Carbon Capture Is Coming Under Fire For Underperforming
Editor OilPrice.com
Thu, February 9, 2023
There has been a lot of hype around carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology in the last few years. Many energy companies and governments have touted CCS as the potential savior of oil and gas in a decarbonized world. As political powers around the globe race to decarbonize their economies in the transition away from fossil fuels to green alternatives, CCS has been seen as a way of bridging the gap in the transition, as renewable energy operations continue to expand. CCS technologies are being incorporated into oil and gas projects to help reduce the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere, allowing energy firms to continue producing fossil fuels while the global demand remains high. While many see this as a necessary move to maintain energy security, others believe CCS is just another form of greenwashing, helping to delay the inevitable shift to real green.
Both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the International Energy Agency (IEA) have highlighted the use of CCS technology in oil and gas projects as important for emissions reduction, a necessary stage in the transition to clean energy. It is seen as an easy way to reduce emissions while still providing the energy needed to meet the global demand before enough renewable energy projects are in operation to supply this energy. However, as the public is being told that CCS will help decarbonize operations, few questions are being asked about the scale of this technology and its ability to remove carbon effectively.
National decarbonization aims and carbon taxes have put pressure on oil and gas firms to make a change, with many quickly investing in CCS technology to ensure they can keep running their fossil fuel operations. But now experts are worried that people are seeing CCS as a silver bullet to climate change, with its use for decarbonization having been highly exaggerated. A 2022 report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) revealed that CCS projects were underperforming, with significant challenges in terms of the technology and regulatory framework. The analysis of several projects showed that approximately 90 percent of the proposed CCS capacity in the power sector has not been realized, and many projects fail to achieve their anticipated maximum capture rates.
Bruce Robertson, an author of the report, stated “Many international bodies and national governments are relying on carbon capture in the fossil fuel sector to get to net zero, and it simply won’t work.” He added, “Although it might have a role to play in hard-to-abate sectors such as cement, fertilisers and steel, overall results indicate a financial, technical and emissions-reduction framework that continues to overstate and underperform.”
In 2019, there were 59 CCS plants in operation worldwide, capable of removing over 40 million tonnes of CO2 on an annual basis. This was just a fraction of the carbon that was being released each year, which amounted to around 43 billion tonnes, or 1,000 times more. In addition, the high cost of CCS technology has long deterred many companies from using the decarbonization method more widely.
CCS has existed since the 1970s, although it was previously called enhanced oil recovery. But seeing the potential for CCS to be viewed as a mechanism for climate change action, it was rebranded by energy firms as ‘carbon capture utilization and storage’. Yet, in 2022, around 70 percent of CCS projects used captured CO2 to support the production of more oil and gas.
In Port Isabel, Texas, climate activists are now campaigning against a $10 billion project to export liquefied natural gas, Rio Grande LNG. The developer, NextDecade, has labeled the plant the “greenest LNG project in the world”, thanks to the incorporation of CCS technology into operations. But environmentalists say that calling the project ‘clean’ is an outright lie and a clear case of greenwashing. NextDecade plans to construct one of the biggest CCS systems in North America, to remove 5 million tonnes of CO2 a year, reducing its emissions from gas cooling by around 90 percent. However, gas cooling only accounts for between 6% and 7% of the plant’s emissions, meaning that a large quantity of waste CO2 is not being accounted for.
And despite high hopes for CCS in the transition to green, at least in the mid-term, environmentalists worldwide are now worried that as Big Oil declines, another giant industry – that continues to contribute to climate change – will emerge. One media outlet said that “Big Oil has given way to Big Suck.” And of course, there is wide public support for a technology that’s being viewed as a major decarboniser that helps boost the world’s energy security. As CCS continues to be used to support the provision of lower-carbon fossil fuels, which are still in high demand, it is unlikely that governments will demonize its use. However, it should be viewed as a temporary solution rather than a long-term fix in the transition to green, to avoid the longevity of oil and gas operations beyond their need.
By Felicity Bradstock for Oilprice.com
Friday, February 10, 2023
Can We Slow Climate Change by Shooting Dust at the Sun?
Tony Ho Tran
Wed, February 8, 2023
Melissa van Niekerk via Unsplash
So things are pretty grim right now. Runaway greenhouse gas emissions have resulted in a rise in global temperatures—causing a domino effect of deadly weather crises and environmental disasters like flooding, droughts, and hurricanes. It’s gotten to the point where researchers are suggesting we take drastic measures in order to save humanity—even if that means pursuing the comic book villain-esque idea of literally blocking out the sun.
That’s the idea behind solar geoengineering, a catch all term that refers to the science and tech used to artificially change the climate by dimming the amount of sunlight that hits the Earth. There have been numerous proposals for this throughout the years including marine cloud brightening, which involves injecting aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect away sunlight. There are also proposals to take things even further by going beyond Earth’s atmosphere.
A study published on Feb. 8 in the journal PLOS Climate investigated the possibility of creating a solar shield by shooting dust into orbit between the sun and Earth. The dust would be placed at Lagrange points, or specific positions in space where gravity allows objects placed there to stay put. In doing so, the study’s authors say that the goal would be to provide up to six days worth of shade throughout the year—thereby resulting in a cooler climate.
Meet the People Who Want to Stop the Next Hurricane by Hacking the Ocean
“The goal of a geoengineer solution like ours, if necessary, would be to stave off increases in the weather fluctuations brought on by increasing climate change,” Benjamin Bromley, a theoretical astrophysicist at the University of Utah, told The Daily Beast in an email. He added that tools like the dust shield are important to have “in case we need more time for the main work” of reducing greenhouse gasses.
To create the dust shield, Bromley said that millions of tons of dust would need to be mined in order to be sent into a Lagrange point. They could also be dispersed in different areas in the space between the Earth and sun. Some dust shields could last just a few days before all that matter dissipates into parts unknown; while other dust shields could linger in orbit for much longer “depending on the dust properties and how the dust grains are launched.”
The researchers acknowledged that it’s not only more expensive to launch the dust from Earth, but it’s also difficult considering how far it would have to travel. To that end, the University of Utah team explored the possibility of using the moon as a launching point for the dust shield. Not only does the lunar surface provide a massive amount of dust that can be used, but the shield can be easily ejected from the moon towards the Lagrange point.
Blocking the Sun Is a Risky Gambit for Fighting Climate Change. It May Also Be Our Best Option.
“Major advantages of the moon include plentiful amounts of dust on its surface, and low force of gravity compared to Earth making it easier to launch the large amounts of dust required in this concept,” Bromley said.
While you might be worried that such a measure might inadvertently result in a permanent solar shield blocking sunlight from Earth, the study’s authors noted that it would naturally dissipate due to solar winds and radiation. Their investigation found that the dust would “not otherwise interact with our planet again.”
One area that the dust could potentially impact is space travel. Dust in the cosmos is famously one of the biggest challenges that spacecraft face when off Earth. While it might seem small and unassuming, in the vacuum of space, dust can turn into tiny bullets capable of shredding into a rocket or satellite. Millions of tons of dust floating in between the Earth and Sun could potentially pose a hazard if we were to travel that way.
However, Bromley said that their "simulations show that the dust would disperse into the broader solar system" without posing a threat to Earth.
Could Cooling the Planet Through Geoengineering Lead to More Disease Outbreaks?
Of course, there are plenty of critics that point out that research into solar geoengineering ultimately distracts from the real issues of climate change—namely greenhouse gas emissions. After all, why would we want to lower greenhouse gasses when we could simply yeet a bunch of dust into orbit to block the sun?
However, more and more people and institutions with deep pockets are beginning to ramp up investments in geoengineering tech. Solmar management projects are all the rage—from universitites, to gung-ho geoengineering startups, to even the White House. Dustin Moskowitz, one of Facebook’s co-founders who has a current estimated net worth of $14.1 billion, recently announced a massive $900,000 investment in a non-profit lab dedicated to solar geoengineering research.
That doesn’t change the fact that the most important and impactful thing we can do to reverse climate change is to lower our greenhouse gas emissions in order to stop the rise of global temperatures. That’s a lot easier said than done, especially with the immense power that the fossil fuel industry wields, but it’s really the best thing we can do.
So, as kooky and downright sci-fi as a solar shield sounds, it’s not all that out there. Unfortunately, with the way things are going, we might find ourselves in the situation where shooting dust at the sun isn’t just a radical solution—but also one of the only ones we have.
The Daily Beast.
Tony Ho Tran
Wed, February 8, 2023
Melissa van Niekerk via Unsplash
So things are pretty grim right now. Runaway greenhouse gas emissions have resulted in a rise in global temperatures—causing a domino effect of deadly weather crises and environmental disasters like flooding, droughts, and hurricanes. It’s gotten to the point where researchers are suggesting we take drastic measures in order to save humanity—even if that means pursuing the comic book villain-esque idea of literally blocking out the sun.
That’s the idea behind solar geoengineering, a catch all term that refers to the science and tech used to artificially change the climate by dimming the amount of sunlight that hits the Earth. There have been numerous proposals for this throughout the years including marine cloud brightening, which involves injecting aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect away sunlight. There are also proposals to take things even further by going beyond Earth’s atmosphere.
A study published on Feb. 8 in the journal PLOS Climate investigated the possibility of creating a solar shield by shooting dust into orbit between the sun and Earth. The dust would be placed at Lagrange points, or specific positions in space where gravity allows objects placed there to stay put. In doing so, the study’s authors say that the goal would be to provide up to six days worth of shade throughout the year—thereby resulting in a cooler climate.
