Don’t trust Starmer and his carbon capture con

Some unions are pushing back against green policies to save jobs. They may support carbon capture, but it's a con to support fossil fuel use.

Ratcliffe-on-Soar coal plant has been closed (Picture: flickr/Phil McIver)


By Camilla Royle
Friday 04 October 2024

SOCIALIST WORKER Issue

The Labour government announced last Friday that it would be investing £22 billion over the next 25 years in carbon capture and storage (CCS).

This is where carbon ­dioxide emissions from power plants and factories are collected and buried deep underground before they can reach the atmosphere.

The leadership of some trade unions will no doubt welcome the news. The Unite union has ­consistently argued that Britain needs to invest in CCS to tackle climate change and create thousands of jobs.

This, it says, will help save heavy industry in Wales, the Midlands and north England.

That sentiment is reflected in a motion passed narrowly at the recent TUC trade union federation conference.

It argued that we can’t abandon fossil fuels “until we know how we will replace them, and how the jobs and communities from the North Sea fields will be protected”.

However, CCS technology has not been tried at ­commercial scale before. And rolling out a new ­technology over 25 years is far from the urgent response we need to tackle climate breakdown.

More importantly, CCS allows the fossil fuel industry to continue its operations, locking us into the ­technologies of the past.

That’s why it’s supported by the biggest energy ­companies such as BP, Shell and ExxonMobil.

In some cases where CCS has been tried it has actually increased emissions. Pumping carbon dioxide into the ground has been used as a method to allow more oil to be extracted.

Doug Parr, from Greenpeace UK, has rightly said, “For a government that is committed to tackling the climate crisis, £22 billion is a lot of money to spend on something that is going to extend the life of planet‑­heating oil and gas production.”

Campaigner George Monbiot has speculated that “the only possible explanation is lobbying by fossil fuel companies”.

Continuing to burn fossil fuels risks the lives of ­working class people in this country and around the world. What is needed is a revolution in the way the energy system runs.

Rather than centralised coal, gas or nuclear power plants, electricity generation could be more efficient with decentralised renewables.

There could be a real shift in the use of energy with measures such as insulated homes and widespread free public transport.

These measures would create more jobs than are lost in the fossil fuel industry.

Rather than ­defending the status quo, workers and unions should be at the forefront of pushing for the system change we need.
Workers shouldn’t mourn the loss of coal power

Britain’s last coal‑fired power station, Ratcliffe on Soar in Nottinghamshire, was shut down last week.

Coal once accounted for nearly 100 percent of energy generation in Britain. At its peak in the 1920s, there were nearly 1.2 million people employed in the coal industry.

Scientists have warned that 90 percent of coal must be kept in the ground to give us even a 50 percent chance of avoiding global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius. That was the target agreed after the Paris climate talks in 2015.

A report last year from Global Energy Monitor argued that all coal-fired plants should be shut down by 2040 to meet this target. Any delay now increases the risk of reaching irreversible and catastrophic climate tipping points.

Sadly, the report showed that coal power has continued to expand in China at a rate that more than offsets the reduction in capacity in the United States and European Union.

Renewable energy sources have become more important in Britain. But the other main beneficiary of the decline in coal has been natural gas. Although less carbon intensive, it still releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

The type of energy we use is determined by what is profitable, rather than what’s best for the environment.

The transition away from coal power is good news. But leaving it to the market risks letting gas and biofuels take its place.

 

Major boost in carbon capture and storage essential to reach 2°C climate target

WE'VE  MOVED BEYOND 1.5 C 

Chalmers University of Technology

 

image: 

Image description: 3D visualisation of CCS at Sleipner, where carbon dioxide has been successfully stored deep below the North Sea outside the coast of Norway since 1996

Image credit:view more 

Credit: Chalmers University of Technology | Equinor

Large expansion of carbon capture and storage is necessary to fulfill the Paris Climate Agreement. Yet a new study led by Chalmers University of Technology, in Sweden and University of Bergen, in Norway, shows that without major efforts, the technology will not expand fast enough to meet the 2°C target and even with major efforts it is unlikely to expand fast enough for the 1.5°C target.

The idea behind carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology is to capture carbon dioxide then store it deep underground. Some applications of CCS, such as bioenergy with CCS (BECCS) and direct air capture and storage (DACCS) actually lead to negative emissions, essentially “reversing” emissions from burning fossil fuels. CCS technologies play an important role in many climate mitigation strategies including net-zero targets. However, the current use is negligible.

“CCS is an important technology for achieving negative emissions and also essential for reducing carbon emissions from some of the most carbon-intensive industries. Yet our results show that major efforts are needed to bridge the gap between the demonstration projects in place today and the massive deployment we need to mitigate climate change,” says Jessica Jewell, Associate Professor at Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden

A new study titled, ‘Feasible deployment of carbon capture and storage and the requirements of climate targets’, conducted a thorough analysis of past and future growth of CCS to forecast whether it can expand fast enough for the Paris Climate Agreement. The study found that over the 21st century, no more than 600 Gigatons (Gt) of carbon dioxide can be sequestered with CCS.  

“Our analysis shows that we are unlikely to capture and store more than 600 Gt over the 21st century. This contrasts with many climate mitigation pathways from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which in some cases require upwards of 1000 Gt of CO2 captured and stored by the end of the century. While this looks at the overall amount, it’s also important to understand when the technology can start operating at a large scale because the later we start using CCS the lower the chances are of keeping temperature rise at 1.5°C or 2°C. This is why most of our research focused on how fast CCS can expand,” says Tsimafei Kazlou, PhD candidate at University of Bergen, Norway, and first author of the study.

Decrease in CCS failure rate required

The study highlights the need to expand the number of CCS projects that realise this technology and cut failure rates to ensure the technology “takes-off” in this decade. Today, the development of CCS is driven by policies like the EU Net-Zero Industry Act and the Inflation Reduction Act in the US. In fact, if all of today’s plans are realised, by 2030, CCS capacity would be eight times what it is today.

“Even though there are ambitious plans for CCS, there are big doubts about whether these are feasible. About 15 years ago, during another wave of interest in CCS, planned projects failed at a rate of almost 90 percent. If historic failure rates continue, capacity in 2030 will be at most twice what it is today which would be insufficient for climate targets,” says Tsimafei Kazlou.

A promising technology with barriers to overcome

Like most technologies, CCS grows non-linearly and there are examples of other technologies to learn from. Even if CCS “takes-off” by 2030, the challenges won’t stop. In the following decade it would need to grow as fast as wind power did in the early 2000’s to keep up with carbon dioxide reductions required for limiting the global temperature rise to 2°C by 2100. Then starting in the 2040s, CCS needs to match the peak growth that nuclear energy experienced in the 1970s and 1980s.

