Albertans approve of more investment in renewable energies: poll

'It's more of an evolution than a shift'

Author of the article: jaldrich@postmedia.com
Publishing date: Dec 15, 2021 • 

Solar panels cover vehicle shelters at Royal Oak Audi in Calgary on July 29, 2019. 

PHOTO BY MIKE DREW/POSTMEDIA

A Leger poll conducted for Postmedia showed 47 per cent of respondents from across the province approved of investment to help grow and diversify the economy, far surpassing any of the dozen other options.

“It’s more of an evolution than a shift,” Ian Large, executive vice-president for Western Canada for Leger, said in an interview with Postmedia on Tuesday. “More and more we’re hearing about renewable energy and alternative energy as options, and we’re learning in Alberta that we’re actually quite good at this.”

People were asked to list three sectors they wanted to see investment in — the next closest on the list for investment was agriculture and health sciences, both at 22 per cent.

The poll received 1,294 responses.

Trevor Tombe, a professor of economics at the University of Calgary, said the idea of diversifying from oil and gas tends to gain in popularity when the price of oil is down.

He said the province has taken big steps in recent years to diversify its energy source, pointing to wind farms, which are on pace to produce more energy in Alberta next year than coal.

The province also continues to push forward on other initiatives, such as solar and geothermal projects.

“We have much more of a diversified electricity mix . . . and we will probably see that continue,” said Tombe. “Not because of government policy as much as just technological change in solar and wind, and us having a comparative advantage in both of those — that’s a natural evolution in that sector.”

He said the biggest challenge in diversification will be market access and who we send our energy to, and the regulatory challenges involved.

The bigger split in public perception came on whether the oil and gas industry is doing enough to combat climate change, with 41 per cent saying it is and 39 per cent saying it is not.

This comes despite advancements in production efficiencies for oil and gas, carbon capture and storage, and hydrogen fuels.

An artist’s rendering of the ATCO Group’s Deerfoot solar project to be built at the corner of 114th Avenue and 52nd Street S.E. in Calgary. 

PHOTO BY CNW GROUP/ATCO LTD

“The perception among other Canadians is you drive up the highway and it’s just those pumpjacks doing their thing, and it’s oil and gas and gas flares,” said Large. “The imagery that Canadians are exposed to about energy in Alberta is not big wind farms and solar farms, it’s the tailings ponds and oilsands. There’s an opportunity for Alberta and the Alberta government to speak more forcefully about where Alberta is investing in these things.”

One of the big issues, the poll indicated, is when Albertans feel they are being dictated to rather than being included in the discussion about practical ways to improve their carbon footprint.

Forty per cent of those polled said agreements made at the recent COP26 climate change conference in Scotland would have a negative effect on Alberta, while only 15 per cent said it would have a positive effect. Premier Jason Kenney charges that the agreements, brokered by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, were made without proper consultation with the provinces or industry.

The Business Council of Alberta (BCA) this summer began working on an across-the-board study called Define the Decade that could help chart the direction of energy and the operation of the province for the next 10 years. Central to this study is the energy sector, which includes oil and gas and its future role.

In recent years, oil and gas companies have made themselves more resilient by streamlining operations, which will allow them to hit higher or similar revenue levels without as much production. Meanwhile, recent reports show the industry could introduce up to 30 per cent more automation to improve the environmental and cost end of production.

Alicia Planincic, an economist with the BCA, pointed to projects such as the Oil Sands Pathway to Net Zero as being on the front lines of this effort.

“I think it’s just about how do we more systematically and through a policy perspective . . . build on the momentum that is already happening in a way that really moves the dial, and in a way that’s going to have the biggest impact for Albertans and ultimately the world,” she said, “so that we can not just do well in this space but truly lead in this space.”

CEOs from all sectors of industry, including oil and gas, as well as a panel of advisers from across Alberta are combining on the project. The first of four reports were released in the past week and looks at Alberta’s current position.

Key to this transition will be the educational component to focus on developing new and emerging technologies.

NYC moves to stop new buildings from using natural gas

Wed., December 15, 2021


NEW YORK (AP) — New York City is poised to bar most new buildings from using natural gas within a few years, after lawmakers voted Wednesday to make the United States' most populous city a showcase for a climate-change-fighting policy that has been both embraced and blocked elsewhere.

If Democratic Mayor Bill de Blasio signs the measure, as expected, most construction projects submitted for approval after 2027 would have to use something other than gas or oil — such as electricity — for heating, hot water and cooking. Some smaller buildings would have to comply as early as 2024.

Hospitals, commercial kitchens and some other facilities would be exempt.

Supporters say it's a substantial and necessary move to combat global warming. Heating, cooling and powering buildings accounts for nearly 70% of the city's emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases.

New buildings' stoves and furnaces would use electricity generated partly from burning natural gas and other fossil fuels, but backers say the change still would keep millions of tons of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere over time. They argue it would boost momentum ahead of a statewide requirement to use 70% renewable energy by 2030, up from about 30% now.