Meet the People Who Want to Stop the Next Hurricane by Hacking the Ocean
“The goal of a geoengineer solution like ours, if necessary, would be to stave off increases in the weather fluctuations brought on by increasing climate change,” Benjamin Bromley, a theoretical astrophysicist at the University of Utah, told The Daily Beast in an email. He added that tools like the dust shield are important to have “in case we need more time for the main work” of reducing greenhouse gasses.
To create the dust shield, Bromley said that millions of tons of dust would need to be mined in order to be sent into a Lagrange point. They could also be dispersed in different areas in the space between the Earth and sun. Some dust shields could last just a few days before all that matter dissipates into parts unknown; while other dust shields could linger in orbit for much longer “depending on the dust properties and how the dust grains are launched.”
The researchers acknowledged that it’s not only more expensive to launch the dust from Earth, but it’s also difficult considering how far it would have to travel. To that end, the University of Utah team explored the possibility of using the moon as a launching point for the dust shield. Not only does the lunar surface provide a massive amount of dust that can be used, but the shield can be easily ejected from the moon towards the Lagrange point.
Blocking the Sun Is a Risky Gambit for Fighting Climate Change. It May Also Be Our Best Option.
“Major advantages of the moon include plentiful amounts of dust on its surface, and low force of gravity compared to Earth making it easier to launch the large amounts of dust required in this concept,” Bromley said.
While you might be worried that such a measure might inadvertently result in a permanent solar shield blocking sunlight from Earth, the study’s authors noted that it would naturally dissipate due to solar winds and radiation. Their investigation found that the dust would “not otherwise interact with our planet again.”
One area that the dust could potentially impact is space travel. Dust in the cosmos is famously one of the biggest challenges that spacecraft face when off Earth. While it might seem small and unassuming, in the vacuum of space, dust can turn into tiny bullets capable of shredding into a rocket or satellite. Millions of tons of dust floating in between the Earth and Sun could potentially pose a hazard if we were to travel that way.
However, Bromley said that their "simulations show that the dust would disperse into the broader solar system" without posing a threat to Earth.
Could Cooling the Planet Through Geoengineering Lead to More Disease Outbreaks?
Of course, there are plenty of critics that point out that research into solar geoengineering ultimately distracts from the real issues of climate change—namely greenhouse gas emissions. After all, why would we want to lower greenhouse gasses when we could simply yeet a bunch of dust into orbit to block the sun?
However, more and more people and institutions with deep pockets are beginning to ramp up investments in geoengineering tech. Solmar management projects are all the rage—from universitites, to gung-ho geoengineering startups, to even the White House. Dustin Moskowitz, one of Facebook’s co-founders who has a current estimated net worth of $14.1 billion, recently announced a massive $900,000 investment in a non-profit lab dedicated to solar geoengineering research.
That doesn’t change the fact that the most important and impactful thing we can do to reverse climate change is to lower our greenhouse gas emissions in order to stop the rise of global temperatures. That’s a lot easier said than done, especially with the immense power that the fossil fuel industry wields, but it’s really the best thing we can do.
So, as kooky and downright sci-fi as a solar shield sounds, it’s not all that out there. Unfortunately, with the way things are going, we might find ourselves in the situation where shooting dust at the sun isn’t just a radical solution—but also one of the only ones we have.
The Daily Beast.
Space claw! Sun shoots powerful flare that knocks out shortwave radio (video)
Elizabeth Howell
Wed, February 8, 2023
A powerful solar flare bursts out from the sun on Feb. 7, 2023.
A medium-sized solar flare briefly blocked shortwave radio Tuesday (Feb. 7).
The active sun fired off several solar flares in recent days, with one causing a momentary lapse in shortwave communications over the Pacific Ocean at 6:07 p.m. EST (2307 GMT), according to SpaceWeather.com.
The originating area is a huge Earth-facing sunspot, AR3213, which currently stretches across 62,000 miles (100,000 km) of the surface of the sun. Magnetic tangling in the sunspot caused the lines to "snap," firing off charged solar particles towards our planet via a medium-class (M6) flare.
Related: Strange unprecedented vortex spotted around the sun's north pole
The sun is climbing towards a peak in its 11-year cycle that it should reach in 2025. There's ample evidence of the sun firing off flares already in pictures and videos from sun-gazing satellites, like NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory. These were shared extensively by users on Twitter.
Most solar activity is harmless and just causes brief interruptions in shortwave, but the sun is able to generate more powerful bursts of energy that can knock out satellites or other infrastructure.
RELATED STORIES:
— 2 massive 'active regions' on the sun have rotated into Earth's view
— Tiny, bright flashes on the sun could help scientists predict solar flares
— As sun's most active regions turn toward Earth, potential for violent solar activity builds
As such, NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA) partner with entities around the world to keep a 24/7 watch on our solar neighbor through telescopes, satellites and other observations in multiple wavelengths.
Burgeoning science also seeks to better understand how solar activity originates. For example, NASA's Parker Solar Probe and ESA's Solar Orbiter both swoop within a close range of the sun to sample the solar wind of particles that stream through the solar system, and to examine solar structures and the sun's atmosphere up close.
Elizabeth Howell is the co-author of "Why Am I Taller?" (ECW Press, 2022; with Canadian astronaut Dave Williams), a book about space medicine. Follow her on Twitter @howellspace. Follow us on Twitter @Spacedotcom or Facebook.
FSU, FAMU students march against Gov. DeSantis' move to dismantle diversity programs
Tarah Jean,Tallahassee Democrat
Thu, February 9, 2023
Students at Florida State University are taking a stand against Governor Ron DeSantis’s efforts to dismantle diversity, equity and inclusion programs from their campus and other ones across Florida.
Led by Students for a Democratic Society, a political student activist organization, about 50 individuals — which included Florida A&M University students and other community members — gathered Wednesday at 6 p.m. to march from the Legacy Fountain on FSU’s Landis Green to the Westcott Building.
“Even though FSU is a PWI (predominantly white institution), white students are not the only students at FSU,” Isabela Casanoba, a second-year graduate student at FSU pursuing a degree in education, told the Tallahassee Democrat.
“There are plenty of Black students, Asian students, Middle Eastern students and more on campus,” said Casanoba, who is president of the organization. “Just because they are minorities, that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be represented in our curriculum and in our social spaces.”
While marching, the students yelled out chants such as “We won’t go back, we will fight back” and “Money for schools and education, not for racist legislation.”
Related news:
Delilah Pierre, president of the Tallahassee Community Action Committee, speaks to students and community members gathered at Florida State University on Wednesday, Feb. 8, 2023, to protest Gov. Ron DeSantis’s push to defund and close diversity, equity and inclusion programs on campuses.
While most of the participants of the rally were students, a few faculty members — including FSU's Robert O. Lawton Distinguished Professor Maxine Montgomery — marched in support of the students as well.
Montgomery, who was appointed to chair the FSU President's Task Force on Anti-Racism, Equity and Inclusion by former President John Thrasher in 2020-2021, recorded the protesters from the back of the group as she chimed in with their chants along the way.
Signs were held up high with the phrases "Hands off our schools” and “You can’t erase us.”
DeSantis has called such diversity, equity and inclusion programs "trendy ideology," and made their dismantling a key part of his so-called war on woke.
“I think DeSantis’ intent is to white-wash history, to normalize racism and exclude any former version of realistic Black history, queer history and trans history,” FSU alumna Delilah Pierre said.
She graduated from the university in 2019 with a degree in creative writing and is now the president of the Tallahassee Community Action Committee, an organization that fights for peace, justice and equality.
“If we don’t take a stand now against what DeSantis is doing, we’re going to create an environment in our public colleges and grade schools that totally distorts history,” 24-year-old Pierre said.
DeSantis in the headlines:
Students and community members gather and march at Florida State University on Wednesday, Feb. 8, 2023, to protest Gov. Ron DeSantis’s push to defund and close diversity, equity and inclusion programs on campuses.
Recent reports show that FSU spends over $2.4 million on DEI programs, with $2.2 million funded by the state. FAMU spends a total of $4.4 million with the state funded portion being $4.1 million.
“We call on FSU to not allow this to go through, and I call on my school to not capitulate,” FAMU student Tim White said from the steps of the Westcott Building.
White — who goes by "Tewa" — is a student on break this semester who will be entering his senior year at FAMU this fall.
“I truly do not want to see this happen to an HBCU (historically Black college or university) here or anywhere else," they added. "We are going to fight it every day that we can."
More:A detailed look at how much FSU, FAMU spend on diversity, equity and inclusion programs
The Students for a Democratic Society plans to continue holding rallies and is also working on mobilizing support from other chapters of the organization across the state.
FSU junior Jason Carles marches at Florida State University on Wednesday, Feb. 8, 2023, to protest Gov. Ron DeSantis’s push to defund and close diversity, equity and inclusion programs on campuses.
A list of demands will also be sent to FSU President Richard McCullough, according to the organization’s Vice President Eric Carson. They include:
Protect all multicultural studies
Increase Black enrollment and professors
Protects trans students and athletes
Listen to students and oppose DeSantis
Contact Tarah Jean at tjean@tallahassee.com or follow her on twitter @tarahjean_.
Tarah Jean,Tallahassee Democrat
Thu, February 9, 2023
Students at Florida State University are taking a stand against Governor Ron DeSantis’s efforts to dismantle diversity, equity and inclusion programs from their campus and other ones across Florida.
Led by Students for a Democratic Society, a political student activist organization, about 50 individuals — which included Florida A&M University students and other community members — gathered Wednesday at 6 p.m. to march from the Legacy Fountain on FSU’s Landis Green to the Westcott Building.
“Even though FSU is a PWI (predominantly white institution), white students are not the only students at FSU,” Isabela Casanoba, a second-year graduate student at FSU pursuing a degree in education, told the Tallahassee Democrat.