“The good news is that if CCS can grow as fast as other low-carbon technologies have, the 2°C target would be within reach (on tiptoes). The bad news, 1.5°C would likely still be out of reach,” says Jessica Jewell.

The authors say their analysis underlines the need for strong policy support for CCS combined with a rapid expansion of other decarbonisation technologies for climate targets.

“Rapid deployment of CCS needs strong support schemes to make CCS projects financially viable. At the same time, our results show that since we can only count on CCS to deliver 600 Gt of CO2 captured and stored over the 21st century, other low-carbon technologies like solar and wind power need to expand even faster”, says Aleh Cherp, Professor at Central European University in Austria.

 

Image description: 3D visualisation of CCS at Sleipner, where carbon dioxide has been successfully stored deep below the North Sea outside the coast of Norway since 1996

Image credit: Equinor

 

More on the research:

The article, ‘Feasible deployment of carbon capture and storage and the requirements of climate targets’, is published in Nature Climate Change.

Climate mitigation pathways used throughout the study are from the IPCC open-source data.

The article is written by Tsimafei Kazlou of University of Bergen in Norway, Jessica Jewell at Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden and Aleh Cherp at Central European University in Austria.

The research was funded by the European Commission’s H2020 ERC Starting Grant MANIFEST and project ENGAGE in addition to the Mistra Electrification project.

 

More about the Paris Climate Agreement:

 The Paris Climate Agreement is a legally binding international treaty on climate change. It was adopted by 196 Parties at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP21) in Paris, France, on 12 December 2015 and entered into force on 4 November 2016. Its overarching goal is to hold “the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels” and pursue efforts “to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.”

 

For more information, please contact:

Jessica Jewell, Associate Professor, Department of Space, Earth and Environment, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden, jewell@chalmers.se  +46 31 772 61 06

Tsimafei Kazlou, Doctoral Student, Center for Climate and Energy Transformations, University of Bergen, Norway,  Tsimafei.kazlou@uib.no

The contact persons speak English and are available for live and pre-recorded interviews. At Chalmers, we have podcast studios and broadcast filming equipment on site and would be able to assist a request for a television, radio or podcast interview.

---

Journal

Nature Climate Change

DOI

10.1038/s41558-024-02104-0 

Method of Research

Data/statistical analysis

Subject of Research

Not applicable

Article Title

Feasible deployment of carbon capture and storage and the requirements of climate targets

Article Publication Date

25-Sep-2024

World’s first CO2 storage service soon ready in Norway


By AFP
September 25, 2024


Wildfires in Canada have generated record CO2 emissions

 - Copyright Nova Scotia Government/AFP/File Handout

Pierre-Henry DESHAYES

Norway is set to inaugurate Thursday the gateway to a massive undersea vault for carbon dioxide, a crucial step before opening what its operator calls the first commercial service offering CO2 transport and storage.

The Northern Lights project plans to take CO2 emissions captured at factory smokestacks in Europe and inject them into geological reservoirs under the seabed.

The aim is to prevent the emissions from being released into the atmosphere, and thereby help halt climate change.

On the island of Oygarden, a key milestone will be marked on Thursday with the inauguration of a terminal built on the shores of the North Sea, its shiny storage tanks rising up against the sky.

It is here that the liquified CO2 will be transported by boat, then injected through a long pipeline into the seabed, at a depth of around 2.6 kilometres (1.6 miles), for permanent storage.

The facility, a joint venture grouping oil giants Equinor of Norway, the Anglo-Dutch Shell and TotalEnergies of France, is expected to bury its first CO2 deliveries in 2025.

It will have an initial capacity of 1.5 million tonnes of CO2 per year, before being ramped up to five million tonnes in a second phase if there is enough demand.

“Our first purpose is to demonstrate that the carbon capture and storage (CCS) chain is feasible,” Northern Lights managing director Tim Heijn told AFP.

“It can make a real impact on the CO2 balance and help achieve climate targets,” he said.



– Prohibitive cost –



CCS technology is complex and costly but has been advocated by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the International Energy Agency (IEA), especially for reducing the CO2 footprint of industries like cement and steel, which are difficult to decarbonise.

The world’s overall capture capacity is currently just 50.5 million tonnes, according to the IEA, or barely 0.1 percent of the world’s annual total emissions.

In order to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius since the pre-industrial era, CCS would have to prevent at least one billion tonnes of CO2 emissions per year by 2030, the IEA says.

The technology is still in the early stages, and has been slow to develop because of prohibitive costs — compared to the price companies have to pay for CO2 emission quotas, for example.

It therefore depends heavily on subsidies.

“Public support was and will be crucial to help such innovative projects to advance, especially as CCS costs are still higher than the costs of CO2 emissions in Europe,” said Daniela Peta, public affairs director at the Global CCS Institute.

The Norwegian government has financed 80 percent of the cost of Northern Lights, which has been kept confidential.

The Scandinavian country is Western Europe’s largest oil and gas producer.

The North Sea, with its depleted oil and gas fields and its vast network of pipelines, is an ideal region to bury unwanted greenhouse gases.

– Greenwashing? –

Northern Lights is part of an ambitious 30-billion-kroner ($2.9 billion) scheme dubbed “Longship” — after the Viking ships — of which the state has provided 20 billion kroner.

The plan initially included the creation of two CO2 capture sites in Norway.

While the Heidelberg Materials cement factory in Brevik is expected to begin shipping its captured emissions to the site next year, snowballing costs have forced the waste-to-energy plant Hafslund Celsio in Oslo to review its plans.

In addition, Northern Lights has also secured cross-border deals with Norwegian fertiliser manufacturer Yara and energy group Orsted to bury CO2 from an ammonia plant in the Netherlands and two biomass power stations in Denmark.

Some environmentalists worry the technology could provide an excuse to prolong the use of fossil fuels and divert funds needed for renewable energies.

They have also raised concerns about the risk of leaks.

“Northern Lights is ‘greenwashing’,” said the head of Greenpeace Norway, Frode Pleym, noting that the project was run by oil companies.

“Their goal is to be able to continue pumping oil and gas. CCS, the electrification of platforms and all of these kinds of measures are used by the oil industry in a cynical way to avoid doing anything about their enormous emissions,” he said.

Corporations and lobbyists at Labour conference shred its already floundering climate credentials

LIKE THE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION

 by Hannah Sharland

THE CANARY
23 September 2024
in Analysis

Amidst a Labour Party conference awash with warm promises to tackle the climate crisis, a campaign group has exposed the hypocrisy at the heart of the new government’s climate strategy. In particular, it has articulated the folly of fourteen years of financing a fossil fuel industry-favoured so-called climate solution. Specifically, this is the repeated abject failure of carbon capture and storage projects (CCS).