“This is a huge, huge step forward," said Alex Beauchamp of Food & Water Watch, an environmental group. He called the legislation “a real game-changer on the national scene."

Berkeley, California, debuted the idea of banning gas hookups for new buildings in 2019. The measure faces an ongoing court challenge from a restaurant association, but San Francisco, Seattle and a few dozen other U.S. cities — mainly in California — have followed suit.

It’s too early to gauge the impact, said Amy Rider of the Building Decarbonization Coalition, which advocates for such laws.

The town of Brookline, Massachusetts, has passed one twice. It was retooled and reapproved this summer after the state attorney general blocked the first version, saying it intruded on state authority. The AG hasn't taken action against the new effort to date.

At the same time, states including Arizona, Oklahoma and Texas have barred cities from enacting such laws, saying that consumers should have their choice of energy sources. In Texas, the effort began before, but gained all the more steam after, a February storm spawned massive power outages that left many households shivering without electricity, heat or drinkable water for days.

In New York, shifts toward electric vehicles, furnaces and appliances are “expected to create long-term upward pressure” on electricity use, according to the New York Independent System Operator, which oversees the state’s electricity supply.

The organization said in a recent report that it's still studying how those trends will affect the power system, but it forecasts that electricity demand in winter could surpass summer peaks by about 2040.

The state envisions big increases in wind and solar power, among other approaches to meet its renewable energy targets and growing demand. Some projects are in the works.

Still, some building interests worried at a City Council hearing last month that banning new natural gas hookups could strain the electrical grid. It already struggles during heat waves in the city, sometimes resulting in sizeable neighborhood outages.

James Whelan, who runs a landlords’ lobbying group called the Real Estate Board of New York, said Wednesday that it gets the importance of moving away from fossil fuels, but “these policies must be implemented in a way that ensures that New Yorkers have reliable, affordable, carbon-free electricity.”

Real estate groups also pressed to push back the deadlines for nixing gas, saying that alternative technologies — such as electric heat pumps that transfer heat between indoors and outdoors — need more time to develop, particularly for skyscrapers.

Utilities, meanwhile, have sounded economic alarms, while saying they support and are working on greening the energy supply.

“We have real concerns that, as envisioned, these (proposals) may result in increased energy costs for customers,” Bryan Grimaldi, a vice president of power provider National Grid, told council members last month. Con Edison, which serves much of the city, encouraged them to help poorer renters with what it characterized as increased costs of electric heating.

Both utilities greeted Wednesday's vote with measured statements, with Con Ed saying that a “clear-cut path toward electrification of most new buildings is a sensible and necessary step.”

Environmental groups say electric doesn't necessarily mean more expensive. In fact, they say it's just the opposite in some new, energy-efficient buildings. They also note that natural gas prices fluctuate, having risen notably this year before recently dropping somewhat.

Considering that residents have been told to forgo plastic bags and straws and take other steps to preserve the planet, it’s time for legislators to look beyond individual behavior to building emissions, Council Member Alicka Ampry-Samuel told her colleagues Wednesday before they approved her legislation by a 40-7 vote, with one abstention.

The Democrat, who represents an overwhelmingly Black Brooklyn district, has said the legislation also aims to fight air pollution, particularly on behalf of communities of color. Researchers have found that non-white people are exposed to more air pollution than whites across the country.

___

Associated Press writers Kathleen Ronayne in Sacramento, California, and David Klepper in Providence, Rhode Island, contributed to this report.

Jennifer Peltz, The Associated Press

Norfolk Southern, Kansas City Southern receive A-minus environmental ratings

Railroads join CN, CSX with high marks from global non-profit CDP

December 13, 2021

LONDON — Norfolk Southern and Kansas City Southern have received A-minus ratings from global environmental non-profit CDP for their efforts to address climate change.

Earlier, Canadian National and CSX had been recognized as among 200 companies worldwide named to CDP’s “A list” [see “Canadian National, CSX named …,” Trains News Wire, Dec. 7, 2021].

Norfolk Southern says its rating largely reflects its plan for a science-based emissions reduction of 42% reduction by 2034 from its 2019 figure, as well as participation in forest carbon projects, increased locomotive fuel efficiency, and more use of biofuels.

“Reducing our carbon footprint is central to how we operate our company – it’s good business and good for the planet,” Josh Raglin, Norfolk Southern chief sustainability officer, said in a press release. “Whether that’s through more efficient locomotives or setting aggressive goals for ourselves, we aim to make the most environmentally friendly way to move freight over land even more sustainable. Importantly, our efforts also have a positive impact on the carbon footprint of our customer’s supply chain operations.”

Kansas City Southern notes its A-minus is an improvement from its 2020 score, and reflects its carbon emissions reduction target and other sustainability efforts.