“There are plenty of Black students, Asian students, Middle Eastern students and more on campus,” said Casanoba, who is president of the organization. “Just because they are minorities, that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be represented in our curriculum and in our social spaces.”
While marching, the students yelled out chants such as “We won’t go back, we will fight back” and “Money for schools and education, not for racist legislation.”
Related news:
Delilah Pierre, president of the Tallahassee Community Action Committee, speaks to students and community members gathered at Florida State University on Wednesday, Feb. 8, 2023, to protest Gov. Ron DeSantis’s push to defund and close diversity, equity and inclusion programs on campuses.
While most of the participants of the rally were students, a few faculty members — including FSU's Robert O. Lawton Distinguished Professor Maxine Montgomery — marched in support of the students as well.
Montgomery, who was appointed to chair the FSU President's Task Force on Anti-Racism, Equity and Inclusion by former President John Thrasher in 2020-2021, recorded the protesters from the back of the group as she chimed in with their chants along the way.
Signs were held up high with the phrases "Hands off our schools” and “You can’t erase us.”
DeSantis has called such diversity, equity and inclusion programs "trendy ideology," and made their dismantling a key part of his so-called war on woke.
“I think DeSantis’ intent is to white-wash history, to normalize racism and exclude any former version of realistic Black history, queer history and trans history,” FSU alumna Delilah Pierre said.
She graduated from the university in 2019 with a degree in creative writing and is now the president of the Tallahassee Community Action Committee, an organization that fights for peace, justice and equality.
“If we don’t take a stand now against what DeSantis is doing, we’re going to create an environment in our public colleges and grade schools that totally distorts history,” 24-year-old Pierre said.
DeSantis in the headlines:
DeSantis wants to know how much Florida colleges spend on 'trendy ideology'
More:DeSantis pushes Florida universities to the right, targeting tenure, diversity initiatives
More:DeSantis pushes Florida universities to the right, targeting tenure, diversity initiatives
Students and community members gather and march at Florida State University on Wednesday, Feb. 8, 2023, to protest Gov. Ron DeSantis’s push to defund and close diversity, equity and inclusion programs on campuses.
Recent reports show that FSU spends over $2.4 million on DEI programs, with $2.2 million funded by the state. FAMU spends a total of $4.4 million with the state funded portion being $4.1 million.
“We call on FSU to not allow this to go through, and I call on my school to not capitulate,” FAMU student Tim White said from the steps of the Westcott Building.
White — who goes by "Tewa" — is a student on break this semester who will be entering his senior year at FAMU this fall.
“I truly do not want to see this happen to an HBCU (historically Black college or university) here or anywhere else," they added. "We are going to fight it every day that we can."
More:A detailed look at how much FSU, FAMU spend on diversity, equity and inclusion programs
The Students for a Democratic Society plans to continue holding rallies and is also working on mobilizing support from other chapters of the organization across the state.
FSU junior Jason Carles marches at Florida State University on Wednesday, Feb. 8, 2023, to protest Gov. Ron DeSantis’s push to defund and close diversity, equity and inclusion programs on campuses.
A list of demands will also be sent to FSU President Richard McCullough, according to the organization’s Vice President Eric Carson. They include:
Protect all multicultural studies
Increase Black enrollment and professors
Protects trans students and athletes
Listen to students and oppose DeSantis
Contact Tarah Jean at tjean@tallahassee.com or follow her on twitter @tarahjean_.
University fired professor who reported sexual misconduct, Oregon lawsuit says
Street View Image from (August and 2011) © (2011) Google
Madeleine List
Wed, February 8, 2023
A tenured professor fired by his university after he repeatedly brought concerns about sexual misconduct to university leaders was awarded $1 million in a settlement, according to an Oregon lawsuit.
The professor, Daniel Pollack-Pelzner, was fired by Linfield University “without notice” on April 27, 2021 — the day his students were scheduled to submit their final projects, the lawsuit says.
Pollack-Pelzner says in the complaint he was fired for reporting allegations of sexual harassment from colleagues and students at the private university, which enrolls about 1,700 students with campuses in McMinnville and Portland.
In a statement, a university spokesperson said it had agreed to resolve all legal claims with Pollack-Pelzner but denied the allegations.
“The university has made its position clear on the merits of the litigation through filings and submissions to the court,” the statement says. “However, defending against litigation, even when confident in the legal outcome, diverts time and energy from the mission of the institution. We felt it preferable to resolve this situation and move on… Most importantly, this agreement allows Linfield to focus on building and expanding upon its rich educational heritage and creating a welcoming community for all.”
Reporting sexual misconduct
In November 2019, a faculty member told Pollack-Pelzner, who served on the university’s Board of Trustees, that a new trustee had “touched her, asked about her marital status, and proposed that she accompany him off-campus,” during a faculty-trustee event, the complaint says .
That month, another faculty member told Pollack-Pelzner one of her former students said a trustee had inappropriately touched her and made inappropriate comments at a student-trustee event in spring 2019, the complaint says .
Pollack-Pelzner told the university’s vice president about the reports and suggested the Board of Trustees conduct sexual harassment training for trustees, come up with clear guidelines for trustee behavior and have “alternative formats” for social events, the complaint says.
He led a group of faculty and staff members in sending a letter to university leadership requesting diversity and inclusion training for the campus community after hateful and racist graffiti was found in a dorm, the lawsuit says.
Pollack-Pelzner, who is Jewish, also reported anti-Semitic comments from university leaders, the complaint says.
In February 2020, the university president said Linfield would be “destroyed from within” like many ancient civilizations because of internal dissent and “disloyal” people who criticize the institution, according to the complaint. He also said people who criticize Linfield should follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, the complaint says.
During a meeting, a board chair also accused Pollack-Pelzner of having a “secret agenda” and attempting a “power grab,” comments he interpreted as anti-Semitic, according to the lawsuit.
Pollack-Pelzner, who was a tenured professor of English and Shakespeare, learned he was terminated on April 27, 2021, when his university-issued laptop “froze in the middle of a work-related video conference,” the complaint says. When he tried emailing his university email address, he received a bounceback message stating that he was no longer a Linfield employee.
A few hours later, he received an email from the university’s provost saying he had been terminated, according to the complaint.
The university did not pay him the salary or severance he was entitled to, the complaint says.
“(Pollack-Pelzner’s) reports and opposition to unlawful discrimination, sexual harassment, and sexual assault were a substantial factor in Linfield’s decisions to censor, discredit, disparage, and discharge plaintiff without even providing him the predismissal notice and a hearing to which all tenured University faculty are entitled,” the complaint says. .
Pollack-Pelzner’s firing in April 2021 touched off a wave of protest from parents, alumni and a national education organization, according to The Oregonian.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a national civil liberties organization focusing on the rights of students and faculty on college campuses, sent a letter to the university’s president in response to the firing.
“The egregious nature of terminating a faculty critic without process cannot be overstated, nor can the chilling effect on student and faculty expression that will follow Linfield’s reckless conduct,” the letter said, according to The Oregonian.
Pollack-Pelzner signed an agreement for a total settlement amount of $1,037,500 on Jan. 26, according to his lawyers.
Pollack-Pelzner, who is now a visiting scholar at Portland State University, said in a statement that everyone should “be able to work and study without fear of discrimination or harassment.”
“And everyone should be able to report their safety concerns without fear of retaliation,” the statement says. “I’m grateful for the many students, alumni, and colleagues who joined me in demanding change and refused to be silenced when Linfield failed to uphold these essential principles.”
Street View Image from (August and 2011) © (2011) Google
Madeleine List
Wed, February 8, 2023
A tenured professor fired by his university after he repeatedly brought concerns about sexual misconduct to university leaders was awarded $1 million in a settlement, according to an Oregon lawsuit.
The professor, Daniel Pollack-Pelzner, was fired by Linfield University “without notice” on April 27, 2021 — the day his students were scheduled to submit their final projects, the lawsuit says.
Pollack-Pelzner says in the complaint he was fired for reporting allegations of sexual harassment from colleagues and students at the private university, which enrolls about 1,700 students with campuses in McMinnville and Portland.
In a statement, a university spokesperson said it had agreed to resolve all legal claims with Pollack-Pelzner but denied the allegations.
“The university has made its position clear on the merits of the litigation through filings and submissions to the court,” the statement says. “However, defending against litigation, even when confident in the legal outcome, diverts time and energy from the mission of the institution. We felt it preferable to resolve this situation and move on… Most importantly, this agreement allows Linfield to focus on building and expanding upon its rich educational heritage and creating a welcoming community for all.”
Reporting sexual misconduct
In November 2019, a faculty member told Pollack-Pelzner, who served on the university’s Board of Trustees, that a new trustee had “touched her, asked about her marital status, and proposed that she accompany him off-campus,” during a faculty-trustee event, the complaint says .
That month, another faculty member told Pollack-Pelzner one of her former students said a trustee had inappropriately touched her and made inappropriate comments at a student-trustee event in spring 2019, the complaint says .
Pollack-Pelzner told the university’s vice president about the reports and suggested the Board of Trustees conduct sexual harassment training for trustees, come up with clear guidelines for trustee behavior and have “alternative formats” for social events, the complaint says.
He led a group of faculty and staff members in sending a letter to university leadership requesting diversity and inclusion training for the campus community after hateful and racist graffiti was found in a dorm, the lawsuit says.
Pollack-Pelzner, who is Jewish, also reported anti-Semitic comments from university leaders, the complaint says.
In February 2020, the university president said Linfield would be “destroyed from within” like many ancient civilizations because of internal dissent and “disloyal” people who criticize the institution, according to the complaint. He also said people who criticize Linfield should follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, the complaint says.