Of course, despite over a decade of falling far short, it hasn’t stopped the new Labour government getting on board with the greenwashing technology.
Labour conference: greenwashing technology for big oil and gas

In a nutshell, CCS is the fossil fuel industry’s latest greenwashing con for continuing on its polluting business-as-usual. Companies capture carbon emissions from large-scale industrial installations, and then pump it underground – for instance, in depleted oil and gas wells.

However, the technology isn’t proven at scale. For example, investigative outlet Desmog previously conducted an analysis of twelve large-scale fossil fuel industry-run CCS plants. Notably, the outlet identified:

a litany of missed carbon capture targets; cost-overruns, and billions of dollars of costs to taxpayers in the form of subsidies

Unsurprisingly, it isn’t the only study to have shown the technology woefully falling short. For instance, the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) also found that ten out of 13 CCS sites it analysed had:

failed or underperformed against their designed capacities, mostly by large margins.

Now, anti-fossil fuel campaign group Oil Change International has revealed the staggering waste of UK taxpayers’ money into this unproven technology.
A trail of broken promises

On Sunday 22 September, Oil Change International published its new report titled:

Funding Failure: The True Cost of Carbon Capture in the UK

It uncovers how the UK government is funneling public money into the most expensive and least effective emissions mitigation option. Moreover, it underscores how this is benefitting the fossil fuel industry, while delaying a just transition to renewable energy.

Crucially the report identified how since 2010, previous Tory-led governments have committed or spent almost £500m on CCS projects.

Yet, despite hundreds of millions in public investment, companies have failed to bring even a single commercial-scale CCS project online in the UK.

It noted how the Tories funnelled £168m of this to two scrapped projects: Peterhead and White Rose.

However, even in the context of these glaring failures, the Tories have continued to develop policies to prop up this bogus technology. Oil Change International found that since 2020, the government has opened the door to £25.26bn for CCS and hydrogen projects.
Industry con at Labour conference again

Oil Change International noted that it was publishing it on the eve of the Labour Party’s annual conference. Therefore, it said that:

This is the first time in 14 years Labour will convene while in power, offering a powerful opportunity to lead on a just transition that is not reliant on failed technology.

On top of this, it pointed out that the £25.6bn could fund pensioners winter fuel allowance twelve times over. As a result, it also argued that:

Prime Minister Keir Starmer cites worsening economic pressures for proposed austerity measures, yet public funds continue to be diverted to carbon capture – propping up a failed technology.

Unsurprisingly however, the fossil fuel-backed CCS industry is already in bed with Labour. In 2023, Desmog revealed how industry trade body the Carbon Capture and Storage Association (CCSA) sponsored 15 events at the two major party’s conferences.

Once again, the CCSA has forked over thousands of pounds to secure itself a stand outside the main hall at this year’s conference. Significantly, as Desmog has highlighted:

Nearly a fifth of the CCSA’s 100 members are oil and gas companies, including BP, Exxon, Shell and Equinor.

What’s more, two major CCS developers are hosting a fringe event. These are Evero – which is developing two CCS projects at Mersey and Ince, and Climeworks, a direct air capture developer. Direct air capture is similar to carbon capture and storage (CCS) in that it removes emissions to be stored underground. However, whereas CCS is tied to industrial plants, DAC captures emissions from the air in any location.

On Tuesday 24 September, the pair are delivering a panel on:

Net zero and beyond – the role of Greenhouse Gas Removals in reversing climate change

Its listing on Labour’s programme states that:

Greenhouse Gas Removals (GGRs) are essential for the UK to achieve net zero. 23 million tons a year of GGRs by 2035 are already baked into the UK’s carbon budgets. But the Committee on Climate Change has recently pointed to ‘significant risks’ with the pace of government action on GGRs to meet this target.

For the UK to become an international leader in this sector, we all need to be more positive about negative emissions – from political leaders to technology developers and corporate GGR purchasers.

Moreover, lobby firm Arden Strategies is hosting this – and it too has a panoply of connections with big oil and gas.

Labour lobbyist in bed with the fossil fuel industry

Former Scottish Labour leader Jim Murphy set up the agency. It has a dedicated ‘Labour directorate’ and its specific remit is to help clients “interact with Labour politicians”.

Notably, on its website, it advertises its services helping corporations map to “political stakeholders that share your company’s interests”. In particular, it states how Arden supports:

UK and global corporate clients to navigate and engage with Labour’s policies and politics. We also combine our in-depth knowledge of corporate advisory work with our team’s detailed understanding of how the Labour government operates and thinks.

While Arden does not list its clients, according to Tribune Magazine, it has organised events with British Gas owner Centrica. The multinational energy company holds a stake in oil and gas corporation Spirit Energy, which boasts assets in the North Sea.

In February, Arden was the official partner of a secretive lobbying event Scottish Labour hosted alongside its main party conference. As openDemocracy reported, the national party banned press from the this. Despite this, the independent outlet identified that Centrica’s CEO Chris O’Shea, and Scottish Renewables chief executive Claire Mack appeared on a panel discussion at the event. The pair sat on this alongside UK Labour and Scottish Labour’s net zero chiefs Ed Miliband and Sarah Boyack.

Despite the fact Scottish Renewables focuses on climate green technologies, the company counts oil majors like Shell and Equinor on its board.

In addition, German firm RWE also attended the lobbying affair. While the company’s main focus is on renewables in the UK, in Europe, it operates climate-polluting coal-fired power plants. It also owns one of Scotland’s most polluting industrial sites – Markinch biomass plant. As well as this, it operates Pembrokeshire gas power plant – the UK’s second largest greenhouse gas polluter.

Many of these same companies are coalescing round the unproven CCS technology as a smokescreen to prolong the industry. As well as this, Arden’s Murphy is on the board for the Future Energy Skills Programme coordinated by Centrica and GMB and backed by a who’s who of polluting corporations – which is also promoting CCS.
Subsidising CCS while slashing the winter fuel payment

Ahead of the election, Labour signalled its support for the technology. Its manifesto committed an additional £1bn to it directly.

Oil Change International senior campaigner Rosemary Harris again underscored the galling hypocrisy of this in light of the winter fuel payment cuts. This is especially the case given the government’s justification of clawing back £1.4bn in savings. She said that:


Globally, carbon capture has already had billions of pounds and decades to prove itself and it has failed on every promise.

As Keir Starmer’s government cuts winter fuel payments for vulnerable pensioners with one hand, they are handing out billions in subsidies to the oil and gas industry with the other. It is unfathomable that this government is continuing to spend public money on so-called ‘carbon capture’, when £500 million has already produced nothing.