“At KCS, through smart, targeted investments, technological enhancements, and streamlined operations, we have improved fuel efficiency at a rate that outpaces our emissions reduction goals,” Kayden Howard, KCS vice president health, safety and environmental, said in a press release. “We’re incredibly proud to be recognized by the CDP for our environmental leadership and transparency, and we will continue to explore innovative ways to reduce our carbon footprint, for the good of our business, our people, and our planet.”

A Global Breakdown of Greenhouse Gas EMISSIONS BY SECTOR

December 15, 2021
By Our World in Data Featured CreatorS



A Global Breakdown of Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector

In a few decades, greenhouse gases (GHGs)—chiefly in the form of CO₂ emissions—have risen at unprecedented rates as a result of global growth and resource consumption.

To uncover the major sectors where these emissions originate, this graphic from Our World in Data pulls in data from 2016 courtesy of Climate Watch and the World Resources Institute, when total emissions reached 49.4 billion tonnes of CO₂ equivalents (CO₂e).

Sources of GHG Emissions

Global GHG emissions can be roughly traced back to four broad categories: energy, agriculture, industry, and waste. Overwhelmingly, almost three-quarters of GHG emissions come from our energy consumption.

SectorGlobal GHG Emissions Share

Energy Use 73.2%
Agriculture, Forestry & Land Use 18.4%
Industrial processes 5.2%
Waste 3.2%

Within each category, there are even more granular breakdowns to consider. We’ll take a closer look at the top two, which collectively account for over 91% of global GHG emissions.

Energy Use

Within this broad category, we can further break things down into sub-categories like transport, buildings, and industry-related energy consumption, to name a few.

Sub-sector GHG Emissions Share

Further breakdown

Transport 16.2% 

• Road 11.9%
• Aviation 1.9%
• Rail 0.4%
• Pipeline 0.3%
• Ship 1.7%
Buildings 17.5% • Residential 10.9%
• Commercial 6.6%
Industry energy 24.2% • Iron & Steel 7.2%
• Non-ferrous metals 0.7%
• Machinery 0.5%
• Food and tobacco 1.0%
• Paper, pulp & printing 0.6%
• Chemical & petrochemical (energy) 3.6%
• Other industry 10.6%
Agriculture & Fishing energy 1.7% -
Unallocated fuel combustion 7.8% -
Fugitive emissions from energy production 5.8% • Coal 1.9%
• Oil & Natural Gas 3.9%Total73.2%

Billions of people rely on petrol and diesel-powered vehicles to get around. As a result, they contribute to almost 12% of global emissions.

But this challenge is also an opportunity: the consumer adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) could significantly help shift the world away from fossil fuel use, both for passenger travel and for freight—although there are still speedbumps to overcome.

Meanwhile, buildings contribute 17.5% of energy-related emissions overall—which makes sense when you realize the stunning fact that cities use 60-80% of the world’s annual energy needs. With megacities (home to 10+ million people) ballooning every day to house the growing urban population, these shares may rise even further.
Agriculture, Forestry & Land Use

The second biggest category of emissions is the sector that we rely on daily for the food we eat.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, methane from cows and other livestock contribute the most to emissions, at 5.8% total. These foods also have some of the highest carbon footprints, from farm to table.

Sub-sector GHG Emissions Share

Livestock & Manure 5.8%
Agricultural Soils 4.1%
Crop Burning 3.5%
Forest Land 2.2%
Cropland 1.4%
Rice Cultivation 1.3%
Grassland 0.1%Total18.4%

Another important consideration is just how much land our overall farming requirements take up. When significant areas of forest are cleared for grazing and cropland, there’s a clear link between our land use and rising global emissions.

Although many of these energy systems are still status quo, the global energy mix is ripe for change. As the data shows, the potential points of disruption have become increasingly clear as the world moves towards a green energy revolution.

For a different view on global emissions data, see which countries generate the most CO₂ emissions per capita.

This article was published as a part of Visual Capitalist's Creator Program, which features data-driven visuals from some of our favorite Creators around the world.

PLANET OF THE HUMANS BACKLASH

Journal of People, Peasants and Workers

May 11, 2020

By Yves Engler

Planet of the Humans

The backlash may be more revealing than the film itself, but both inform us where we are at in the fight against climate change and ecological collapse. The environmental establishment’s frenzied attacks against Planet of the Humans says a lot about its commitment to big money and technological solutions.

A number of prominent individuals tried to ban the film by Jeff Gibbs and Michael Moore. Others berated the filmmakers for being white, male and overweight. Many thought leaders have declared they won’t watch it.

Despite the hullabaloo, the central points in the film aren’t particularly controversial. Corporate-industrial society is driving human civilization/humanity towards the ecological abyss and environmental groups have largely made peace with capitalism. As such, they tout (profitable) techno fixes that are sometimes more ecologically damaging than fossil fuels (such as biomass or ethanol) or require incredible amounts of resources/space if pursued on a mass scale (such as solar and wind). It also notes the number of human beings on the planet has grown more than sevenfold over the past 200 years.