During a meeting, a board chair also accused Pollack-Pelzner of having a “secret agenda” and attempting a “power grab,” comments he interpreted as anti-Semitic, according to the lawsuit.
Pollack-Pelzner, who was a tenured professor of English and Shakespeare, learned he was terminated on April 27, 2021, when his university-issued laptop “froze in the middle of a work-related video conference,” the complaint says. When he tried emailing his university email address, he received a bounceback message stating that he was no longer a Linfield employee.
A few hours later, he received an email from the university’s provost saying he had been terminated, according to the complaint.
The university did not pay him the salary or severance he was entitled to, the complaint says.
“(Pollack-Pelzner’s) reports and opposition to unlawful discrimination, sexual harassment, and sexual assault were a substantial factor in Linfield’s decisions to censor, discredit, disparage, and discharge plaintiff without even providing him the predismissal notice and a hearing to which all tenured University faculty are entitled,” the complaint says. .
Pollack-Pelzner’s firing in April 2021 touched off a wave of protest from parents, alumni and a national education organization, according to The Oregonian.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a national civil liberties organization focusing on the rights of students and faculty on college campuses, sent a letter to the university’s president in response to the firing.
“The egregious nature of terminating a faculty critic without process cannot be overstated, nor can the chilling effect on student and faculty expression that will follow Linfield’s reckless conduct,” the letter said, according to The Oregonian.
Pollack-Pelzner signed an agreement for a total settlement amount of $1,037,500 on Jan. 26, according to his lawyers.
Pollack-Pelzner, who is now a visiting scholar at Portland State University, said in a statement that everyone should “be able to work and study without fear of discrimination or harassment.”
“And everyone should be able to report their safety concerns without fear of retaliation,” the statement says. “I’m grateful for the many students, alumni, and colleagues who joined me in demanding change and refused to be silenced when Linfield failed to uphold these essential principles.”
Column: Big oil companies are already reneging on their global warming goals
Michael Hiltzik
Thu, February 9, 2023
The Kern River Oil Field in Bakersfield: Don't expect scenes like this to go away any time soon. (Associated Press)
If there's an enduring truism about corporate promises to do well by doing good, it's that believing them is a mug's game.
Latest case in point: The promise by some of our largest fossil fuel companies that they would be in the forefront of the transition to renewable energy.
In the last few days, two of the companies that made the most grandiose promises, BP and Shell, have backed away from their pledges about investments in renewable sources such as solar and wind.
Michael Hiltzik
Thu, February 9, 2023
The Kern River Oil Field in Bakersfield: Don't expect scenes like this to go away any time soon. (Associated Press)
If there's an enduring truism about corporate promises to do well by doing good, it's that believing them is a mug's game.
Latest case in point: The promise by some of our largest fossil fuel companies that they would be in the forefront of the transition to renewable energy.
In the last few days, two of the companies that made the most grandiose promises, BP and Shell, have backed away from their pledges about investments in renewable sources such as solar and wind.
We want to continue to go for lower and lower and lower carbon, but it has to be profitable.Shell CEO Wael Sawan
On Tuesday, for example, BP Chief Executive Bernard Looney revealed that the company now expects its oil and gas production in 2030 to fall about 25% below what it was in 2019; previously, the company projected a reduction by 40%.
The company also scaled back its projection of emissions from its oil and gas production to a 20% to 30% reduction from 2019 levels by 2030, down from its earlier projection of a 35% to 40% reduction.
"We need continuing near-term investment into today’s energy system — which depends on oil and gas — to meet today’s demands and to make sure the transition is an orderly one," Looney said in BP's strategy update, published Tuesday.
At Shell, renewables advocates were cheered last month by the promotion of Wael Sawan, director of the company's renewables business, to the CEO post.
Sawan promptly poured cold water on the expectation that Shell would continue to increase its investments in low-carbon fuels, given that the returns on those investments trail those in oil and gas.
Shell's capital spending on low-carbon energy had risen by about 50% to about $3.5 billion in 2022 from its spending in 2021, up from $172 million in 2017 . But the company said in a media call Feb. 2 that there would be no further increase this year.
"Let me be, I think, categorical in this," Sawan told investment analysts Feb. 2. "We cannot justify going for a low return. Our shareholders deserve to see us going after strong returns. If we cannot achieve the double-digit returns in a business, we need to question very hard whether we should continue in that business. Absolutely, we want to continue to go for lower and lower and lower carbon, but it has to be profitable."
BP and Shell were among the companies with the most aggressive renewables projections. Other major oil and gas companies such as Chevron and Exxon Mobil had been much more modest in their expectations.
All four companies, however, had ramped up their rhetorical commitments to the fight against global warming: A study by Japanese researchers published last year found appreciable increases in the use of terms such as "climate change" and "low-carbon energy" in their annual reports from 2009 through 2020.
The reason that the fossil fuel industry is ratcheting back its commitment to renewables is easy to discern: These investments are anathema to Wall Street.
The very day that BP disclosed its slowdown in renewables investments, its stock rocketed higher by 8.35%. BP and Shell have been trading at much lower price-to-earnings multiples — a common indicator of what Wall Street expects from a company's future earnings — than Exxon Mobil and Chevron: 4.17 and 5.18, respectively, for BP and Shell, and 8.6 and 9.31 for Exxon and Chevron.
It's tempting to see the transition from oil and gas to wind, solar and other renewable energy sources as dependent on price — and therefore to assume that the declining cost of the renewable sources will allow them to keep gaining on oil and gas in terms of installed capacity.
For the big energy companies, however, it's profitability, not price, that matters. And their traditional businesses have been spectacularly profitable lately — to the point that it's become a political scandal. That's largely because the companies have been notching record or near-record profits while gasoline prices at the pump have soared, driving the worst inflation in decades.
The industry has been accused of gouging motorists. It's hard to argue with that general conclusion, though it's harder to pinpoint where in the gasoline system the excess profits are being extracted; regular gas prices in California rose to about $6.43 per gallon in October from about $4.68 at the start of 2022, while crude oil prices fell from a peak of nearly $3 per refined gallon to $2.13.
(In a hilariously stupid riposte in October to President Biden's public criticism of oil industry profits and demand that the oil companies return some of their gains to American consumers, Exxon Mobil CEO Darren Woods said, "That’s exactly what we’re doing in the form of our quarterly dividend." Someone might remind Woods that average Americans and Exxon shareholders are not necessarily the same species.)
There's nothing new about the reluctance of incumbent energy producers to move into new technologies. History teaches us that when a major technological transition is underway, big legacy companies end up ceding leadership to small, nimble startups.
That happened at the onset of the personal computer age, when a clutch of brilliant young scientists and engineers employed by Xerox at its Palo Alto Research Center, the legendary PARC, invented the personal computer.
As I've chronicled, Xerox's dependence on its world-beating copier business made it a poor candidate to lead the PC transition. One of the key PARC developers, Larry Tesler, moved to a small company and helped manage the transition from there: Apple. Others went to unheralded new companies such as Atari and Microsoft.
(It's true that giant IBM did jump into the PC business, but did so at first through a disrespected internal skunk works and embraced the new technology largely after its potential became clear.)
The main reason that fossil fuel companies are reluctant to plunge full-hog into the renewables business has much to do with the fundamentally different economic incentives in those two categories of energy production.
Oil and gas is a highly concentrated industry with high barriers to entry — not just everyone can set up as a major integrated fossil fuel company. As a result, the returns on investments are high — 15% or more, in the reckoning of Nick Butler of Kings College, London, a former BP executive.
It's much easier to enter the solar or wind business, which is fragmented and competitive, and where returns are much lower, typically less than 10%.
Moreover, the payback from fossil fuel investments are consistent and long term. From the standpoint of oil and gas producers, fossil fuel power plants are the gift that keeps giving, as their fuel supplies need constantly to be topped off, Swedish researcher Brett Christophers observed in 2021. For wind and solar installations, the heaviest capital investments are upfront, and the ultimate returns are years into the future.
"It’s comparing apples and oranges,” Christophers told Kate Aronoff of the New Republic. As he explained in his paper, ”Promoting renewables requires considerable resources with very long payback periods for projects with no proven track record."
When a big corporation decides where to invest, the key metric is return on investment. Under the circumstances, it shouldn't surprise anyone that Big Oil still sees its traditional products as the key to profits.
Indeed, it should have been clear to anyone paying close attention to Big Oil's pledges on renewables investment that they were always hedged.
For instance, Shell's pledge in its 2019 annual report to reduce the net carbon footprint of its own emissions and those of its customers using its products "by around 20% in 2035 and by around 50% in 2050" carried the qualifier, "assuming society aligns itself with the Paris Agreement’s goals."
(The Paris agreement of 2015 aimed to limit the rise in mean global temperature to less than 2 degrees centigrade, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, and preferably less than 1.5 degrees C.)
The realities of corporate finance have kept investments in renewable technologies from rising beyond half the level estimated to be needed to meet the Paris goals, according to the International Energy Agency. Of the $1.9 trillion in global energy investment in 2021, the IEA estimated, only about $367 billion was devoted to renewable power. The rest largely went to fossil energy.
The implication of energy finance is that government investment through public subsidies will remain crucial for years, even decades, into the future. That's what makes the $370 billion in clean energy initiatives in the Biden administration's Inflation Reduction Act, signed in August, so important — they signal that the U.S. government, at least, is on board.
None of this means that the big fossil fuel companies won't eventually increase their investments in wind and solar, or recognize that the oil and gas era will come to an end, so their survival depends on transitioning to new technologies.