Instead of propping up Big Oil’s last ditch efforts to maintain their profits, Keir Starmer and the Labour Party should lead a full, fast, fair, and funded phaseout of fossil fuels. We need to see an end to subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, and a real, funded transition plan that works for people and the planet.

Ultimately, another Labour Party conference flush with big polluters shows exactly whose side Starmer’s government is on. It’ll readily extend subsidies and support for an unproven technology acting as a lifeline for climate-wrecking industries – while removing a vital lifeline for the majority of pensioners this winter.

Featured image via the Canary

UK

CO2 pipeline 'could devastate coast' residents told

Rufus Pickles

BBC
Local Democracy Reporting Service

Vix Lowthion
More than 150 people attended a Green Party meeting campaigning against the ExxonMobil CO2 pipeline project

More than 150 residents have gathered to oppose plans for a planned carbon dioxide pipeline on the Isle of Wight.

Exxon Mobil is seeking approval for the Solent CO2 Pipeline Project, which would run from its Fawley oil refinery near Southampton to a CO2 storage site under the English Channel.

Islanders filled the Riverside Leisure Centre in Newport on Monday in support of the Green Party's Say No to the CO2 Pipeline campaign.

Michael Foley, from ExxonMobil, previously said the firm was "here to listen and understand" and encouraged everyone to take part in the consultation.

Green Party spokesperson Vix Lowthion said it could have a "devastating" impact on the island's heritage coast and national landscape.

The geology teacher gave a presentation during the meeting about the oil company’s plans.

Ms Lowthion said: "The huge turnout at this meeting demonstrates the strength of feeling against their [ExxonMobil's] plans and that islanders are not going to accept the damage to our woodlands and coastal areas.

"We need to invest in clean, renewable energy – not perpetuate our reliance on oil.”

ExxonMobil is seeking permission for an underground pipeline from its Fawley oil refinery


In its proposal, ExxonMobil said the carbon dioxide would be taken to a deep rock formation in the English Channel for safe storage - a process known as carbon capture and storage (CCS).

The corporation has been approached for comment about the latest meeting, which comes after it announced the initial public consultation on the proposal would be extended to 18:00 BST on 30 September.

The meeting heard ExxonMobil's timeline for the pipeline would also include a statutory consultation period in the spring or summer of 2025, following by a final application for a Development Consent Order in 2026.

Cameron Palin, co-chair of the Isle of Wight Green Party, said: "It is just dragging out the use of oil and gas.

"We need to be looking at investing in renewables - so wind, solar, tidal - and that is where the future should be."

Mr Foley said: "CCS is proven technology, which the UK Climate Change Committee and the UK government consider key to achieving a significant reduction in industrial CO2 emissions - the industries that produce essential products that we rely on every day."

ExxonMobil
People attending the meeting were shown diagrams of the proposed corridors which would be used to transport the carbon dioxide

Report Shady green finance

How Italy’s largest fossil fuel company uses sustainability-linked bonds as a loophole to keep financing hydrocarbons

Misleading media coverage and a lack of regulatory oversight are contributing to a huge climate blind spot: that both private and institutional investors have poured billions into Eni's "green-labelled" bonds, under terms and conditions which give them the freedom to continue to fund carbon-emitting activities.

Published on 2 September 2024 
Stefano Valentino, Giorgio Michalopoulos
 

PV64 | Cartoon movement


A massive greenwashing operation is quietly unfolding across Europe, affecting thousands of investors who believe they are supporting climate-friendly initiatives. These investors have bought 'green-labelled' bonds issued by Eni, Italy's largest – and the world's 13th largest – fossil fuel company. The problem is that these bonds may well be funding carbon-emitting activities, undermining the very energy transition and climate goals that Eni claims to support. As the activist group Reclaim Finance describes the scam: “the bond market has become a safe haven for easy access to fossil fuel finance”.

Eni’s CEO Claudio Descalzi has persuaded thousands of investors across Europe to back a sustainability strategy that can be summed up as: Give me your money to mitigate climate change, and then I'll decide how much of it goes towards exacerbating climate change.
More : How big finance greenwashes climate crisis culprits

"The energy transition is irreversible," Descalzi said on a well-known Sunday talk show on the Italian public broadcaster in June, laying out his plan. "But the money has to come from private capital. When you set targets, you have to provide the opportunity for each industrial activity to be optimised with the tools to achieve those targets, and to do so freely."

The fact remains that both private and institutional investors have signed what are effectively Eni 'blank climate cheques'. Meanwhile Descalzi earns a staggering €1.6 million a year, and has been at the helm of the state-controlled company over a decade and through four different Italian governments.
The controversial bonds

The type of financial product issued by Eni is called a "Sustainability-Linked Bond" (SLB). Eni has been promoting such “green-labelled” financial products in several European countries. This plan was backed by the Italian ministry of economy and finance, which owns more than 30% of the company's shares, and a coalition of banks that marketed the bonds while downplaying experts' warnings about their true environmental impact.

These products are designed to attract investors who are concerned about the environment. But there is growing concern that the money raised by these bonds could end up further funding fossil fuel activities rather than helping the environment. There is nothing to stop Eni from doing so, and the company has vowed to increase its production of oil and natural gas in years to come.

In January 2023, Eni issued one of its most controversial SLBs, aimed at climate-conscious retail investors in Italy. The bond was initially valued at €1 billion, but was so popular that it quickly doubled to €2 billion.

The success of these bonds was boosted by the rather enthusiastic attitude of the Italian mainstream media, which reported ENI's statements without questioning its weak commitments to reduce carbon emissions.

The reality is that investors in these bonds are unlikely to make a significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Eni's plans for the money raised by these bonds are likely to support its usual business activities, leaving most of its emissions untouched.

This hoax, involving major public, industrial and financial powers, was also recently exposed in a report published in July by the Anthropocene Fixed Income Institute (AFII), a UK-based NGO that helps investors direct capital into impactful sustainable investments “in the age of human induced climate change”.

This situation highlights the need for greater clarity and honesty in the way financial products are marketed to the public. A first step in this direction is expected when the European Union's new regulation on green bonds comes into force on 21 December this year (1).
Big polluters rely on industry self-regulation of eco-bonds

In recent years, SLBs have become popular with companies as a way of raising fresh funds to support their efforts to combat global warming.

But as our research shows, these bonds are not as "green" as they seem. Like traditional green bonds, SLBs are based on voluntary standards. The main difference is that while the former require the issuer to use the money for specific environmental projects, SLBs only require companies to meet certain sustainability targets, known as Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). This means that money raised through SLBs can be used for any purpose, including activities that could harm the environment, as long as the company meets its KPIs.
More : Reclaim Finance’s Lucie Pinson: ‘Europe’s banks are subverting the climate objectives’

More specifically, the Italian fossil fuel company's SLBs are linked to two key KPIs listed in the issuance prospectus: increasing renewable energy capacity by 5 gigawatts (GW), and reducing greenhouse gas emissions from its operations by 65% compared to 2018 levels.

