SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
hydrogen
'Colossal Waste': US Leads Way in Public Spending on False Climate Solutions
"The fossil fuel industry delays climate action, distracts from real solutions that would end the fossil fuel era, and does everything in its power to squeeze the last drops of profit from a dying industry, at the expense of all of us."
Aug 29, 2024
Among the world's wealthiest countries, the U.S. leads the way in spending public money on so-called climate "solutions" that have been proven to "consistently fail, overspend, or underperform," according to an analysis released Thursday by the research and advocacy group Oil Change International.
The group's report, titled Funding Failure, focuses on international spending on carbon capture and fossil-based hydrogen subsidies, which continues despite ample data showing that the technological fixes have "failed to make a dent in carbon emissions" after 50 years of research and development.
The report details how five countries account for 95% of all carbon capture spending, with the U.S. investing the most taxpayer money in the technology, at $12 billion in subsidies over the last 40 years.
Norway comes in second with $6 billion going to carbon capture and storage, while Canada has spent $3.8 billion, the European Union has spent $3.6 billion, and the Netherlands has poured $2.6 billion into the technology, with which carbon dioxide emissions are compressed and utilized or stored underground.
"It is nothing short of a travesty that funds meant to combat climate change are instead bolstering the very industries driving it."
Harjeet Singh, global engagement director for the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, toldThe Guardian that the subsidies amount to a "colossal waste of money."
"It is nothing short of a travesty that funds meant to combat climate change are instead bolstering the very industries driving it," said Singh.
While proponents claim carbon capture and storage reduces planet-heating carbon emissions, OCI notes, it was originally developed in the 1970s "to enhance oil production, and this remains its primary use," with the technology "barely" reducing emissions.
High-profile carbon capture failures in the U.S. include the Petra Nova project in Houston, Texas, which cost nearly $200 million in taxpayer funds and whose captured emissions were later used for crude oil production, and the FutureGen project, "which swallowed $200 million and never materialized."
"Investing in carbon capture delays the transition to renewable energy," reads OCI's report. "Instead of wasting time and money on technologies that do not work, governments must commit to justly and urgently phasing out fossil fuels before it's too late."
Despite the lack of data supporting the use of carbon capture, the group said, countries including the U.S. are "preparing to waste hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars on these ineffective technologies, further benefiting the fossil fuel industry."
OCI highlighted how the U.S. and Canada, while ostensibly fighting the climate crisis, have spent a combined $4 billion in public money to explicitly "pay oil companies to produce more oil," with the subsidies going to carbon capture for "enhanced oil recovery."
The report also found that in addition to the $12 billion in taxpayer funds the U.S. has spent on carbon capture and fossil hydrogen—a leak-prone gas produced through energy-intensive processes that cause their own emissions—the government has spent an estimated $1.3 billion on the 45Q tax credit, which allows companies to write off tax for every ton of carbon dioxide they store underground.
The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) increased the amount given to companies in 45Q tax credits from $35 to $60 per ton, meaning that the subsidy could grow to over $100 billion in the next 10 years.
OCI's Policy Tracker shows that overall public spending on carbon capture and hydrogen could grow by between $115 billion and $240 billion in the coming decades.
"We need real climate action, not fossil fuel bailouts!" said OCI in a post on social media.
The group's report also highlights that fossil fuel giants such as ExxonMobil have shifted from carbon capture skeptics to outspoken proponents of the technology—with the company bragging to investors that carbon capture and hydrogen would help its Low Carbon Business Unit make "hundreds of billions of dollars" and grow to be "larger than ExxonMobil's base business."
Exxon didn't launch its carbon capture efforts until 2018, having spent several years and hundreds of millions of dollars on another "climate solution" that ultimately failed: the use of algae to make biofuels.
Since then, Exxon has "pushed for direct government funding for carbon capture, particularly at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)," successfully lobbying for $12 billion allocated in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill in 2021 for "carbon management research, development, and demonstration."
Exxon also lobbied for the increased rate of the 45Q tax credit in the IRA and "played a 'central role' in drafting a 2019 DOE-sponsored report on carbon capture that determined Congress would need to create an incentive of around $90 to $110 per ton to support carbon capture deployment," according to OCI.
The Guardian on Thursday reported that Exxon still "chases billions in U.S. subsidies for a 'climate solution' that helps drill more oil," describing how the oil giant hosted an event at the Democratic National Convention earlier this month where senior climate strategy and technology director Vijay Swarup praised the IRA for helping Exxon pursue carbon capture and said: "We need new technology and we need policy to support that technology. We need governments working with private industry."
Exxon's enthusiasm for carbon capture, said OCI, is an example of how "the fossil fuel industry delays climate action, distracts from real solutions that would end the fossil fuel era, and does everything in its power to squeeze the last drops of profit from a dying industry, at the expense of all of us."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Big Oil’s Latest Lie? Pushing Climate Models That Boost Methane and Dirty Hydrogen
We must cut greenhouse gas emissions quickly to avert a catastrophic future; the federal government must use modeling that reflects this scientific reality, not fossil fuel industry deception.