It should not be controversial to note that the corporate consumption juggernaut is destroying our ability to survive on this planet. From agroindustry razing animal habitat to plastic manufacturers’ waste killing sea life to the auto industrial complex’s greenhouse gases, the examples of corporations wreaking ecological havoc are manifold. Every year since 1969 humanity’s resource consumption has exceeded earth’s capacity to regenerate those resources by an ever-greater volume.

It is a statement of fact that environmental groups have deep ties to the corporate set. Almost all the major environmental groups receive significant cash from the mega-rich or their foundations. Many of them partner directly with large corporations. Additionally, their outreach strategies often rely on corporate media and other business-mediated spheres. It beggars belief that these dependencies don’t shape their policy positions.

A number of the film’s points on ‘renewable’ energy are also entirely uncontroversial. It’s insane to label ripping down forests for energy as “green”. Or turning cropland into fuel for private automobiles. The film’s depiction of the minerals/resource/space required for solar and wind power deserves a far better response than “the data is out of date”.

The green establishment’s hyperventilating over the film suggests an unhealthy fixation/link to specific ‘renewable’ industries. But there are downsides to almost everything.

Extremely low GHG emitting electricity is not particularly complicated. In Québec, where I live, electricity is largely carbon free (and run by a publicly owned enterprise with an overwhelmingly unionized workforce, to boot). But, Hydro-Québec’s dams destroy ecosystems and require taking vast land from politically marginalized (indigenous) people. Likewise, nuclear power (also publicly owned and unionized) provides most of France’s electricity. But, that form of energy also has significant downsides.

In the US in 2019 63% of electricity came from fossil fuels, 20% from nuclear and 17% from ‘renewables’. But, even if one could flip the proportion of fossil fuels to ‘renewables’ around overnight there’s another statistic that is equally important. Since 1950 US electricity consumption has grown 13-fold and it continues to increase. That’s before putting barely any of the country’s 285 million registered private automobiles onto the grid. Electricity consumption is growing at a fast clip in China, India and elsewhere.

Oil is another source of energy that is growing rapidly. Up from 60 million barrels a day in 1980 and 86 million in 2010, 100 million barrels of oil were consumed daily in 2019. That number is projected to reach 140 million by 2040.

On one point I agree entirely with critics of the film. It’s unfair to (even indirectly) equate Bill McKibben with Al Gore. Representing the progressive end of the environmental establishment, McKibben has engaged in and stoked climate activism. Gore was Vice President when the US led the destruction of the former Yugoslavia, bombed Sudan and sanctioned Iraq.

Still, it’s ridiculous for McKibben and others to dismiss the film’s criticism of his decade-long promotion of biomass and refusal to come clean on 350.org’s donors as divisive. “I truly hope that Michael Moore does not succeed at dividing the climate movement. Too many have fought too long to build it”, he tweeted with a link to his response in Rolling Stone titled “‘A Bomb in the Center of the Climate Movement’: Michael Moore Damages Our Most Important Goal.” Echoing this theme, Naomi Klein came to her 350.org comrade’s defence tweeting, “it is truly demoralising how much damage this film has done at a moment when many are ready for deep change.” Democracy Now, Common Dreams, the Guardian and other media picked up her remark.

If it is divisive to criticize McKibben’s positions, then the same must be said of his own criticisms aimed at those demanding the Pentagon be highlighted in decarbonization efforts. In a June New York Review of Books column titled “The Pentagon’s Outsized Part in the Climate Fight” McKibben pours cold water on those who have asked him about the importance of “shrinking the size of the US military” (the world’s largest single institutional emitter of fossil fuels) in the fight for a sustainable planet. In fact, his piece suggests the Pentagon is well-positioned to combat the climate crisis since right wingers are more likely to listen to their climate warnings and the institution has massive research capacities to develop green technologies. McKibben seems to be saying the green movement should (could) co-opt the greatest purveyor of violence and destruction in the history of humanity! (In the Wrong Kind of Green blog Luke Orsborne offers a cogent breakdown of McKibben’s militarism.)

McKibben’s repeated advocacy of the private electric car could also be considered divisive. In Falter: Has the Human Game Begun to Play Itself Out? McKibben calls for “millions and millions of electric cars and buses” (alongside “building a hell of lot of factories to turn out thousands of acres of solar panels, and wind turbines the length of football fields.”) Does anyone believe the planet can sustain a transportation/urban planning system with most of the world’s 7.8 billion people owning 3,000-pound vehicles?