Bonds classified as ESG (promoting ‘environmental, social and governance’ benefits) include not only SLBs but also the more aptly named "green" and "sustainability" (as well as "social") bonds. The ESG bond market operates under voluntary guidelines set by the International Capital Market Association (ICMA), a trade association that includes the companies that issue the bonds, the agencies that certify them and the banks that market them to investors (2). This means that the same actors who benefit from these bonds also set the rules and ensure compliance, creating a conflict of interest.

The ESG bond market is not regulated by any public authority, so there is little oversight to ensure that these bonds actually contribute to environmental sustainability. In Italy, for example, Consob, the national financial markets regulator, simply approved Eni's SLBs on the basis of general rules for financial products, without examining their environmental merits.

No wonder SLBs are the preferred debt financing instrument of fossil energy companies among all ESG-qualified companies. Data from the London Stock Exchange Group, used for our analysis, shows that between 2021 and 2023 some oil and gas multinationals have raised around €9 billion through SLBs. The fossil fuel issuers are Repsol (Spain), Gasunie (Netherlands), Odfjell (Norway), Orlen (Poland), SFL Corporation (Bermuda), Eni and Snam (Italy).
Misinformation greened Eni’s carbon-sponsoring bonds

ENI raised €4.75 billion through four different SLB issues between June 2021 and September 2023, making it the largest issuer of SLBs in the fossil fuel sector. These bonds were marketed mainly in Italy, France, Germany, the UK and Switzerland, between June 2021 and September 2023, with the help of major banks (3).

Both Intesa Sanpaolo (which is an ENI shareholder both directly and indirectly through the green funds marketed by its asset management arm Eurizon), and UniCredit coordinated the consortium of banks that commercialised the €2 billion SLB reserved for Italian retail investors in January 2023. The group also includes Banca Akros, BPER Banca, BNP Paribas and Crédit Agricole CIB (the latter two banks announced last May that they have retreated from oil and gas bond deals).

In Italy, 310,000 retail investors bought €600 million worth of bonds in the January 2023 issue, attracted by the high fixed rate of 4.3%, which was more appealing than returns on conventional bonds.
More : Green funds: how a jungle of indices turned fossil fuels into a sustainable investment

Eni's CEO continued to publicly laud the success of the “greened” bonds. "So many Italians have believed in what we are doing, both in terms of progressive evolution towards decarbonised industrial processes and products, and in terms of guaranteeing energy security," commented Claudio Descalzi at the launch of the Italian bond, which was admitted to trading on the Milan Stock Exchange in February 2023.

ENI's board decided to issue the SLBs without the prior approval of the company's shareholders, as the Italian ministry of economy and finance confirmed to Voxeurop. The ministry also sits on the board and is therefore co-responsible for any decision, but refused to explain if and why its representatives formally voted in favour of the issue.

The Italian mainstream media played an important role in “greening” Eni's SLBs by giving them favourable coverage. Major newspapers such as La Repubblica and La Stampa respectively described the bonds as "sustainable" and "green" – two categories of ESG bonds that have to meet much stricter criteria than the SLBs.

As explained, unlike “green and “sustainable” bonds, SLBs have no requirement to use the proceeds for specific 100% environmental projects, allowing Eni to use the money for general purposes, including fossil fuel production (4). Unicredit clarified to Voxeurop that indeed Eni’s issuance “was not conceived of as a ‘Green Bond’”.

Josephine Richardson, Managing Director and Head of Research at AFII, explains that essentially, as an SLB issuer, Eni enjoys a great deal of flexibility and is entitled to use investors' money for its fossil fuel production, as long as it meets the two sustainability targets or KPIs that it has committed to in its prospectus. "Both refinancing of debt originally used for oil exploration and expenditure strictly related to oil production could theoretically be covered," she said.
Eni green bonds will trigger weak GHG reduction

Taking advantage of the laxity of the SLB requirements, Eni arbitrarily set poor climate targets. Firstly, it committed to reducing a negligible proportion of its total greenhouse gas emissions. Secondly, instead of substantially reducing this amount of emissions, the Italian oil major decided to largely offset it with reductions achieved elsewhere by buying carbon credits generated by third-party projects (reforestation or renewable energy). The latter is a cheap way for large emitters to reduce their carbon footprint.

These flaws – unheeded by the Italian government – have been pointed out by independent organisations, banks and media. The first criticism came from Moody’s, one of the world's leading rating agencies, which certified Eni's "Sustainability-Linked Financing Framework" (a non-binding document, unlike the prospectus, which sets out the company's actual commitments) (5).

In its assessment (technically called "second party opinion") of Eni's framework, Moody's said that Eni's SLBs have a "limited overall contribution" to sustainability. This is because the company has committed in its framework to invest the money borrowed from bondholders to reduce only its direct emissions (oil and gas production and refining) and those associated with its energy consumption. Together, these two categories of emissions (classified as Scope 1 and 2, respectively) represent no more than 3% of Eni's total emissions, according to Moody's.
Receive the best of European journalism straight to your inbox every Thursday


You can unsubscribe at anytime *Subscribe

The reduction of Eni's indirect emissions from upstream suppliers and downstream customers (Scope 3) is excluded from the SLB targets. However, such emissions, especially those from companies that purchase and burn fossil fuels for their operations (e.g. industrial plants and airlines), account for the largest volume of GHGs attributed to fossil fuel suppliers such as Eni.

“Also including the emissions generated by the company's suppliers and customers (scope 3) would have been the opportunity for an impactful sustainability-linked bond,” said Richardson of AFII. “I hope investors will realise this is not a very impactful sustainability-linked-bond and make consequent choices.”

An Eni spokesperson provided an explanation which seems contradictory, pointing out that the four sustainability-linked bonds “have maturities [i.e. the payback deadline] between 2027 and 2030". They said that these were years “in which it will not be possible to determine whether or not the Scope 3 target will be reached – this will only be known in the first part of 2031. It was therefore not possible to include this target in the bonds.”

Yet Eni is not even sure that it will achieve the Scope 1 and 2 reductions promised to bondholders. In fact, if it fails to meet these targets, Eni will have to pay investors a higher interest rate of 4.8% as a sort of penalty (i.e. 25 percentage points more than what is usually included in the prospectus of SLB issuers). However, this penalty is small compared to the potential impact of the environmental damage (6).

