Search
Close this search box.

Getting climate, energy & environment news right.

Subscribe

Conservatives have been vocal about our climate for years. Those voices won’t be ignored any longer.

[searchandfilter id="17558"]

Lisa Stiffler of GeekWire reports on a biodegradable plastics startup.

The C3 Take
  • Vancouver-based Bioform Technologies, a startup making biodegradable plastics from wood pulp, has raised up to $5 million from Brazil’s Suzano Ventures, the investment arm of a major pulp manufacturer.
  • Bioform’s bioplastic product can replace single-use plastics made from fossil fuels, generating 80% less carbon dioxide emissions, and can be recycled as paper or composted after use.
  • The startup, which aims to begin commercial production by 2027, is leveraging technology developed by University of British Columbia professors to produce sustainable alternatives to single-use plastics at competitive costs.

“The startup analyzed its climate impacts and found its product generates 80% less carbon dioxide compared to traditional plastic at commercial scale. The manufacturing process can use existing pulp mill machinery to make rolls of plastic.”

Read the full article here.

This startup just raised funding to turn wood pulp into sustainable, biodegradable plastics

Source

Jeff St. John of Canary Media reports on the clean energy backlog.

The C3 Take
  • While investors and companies are embracing clean energy, regulatory bottlenecks have prevented these power sources from reaching the grid.
  • As of December 2023 there were more than 2,600 gigawatts worth of clean power projects undergoing the lengthy and onerous permitting process to connect to the grid (which takes years to complete).
  • To alleviate the bottlenecks, the U.S. must pass meaningful reforms to the permitting process to make it easier to build transmission lines and all other energy projects.

T”o get a better sense of how much clean energy and battery capacity might be ready to meet grid needs in the near future, LBNL’s report examined where projects stood in terms of timing and status. Rand noted that nearly half the projects now in interconnection queues have proposed to come online by the end of 2026, adding up to nearly 1,300 gigawatts of capacity — an amount equivalent to the entire existing U.S. grid.”

Read more here.

The growing clean energy backlog, in five charts

Source

This article was originally published by ClearPath.

The electric grid is on the cusp of a huge expansion. With a massive amount of new energy demand on the horizon, grid operators are already bracing for huge amounts of growth. The sudden increase in 5-year load growth expectations is driven by a surge in new data centers supercharged by artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency, increased American manufacturing and industrial activity, and new projections for hydrogen fuel plants, batteries and electrified transportation. 

>>>READ: California’s Rail Regulation Is Bad Economic and Environmental Policy

The U.S. will need to build as many as 13,800 new energy projects by 2030 — an average of 7 projects per day — to provide enough clean, reliable, and affordable energy. Given the need to build more energy infrastructure of all types, it is right to question why the Biden Administration’s Phase II National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) rulemaking is filled with new requirements that make it more difficult to get projects permitted. The U.S. needs to deploy more clean energy infrastructure projects, not fewer, at a faster pace and scale than the status quo.

Instead of revising the proposed rule to account for challenges ahead, the Biden Administration’s final NEPA permitting rule increases uncertainty, adds new requirements to permitting reviews that move the process in the wrong direction and ultimately increases emissions through permitting delays. The Biden Administration’s voluntary actions prioritize a political agenda rather than build upon the newly enacted changes to NEPA.

The economy or the climate? Why not both?

Subscribe for ideas that support the environment and the people. 

The most favorable parts of the rulemaking actions to implement permitting reforms championed by House Republicans, including key provisions passed in H.R.1, the Lower Energy Costs Act and codified on a bipartisan basis in the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA). But beyond those new reforms that Congress mandated, the Administration is actively self-sabotaging its climate goals in this proposed rule. 

Among the reforms championed by House Republicans are new standards to keep reviews on track, including deadlines and page limits. Federal agencies have begun to use a new provision from the FRA allowing them to adopt categorical exclusions from other agencies, as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) recently did for geothermal exploration activities on federal lands. Beyond BLM, a broad range of agencies from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and NASA to the Department of Energy (DOE) have also used these new authorities to adopt categorical exclusions to accelerate reviews for high-impact projects.