Aug 28, 2024
In January 2024, the Biden-Harris administration advanced a huge win for the climate movement. After pressure from scientists and advocates including Food & Water Watch, Biden paused permits for liquefied natural gas export terminals. He also started a process to reevaluate how the United States determines whether exporting fracked gas is in the public interest. However, some lawmakers are rushing to the LNG industry’s aid and attacking science to do so.
This August, the Chair of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, with various subcommittee members, penned a letter to the Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Jennifer Granholm. In it, they attack critical research from Food & Water Watch board member Dr. Robert Howarth of Cornell, who authored a groundbreaking study documenting that LNG’s climate impact is worse for the climate than coal.
These choices for modeling assumptions will determine if the federal government joins fossil fuel industry greenwashing or takes real climate action to restrict further development of fossil fuels for exports and hydrogen production.
The issue at hand is the assumptions underlying how the U.S. government models climate impact. This wonky and obscure math will have a huge influence on policies at this critical juncture in the climate crisis. If dirty energy companies have their way, DOE climate models will churn out bogus results showing that LNG is a benefit for the climate.
All this comes at a time when the climate science is clear and well-established: Time is of the essence. We must cut greenhouse gas emissions quickly to avert a catastrophic future. The federal government must use modeling that reflects this scientific reality, not fossil fuel industry deception.
Dirty Industries Are Pushing for Models That Benefit Them
Right now, the DOE is developing models to predict LNG’s climate impact in order to judge whether it’s in the “public interest” to allow more LNG exports. Science and common sense tell us we can’t expand fossil fuels and address the climate crisis. Nevertheless, fossil fuel industry has long argued, falsely, that gas is a clean fuel and an essential “bridge” in our transition to renewables. This fight over LNG exports is no different.
At the same time, the Treasury Department is developing models to determine the climate impacts of various types of hydrogen production. This will ultimately determine what—if any—tax credits hydrogen producers receive. Dirty energy companies are advocating for modeling assumptions that would allow hydrogen made with fracked gas, coal mine methane (gas extracted from coal beds), carbon capture, and even factory farm gas to qualify for lucrative subsidies that were meant for hydrogen produced exclusively with renewables.
These choices for modeling assumptions will determine if the federal government joins fossil fuel industry greenwashing or takes real climate action to restrict further development of fossil fuels for exports and hydrogen production. The major crux of the industry’s plan is to skew how we measure methane’s climate impact and analyze alternatives to methane. The federal government siding with industry would have disastrous impacts on our climate while showing climate benefits on paper.
Methane Is an Immediate Threat and Should Be Treated Like One
Methane, the main ingredient in so-called “natural” gas, is a potent climate pollutant that has 86 times the impact of carbon dioxide over 20 years. Its emissions are an immediate threat to our climate. They risk pushing us past thresholds that our climate can’t recover from. But a report from the Breakthrough Institute—cited by lawmakers in their letter to Secretary Granholm—ignores this reality.
Breakthrough’s criticism of Dr. Howarth’s LNG study emphasizes the time frame used to measure methane’s impact. While Dr. Howarth uses a 20-year timeframe, Breakthrough advocates for 100 years.
Incorporating a long view of methane into climate models shows a smaller impact since methane stays in the atmosphere for a shorter amount of time. (Its impact over a 100-year time frame is less than half of that over 20 years.) However, this treats methane and climate change as distant problems for a future generation—not incredibly urgent ones that must be addressed now.
Human-generated methane emissions cause over 500,000 deaths around the world every year.
Dirty industries support a long view because it gives the impression that methane is not as harmful. This would allow them to justify continuing to destroy our climate.
What’s also at play is how the U.S. government considers methane leakages. The industry is notoriously leaky throughout the supply chain, and the U.S. government routinely underestimates this leakage. Direct observations show these leaks are around three times as high as estimates from the Environmental Protection Agency.
The industry is also responsible for many super-emitters that bleed methane into the atmosphere at astonishing rates. Many of these have only recently been uncovered through new satellite imagery techniques. Federal climate models must incorporate this leakage at rates that truly account for their impact on the planet.
But dirty industries have tilted the debate by funding and consulting on research purporting to investigate methane leakage. For example, Breakthrough cites a paper on LNG’s climate footprint with an author who has extensive links to the fossil fuel industry and previously produced research funded by Cheniere (an LNG exporter).
Breakthrough also proposes that the answer to the leakage problem is just to plug the leaks—never mind that the industry has been promising to do so for years with little progress. And when it comes to climate benefits, merely plugging leaks pales in comparison to transitioning to renewables. Which brings us to the second issue:
Methane Fails to Compare to the Best Alternative—Renewables
Gas-based hydrogen and LNG companies are vying for favorable climate models based on the idea that they are better than alternatives. But they don’t dare compare themselves to the clear winner: renewables. While LNG and hydrogen argue they create less emissions or offset emissions, renewables create zero emissions when generating energy.