“We are still waiting for a publicly agreed methodology to be defined on Scope 3 emissions,” added Eni’s spokesperson. In reality, such methodology has already been agreed at an EU level and should kick in by 2025 (7).

Moody's states that Eni's approach is "at odds with the recommendations of the International Energy Agency (IEA) and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which emphasise the need for immediate action to reduce all greenhouse gas emissions (Scopes 1, 2 and 3) in order to achieve the 1.5°C objective of the Paris Agreement".

Despite its criticism, Moody's has put its green stamp on the company's framework, confirming compliance with the International Capital Market Association standards. Before issuing the SLB, Eni did not ask Moody's to also assess the product prospectus, which formalised the company's weak commitments. Moody's, which was paid by Eni for its so-called "independent" certification (issuers always pay assessors), declined to comment.

Most of the time, assessors’ (or second party opinion providers) reviews are “based on the pre-issuance documents such as the SLB Framework, and not on a Bond-by-Bond basis,” said the International Capital Market Association’s spokesperson. “This is clearly the issuers’ decision. There is no rule preventing that practice.”

Richardson said that it is “generally acknowledged to be non-ideal that SPO providers assess financing frameworks rather than bonds”.

Intesa Sanpaolo insisted that Eni’s framework “has been externally certified as sustainable” and therefore “has been classified as meeting the needs of subscribers who have indicated their preferences for sustainable investments" (8). Nonetheless, the lack of transparency on the part of Intesa Sanpaolo and Eni raises questions about the ability of investors to make an informed decision when purchasing the bond (9). It is worth noting that Intesa Sanpaolo, Unicredit and all the underwriters except BPER, together with Eni and Moody's, are on the ICMA member list, working together side by side for the same “cause”.
Over-flexibility may further water down Eni climate efforts

As highlighted in the recent AFII report, which assessed 19 SLBs issued by companies in different sectors, Eni's bond is also questionable because the company intends to neutralise 40% of its scope 1 and 2 emissions through the use of offsets (or carbon credits). Compensating for emissions rather than reducing them slows down the transition to renewables and the decarbonisation process. Eni's offsets “are reported to be 5.9mt CO2 equivalent for 2023”.

In its 2023 report the Climate Bond Initiative (CBI), the world's largest certification platform for the financing of sustainable projects, also criticised Eni’s SLB, stating that the company should "set more ambitious reduction targets that are in line with the industry's path and do not include offsets". Eni's plan "is dependent on offsets, Ccs (for CO2 capture and storage) projects and the expansion of the gas business [...] which will not address the radical turnaround that is needed," the CBI researchers wrote in their report.

AFII gives Eni a fair 50/50 chance of meeting its SLB targets, and says that this probability of success depends on the company's planned use of carbon offsets. According to the same report: “A simple extrapolation of the recent trend of Eni’s SLB would suggest the target will narrowly be missed [...], however [...] offset purchases significantly increase the chance of achieving the target”.
More : How “green” investments are financing Big Carbon

Richardson of AFII argued: “Should Eni just pay to buy some more offsets so it can meet its targets and no longer have to pay their step up on coupon (i.e. higher interest rate to investors)? That is clearly not the best use of a Sustainability Linked Bond.”

All in all, Eni’s SLB does not effectively help to keep the company on track towards its carbon neutrality target in 2050 (10).

AFII's analysis of SLBs issued by other fossil energy companies revealed similar problems to those highlighted in relation to Eni's SLB (11).

“Some SLBs issuers had too much flexibility with the use of SLBs prior to setting up a credible transition plan,” Matthew MacGeoch, Senior Research Analyst at CBI, told Voxeurop, implicitly referring to Eni. “However, recent trends show a convergence towards the use of credible GHG decarbonisation targets (all material sources of emission, and no abuse of offsets).”

Richardson shares MacGeoch’s optimistic views: "We are very much in favour of this kind of product because we believe it has great potential for impact," she said, "although not all those that have been launched so far have necessarily had an impact, nor have they all set high standards or concrete goals."

Footnotes


1) The new regulations mentions as follows: "To be able to use the designation European green bond or EuGB, issuers: must invest the proceeds from these bonds in full, before the bond reaches maturity, in sustainable economic activities covered by the European Union’s (EU) taxonomy* legislation (Regulation (EU) 2020/852 – see summary). These include fixed assets, capital and operating expenditures, and assets and expenditure of households (this is known as the gradual approach)."

2) ICMA requires that one of its approved external reviewers evaluate the ESG bond before issuance to certify that the product meets its guidelines (through a specific assessment form).

3) Eni’s SLBs: 7 June 2021, 23 January 2023, 15 May 2023, 7 September 2023.

4) The prospectus (the public information document) that Eni provided to investors confirms that: "The bonds are not marketed as so-called green bonds because the Issuer expects to use the net proceeds thereof for general corporate purposes and does not intend to use the net proceeds for projects or business activities that meet environmental or sustainability criteria”. The same disclaimer is replicated in the prospectus of the other SLBs issued by Eni both in Italy and abroad.

5) Generally, while the framework sets the company’s overall sustainability goals, the specific targets that the issuer intends to meet as a counterpart of the funding cashed from bondholders are outlined in the information document (prospectus) provided at each issuance. Albeit setting ambitious targets to reduce the overall value chain emissions in the long term, Eni’s framework clarifies that the company will use the SLBs proceeds to reduce, exclusively, its Scope 1 and 2 emissions in the short term.

6) This is precisely what happened to the Italian utility Enel (also partially owned by the Italian government), the first company to launch an SLB with a record value of €15 billion raised between 2019 and 2023. Josephine Richardson, managing director and head of research at AFII, recalls that Enel did not meet its sustainability promises in 2023. As a result, it will have to pay bondholders a slightly higher interest rate.

7) Harmonised EU criteria for quantifying and disclosing carbon emissions and reduction targets as well as other environmental and social targets will come into force in 2025 under the new Corporate Sustainability Disclosure Directive (CSRD). Companies will have to comply with the CRSD obligations through a set of specific European sustainability reporting standards (ESRS). The standard covering climate change makes reference to a well defined methodology to calculate Scope 3 emissions.