>>>READ: A Welcome Step to Ease Geothermal Permitting on Federal Land

CEQ notes that it received many comments opposing this new categorical exclusion authority, with at least one going as far as to call it a “disastrous policy.” While CEQ was obligated to enforce the law enacted by Congress, CEQ still managed to limit its scope to exclude categorical exclusions that were enacted legislatively rather than through an administrative process. CEQ should have sought to maximize these new bipartisan provisions, not undermine them. 

Failing to maximize new authorities will only increase delays in the years ahead as more energy projects enter the queue. Absent change, these permitting delays are bound to get worse under the status quo as clean energy projects face the same delay tactics and legal risks that can jeopardize financing. 

When the proposed rule was released last August, ClearPath identified five additional missteps from CEQ’s NEPA guidance that actually make the Administration’s emissions reduction goals more difficult. These five issues remain in the final rule announced this week. 

  1. Defaults to the status quo that is making permitting worse 
  2. Creates more confusion and uncertainty for project developers
  3. Allows agencies to base project reviews on unrelated alternatives
  4. Increases bureaucracy and red tape by removing jurisdictional boundaries
  5. Invites more litigation to oppose project permits

Unfortunately, there is little in the final rule focused on fast approvals for projects with limited environmental impacts, reducing litigation risks after permits have been issued, or fundamentally getting more projects built without bureaucratic delay. If anything, the final rule invites more legal challenges to projects before they can even get off the ground.

There are many opportunities to improve the permitting process. Judicial review reforms remain an unaddressed opportunity. As this rule injects new uncertainty and increases litigation risk, Congress could step in to fill the gap to provide more certainty for projects looking to move forward to meet America’s record energy demands.

Matthew Mailloux is a Program Manager of Clean Energy and Permitting at ClearPath

New NEPA Rules Will Delay Permits and Increase Emissions

Source

When Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill into law banning the sale and distribution of synthetic meat in Florida he illustrated the perils of synthetic conservatism –the notion that using state power to limit individual freedom is wrong unless it generates applause from your tribe. 

In a statement, DeSantis said, “Today, Florida is fighting back against the global elite’s plan to force the world to eat meat grown in a petri dish or bugs to achieve their authoritarian goals. Our administration will continue to focus on investing in our local farmers and ranchers, and we will save our beef.”

>>>READ: Lab Grown Algae Could Play a Pivotal Role in Reducing Global Emissions

Florida Commissioner of Agriculture Wilton Simpson amplified DeSantis’ remarks: “Lab-grown meat is a disgraceful attempt to undermine our proud traditions and prosperity, and is in direct opposition to authentic agriculture … We must protect our incredible farmers and the integrity of American agriculture.” 

As a farmer, I’m committed to protecting the integrity of American agriculture. But “coercion for me but not for thee” is not a winning strategy. In fact, this approach will make all farms less secure. 

Chef Andrew Gruel offered a wise take on X:

So, let’s start with education. In 2024, synthetic meat isn’t remotely close to threatening American agriculture or beef ranchers but some companies are indeed guilty of the sin of wanting to compete in a free market. 

The economy or the climate? Why not both?

Subscribe for ideas that support the environment and the people. 

One example is Aleph Farms, headquartered in Rehovot, Israel. CEO Didier Toubia has adopted a Tesla strategy to growth by first creating a premium product like steak to drive acceptance of synthetic meat more broadly. 

Toubia told Time Magazine, “We need to emotionally connect with consumers if we want to drive acceptance. Starting at the higher end is a way to position our product to make it more appealing.”

Toubia knows he has to win over people like me to be successful. I spent the first half of my life in Kansas City where I acquired a taste for world-class steaks and barbeque. Now that I have my own farm, I regularly cook with fire using a variety of implements, including hand-split cheery wood from fallen trees on my land (I soak it for ribs and pulled pork). I’ve also strongly criticized grilling bans and made the environmental case for cooking with fire. 