At the moment, though, the big companies are still hooked on oil and gas. That's why they've been resistant to shareholder demands that they move away from their traditional businesses, and why even the companies that positioned themselves as farsighted avatars of the energy transition are backing down. No one should have taken their promises at face value to begin with.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
BP: We’re Making Lots of Money on Oil, so Screw the Climate
Molly Taft
Tue, February 7, 2023
Photo: Kirsty Wigglesworth (AP)
BP is raking in a huge amount of cash these days on oil, so it wants you to ignore all those lofty promises it made about the climate just a few years ago.
On Tuesday, the company became the latest oil major to post some truly jaw-dropping returns from its fourth financial quarter. Thanks in part to the global energy crisis kicked off by the conflict in Ukraine, oil producers have been rolling in dough for the past year, with companies like ExxonMobil and Chevron have posting record profits. BP is no exception. On Tuesday, the company said its 2022 profits were about $27.7 billion, more than twice the profit it posted in 2021. Not bad!
And thanks to that big ol’ number, BP says it’s gonna slow down its progress on the whole climate action thing. In 2020—as the industry was experiencing a crisis where oil prices plunged so low that they briefly went negative—BP said it would reduce carbon emissions from its oil and gas production by 35% to 40% by 2030. Hidden in the financial news released Tuesday, however, is a new target: The company has downgraded its goal to between 20% and 30% over the same time period, allowing it to keep churning out more of that sweet, sweet oil that’s so in demand right now after oil prices hit enormous highs this summer.
“At the end of the day, we’re responding to what society wants,” CEO Bernard Looney told reporters about the changes on Tuesday. In a seeming attempt to counterbalance the bad news, Looney emphasized in a LinkedIn post that the company would be investing an additional $8 billion in initiatives “like bioenergy and EV-charging that can help people and businesses go lower carbon sooner.”
BP has long been at the forefront of oil companies trying on green marketing for size. The climate- and renewables-related goals it rolled out in 2020, announced under the title “From International Oil Company to Integrated Energy Company,” are among some of the most aggressive put forward by any oil and gas company. (That isn’t saying much, given how none of the net-zero promises put forward by any oil majors are actually worth a damn when it comes to the science, but at least BP is trying slightly harder than, say, Exxon.)
This isn’t the first time BP has walked back on green promises. In the early 2000s, the company formerly known as British Petroleum decided to rebrand as Beyond Petroleum, overhauling its logo and investing in a slew of solar and wind projects. The company ended up quietly selling off those renewable assets in order to pay for two pricy oil spills, including the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster. Oop!
Tuesday’s announcement emphasizes the danger of allowing the fox to run the henhouse when it comes to the energy transition. In recent years, sensing a sea change in how society views their products, oil majors have been positioning themselves as a core part of the solution, coining a raft of new terminology to greenwash their efforts and investing heavily in technological solutions to carbon emissions. The science is clear, however: In order to avert climate disaster, the world needs to stop using fossil fuels as quickly as possible. As BP’s announcement clearly illustrates, as long as there’s still money to be made in fossil fuels, oil companies can’t be trusted to do what needs to be done.
And while Looney may be falsely attributing BP’s drive to earn money from oil on what “society wants,” the rent may yet come due for companies like his.
“This is a temporary situation,” Nick Butler, who used to be a senior executive at BP and is now a visiting professor at Kings College, told the BBC. “Oil and gas prices are going down and the windfall these companies are making won’t last.”
BP vowed to help set the oil and gas industry on a greener path. Many who bought in now feel betrayedMolly Taft
Tue, February 7, 2023
Photo: Kirsty Wigglesworth (AP)
BP is raking in a huge amount of cash these days on oil, so it wants you to ignore all those lofty promises it made about the climate just a few years ago.
On Tuesday, the company became the latest oil major to post some truly jaw-dropping returns from its fourth financial quarter. Thanks in part to the global energy crisis kicked off by the conflict in Ukraine, oil producers have been rolling in dough for the past year, with companies like ExxonMobil and Chevron have posting record profits. BP is no exception. On Tuesday, the company said its 2022 profits were about $27.7 billion, more than twice the profit it posted in 2021. Not bad!
And thanks to that big ol’ number, BP says it’s gonna slow down its progress on the whole climate action thing. In 2020—as the industry was experiencing a crisis where oil prices plunged so low that they briefly went negative—BP said it would reduce carbon emissions from its oil and gas production by 35% to 40% by 2030. Hidden in the financial news released Tuesday, however, is a new target: The company has downgraded its goal to between 20% and 30% over the same time period, allowing it to keep churning out more of that sweet, sweet oil that’s so in demand right now after oil prices hit enormous highs this summer.
“At the end of the day, we’re responding to what society wants,” CEO Bernard Looney told reporters about the changes on Tuesday. In a seeming attempt to counterbalance the bad news, Looney emphasized in a LinkedIn post that the company would be investing an additional $8 billion in initiatives “like bioenergy and EV-charging that can help people and businesses go lower carbon sooner.”
BP has long been at the forefront of oil companies trying on green marketing for size. The climate- and renewables-related goals it rolled out in 2020, announced under the title “From International Oil Company to Integrated Energy Company,” are among some of the most aggressive put forward by any oil and gas company. (That isn’t saying much, given how none of the net-zero promises put forward by any oil majors are actually worth a damn when it comes to the science, but at least BP is trying slightly harder than, say, Exxon.)
This isn’t the first time BP has walked back on green promises. In the early 2000s, the company formerly known as British Petroleum decided to rebrand as Beyond Petroleum, overhauling its logo and investing in a slew of solar and wind projects. The company ended up quietly selling off those renewable assets in order to pay for two pricy oil spills, including the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster. Oop!
Tuesday’s announcement emphasizes the danger of allowing the fox to run the henhouse when it comes to the energy transition. In recent years, sensing a sea change in how society views their products, oil majors have been positioning themselves as a core part of the solution, coining a raft of new terminology to greenwash their efforts and investing heavily in technological solutions to carbon emissions. The science is clear, however: In order to avert climate disaster, the world needs to stop using fossil fuels as quickly as possible. As BP’s announcement clearly illustrates, as long as there’s still money to be made in fossil fuels, oil companies can’t be trusted to do what needs to be done.
And while Looney may be falsely attributing BP’s drive to earn money from oil on what “society wants,” the rent may yet come due for companies like his.
“This is a temporary situation,” Nick Butler, who used to be a senior executive at BP and is now a visiting professor at Kings College, told the BBC. “Oil and gas prices are going down and the windfall these companies are making won’t last.”
Gizmodo
Vivienne Walt
Tue, February 7, 2023
When BP appointed Bernard Looney as CEO exactly three years ago, climate activists believed they might finally have an ally within Big Oil, after decades of deep distrust of the energy industry. Looney—Irish, from a poor farming family—broke the mold of Britain’s century-old company in more ways than one: He vowed to turn BP into a green energy giant, by drastically cutting oil and gas production and plowing billions into renewables. “This is the first oil major to walk the walk,” Mark van Baal, founder of the Amsterdam-based shareholder activist organization Follow This, told Fortune at the time. “If one oil major breaks ranks, and shareholders reward them for it, others will follow.”
That optimism shattered on Tuesday, when BP became the latest oil supermajor to report record-high profits for 2022—while announcing, at the same time, a sharp rollback of its climate targets.
Thanks in part to soaring gas and oil prices over the past year, BP’s underlying profits more than doubled in 2022, to $27.7 billion. (Its exit from Russia, where it had a 19.75% stake in Rosneft, cost the company $24 billion, leaving it with a paper loss after taxes of $2.5 billion.)
Dramatic rollback
Despite the bumper year, however, Looney announced BP would dramatically roll back his key climate promise, which he made in 2020. That year, Looney pledged 40% cut in carbon emissions from BP’s oil and gas production by 2030. He argued that those dramatic shifts were urgent. “Without action, it is a rather bleak future for the world,” he told Fortune in 2020, echoing a central point that environmentalists had made for years.
But on Tuesday, he said that BP’s drop in emissions would likely be a more modest 20% to 30%. “We need continuing near-term investment into today’s energy system,” Looney said, adding that the energy transition has to be “an orderly one.” The company also said it would invest about $1 billion a year in oil and gas production—an apparent about-face from Looney’s earlier statement that the company would steadily reduce its involvement in fossil fuels.
To climate activists, that felt like a knife in the back. “BP’s aim to reduce absolute emissions from their own production was one of the few tangible targets in the entire oil industry,” van Baal told Fortune on Tuesday. “They made enormous profits, and they’re back in their comfort zone,” he says. “They want to hang on to their old business model as long as possible, because it is profitable.”
'Back in their comfort zone'
Van Baal says he will push for far-reaching cuts in fossil-fuel production, in resolutions that Follow This will put forward during Big Oil’s annual shareholder meetings this spring. In a meeting in late 2019, Looney persuaded Van Baal to withdraw a similar resolution, saying he wanted to work with him to roll out climate action within BP, according to Van Baal. Activists believe such resolutions have prompted oil companies to set carbon-emission targets for fear of alienating investors, who increasingly regard climate change as a major risk factor.
BP’s earlier commitments suggested that “the pressure climate-conscious investors were putting on the industry was having an impact,” said Kathy Mulvey, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental group in Cambridge, Mass. Now, she says, she believes “BP’s climate pledges have been cynical, empty, and opportunistic.”
'Energy trilemma'
Looney argues that the Ukraine war and rising inflation showed how important it was to have a steady flow oil and gas supplies. In a LinkedIn post, he said BP would focus its oil and gas investments on low-cost production. “The world wants and needs energy that’s secure and affordable, as well as lower carbon,” he said, calling it “the energy trilemma.”