When an electric car is powered from a grid that is 63% fossil fuels the GHG it contributes per kilometer of travel is generally slightly less than an internal combustion engine. But the production and destruction phases for electric vehicles tend to be more energy intensive and they still require the extraction and development of significant amounts of resources. Additionally, the private car underpins a land, energy and resource intensive big box retail/suburban economy. (For details see my co-authored Stop Signs: Cars and Capitalism on the Road to Economic, Social and Ecological Decay.)

Moreover, as Death by Car recently pointed out, “electric vehicles are haloware — a product that exists to distract attention from continuing SUV and pickup sales. If this thesis is correct, then it is a huge mistake for progressive forces to express enthusiasm” for electric vehicles. Of the 86 million new passenger and light commercial vehicles sold globally in 2018 about 1.2 million of them were powered by battery-only electric engines while 37 million were pickups and SUVs. In other words, for every new battery-electric car there were 30 new SUVs/pickups sold. Alongside growing buzz about electric vehicles, the number of SUVs increased from 35 million to 200 million between 2010 and 2018.

McKibben and associates’ ability to frame the film as divisive rests on the stark power imbalance between the ‘green’ capitalist and degrowth outlooks. While there are few profits in the consume-less worldview, McKibben is situated at the progressive end of a network of organizations, commentators and media outlets empowered by hundreds of billions of dollars of ‘green’ capitalism. This milieu has counterposed solar, wind and biomass to the hyper fossil fuel emitting coal, natural gas and oil industries. But, they aren’t keen on discussing the limitations of their preferred energies and the fundamentally unsustainable nature of limitless energy (or other) consumption. And they certainly don’t want any spotlight placed on environmental groups ties to the mega-rich and an unsustainable model.

Fragments of wind turbine blades await burial at the Casper Regional Landfill in Wyoming. Photographer: Benjamin Rasmussen

But, in reality it’s not the criticism that bothers. Wrong Kind of Green, Death by Car, Counterpunch and various other small leftist websites and initiatives have long documented McKibben and associates’ concessions to the dominant order. Often more harshly than in the film. What is unique about Planet of the Humans is that these criticisms have been put forward by leftists with some power (Michael Moore’s name and the funds for a full-length documentary, most obviously.) In other words, the backlash is not a response to the facts or argument, per se, but the ‘mainstreaming’ of the critique.

The environmental establishment’s ability to generate hundreds of hit pieces against Planet of the Humans suggests the movement/outlook has amassed substantial power. But, it’s not always clear to what ends. Most indicators of sustainability are trending in the wrong direction at the same time as top environmental figures have risen to the summits of power. Québec’s most prominent environmentalist, Steven Guilbeault, recently became a cabinet minister in the Liberal government while the former head of World Wildlife Fund Canada, Gerald Butts, was Justin Trudeau’s chief of staff. These individuals happily participate in a government that oversaw a 15 million tonne increase in Canada’s GHG emissions in 2018 and then decided to purchase a massive tar sands pipeline.

The incredible popularity of Planet of the Humans — seven million views on YouTube — suggests many are worried about the ecological calamity humanity is facing. Many also sense that the solutions environmental groups are putting forward don’t add up.

The lesson to be learned from the film and the frenzied attacks against it is that questioning the system — be that capitalism or the mainstream environmental movement — won’t make you friends in high places.

[Yves Engler is the author of 10 books, including A Propaganda System: How Canada’s Government, Corporations, Media and Academia Sell War and Exploitation. Read other articles by Yves.]

GREEN CAPITAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL

 “LEADERS” WON’T SAVE US

Undisciplined Environments

May 20, 2020

By Alexander Dunlap

 

Despite its serious flaws, Jeff Gibbs’s documentary Planet of the Humans powerfully exposes how optimism for “renewable energy” transitions is misplaced, and how mainstream environmentalism is becoming a force for green capitalism.

People are outraged! Jeffery Gibbs’s new documentary, Planet of the Humans – co-produced by Michael Moore and Ozzie Zehner – has shocked and awed “progressive” critics, fuelling a steady stream of outcry. “It is truly demoralizing how much damage this film has done at a moment when many are ready for deep change,” exclaims Naomi Klein on Twitter.

Much of the concern voiced is correct, yet it detracts away from two fundamental messages: “renewable energy” is dependent on extreme mineral and hydrocarbon extraction, and mainstream environmentalism has “sold out.” This, in many ways, is old news for political ecologists, especially those involved in environmental conflicts concerning wind power, hydroelectric dams and mineral extraction development, yet the pandemonium generated by this film deserves some clarification.

Important Criticisms: Caveat

The documentary has some foundational flaws. It underestimates the efficiency and capacity of wind and solar technologies. The data is old and the range of people interviewed limited. More damaging, however, is their discussion of population. Yes, population is an issue, and voluntary initiatives to control it are adopted by some environmentalists (for instance, degrowth advocates). Yet, modes of consumption and production will always be the determining factors for how populations will articulate catastrophic ecological and climatic impacts.