The technical challenge Toubia is tackling is the architecture of meat itself, which is exquisite and complex. Real meat flavor doesn’t come from muscle cells that can be grown in a lab but from fat, connective tissue and the vascular network. Ribeye steaks are popular because of their marbling (I recently fed six people with a 3-pound Tomahawk bone-in ribeye). Melt in your mouth pulled pork comes from collagen dissolution, and the bark on pulled pork comes from melting fat merging with caramelized sugars in barbeque sauce. Fall-off-the-bone ribs are the result of contracting meat pulling away from melting connective tissue that connects muscle to bone. Labs are a long, long way from replicating these experiences even with 3D bioprinters. 

AIeph Farms promotes their Aleph Cuts on their site and boasts of their “thin steaks with thick flavor.” Consider me impressed by Toubia’s vision and passion but not his product. So, as a citizen, I’m left with a choice. I can work to criminalize Toubia’s entrepreneurial vision, or I can opt to not buy his product. I choose the latter. 

Now, some consumers will be so racked with guilt from eating meat from real cows that they’ll settle for an inferior product. The way to reach that constituency isn’t by banning lab meat but by educating them about the merits of emissions reduction policies (like those in our Climate and Freedom Agenda) that will do vastly more to help the planet.

>>>READ: 2024: The Year of Freedom Conservatism

By embracing coercion over choice on lab meat, Florida is also weakening the right’s best arguments against climate authoritarianism and muddying other critically important fronts in the woke wars. Our arguments against top-down conformity and coercion in areas like DEI, ESG and de-banking lose their potency when we use state power to impose our preferred norms. 

Real conservatism is an uncompromising defense of classical liberalism – individual liberty and free markets – against top-down, command and control policies, and coercive conformity. Synthetic conservatism defends these principles as long as it generates tribal applause. Real conservatism welcomes competition. Synthetic conservatism bans competition. Real conservatism celebrates liberty. Synthetic conservatism rationalizes coercion. 

Other states should take note. Instead of using coercion, they should embrace choice and show guilt-ridden consumers there’s a better, smarter, and faster way to reduce emissions. 

Florida’s Lab Meat Ban and the Perils of Synthetic Conservatism

Source

This article originally appeared in the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

Lawmakers are showing they can make bipartisan agreements on foreign policy. Now, they should turn to an important bipartisan domestic issue. 

Heralded as the biggest piece of climate change legislation in history, the Inflation Reduction Act signed into law nearly two years ago included a wave of tax subsidies for clean energy. But it’s what Congress and President Biden didn’t do in 2022 that will crush innovative energy startups. 

>>>READ: Three Ways Immediate Expensing Helps the Environment

For roughly 70 years, businesses could fully and immediately deduct expenses in research and development. Under IRS Section 174, the provision allowed deductions for everything from investments in new equipment to scientists and entrepreneurs. As part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, companies must capitalize and amortize those expenses over a five-year period beginning in 2022. Cumbersome depreciation schedules create opportunities for tax accountants but serve as a tax hike for American companies – one that disproportionately penalizes small businesses and startups. 

The economy or the climate? Why not both?

Subscribe for ideas that support the environment and the people. 

If Congress fails to restore immediate expensing, it will curtail innovation, diminish American economic competitiveness, and make it more challenging to meet our growing energy needs and environmental ambitions. The projected reduction in R&D spending threatens to end America’s leadership in emerging technologies and provide a pathway for economic competitors such as China to surpass America in critical industries such as semiconductors, clean energy, advanced materials, and more.

Several of the job losses would be at Petra Power in Northeast Ohio. A manufacturer of solid oxide fuel cells, Petra Power’s novel technology converts fossil fuels to electricity with up to 90 percent greater efficiency than comparable combustion engines in a package that is significantly smaller and lighter. It hopes to be able to offer high-paying, long-lasting manufacturing jobs. Its technology can also use hydrogen and other clean fuels to produce electricity. This technology is an ideal candidate to cost competitively reduce emissions now while contributing to future deployment of clean fuels such as hydrogen.

>>>READ: Immediate Expensing Will Kickstart Innovation

Petra Power has been working on a federal project to develop its technology for the Defense Department. Yet it also has dealings with another federal bureau: the IRS. With the conclusion of the 2023 tax season, Petra Power faces significant costs in amortizing R&D expenses over five years. This creates a very large taxable income base when, in reality, Petra Power has no taxable income. Without immediate action the impacts of IRS Section 174 could threaten to nullify the efforts of Petra Power, the investments of the DoD, and the hard work of many state and regional economic development agencies in Northeast Ohio by creating an untenable tax burden on Petra Power that does not reflect the true income of the business.