8) Full response by Intesa Sanpaolo, in Italian: ‘Intesa Sanpaolo e Unicredit sono state Responsabili del Collocamento dell’emissione obbligazionaria Eni Sustainability-Linked 2023/2028 la cui offerta si è aperta il 16 gennaio 2023 e conclusa il 20 gennaio 2023, del quale hanno fatto parte anche Banca Akros, BNP Paribas, BPER Banca e Crédit Agricole CIB, in qualità di Collocatori e Garanti unitamente ai Responsabili del Collocamento. Come indicato nel prospetto, il bond basa la caratteristica di sostenibilità sulla capacità dell’emittente (ENI) di osservare determinati parametri ESG durante la vita dell’obbligazione stessa.Il Framework (Sustainability Linked Financing Framework) di Eni, a cui l’emissione oggetto della Vostra richiesta fa riferimento, è stato esternamente certificato come “SOSTENIBILE” da Agenzie specializzate indipendenti dalla società medesima e dai Collocatori (‘Second party opinion providers’) e rispetta i requisiti previsti dai Sustainability-Linked Bond Principles dell’ ICMA (International Capital Market Association). In virtù di quanto sopra è stata classificata come rispondente alle esigenze dei sottoscrittori che hanno segnalato le loro preferenze per investimenti sostenibili; l’emissione non è stata mai certificata, ne pensata o predisposta, come “GREEN BOND”.’

9) In its announcement, the Italian bank briefly mentioned the SLB framework and referred, for further information, to Eni’s “Investors” web page. Only by scrolling down the page, can users find the company press release. However, it does not explain what Scope 1 and 2 emissions mean, does not quantify the expected GHG reduction associated with the SLB, and does not provide neither a summary nor even a link to the prospectus (which includes Moody’s Second Party Opinion). This lack of transparency and missing information undermines the retail investors who do not have sufficient knowledge to find out how their money is actually being used, and understand whether Eni’s product meets their true preferences for sustainable investments (or not).

10) Contrary to the IEA and IPCC recommendations, the climate performance achieved by Eni through the proceeds of the SLBs in the short term represents just a tiny fraction of the GHG reduction (including Scopes 1, 2 and 3) projected by the company to meet its net zero target in 2050. “High-quality carbon credits, [...] generated under stringent environmental and social constraints, will account for about 5% of the overall reduction in Scope 1+2+3 emissions by 2050,” said an Eni spokesperson, while avoiding comment on the use of offsets to meet the specific SLB targets. “Our strategy does not depend on carbon offsets, but [we] will resort to them where it is not possible to abate residual emissions, i.e. those that cannot yet be reduced due to technological and/or economic constraints.”

(11) Read further reports from the Anthropocene Fixed Income Institute (AFII), a UK-based NGO, on other companies, including SLBs: Orlen, SNAM and Repsol, amongst others.

Stefano Valentino is a Bertha Challenge Fellow 2024. This article is part of the investigation coordinated by Voxeurop and European Investigative Collaborations with the support of the Bertha Challenge fellowship.

 

Japanese Companies to Standardize LCO2 Carriers to Meet Anticipated Demand

Japan launched the first LCO2 carrier for demonstration and testing in late 2023 (K Line)

Published Aug 27, 2024 5:39 PM by The Maritime Executive

 

 

Seven of Japan’s leading companies in shipping and shipbuilding have agreed to work together on a unique project that seeks to establish standard specifications and designs for LCO2 (liquified carbon dioxide) carriers. This comes as each of the companies has been conducting projects to develop the emerging category of vessels and to establish the supply chain for the transport and storage of carbon captured from heavy industry.

“As the demand for LCO2 carriers is expected to grow in various CCS (Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage) projects that transport CO2 collected in Japan to storage sites by sea, it is necessary to build and supply LCO2 carriers stably within Japan to realize the CCS value chain and improve economic efficiency,” the companies said in their joint announcement. 

The project will involve shipping companies Mitsui O.S.K. Lines (MOL), NYK Line, and “K” Line, each of which has been working on elements of the ships. “K” Line is the closest to the sector as the company is set to manage and operate the vessels being built for Norway’s Northern Lights project. The first two vessels are nearing completion in China with the first due to delivery this year. It is set to become the first commercial project for the transportation and ultimately storage of CO2 from industries in Northern Europe at a location under the North Sea.

Representing the shipbuilding sector are Mitsubishi Shipbuilding, Imabari Shipbuilding, JMU, and Nihon Shipyard. The shipbuilders have also been developing designs and receiving the first certifications for the elements needed for the new sector. Mitsubishi, for example, launched a feasibility study with TotalEnergies for the development of an LCO2 carrier in 2021. Mitsubishi reported it had been granted Approval in Principle (AiP) from the French Classification Society Bureau Veritas (BV) for a cargo tank system to be mounted in a liquefied CO2 (LCO2) carrier. It is focusing on Type C tanks to transport the gas as a liquid in a low-temperature, high-pressure state.

To build the industry and Japan’s leadership, the companies have agreed to conduct a joint study. The goal is to establish standard specifications and designs for LCO2 carriers. They will also focus on the steps to establish a construction supply chain.

They plan to collaborate widely with industry stakeholders. Furthermore, they said the study would also enable construction at other shipyards to meet the broader need for the new sector. Rystad Energy last year calculated that as many as 55 vessels and 48 terminals would be required by 2030. They forecasted that annually more than 90 million tonnes (tpa) of CO2 will be shipped by the end of the decade.

The Japanese companies are saying their target was to have the first large ships for LCO2 transport under construction by 2027. The new study says its goal is for large-scale international marine transport of LCO2 by 2028.

Late in 2023, Japan completed construction of the first LCO2 carrier, a demonstration vessel. Named the EXCOOL, the 1,290 dwt vessel was built by Mitsubishi Shipbuilding. It is 236 feet in length and has a cargo tank capacity of 1,450 cubic meters. It is operated by Nippon Gas Line as a demonstration and testing of the steps required for loading, transport, and offloading.

GREENWASHING

DNC Climate Panels Offered Empty Rhetoric Instead of Specific Plans

At ExxonMobil-sponsored events on the sidelines of the convention, energy CEOs rehashed fossil fuel misinformation.

By Schuyler Mitchell 

Truthout

August 24, 2024   

A man walks by a Democratic National Convention 2024 sign at the United Center on August 18, 2024, in Chicago, Illinois.Kevin Dietsch / Getty Images

The climate crisis didn’t receive much primetime attention during this year’s Democratic National Convention (DNC).

But away from the bright lights of the main stage, a series of low-profile panel discussions have offered a fascinating window into some key obstacles facing the Democrats’ climate agenda — and a lack of concrete policy proposals to overcome them.

Over the course of nearly three and a half hours, Democratic lawmakers, delegates and climate advocates convened for two Environmental & Climate Crisis Council meetings on Monday and Wednesday. The discussions boasted a broad slate of speakers, including progressives like Rep. Ro Khanna (D-California), Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Maryland), Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Florida) and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon)

“I love the energy here. You’ve got the biggest caucus here at the DNC,” Khanna exclaimed during his address.