Environmentalists said Looney was sugar-coating his rollback of climate commitments. “I’m sorry to say this is a huge disappointment,” Helena Farstad, cofounder and director of London-based climate branding company This is Agency, said in a response on LinkedIn. “BP has demonstrated its lack of leadership.”
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
Biden continues to push U.S. natural gas exports, angering climate change activists
Competing priorities have resulted in debate over whether federal regulators should allow more exports of natural gas, and whether to approve the construction of terminals for that purpose.
Ben Adler
·Senior Editor
Tue, February 7, 2023
Since Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine in February of last year and disrupted energy markets, the Biden administration has been eager to ramp up U.S. exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG), in an effort to free Europe from its dependence on Russian gas.
But that undercuts the president’s commitment to reduce the pollution causing climate change and to keep energy prices low for American consumers, according to consumer advocates at organizations such as Public Citizen and leading environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council.
Those competing priorities have resulted in debate over whether federal regulators should allow more exports of natural gas, and whether to approve the construction of terminals for that purpose. Last year, congressional Republicans including Sens. Marco Rubio and Rick Scott of Florida introduced legislation to expedite approval of LNG export terminals.
Environmental and consumer advocacy groups, meanwhile, are asking the Department of Energy (DOE) to do the opposite, and to adopt a more rigorous process for reviewing gas export permit applications. In October, a coalition of consumer watchdogs led by Public Citizen sent a petition to Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm arguing that U.S. gas consumers are being subjected to price shocks due to global supply disruptions, such as skyrocketing prices after Russia invaded Ukraine.
President Biden addresses the COP27 climate summit in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, on Nov. 11, 2022. (Mohamed Abd El Ghany/Reuters)
“If we had zero LNG exports, we would not see variability in gas prices,” Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen's energy program, recently told Yahoo News. “But LNG exports introduce global volatility into domestic markets.”
“The Department gives short shrift to climate,” a collection of environmental organizations led by the Sierra Club complained in a companion petition, arguing that increasing gas exports will increase the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming.
So far, the administration is coming down squarely on the side of encouraging exports.
“With respect to LNG, we know that our liquefied natural gas exports have been a significant help to our allies,” Granholm said, in response to a question from Yahoo News during a Jan. 23 press conference. “We are fortunate that we have an abundance, obviously, of natural gas in this country. Our prices are low. But during times of challenge, we want to help our allies as well.”
Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm at the daily briefing at the White House on Jan. 23. (Susan Walsh/AP)
When burned, gas creates roughly half of the carbon dioxide emissions that coal does. But there are no gas pipelines across the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans, so selling gas to Asia or Europe requires freezing it into a liquid, shipping it across the water, and heating it up to regasify it at its destination. That energy-intensive process is “effectively doubling the climate impact of each unit of energy created from gas transported overseas,” according to a December 2020 study from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Add in the leakage of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, at U.S. gas wells and pipelines — which recent studies have shown is widespread and worse than the federal government assumes — and LNG creates almost as much climate pollution as coal, the NRDC found.
Climate activists also warn that spending billions of dollars on fossil fuel infrastructure with a projected multi-decade lifespan locks in dependence on fossil fuels, when Europe and Asia should be focusing on switching to renewable energy. (In the wake of Russia’s invasion, the European Union launched an ambitious effort to increase renewable development.)
“If the LNG export industry expands as projected, it is likely to make it nearly impossible to keep global temperatures from increasing above the 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold for catastrophic climate impacts,” the NRDC concluded in its report.
Spurred by the bounty of domestic production unleashed by hydraulic fracturing, better known as fracking, exports of gas skyrocketed from 1.14 trillion cubic feet in 2010 to 6.65 trillion cubic feet in 2021, when they accounted for 10% of U.S. gas production, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. In the first nine months of 2022, more than 15% of U.S. gas was exported. The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that LNG exports will increase by 13% this year.
“We want to make sure it’s the cleanest natural gas,” Granholm said at the recent press conference, going on to note the Biden administration’s support for carbon capture and storage, or CCS, which takes carbon dioxide emissions from the smokestack and compresses them underground, as well as its initiatives to reduce methane leakage.
"We are committed to a managed and equitable transition to clean power," a DOE spokesperson wrote in an emailed statement to Yahoo News. "Fossil fuels will be in the energy mix during this transition, which is why DOE is investing in advanced technologies" like CCS.
Climate-conscious Republicans echo that message. “The more you control methane, the more viable the argument is that we should be exporting natural gas,” Rep. John Curtis, R-Utah, who founded the Conservative Climate Caucus, told Yahoo News in a phone interview in November.
A liquefied natural gas tanker makes its way into Cameron Pass near the site of Venture Global's LNG facility near Cameron, La., in April 2022. (The Washington Post via Getty Images)
Historically, most U.S. gas exports went to Asian countries such as China, South Korea and Japan, but last year, chasing sky-high prices in Europe, the amount going to Europe doubled. The DOE is currently considering a few dozen applications to export gas. While Granholm argues that this will help U.S. allies in Europe stand up to Russia, there is no requirement that the gas go there, as opposed to merely the highest bidder. Following a review process created in 1984, the department has approved every application it has ever received, according to Slocum.
Natural gas prices in the United States doubled between January and June of last year, due to increased demand from abroad and a supply crunch caused by the Russia-Ukraine war, though they have since dropped to below their prewar level because Europe reduced its demand through conservation measures, and stored up a large reserve of gas, after unusually warm winter weather limited the need for home heating fuel.
The gas industry disputes the climate movement’s contention that LNG isn’t better for the environment than the alternatives in Europe. The American Petroleum Institute, which represents oil and gas companies, performed an analysis in 2020 that found that if power plants in China, India or Germany switched from burning coal to LNG from the U.S., carbon emissions would be cut in half. (The methodological dispute stems from different assumptions about the carbon footprint of turning gas into LNG, the rate of leakage in Russian gas infrastructure and so on.) Gas also creates less conventional air pollution, like soot and smog, than coal does.
“Last year, 2022, global coal consumption was at an all-time record, so there’s clearly an opportunity to displace more coal with U.S. natural gas and derive substantial environmental and greenhouse gas benefit from that use,” Richard Meyer, vice president of energy markets, analysis, and standards for the American Gas Association, told Yahoo News. “If you take a look at the comparison of greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. LNG, there are benefits [compared] to Russian pipeline gas.”
A small vehicle drives past a network of piping that makes up pieces of a "train" at Cameron LNG export facility in Hackberry, La., in March 2022. (Martha Irvine/AP)
Ground zero for the fight over LNG exports might be the port of Brownsville, Texas, where the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved applications to build two LNG export terminals in 2020. Environmental activists sued, arguing that the agency didn’t properly consider the climate change and environmental justice implications of the terminals. In 2021, they won a federal court ruling ordering FERC to review the applications again. That review is ongoing, and a spokesperson for FERC told Yahoo News that the agency could not comment on applications that “are currently pending.”
Local environmental and Indigenous activists have been campaigning against the terminals’ approval for years, and several local legislative bodies in the area, including the Laguna Vista Town Council and the South Padre Island City Council, have unanimously passed resolutions expressing their opposition.
“We want to see Europe get support for clean energy,” Rebekah Hinojosa, a Gulf Coast campaign representative at the Sierra Club, who is based in Brownsville, said. “The amount of time it takes for a LNG facility to be built is years and years. That’s time and resources that could be spent on cleaner alternatives. We want to see Europe be less dependent on fracked gas.”
The effects of fracking on surrounding communities, which can include air and water contamination, are another reason not to increase U.S. gas production, Hinojosa contended. Germany, France, Spain and the United Kingdom have banned fracking, as has New York state.
Storage tanks at the Golden Pass LNG Terminal in Sabine Pass, Texas, in April 2022. (The Washington Post via Getty Images)
Texas LNG, one of the export terminals proposed in Brownsville, told Yahoo News that it reduces carbon emissions by using renewable power to turn gas into LNG.
“We are also focused on using responsibly sourced associated natural gas for liquefaction limiting upstream impact and providing a cleaner alternative to coal and dirtier fuels,” a spokesperson from Glenfarne Energy Transition, the project’s parent company, said in an email. “These steps are taken specifically to protect the public health and environment of our local communities, while providing training and high-paying jobs to a historically disadvantaged area.”
NextDecade, the company that proposed the Rio Grande LNG export terminal in Brownsville, did not respond to a request for comment. On its website, NextDecade boasts that it will capture and store underground more than 5 million tons per year of the carbon dioxide produced by the gas liquefaction process. But less than 7% of the project’s total emissions will be captured. The Sierra Club estimates that Rio Grande LNG could generate as much annual emissions as 44 coal plants or 35 million automobiles.
“It’s kind of like a Band-Aid over a bullet hole,” Emma Guevara, the Sierra Club's Brownsville organizer, told Yahoo News.
While the emerging CCS technology is frequently touted by the fossil fuel industry as a solution for climate pollution, environmentalists worry that it could have unforeseen drawbacks.
“We’re concerned about groundwater pollution, especially with how untested carbon capture and storage is,” Guevara said.
Without a shift from the Biden administration, however, the LNG terminals are likely to be approved, and CCS won’t be untested for much longer.
Competing priorities have resulted in debate over whether federal regulators should allow more exports of natural gas, and whether to approve the construction of terminals for that purpose.
Ben Adler
·Senior Editor
Tue, February 7, 2023
Since Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine in February of last year and disrupted energy markets, the Biden administration has been eager to ramp up U.S. exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG), in an effort to free Europe from its dependence on Russian gas.
But that undercuts the president’s commitment to reduce the pollution causing climate change and to keep energy prices low for American consumers, according to consumer advocates at organizations such as Public Citizen and leading environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council.