This case is not unique. These changes in IRS guidance threaten to eradicate most research and development activities undertaken within the United States. Some larger companies may be able to withstand the tax burden imposed by Section 174. However for all small- and medium-sized business this guidance creates an environment that at a minimum strongly disincentivizes R&D and at most makes R&D work completely impossible.

If the United States wants to maintain its status as a world-leader in scientific discovery, innovation, and technological progress, Congress and the Biden administration must restore immediate expensing for R&D investments.  As it stands, the U.S. is now only one of two developed countries in the world to require amortization of R&D expenses. Meanwhile China’s tax policy provides a super deduction, allowing a company to immediately deduct twice its R&D spending. 

Congress and the Biden administration should make immediate expensing a permanent fixture of the tax code. Such permanence signals a commitment to fostering a culture of innovation that empowers businesses like Petra Power to invest in transformative technologies for a more prosperous and cleaner future. 

Nick Loris is the Vice President of Policy for C3 Solutions and Dr. Aaron Goodman is the Co-founder and CEO of Petra Power, LLC

R&D tax change is impeding American innovation

Source

The oceans play a crucial role in tempering the effects of climate change by serving as a critical carbon sink, absorbing vast amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2). Algae is an invaluable contributor to this process as its responsible for one-fifth of the global carbon cycle. These photosynthetic plant-like organisms are up to 50 times more efficient at trapping CO2 than terrestrial flora per unit area and grow exceptionally fast under the right conditions. These features are attracting entrepreneurs, companies, and investors who want to accelerate the plants’ natural carbon sequestration functions. 

>>>READ: Seaweed Could Change Packaging As We Know It

A key player in this market is Brilliant Planet, a UK-based climate technology company. The startup aims to harness the power of marine algae to remove emissions by the gigaton, and then sell its service within the broader carbon marketplace. Brilliant Planet relies on a mix of modern engineering coupled with the carbon-capturing capacities of some of the world’s most ancient aquatic organisms.

The startup essentially replicates the natural algal coastal blooms that sustain marine ecosystems –– albeit on land. Adam Taylor, CEO of Brilliant Planet, claims that the company has devised a method to exponentially cultivate the organisms, commencing in a laboratory beaker and culminating in 12,000-square-meter pools of locally sourced seawater. Taylor asserts that the process emulates natural algae bloom, with a single test tube of algae proliferating to occupy 16 of these extensive pools—equivalent to 77 Olympic-sized swimming pools—in just 30 days. 

The economy or the climate? Why not both?

Subscribe for ideas that support the environment and the people. 

The first step to emulating and enhancing this natural process is to grow an algal “starter” batch under highly controlled environmental conditions in the lab. In Brilliant Planet’s case, this means growing the monoculture in its seven-acre pilot site in Akhfennir, Morocco, a tranquil coastal desert town. 

After its incubation in the lab, the algae is transitioned to a semi-enclosed greenhouse, where it can grow exponentially while adapting to the local environment. The organisms are then transferred to expansive outdoor ponds, where nearly 90% of the total growth takes place.  

With the help of wind power, Brilliant Planet pumps nutrient-rich seawater into these open-air ponds, nurturing the microalgae until they reach harvest readiness.

Back to the lab. Advanced filtration technology enables Brilliant Planet to harvest a concentrated seaweed ‘slurry,’ while the filtered seawater is safely reintegrated into the ocean after undergoing de-acidification. Finally, the algae biomass is solar-dried and permanently buried underground, a process that securely locks away the carbon for millennia. Thanks to its high salt content and other properties that counteract degradation, the carbon-loaded material maintains exceptional stability over time. 