The problem with the “overpopulation” narrative is that it condemns all of humanity for the present socio-ecological situation. Even if, later in the documentary, corporations, financial consultants and their “environmental movement” collaborators become the main focus of critique, the directors largely neglect class, race, and gender as issues related to environmental degradation.

At the same time, the film forgets the socio-ecological values of different groups. It overwrites the variegated agency of (a “pluriverse” of) people, positioning Indigenous land defenders at war with extraction in the background, and not acknowledging in any way their different socio-ecological practices and relationships. The lack of clarity surrounding these issues, or the missing explicit support for environmental struggles against green capitalism and extraction is damaging, ultimately taking away from issues that deserve popular acknowledgment in the film.

Film segment title page reviewing the extraction necessary for so-called renewables (Screenshot: 36’55”). Source: youtube.com

 

So-called Renewable Energy

The outraged critics need to realize that the distinction between fossil fuels and so-called renewable energy is exaggerated. Every aspect of so-called renewable energy requires hydrocarbons and hydrocarbon-based facilities for equipment construction and operation; mining; processing, manufacturing, transportation and the security personnel to enforce land control for these projects. Hence, I proposed the term “fossil fuel+” as a replacement for the inaccurate concept of “renewable energy.”

Ethnographic research investigating natural resource extraction for fossil fuel+ systems remain insightful in this regard. Modelling studies, however, have exposed the seriousness of resource extraction and waste for fossil fuel+ systems. Drawing on a World Bank report, Jason Hickel estimates that making 2050 renewable energy targets will require mining “34 million metric tons of copper, 40 million tons of lead, 50 million tons of zinc, 162 million tons of aluminium, and no less than 4.8 billion tons of iron.”

This also includes increases in other minerals essential to solar, wind and battery technologies over the same period:  35-70% neodymium, 38-105% in silver, 920% in indium, 2,700% increases in lithium and is compounded with further increases (70%) with the promotion of electric vehicles.

Moreover, Benjamin Sovacool and colleagues calculate a single 3.1 MW wind turbine creates “772 to 1807 tons of landfill waste, 40 to 85 tons of waste sent for incineration and about 7.3 tons of e-waste per unit.” This does not even account for mineral processing, component manufacturing, transportation or provisions for security personnel to facilitate security operations of “renewable energy” extraction sites or development sites. Remember: “It takes 500,000 gallons of water to produce a single ton of lithium.”

Critics of the film declare to speak in the name of science. Yet this is a question of research design and methodology. Fossil fuel+ projects are frequently justified by carbon accounting and modelling practices imbued with capitalist ideologies and technological utopianism, which – more to the point – are separated from the political contexts, neglect various forms of pollution (e.g., industrial wastes), local struggles and violence emanating from “green” and corresponding mining projects that animate fossil fuel+ development.

Corporate Environmentalism

Land defenders are well aware of corporate co-optation of environmental struggles. Jeff Gibbs and colleagues are correct to highlight these connections as this problem has only intensified. Submedia.tv released a documentary nearly 10 years ago demonstrating at length the problem of environmental NGOs co-opting struggles and marginalizing land defenders. This segment, moreover, documented the connection between large environmental NGOs, such as Greenpeace and Sierra Club, and their staff going to work in mineral extraction and timber industries. Does anyone remember how, in 2014, Greenpeace lost £3 million in currency speculation? The proclaimed mission and actions of environmental NGOs frequently do not add up.

The “NGOization” of struggle has emerged as a body of literature. Meanwhile, Cory Morningstar’s updated the connection of green capitalists, “climate youth leaders” and the new (corporate) environmental movement, charting trends and issues many ignore or fail to understand. Planet of the Humans documents a small piece of this compared to Morningstar’s work, focusing primarily on Al Gore, Bill Mckibben and their financial managers and partners.

While Al Gore is no surprise, some film reviewers suggest Bill McKibben’s exposé was startling, if not personally offensive. “I have never taken a penny from green energy companies or mutual funds or anyone else with a role in these fights, ” explains Mckibben in a Rolling Stone interview, “I’ve never been paid by environmental groups either, not even 350.org, which I founded and which I’ve given all I have to give.”

The film presents some damaging evidence. For instance, it shows McKibben sitting on a panel at the “Investors and Environmentalists Sustainable Proposal,” discussing a “40-50 trillion ‘green energy fund’” with The World Resource Institutes’ David Blood, who “spent 18 years at Goldman Sachs including serving as CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management.” Moreover, 350.org’s collaboration with the “Green Century Funds” makes a clear connection to how manufactured or self-styled “environmental leaders” (see 1:15:14) are clearly in bed with green capitalism and efforts to financialize nature.

The No Deal for Nature Campaign is particularly relevant in this regard. The exposé of corporate environmentalism and collaborative efforts to financialize nature holds. The film highlights the timeless issues of “leaders,” but also how single-issue campaigning – built on carbon accounting and narrowing its focus to “fossil fuels” – disables itself from holistic assessments and offers itself to the construction of a “green” or “climate” economy their movement leaders are invested in promoting.