Those competing priorities have resulted in debate over whether federal regulators should allow more exports of natural gas, and whether to approve the construction of terminals for that purpose. Last year, congressional Republicans including Sens. Marco Rubio and Rick Scott of Florida introduced legislation to expedite approval of LNG export terminals.
Environmental and consumer advocacy groups, meanwhile, are asking the Department of Energy (DOE) to do the opposite, and to adopt a more rigorous process for reviewing gas export permit applications. In October, a coalition of consumer watchdogs led by Public Citizen sent a petition to Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm arguing that U.S. gas consumers are being subjected to price shocks due to global supply disruptions, such as skyrocketing prices after Russia invaded Ukraine.
President Biden addresses the COP27 climate summit in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, on Nov. 11, 2022. (Mohamed Abd El Ghany/Reuters)
“If we had zero LNG exports, we would not see variability in gas prices,” Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen's energy program, recently told Yahoo News. “But LNG exports introduce global volatility into domestic markets.”
“The Department gives short shrift to climate,” a collection of environmental organizations led by the Sierra Club complained in a companion petition, arguing that increasing gas exports will increase the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming.
So far, the administration is coming down squarely on the side of encouraging exports.
“With respect to LNG, we know that our liquefied natural gas exports have been a significant help to our allies,” Granholm said, in response to a question from Yahoo News during a Jan. 23 press conference. “We are fortunate that we have an abundance, obviously, of natural gas in this country. Our prices are low. But during times of challenge, we want to help our allies as well.”
Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm at the daily briefing at the White House on Jan. 23. (Susan Walsh/AP)
When burned, gas creates roughly half of the carbon dioxide emissions that coal does. But there are no gas pipelines across the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans, so selling gas to Asia or Europe requires freezing it into a liquid, shipping it across the water, and heating it up to regasify it at its destination. That energy-intensive process is “effectively doubling the climate impact of each unit of energy created from gas transported overseas,” according to a December 2020 study from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Add in the leakage of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, at U.S. gas wells and pipelines — which recent studies have shown is widespread and worse than the federal government assumes — and LNG creates almost as much climate pollution as coal, the NRDC found.
Climate activists also warn that spending billions of dollars on fossil fuel infrastructure with a projected multi-decade lifespan locks in dependence on fossil fuels, when Europe and Asia should be focusing on switching to renewable energy. (In the wake of Russia’s invasion, the European Union launched an ambitious effort to increase renewable development.)
“If the LNG export industry expands as projected, it is likely to make it nearly impossible to keep global temperatures from increasing above the 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold for catastrophic climate impacts,” the NRDC concluded in its report.
Spurred by the bounty of domestic production unleashed by hydraulic fracturing, better known as fracking, exports of gas skyrocketed from 1.14 trillion cubic feet in 2010 to 6.65 trillion cubic feet in 2021, when they accounted for 10% of U.S. gas production, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. In the first nine months of 2022, more than 15% of U.S. gas was exported. The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that LNG exports will increase by 13% this year.
“We want to make sure it’s the cleanest natural gas,” Granholm said at the recent press conference, going on to note the Biden administration’s support for carbon capture and storage, or CCS, which takes carbon dioxide emissions from the smokestack and compresses them underground, as well as its initiatives to reduce methane leakage.
"We are committed to a managed and equitable transition to clean power," a DOE spokesperson wrote in an emailed statement to Yahoo News. "Fossil fuels will be in the energy mix during this transition, which is why DOE is investing in advanced technologies" like CCS.
Climate-conscious Republicans echo that message. “The more you control methane, the more viable the argument is that we should be exporting natural gas,” Rep. John Curtis, R-Utah, who founded the Conservative Climate Caucus, told Yahoo News in a phone interview in November.
A liquefied natural gas tanker makes its way into Cameron Pass near the site of Venture Global's LNG facility near Cameron, La., in April 2022. (The Washington Post via Getty Images)
Historically, most U.S. gas exports went to Asian countries such as China, South Korea and Japan, but last year, chasing sky-high prices in Europe, the amount going to Europe doubled. The DOE is currently considering a few dozen applications to export gas. While Granholm argues that this will help U.S. allies in Europe stand up to Russia, there is no requirement that the gas go there, as opposed to merely the highest bidder. Following a review process created in 1984, the department has approved every application it has ever received, according to Slocum.
Natural gas prices in the United States doubled between January and June of last year, due to increased demand from abroad and a supply crunch caused by the Russia-Ukraine war, though they have since dropped to below their prewar level because Europe reduced its demand through conservation measures, and stored up a large reserve of gas, after unusually warm winter weather limited the need for home heating fuel.
The gas industry disputes the climate movement’s contention that LNG isn’t better for the environment than the alternatives in Europe. The American Petroleum Institute, which represents oil and gas companies, performed an analysis in 2020 that found that if power plants in China, India or Germany switched from burning coal to LNG from the U.S., carbon emissions would be cut in half. (The methodological dispute stems from different assumptions about the carbon footprint of turning gas into LNG, the rate of leakage in Russian gas infrastructure and so on.) Gas also creates less conventional air pollution, like soot and smog, than coal does.
“Last year, 2022, global coal consumption was at an all-time record, so there’s clearly an opportunity to displace more coal with U.S. natural gas and derive substantial environmental and greenhouse gas benefit from that use,” Richard Meyer, vice president of energy markets, analysis, and standards for the American Gas Association, told Yahoo News. “If you take a look at the comparison of greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. LNG, there are benefits [compared] to Russian pipeline gas.”
A small vehicle drives past a network of piping that makes up pieces of a "train" at Cameron LNG export facility in Hackberry, La., in March 2022. (Martha Irvine/AP)
Ground zero for the fight over LNG exports might be the port of Brownsville, Texas, where the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved applications to build two LNG export terminals in 2020. Environmental activists sued, arguing that the agency didn’t properly consider the climate change and environmental justice implications of the terminals. In 2021, they won a federal court ruling ordering FERC to review the applications again. That review is ongoing, and a spokesperson for FERC told Yahoo News that the agency could not comment on applications that “are currently pending.”
Local environmental and Indigenous activists have been campaigning against the terminals’ approval for years, and several local legislative bodies in the area, including the Laguna Vista Town Council and the South Padre Island City Council, have unanimously passed resolutions expressing their opposition.
“We want to see Europe get support for clean energy,” Rebekah Hinojosa, a Gulf Coast campaign representative at the Sierra Club, who is based in Brownsville, said. “The amount of time it takes for a LNG facility to be built is years and years. That’s time and resources that could be spent on cleaner alternatives. We want to see Europe be less dependent on fracked gas.”
The effects of fracking on surrounding communities, which can include air and water contamination, are another reason not to increase U.S. gas production, Hinojosa contended. Germany, France, Spain and the United Kingdom have banned fracking, as has New York state.
Storage tanks at the Golden Pass LNG Terminal in Sabine Pass, Texas, in April 2022. (The Washington Post via Getty Images)
Texas LNG, one of the export terminals proposed in Brownsville, told Yahoo News that it reduces carbon emissions by using renewable power to turn gas into LNG.
“We are also focused on using responsibly sourced associated natural gas for liquefaction limiting upstream impact and providing a cleaner alternative to coal and dirtier fuels,” a spokesperson from Glenfarne Energy Transition, the project’s parent company, said in an email. “These steps are taken specifically to protect the public health and environment of our local communities, while providing training and high-paying jobs to a historically disadvantaged area.”
NextDecade, the company that proposed the Rio Grande LNG export terminal in Brownsville, did not respond to a request for comment. On its website, NextDecade boasts that it will capture and store underground more than 5 million tons per year of the carbon dioxide produced by the gas liquefaction process. But less than 7% of the project’s total emissions will be captured. The Sierra Club estimates that Rio Grande LNG could generate as much annual emissions as 44 coal plants or 35 million automobiles.
“It’s kind of like a Band-Aid over a bullet hole,” Emma Guevara, the Sierra Club's Brownsville organizer, told Yahoo News.
While the emerging CCS technology is frequently touted by the fossil fuel industry as a solution for climate pollution, environmentalists worry that it could have unforeseen drawbacks.
“We’re concerned about groundwater pollution, especially with how untested carbon capture and storage is,” Guevara said.
Without a shift from the Biden administration, however, the LNG terminals are likely to be approved, and CCS won’t be untested for much longer.
Erdogan faces crescendo of criticism over quake response
Aftermath of the deadly earthquake in Kahramanmaras
Wed, February 8, 2023
By Birsen Altayli, Daren Butler and Orhan Coskun
ISTANBUL (Reuters) - Criticism of Turkey's earthquake response mounted on Wednesday, with the political opposition and people in the disaster zone accusing the government of a tardy and inadequate relief effort.
The anger grew louder as President Tayyip Erdogan, facing a tight election in three months time, visited the afflicted area for the first time and acknowledged some problems with the initial response.
Monday's quakes have killed more than 11,000 people across southern Turkey and northwest Syria. They cracked infrastructure and flattened thousands of buildings, causing hardship for millions and leaving many homeless in bitterly cold weather.
"Where is the state? Where have they been for two days? We are begging them. Let us do it, we can get them out," said Sabiha Alinak, near a snow covered collapsed building where her young relatives were trapped in the city of Malatya.
From the outset, Turks have complained of a lack of equipment and support as they waited helplessly next to rubble, lacking the necessary expertise or tools to rescue those trapped - sometimes even as they could hear cries for help.
Kemal Kilicdaroglu, leader of the main opposition party, had earlier in the week said the disaster was a time for unity, not criticism. But on Wednesday he accused the government of failing to cooperate with local authorities and weakening non-governmental organisations that could help.
