty into a debate that is otherwise leading us nowhere,”

NY Post

Read Full Post »

This is a great Gary Brookins cartoon from March 2006 that has been featured in some of my presentations. We now have only one month until the official start of the 2022 Atlantic hurricane season so my post is a bit late! However, the season peaks in mid-September, so you could also argue that I’m posting this too early!

Read Full Post »

This letter from EQT CEO Toby Rice to Senator Elizabeth Warren summarizes data demonstrating the importance of shale gas in dramatically reducing US GHG emissions. A few excerpts:

In 2019, the United States emitted 970 million metric tons less than in 2005, with 525 million metric tons of that emissions reduction resulting from replacing coal with natural gas in power generation. Said another way: since 2005, in the United States, all emissions reduction efforts combined have had less impact than coal to gas switching alone.

The emissions associated with the production of natural gas are dwarfed by the emissions reduction of switching from the consumption of coal to gas.

Meanwhile, China, which produced only 3% of the world’s natural gas but the majority of the world’s coal, saw its methane emissions increase by an amount roughly equivalent to adding a second Europe to the world.

Letter from EQT to Senator Warren

Meanwhile, natural gas prices have soared to record levels in Europe and a predicted polar vortex may spike US demand. This OilPrice.com chart illustrates the remarkable divergence between US and European gas prices.


Will natural gas demand lead to a resurgence in US offshore gas-well drilling?

Read Full Post »

Printed Metal Table Tops - Don't Mess With Texas

UN Secretary General Guterres to Texas:  “Texas must end its reliance on oil and gas production to remain prosperous in the era of climate change.

Gov. Abbott responds:

Texas to United Nations: Pound Sand

The world is reeling from spiraling fuel costs caused by premature over-reliance on renewable energy.

High fuel costs punish middle class families & stoke the supply chain crisis.

Texas oil & gas is needed right now.

Greg Abbott tweet

Read Full Post »

Greenpeace climate activists stage a protest at a Shell refinery in Rotterdam, Netherlands

Oil firms have been banned from taking an active role in the upcoming COP26 summit.

The news is a seismic victory for climate activists.

It stops Big Oil companies from sponsoring the conference and steering the narrative away from their culpability in the climate crisis.



  • This decision is more about exercising political power than advancing our energy future, which is dependent on collaboration among all sectors of the energy industry.
  • Oil and gas producers are “banned,” but major energy consumers are welcome to support the conference.
  • The 3 oil companies mentioned in the article are major investors in offshore wind and other renewable energy projects. These companies have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to purchase US offshore wind leases and will spend much more on the projects that follow. They are also major investors in low carbon intensity offshore oil and gas production.
  • Does the US government, which (at taxpayers expense) is sending a very large delegation to COP26, support this type of discriminatory behavior toward major contributors to our economy?
  • While the delegates are attending the conference, the folks at home are seething about gasoline prices and inflation.

Read Full Post »