The entire process is powered by seawater and sunlight, enabling Brilliant Plant to capitalize on a highly efficient, nature-driven system with minimal input year-round. Additionally, the algae is readily verifiable and quantifiable; scientists simply weigh the biomass prior to burial and determine the amount of CO2 removed via physical sampling. Post-burial, high-tech sensors ensure there is no decay. Brilliant Planet is also working with independent verifiers like Isometric to develop a data reporting platform accessible to the public so that third-party buyers can be confident about the quality of the credits they buy. 

“Algae are the unsung heroes of carbon removal,” Taylor explains. “Algae are inherently more efficient carbon removal machines than terrestrial plants as they don’t need to waste biological resources on building a supporting infrastructure of trunks, roots and branches –– their entire surface area is dedicated to photosynthesis.”

“Seasonal algae blooms can transform thousands of square kilometers of ocean into very high productivity systems in just a few days,” Taylor notes. 

Brilliant Planet says that its facilities capture 30 times more carbon per year than an equivalent area of forest, all without encroaching on arable land (the company has pinpointed approximately 500,000 square kilometers of space around the globe where it can host its algae pools). And by allowing photosynthesis to do the hard work of carbon removal, Brilliant Planet says its energy and overhead costs are kept to a minimum. 

Compared to other carbon dioxide removal (CDR) strategies on the market like Direct Air Capture, Taylor says his company can sequester CO2 for around one-tenth of the price. 

>>>READ: Can this Green Aviation Startup Deliver Truly Clean Flying?

The sustainability startup hopes to sell its service for around $100 a ton in the voluntary carbon market. Brilliant Planet already has a few major corporate buyers looking to offset their emissions in the ranks, including global financial services firm Block. Block has commissioned Brilliant Planet to eliminate 1,500 tons of carbon by 2027 at its upcoming demonstration site in southern Morocco.

Since its founding in 2013, the algaculture firm has secured a remarkable $26.7 million in funding through high-profile rounds, with notable contributions from investors such as Toyota Ventures and  USV. In its most recent Series A round in 2022, the company successfully raised $12 million in capital. Looking ahead, additional funding is anticipated this year, coinciding with the commencement of construction for a 30-hectare demonstration facility in Morocco, scheduled to begin in the second quarter.

Buoyed by a bullish carbon market, corporate demand for high-quality carbon credits continues to surge. A global carbon removal strategy that leverages the CO2-absorbing potential of algae with the reliability and quantifiability of man-made systems could be key to solving the climate challenge.

Nathalie Voit is a freelance content creator and a graduate of the University of Florida. She is an alumni of The Heritage Foundation’s Young Leaders Program.  

Lab Grown Algae Could Play a Pivotal Role in Reducing Global Emissions

Source

Starting with the state’s first oil well in 1866 and home of the fracking revolution more than a century later, Texas has long been a global leader in energy breakthroughs. In addition to being one of the world’s top producers of natural gas, the state is also the top national producer of wind and solar power, with a potential wave of geothermal incoming. Texas is adding more grid battery storage than any other state and could be a critical hub for hydrogen production. Now, the state is poised to increase its share of nuclear power, specifically advanced technologies like small modular reactors. 

>>>READ: Does the U.S. Need More Nuclear Energy?

Texas’ governor Greg Abbott recently delivered a speech at the University of Texas in Austin (UT Austin) where he discussed small nuclear reactors and their potential to deliver reliable, clean power across the state. “We’re going to be studying and evaluating the reliability, the safety of nuclear power,” he told the crowd. “And, if it passes all the tests, we will be looking to dramatically expand nuclear power in the state of Texas.”

Governor Abbott has long been interested in small nuclear. At his direction, the Texas Advanced Nuclear Reactor Working Group was formed in August of 2023. Led by Public Utility Commission of Texas Commissioner Jimmy Glotfelty, the group is researching the potential of advanced small nuclear reactors and strategizing how Texas could lead the nation in nuclear deployment. The group’s findings are due to Abbott by December 1, 2024. 

Gov. Abbott also spoke at UT Austin upon the founding of this working group, explaining exactly why he thinks the state needs to look to nuclear: 

“Texas is the energy capital of the world, but more important is what we are doing with that energy and what it means for our future in the state of Texas. Very important to our state is how we use energy to generate power for our grid. For a state that continues to grow massively, we are at the height of our production during the day, and we generate more power than California and New York combined. But we need more dispatchable power generation. One thing we are looking at with a keen eye is the ability to expand our capabilities with regard to nuclear generated power.”