"I refuse to look at what is happening as above politics and align with the ruling party. This collapse is exactly the result of systematic profiteering politics," he said.
"If there is anyone responsible for this process, it is Erdogan. It is this ruling party that has not prepared the country for an earthquake for 20 years."
Rescue workers have struggled to reach some of the worst-hit areas, held back by destroyed roads, poor weather and lack of resources and heavy equipment, while some areas are without fuel or electricity.
MILITARY RESPONSE
Nasuh Mahruki, founder of a search and rescue group active in response to the 1999 earthquake that killed 17,000, said the army did not act soon enough because Erdogan's government annulled a protocol enabling it to respond without instruction.
"When this was cancelled (their) duties and responsibilities in combating disasters were taken away," he told Reuters.
"In the first seconds (after the 1999 quake), the Turkish Armed Forces started to work and were on the scene with the people within hours," he said, contrasting this with the current situation where the military had to wait for instructions.
"Now it seems the responsibility is with AFAD (Disaster and Emergency Management Authority), but it is not prepared for such a colossal problem," Mahruki added.
Speaking in Kahramanmaras, near the epicentre of the earthquake, Erdogan said: "We had some problems in airports and roads but we are better today".
"I would like to ask you not to give a chance to provocateurs, other than the statements especially from AFAD... Because today is the time for unity," he said.
He did not appear to have had a direct confrontaton with any local people.
A government official, who requested anonymity, said the efforts were hampered by damaged roads, bad weather and being unable to use airports due to damage.
"It seems that we should have been more prepared," the person said.
In the southern city of Antakya, one of the hardest hit, Melek, 64, said she had not seen rescue teams as of late Tuesday. "We haven't seen any food distribution here unlike previous disasters in our country. We survived the earthquake, but we will die here due to hunger or cold."
Selim Temurci, spokesman for the opposition Future Party, said AFAD's efforts were insufficient due to personnel shortages and the vast expanse of destruction.
"They did not have the capacity to conduct search and rescue at all the buildings at once but they only got to certain places in 30 hours," he said, adding those rescued still lacked food and water.
(Additional reporting by Ali Kucukgocmen; Editing by Jonathan Spicer)
Aftermath of the deadly earthquake in Kahramanmaras
Wed, February 8, 2023
By Birsen Altayli, Daren Butler and Orhan Coskun
ISTANBUL (Reuters) - Criticism of Turkey's earthquake response mounted on Wednesday, with the political opposition and people in the disaster zone accusing the government of a tardy and inadequate relief effort.
The anger grew louder as President Tayyip Erdogan, facing a tight election in three months time, visited the afflicted area for the first time and acknowledged some problems with the initial response.
Monday's quakes have killed more than 11,000 people across southern Turkey and northwest Syria. They cracked infrastructure and flattened thousands of buildings, causing hardship for millions and leaving many homeless in bitterly cold weather.
"Where is the state? Where have they been for two days? We are begging them. Let us do it, we can get them out," said Sabiha Alinak, near a snow covered collapsed building where her young relatives were trapped in the city of Malatya.
From the outset, Turks have complained of a lack of equipment and support as they waited helplessly next to rubble, lacking the necessary expertise or tools to rescue those trapped - sometimes even as they could hear cries for help.
Kemal Kilicdaroglu, leader of the main opposition party, had earlier in the week said the disaster was a time for unity, not criticism. But on Wednesday he accused the government of failing to cooperate with local authorities and weakening non-governmental organisations that could help.
"I refuse to look at what is happening as above politics and align with the ruling party. This collapse is exactly the result of systematic profiteering politics," he said.
"If there is anyone responsible for this process, it is Erdogan. It is this ruling party that has not prepared the country for an earthquake for 20 years."
Rescue workers have struggled to reach some of the worst-hit areas, held back by destroyed roads, poor weather and lack of resources and heavy equipment, while some areas are without fuel or electricity.
MILITARY RESPONSE
Nasuh Mahruki, founder of a search and rescue group active in response to the 1999 earthquake that killed 17,000, said the army did not act soon enough because Erdogan's government annulled a protocol enabling it to respond without instruction.
"When this was cancelled (their) duties and responsibilities in combating disasters were taken away," he told Reuters.
"In the first seconds (after the 1999 quake), the Turkish Armed Forces started to work and were on the scene with the people within hours," he said, contrasting this with the current situation where the military had to wait for instructions.
"Now it seems the responsibility is with AFAD (Disaster and Emergency Management Authority), but it is not prepared for such a colossal problem," Mahruki added.
Speaking in Kahramanmaras, near the epicentre of the earthquake, Erdogan said: "We had some problems in airports and roads but we are better today".
"I would like to ask you not to give a chance to provocateurs, other than the statements especially from AFAD... Because today is the time for unity," he said.
He did not appear to have had a direct confrontaton with any local people.
A government official, who requested anonymity, said the efforts were hampered by damaged roads, bad weather and being unable to use airports due to damage.
"It seems that we should have been more prepared," the person said.
In the southern city of Antakya, one of the hardest hit, Melek, 64, said she had not seen rescue teams as of late Tuesday. "We haven't seen any food distribution here unlike previous disasters in our country. We survived the earthquake, but we will die here due to hunger or cold."
Selim Temurci, spokesman for the opposition Future Party, said AFAD's efforts were insufficient due to personnel shortages and the vast expanse of destruction.
"They did not have the capacity to conduct search and rescue at all the buildings at once but they only got to certain places in 30 hours," he said, adding those rescued still lacked food and water.
(Additional reporting by Ali Kucukgocmen; Editing by Jonathan Spicer)
Almost 12,000 people have died in Turkey and Syria since the quakes struck on Monday.
Umit Bektas / reuters
Kris Holt
·Contributing Reporter
Wed, February 8, 2023
Turkey may be blocking access to Twitter, two days after a pair of catastrophic earthquakes struck the area. Thousands of people are still trapped in buildings in Turkey and Syria, where the death toll is approaching 12,000.
According to Bloomberg, people in Turkey started having trouble accessing Twitter on Wednesday afternoon. Some have resorted to VPNs to use the service. Kemal Kilicdaroglu, the leader of Turkey's main opposition party, has accused the government of blocking Twitter.
It's not clear why the Turkish government might want to prevent access to Twitter amid such devastation. The social media service is still a valuable disaster response tool and users have also been sharing images of the destruction caused by the earthquakes.
Twitter does not have a communications team that can be reached for comment, but on Wenesday afternoon Elon Musk did note through a tweet that Twitter access in Turkey should be "reenabled shortly."
This would not be the first time that Turkey has stopped residents from accessing social media services. It has also done so during cross-border military operations and terror attacks. In 2014, Turkey temporarily banned Twitter. Users were sharing voice recordings and documents that purportedly showed corruption within then-prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's sphere of influence. Erdoğan became Turkey's president later that year and he remains in power. His government has faced criticism for its response to this week's disaster.
Anger over Turkey's temporary Twitter block during quake rescue
Aftermath of the deadly earthquake in Kahramanmaras
Daren Butler and Orhan Coskun
Thu, February 9, 2023
By Daren Butler and Orhan Coskun
ISTANBUL (Reuters) - Turkey's decision to block access to Twitter for about 12 hours from Wednesday afternoon to early Thursday as people scrambled to find loved ones after devastating earthquakes has compounded public frustration at the pace of relief efforts.
Opposition leaders and social media users criticised the throttling of the platform, which has helped people share information on arriving aid and the location of those still trapped in rubble after the initial tremor on Monday.
President Tayyip Erdogan's government has blocked social media in the past and focused in recent months on fighting what it calls "disinformation", which it said prompted the block on Wednesday.
It restored full access to Twitter early on Thursday as the quake's death toll in Turkey and neighbouring Syria shot past 17,000.
President Tayyip Erdogan's government "lost its mind and... the result is cries for help being heard less. We know everything you're trying to hide," main opposition CHP leader Kemal Kilicdaroglu said after the block was imposed on Wednesday afternoon.
A government official who requested anonymity said the move had temporarily interrupted real calls for help, but that action was taken quickly and the service returned to normal.
"This had to be done because in some accounts there were untrue claims, slander, insults and posts with fraudulent purposes," the official told Reuters, citing efforts to steal money under the pretense of collecting aid.
Turkish officials held talks with Twitter on Wednesday and said they expected cooperation in fighting disinformation during relief work, Deputy Transport Minister Omer Fatih Sayan said.
Erdogan's communications director, Fahrettin Altun, said Twitter cooperated in the meeting and pledged to support Turkey's efforts, and officials look forward to working with it "over the next few days and weeks".
"Disinformation is humanity's common enemy and a grave threat to democracy, social peace, and national security," he said on Twitter on Thursday.
Last October, Turkey's parliament adopted a law under which journalists and social media users could be jailed for up to three years for spreading "disinformation", raising concerns among rights groups and European countries about free speech.
Erdogan's ruling party had said a law was needed to tackle false accusations on social media, and it would not silence opposition. The issue is of growing significance with elections scheduled to be held by the middle of this year.
A Reuters investigation last summer showed how the mainstream media has become a tight chain of command of government-approved headlines, while the smaller independent and opposition media face the brunt of regulatory penalties.
The Twitter block also drew an angry response from opposition DEVA party leader Ali Babacan, a former economy minister and Erdogan ally.
"How can Twitter be blocked on a day when communication is saving lives? What sort of ignorance this," Babacan said late on Wednesday.
The pro-Kurdish HDP party said Twitter had played a crucial role in organizing aid for those affected by the quakes and that blocking social media would only cause more death.
(Writing by Daren Butler; Editing by Jonathan Spicer, Alexandra Hudson)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)