 

David Blood (co-founder of Generation Investment with Al Gore) and 350.org’s Bill McKibben: featured keynotes for divestment partner, Ceres.

 

Conclusion

The film deserves both hostility and love. Hostility for carelessly discussing population issues, homogenizing different people – a socio-ecological-cultural flattening – and lacking, even in passing, respect for those fighting the mines, energy factories and politicians small and large, formal and informal. The film would have benefited from a more refined scope and tighter narrative, with a greater diversity of participants, from Indigenous groups struggling against fossil fuel+ projects, to political ecologists and environmental anthropologists.

Yet the film also deserves love, as it highlights a neglected and sensitive issue for many: how the (mainstream) “environmental movement” has been corporatized, how its actions are not working, and how “renewable energy”/fossil fuel+ systems are not ecologically sustainable. The film is correct to publicize these issues, even if most popular media outlets are having a less than intelligent conversation about the contested issues within the film. Instead of writing the film off as “demoralizing“, it should resituate one’s hopes and realities concerning environmental struggle.

Concern has also been voiced about the film “dividing” the environmental movement. But the movement is already divided, to the extent that environmental “leaders” are divided from their “flock”, and “light” green (capitalist) movements try to extinguish or recuperate “dark” green radical critique and action. Autonomous, horizontal and leaderless resistance akin to the multiplicity of land struggles taking place across the world, should be what climate activists gain inspiration from – not McKibben or Gore. Earth First!, for instance, – not without its critiques – represents an alternative mass-organizational model, discarding leaders and dedicated to organizing discussion space and direct action.

Those shocked by Planet of the Humans’ revelations concerning “renewable energy” and environmental movement “leaders” are either unfamiliar with the boundless treachery of capitalist society or have yet to commit themselves to fighting the capture, domestication and exploitation of human and nonhuman resources near and far.

[Alexander Dunlap holds a PhD in Social Anthropology from Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands. His PhD thesis examined the socio-ecological impact of wind energy development on Indigenous people in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec region of Oaxaca, Mexico. Alexander’s work has critically examined police-military transformations, market-based conservation, wind energy development and extractive projects more generally with coal mining in Germany and copper mining in Peru. Current research investigates the formation of transnational-super grids and the connections between conventional and renewable extraction industries.]

Featured image: Planet of the Humans poster. Source: planetofthehumans.com

Conflicting commitments? Examining pension funds, fossil fuel assets and climate policy in the organisation for economic co-operation and development (OECD)

November 2020
Energy Research & Social Science 69:101736
DOI:10.1016/j.erss.2020.101736

Project: Leave Fossil Fuels Underground
Authors:

Arthur Rempel
University of Amsterdam


Joyeeta Gupta
University of Amsterdam


Download full-text PDFRead full-text

Abstract and Figures
The 2015 Paris Agreement on Climate Change implicitly calls for leaving 80% of coal, 50% of gas and 33% of oil reserves underground. This paper studies the scarcely addressed relationship between investors like pension funds and climate policy implementation by addressing the question: what is the extent of pension fund investments in the fossil fuel sector, what is the range of actions that pension funds take to address environmental issues, and what does this suggest about pension fund commitments to ambitious climate targets through leaving fossil fuels underground? A small sample of pension funds alone manages at least €79 billion in liquid fossil fuel assets, suggesting that OECD pension funds may jointly manage between €238–828 billion. Sustainability reports reveal that pension funds engage in five actions to implement climate policies: 1) divestment; 2) direct engagement; 3) carbon footprint calculations; 4) investing in ‘green’ alternatives; and 5) engaging in climate-oriented coalitions. However, their use of these actions is so far ineffective and counterproductive to taming the fossil fuel sector. Pension funds are not fully committed to leaving fossil fuels underground, which de facto renders them not yet committed to meeting ambitious climate targets. Forthcoming policies must target investors like pension funds to improve the prospects of meeting such targets and protect vulnerable countries from inheriting the risks of stranded assets.

Descriptive Statistical Results.
…


Estimating fossil fuel assets beyond the sample.
…

Figures - available via license: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
Content may be subject to copyright.