Indeed, the energy and enthusiasm in the room were palpable, even when watched via a YouTube livestream. Speakers repeatedly emphasized the climate wins of the Biden-Harris administration, particularly the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Justice40 Initiative, an executive order that allocates certain federal funds to marginalized communities overburdened by pollution. A crucial focus was placed on the intersection of climate policy and racial and economic justice. Several Democrats pointed to the fact that, during her time as San Francisco’s district attorney, Vice President Kamala Harris created one of the first environmental justice units explicitly focused on prosecuting polluters.

Related Stor

y
News Analysis |
Environment & Health
Activists Are Bringing the Heat to the Banks Funding Climate Crisis
The “Summer of Heat” movement is pushing Citibank to divest from fossil fuels. Will the bank listen?
By Schuyler Mitchell , TruthoutAugust 14, 2024

“Vice President Harris and Gov. Tim Walz are committed to bold action to build a clean energy economy, to create good jobs, ensure America’s energy security, reduce emissions, protect public health, support communities in the face of climate disasters, and hold polluters accountable,” said Harris’s chief climate adviser, Dr. Ike Irby. These are admirable goals, and Irby noted that Harris and Walz are “fully committed to building upon this promise.”

How, though, will they do it? That’s yet to be seen.

The Harris campaign has yet to outline its specific plans to tackle climate change. She has already walked back on her previous pledge to ban fracking. And the speeches at these two council meetings focused heavily on past wins, not the future — such as the fact that the United States is currently set to fail to meet carbon emissions targets by 2030.

Senator Merkley, a longtime climate voice on Capitol Hill, was the only speaker on the council panels to reference this reality. “We have been woefully inadequate in addressing carbon in the atmosphere,” he said, emphasizing that “as long as we are increasing fossil infrastructure, taking more fossils out of the ground, burning more carbon, that’s more carbon in the air.” The only way to avoid climate catastrophe, he said, is to “electrify everything” and keep fossil fuels in the ground.

Merkley railed against “natural gas,” which, as he noted, is not natural at all. “Fossil gas is not a bridge,” said Merkley. “Please call it fossil gas, call it methane. There is nothing natural about pulling it out of the ground.”

Earlier this year, President Joe Biden announced a temporary pause on permits for liquified natural gas (LNG) exports, a decision that was blocked by a federal judge in July. But at an event on the sidelines of the DNC hosted by Punchbowl News — and sponsored by ExxonMobil — one Democratic lawmaker claimed that a shift from coal to fossil gas would be an “important transition” to achieve climate goals.

“It is in our national interest, it is in our economic interest, in our national security interest to export LNG, and I just hope they’ll reach that decision soon,” said Rep. Lizzie Fletcher of Houston, Texas, a city at the global epicenter of the fossil fuel industry. Fletcher is a co-chair of the Congressional Natural Gas Caucus and one of the top House Democrats receiving oil and gas dollars, trailing only Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar.

Climate advocates interrupted the event chanting, “Exxon lies, people die” — a reference to the fact that, since 1977, ExxonMobil hid its knowledge from the public that burning fossil fuels contributes to climate change.

Indeed, during the first Environmental & Climate Crisis Council meeting, Representative Khanna called out ExxonMobil by name. “We had the Exxon CEO, Chevron CEO, BP CEO, Shell CEO in front of our committee, and they gave millions of documents, and they admitted that they’d lied to the American public,” said Khanna. “They had the best scientists in the world, but they chose to lie.” Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey also highlighted that she had sued Exxon for deceptive advertising during her time as attorney general.

Still, that didn’t stop Exxon from getting the top spot at the Punchbowl event — not a shock, given the news outlet’s past reliance on the fossil fuel company to sponsor its newsletters. Vijay Swarup, Exxon’s senior director of climate strategy and technology, told his Punchbowl interviewer that the climate crisis would need to be combated with a so-called “And Equation,” meaning fossil fuels would need to continue to be supplied, and “everybody” — including Big Oil — would “get to be part” of the climate solution.

“I don’t think this industry gets near the credit it needs to get for innovation,” added Swarup.

One of the key innovations in question is carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). Backed heavily by the oil and gas industry, the technology remains unproven at scale and would enable the continued extraction of fossil fuels.

To the chagrin of many climate activists, the IRA included tax credits for CCS projects in its climate spending. In May, dozens of environmental groups sent a letter to the Treasury Department encouraging more stringent oversight. “Carbon capture and storage projects have not effectively reduced climate pollution. They have squandered billions of taxpayer dollars, subsidized the fossil fuel industry, expanded fossil fuel infrastructure, and burdened already disadvantaged communities with even more pollution,” wrote climate advocates. “We urge you to take strong action to avoid wasting more of our tax dollars on a tax break that has been prone to fraud and abuse.”

Representative Fletcher, however, praised CCS during her Exxon-sponsored panel, claiming it “plays a huge role” in reaching climate goals. She expressed the need for “permitting reform” by the Environmental Protection Agency to fast-track carbon pipelines for CCS projects.

At another Exxon-sponsored event, just before the panel with Swarup and Fletcher, Punchbowl hosted chief executives from various energy companies, including Karen Harbert, CEO of the American Gas Association, who called fossil gas the “North Star for the next 5 to 10 years.”

“We grew faster last year than we did the year before,” said Harbert. “And I think it’s because we’re proving we’re reliable, we’re affordable, and we can reduce emissions with natural gas.” In actuality, LNG facilities have been found to leak massive amounts of methane, an atmosphere-warming gas, and recent studies have found that fossil gas could even generate more emissions than coal.

The Punchbowl panels were not part of official DNC programming, but rather one of many corporate-sponsored events, often inaccessible to other press, that occur quietly on the DNC’s sidelines. Still, at an event hosted by a news outlet targeting Washington insiders, and likely attended by Democratic delegates and lawmakers, it is troubling that misleading oil and gas industry talking points were given such a platform.

Taken together, the DNC environment council and Punchbowl panels illuminate key questions for Harris’s still-unknown climate agenda. Will she build on the IRA by taking even more aggressive action to curb emissions and move the nation away from fossil fuels? Or will her agenda fall prey to Big Oil’s faulty “climate solutions,” like CCS and “natural gas”? Only time will tell — but the clock is ticking.

Join us in defending the truth before it’s too late


The future of journalism is uncertain, and the consequences of losing it are too grave to ignore. To ensure Truthout remains fearless, tough, and 100 percent independent, we still need to raise $11,000. Every dollar raised goes directly toward the costs of producing news you can trust.

Please give what you can — because by supporting us with a tax-deductible donation, you’re not just preserving a source of news, you’re helping to safeguard what’s left of our democracy.

This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license. See further guidelines here.

Schuyler Mitchell is a writer, editor and fact-checker from North Carolina, currently based in Brooklyn. Her work has appeared in The Intercept, The Baffler, Labor Notes, Los Angeles Magazine, and elsewhere. Find her on X: @schuy_ler