Today, Texas is home to four light water nuclear reactors—Comanche Peak near Fort Worth and South Texas Nuclear Generating Station southwest of Houston. These reactors produced less than ten percent of Texas’ total energy in 2023. Small nuclear reactors could be easily deployed, scalable, and not reliant on large bodies of water for cooling like traditional reactors. While Texas is a state big enough to have major variations in population and climate from region to region, many sections of the state are arid and rural. Small nuclear can can fit different climates and any population size. 

>>>READ: Leading Experts Talk Energy Innovation

Many experts have questioned whether SMRs will be more economical than traditional nuclear, and Texas may be possibly the best proving ground. The state has a unique energy model that makes it independent of regional power grids. Thanks to this sort of deregulation, consumers in Texas can choose their own energy plans and providers while power plants are paid only when they generate electricity. If SMRs are deployed in the state, this sort of regulatory climate will prove whether or not they are economically viable. 

Safe, reliable, and clean, nuclear energy holds tremendous potential in Texas. The state’s exploration of advanced reactor concepts could unleash even more power production in Texas, allowing the Lone Star State to retain its title as the energy capital of the world. 

Texas Explores Expanding Advanced Nuclear Power

Source

Veronique de Rugy writes in Reason about California’s plan to ban diesel locomotives.

The C3 Take
  • California has introduced a rule that would phase out the use of diesel locomotives and force operators in the state to transition to all-electric trains.
  • Given the size of California’s economy, this rule would effectively be enforced nationwide.
  • This rule would increase costs for consumers, force smaller train operators to close, constrain supply chains, and have negligible environmental impacts.
  • California has to obtain a Clean Air Act waiver from the EPA before it can finalize this rule. C3 Solutions has submitted public comment to the EPA, urging them to reject California’s waiver.

“The cost-benefit analysis is woefully unfavorable to the forced displacement of diesel locomotives. To ‘help’ the transition, beginning in 2026, CARB will force all railroads operating in California to deposit dollars into an escrow account managed by the state and frozen for the explicit pursuit of the green agenda. For large railroads, this figure will be a staggering $1.6 billion per year, whereas some smaller railroads will pay up to $5 million.”

Read the full article here.

How California’s Ban on Diesel Locomotives Could Have Major National Repercussions

Source

Erik Kobayashi-Solomon of Forbes reports on a company that is reducing emissions and microplastics in construction.

The C3 Take
  • NILO, a New Zealand company, has developed a technology to convert plastic waste into a lower-carbon alternative to toxic adhesives used in manufacturing particleboard for furniture and construction.
  • NILO’s binder production has a 30% smaller carbon footprint than traditional adhesives, and by using nearly two-thirds of global plastic waste as feedstock, it aims to address plastic pollution while reducing emissions.
  • With backing from IKEA and regulatory tailwinds banning toxic adhesives, NILO is building pilot plants and plans to license its technology globally to partners seeking a sustainable, circular solution for particleboard manufacturing.

“NILO’s process innovates legacy wood fiber board manufacturing by replacing a toxic, carcinogenic, and high carbon footprint adhesive called urea formaldehyde (UF). NILO Binder generates fewer carbon dioxide emissions in its production process and emits no off-gasses, making the manufacturing process safer and more environmentally friendly while producing boards that are healthier to have in one’s home.”

Read the full article here.

Eliminating Microplastics And Cutting Emissions With Better Boards

Source

This article originally appeared in Newsweek.

With gas prices creeping upwards, election-year politics are already in full effect. At a recent conference, White House senior advisor John Podesta said the Biden administration would release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to keep prices at the pump affordable. But Podesta’s remarks come less than a week after the administration moved to block 10 million acres from developing oil and gas resources in Alaska.

>>>READ: Alaska’s Willow Project will Provide Energy and Economic Security

There may be some political logic behind these seemingly contradictory energy policies. Moving oil from the SPR could marginally reduce gas prices before November. Restricting access in a distant place, since the oil in question wouldn’t reach the market by election time, may appease climate hawks.