Green Bonds: Current Development and Their Future

January 2019
DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.10059.82722

Authors:

Olaf Weber
University of Waterloo


Vasundhara Saravade
University of Waterloo


Download full-text PDFRead full-text

Abstract and Figures
Given the urgency of climate change and the short time frames, it is necessary that our society make a transition toward a green and low-carbon economy. One way to do so is through finance markets that are tailored to fund low-carbon and climate-friendly projects. Such climate finance markets can prove to be an important factor in how fast and how incentivized our society is to make the transition. An important tool in measuring the recent impact of climate change on financial markets has been the green bond. As its name suggests, a green bond allows various issuer types — whether countries or organizations — to mobilise traditional debt investments into projects or assets that can help society adapt or mitigate climate change impacts. Furthermore, it allows investors to fulfill their environmental, social and governance (ESG) concerns and mandates by allowing for climate-aligned investments. This “bonus” moral or green factor is what currently sets the market apart from its traditional counterparts. The popularity of the green bond market and its impact are explored in this paper, which also addresses the growth of the market in the national as well as international context. The paper introduces the green bond market by highlighting its ability to tackle risk and serve as an opportunity for the financial sector. It then addresses the growth in various international and national contexts, with a brief overview of the Canadian market. The paper highlights the ongoing challenges in the market, especially given its exponential growth in recent years. Finally, it speaks to the environmental performance of the green bond and showcases the need for standardization and regulation around the market. The paper ends with policy recommendations for various key stakeholders including regulators, governments and issuers and concludes by addressing ongoing standardization efforts by other market players.


Top Green Bond Issuances per Country, 2018
…


Green Bond Issuances Based on Green Bond Countries in 2015, 2016 and 2017
…


Green Bond Issuances Based on Sectors in 2016 and 2017
…


Overview of Institutional Investors' Assets under Management as of 2015
…

Figures - uploaded by Vasundhara Saravade
Author content
Content may be subject to copyright.

Shipping fails to bring its A-game to carbon disclosures

Shipping companies that are serious about ESG will need to do more to disclose their carbon emissions.

Photo: Rawpixel

14 December 2021 
By Eric Priante Martin
in Stamford

This week's Green Seas newsletter focuses on what shipping companies are doing — or primarily what they are not doing — to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions. Subscribe at tinyurl.com/greenseas.
____________________________

The good news is that there is growing consensus that shipping needs to tackle its greenhouse gas emissions. The bad news is that precious few shipping companies are, by some measures, taking a leading role by disclosing their carbon footprint and what they are doing (if anything) about it.

TradeWinds has reported that the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDB) has given just two shipping companies an A in climate change leadership.

Eric Priante Martin writes Green Seas every Tuesday. 

Photo: Eric Priante Martin

If there is any consolation for shipping, it is that the industry is doing no worse than the broader list of companies, where just 2% of 12,000 made the non-profit group's A list.

And while most shipping companies got an F grade, it is not necessarily a reflection of poor performance but rather that they did not provide adequate answers to CDB, or any answers at all.

But engaging with organisations that provide third-party verification of environmental disclosures is key to doing more on decarbonisation than just talking about it and meeting the minimum standards from regulators.

The industry's uninspiring results in the CDP's climate leadership league table is a reflection of how much work needs to be done in shipping to provide robust disclosure of carbon emissions, both direct and indirect.

There is increasing pressure to provide stakeholders, including investors increasingly focused on environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors, with a map of their sustainability efforts.

First, the leaders at the moment: Japan's K Line and NYK Line both scored A on the CDB's rankings. They are not just talking about decarbonisation — they are getting their leadership verified.

These two companies are not just on the CDB's list. The Japanese duo are also the only shipping companies that have had their decarbonisation targets validated by the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi).

SBTi, in which CDP is involved, is aiming to roll out new guidelines in the weeks ahead for shipping companies to set more ambitious targets to line up their well-to-wake emissions with the goal of capping climate change at 1.5C.

Hitoshi Nagasawa-led NYK Line is proving to be a climate leader. 

Photo: NYK Line

In accounting, the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) is gearing up to play a central role for rules for disclosures that will be useful for shipping investors, though the rules proposed for the board to consider are based on existing standards.

But there are efforts underway to evolve those rules to potentially include disclosure for indirect scope 2 and scope 3 emissions.

There are other reasons for shipping to amp up climate disclosures. Private measures such as the Webber Research ESG Scorecard began looking at scope 2 emissions disclosures for US-listed companies earlier this year, finding that 19% of the outfits covered reported them.

And while the Poseidon Principles, an effort to work decarbonisation targets into ship finance, is currently focused on the International Maritime Organization's target to cut shipping's emissions by 50% by 2050, its leaders have signalled that it might get more ambitious.

That may include not only adopting a zero-carbon target before the IMO does, but also going beyond its Annual Efficiency Ratio (AER) as a metric for measuring emissions.

As momentum builds on these multiple layers of carbon disclosures, shipping companies that are serious about ESG will have to up their game and do more to measure and report their climate impact.(Copyright)

More sustainability stories

AP Moller-Maersk has provided a sneak peek of the methanol-fuelled container ship that it describes as carbon-neutral. Read the story in TradeWinds.

Siemens Gamesa has started work to develop piping for a new breed of offshore wind turbines that will pump green hydrogen rather than electrical power. Read the story in Recharge.

The UK port city of Southhampton could become a hydrogen hub under plans being mulled by ExxonMobil. Read the story in Upstream.