Whether those decisions are good politics is debatable, but they’re certainly bad policy—across economic, environmental, and national security fronts. The SPR is for emergencies such as significant supply disruptions, wars, or severe price spikes. It is not supposed to be used to score votes come election time. Blocking energy production in Alaska and across the U.S. will curtail investment, destroy jobs, and reduce future domestic oil supplies.

The economy or the climate? Why not both?

Subscribe for ideas that support the environment and the people. 

Before slapping an “I did that” Joe Biden sticker on the fuel pump, it is worth noting that global supply and demand for oil, not presidents, control the price at the pump. However, poor policy decisions that adversely affect current and future supplies do fall squarely on President Biden’s shoulders. This administration has slow-walked lease sales, restricted access to energy-abundant lands, and nixed vital pieces of infrastructure such as the Keystone XL pipeline.

By blocking energy development in Alaska, Washington is undermining local decision-making and proper input from federal and state lawmakers and the native communities who support development in the North Slope. The Voice of the Arctic Iñupiat, a nonprofit that represents Arctic Slope indigenous communities, frequently insists that restricting access to natural resources will harm their economy and culture. But their concerns are being ignored.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration announced last month that America is producing more oil than any country in history. We should recognize the economic, strategic, and environmental benefits of U.S. energy abundance. American-produced oil and natural gas have a better environmental record and emissions profile than many of their international counterparts.

The politicization of energy is emanating from the states, too, with cities and localities bringing a wave of public nuisance lawsuits against Big Oil. These lawsuits claim that energy companies misled the public about the risks of climate change and assert that they need to pay for the costs of human-induced warming.

With the support of 20 states and many industry groups, oil companies have petitioned the Supreme Court to put this to rest once and for all. In the case Sunoco v. City of Honolulu, the Hawaii Supreme Court recently allowed climate-related damages against oil companies to proceed to trial. In filing a petition for certiorari, the companies asked America’s highest court to “review and clarify” whether state law can enforce the costs of global climate change on a handful of companies.

It would be prudent for the Supreme Court to take this up for several reasons. State and local climate litigation oversimplifies the complexity of climate change and is a misuse of public tort law. Human activities are undoubtedly warming the planet, but it is practically impossible to calculate the climate damage caused by a single company as it would be undetectable from natural climate variability.

>>>READ: Energy Won’t Stay in the Ground

Moreover, it establishes a dangerous precedent. If the plaintiffs are going after major energy companies, why stop there? Farmers, manufacturers, and automakers are significant contributors to the country’s greenhouse gas emissions. Even the federal government, which actively requires lease sales of oil and gas development on public lands, could be culpable. The possibilities are frighteningly endless.

If there are legitimate cases of fraud, deception, or greenwashing, then plaintiffs should prove it in court. Otherwise, these public nuisance suits are a costly distraction and a waste of time and resources. They may be a boon for large tort firms, but they also take resources that could be put to much better use, namely investing in energy supplies and driving innovative low- and zero-carbon technologies forward. Oil companies, with the support of 20 states and many industry groups, have petitioned the Supreme Court to put this practice to bed once and for all.

America’s energy abundance is one of our most important economic and strategic assets. Robust domestic supplies of oil and gas help keep prices affordable, boost economic growth, and make America an attractive place to build, invest, and manufacture. In addition to the economic advantages, U.S.-produced energy provides geopolitical leverage against our adversaries and a valuable product to our allies. It is far too valuable to politicize.

Politicizing American Energy Is a Costly Mistake

Source

C3 is a project of C3 Solutions

Phone

Email

Discover

More Information

Donate

Copyright © 2020 Conservative Coalition for Climate Solutions

Subscribe to our exclusive email designed for conservatives who care about climate.

Help us promote free market solutions for climate change.

5 Incredible Ways Economic Freedom Helps the Planet.

Sign up for our newsletter now to get the full list right in your inbox.

Thank you for signing up

Help us promote sensible solutions for both planet and prosperity.

Make a donation

Download Now

Download

The Left’s Top 10 Climate Denials

Download Now

nikola-majksner-hXNGeAFOgT4-unsplash