We don’t need an abundance of experimental technology or dirty infrastructure to transition to renewables, either. We know how to make them, and we know they are the best option for our climate.
Nevertheless, LNG and hydrogen companies are pushing for federal support based on bogus comparisons. For example, organizations like Breakthrough are still going to the mat for gas because they say “It’s better than coal!” (Reminder: This framing was and is still used by the oil and gas industry. The result has been continued gas production, which has caused more emissions and stalled our renewable energy transition.) The same rationale could be used to justify replacing old coal plants with new coal plants.
The true test for whether an industry is “climate-friendly” or “in the public interest” should be its strength compared to all the options, not just the ones Big Oil and Gas wants us to consider.
Moreover, any comparison must consider the lifetimes of new infrastructure, and new fracked gas infrastructure will last for decades. It could lock in at most minor emissions reductions well into the 2060s and further slow down our energy transition.
At the same time, some companies argue that by creating hydrogen by blending fracked gas with factory farm gas and methane leaked from the coal and gas industries, they are mitigating fracking’s harms to our climate. They say this makes their hydrogen a greener alternative to plain old gas, and so should qualify for “clean” hydrogen tax credits
But models should not be based on comparing energy sources to the worst and dirtiest option. That fails to account for the benefits of better alternatives like renewables. The true test for whether an industry is “climate-friendly” or “in the public interest” should be its strength compared to all the options, not just the ones Big Oil and Gas wants us to consider.
Additionally, these modeling assumptions falsely assume methane leakage is a foregone conclusion. They ignore that there are better ways of plugging leaks than letting polluters pretend they somehow offset fossil-based hydrogen’s harms to our climate.
In reality, subsidizing these gasses through faulty climate assumptions will increase the profitability of (and thus incentivize) fracking, coal mining, and factory farming. This will create new sources of methane that will invariably leak into the atmosphere.
LNG and Hydrogen Pose Harms Beyond Climate
Beyond climate, there are many reasons why supporting LNG and fossil fuel-based hydrogen are terrible ideas. The U.S. should consider all of these in its policy decisions. For one, methane emissions are hazardous to the climate and our health. Methane is a key ingredient in ground-level ozone, which poses potentially fatal risks to our lungs and hearts. Human-generated methane emissions cause over 500,000 deaths around the world every year.
LNG in particular would spur a dirty infrastructure boom in communities already suffering at the hands of the oil and gas industry. In the Gulf Coast, for example, majority-Black communities are facing sinking land due to climate change and devastating pollution. A buildout of more LNG terminals would compound these harms with more pollution and the risk of catastrophic explosions.
Dirty industries, their allies in Congress, and their mouthpieces are rejecting science to sell the lie of “clean” gas and hydrogen.
A growing LNG industry would also require more fracking and all its attendant harms to nearby communities. Those include mysterious illnesses, increased cancer rates, and poisoned water. The entire natural gas life cycle poses serious risks to the U.S.’s water resources. Extraction, pipelines, and related carbon capture and storage can impact water scarcity by growing demand for water in other sectors and in areas where supply is projected to decline.
Gas-based hydrogen would similarly prop up the fracking industry, and projects that use gas made from factory farm waste would prop up the harmful factory farm model. Hydrogen is also an incredibly thirsty power source, and many of the projects planned in the U.S. are proposed for areas that can’t afford to waste a drop. (Compared to hydrogen, renewables—especially wind—are also the clear winner when it comes to minimizing water use.)
We Need Accurate, Science-Based Modeling for Good Climate Policy
It is a scientific fact that climate change’s dangers become more urgent every day; that averting climate catastrophe requires ending fossil fuels; that renewables present the most effective strategy for reducing emissions. But dirty industries, their allies in Congress, and their mouthpieces are rejecting science to sell the lie of “clean” gas and hydrogen. They are pushing for the U.S. government to use models that lead to the best outcomes for them—not the planet.
By attacking this science and going after scientists like Dr. Howarth, the industry is doing what it’s always done. It’s casting doubt on established science to further its own ends; muddying the waters to sow confusion on what we already know. In order to pass policy that will actually prevent climate catastrophe, we need leaders who will see through their smoke and mirrors.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Companies Who Brought You Forever Chemicals Now Want to Sell You on Hydrogen
We should learn from the chemical industry’s track record on evading transparency and accountability to be suspicious of how responsibly this industry will develop clean hydrogen.
Mar 21, 2024
The very same chemical companies spending millions on lobbying against federal legislation and regulations that would force the chemical industry to clean up widespread “forever chemical” pollution are now going all-in on hydrogen as a “clean” form of energy.
We should learn from the chemical industry’s track record on evading transparency and accountability for the “forever chemicals” now found in the blood of up to 97% of Americans to be suspicious of how responsibly this industry will develop clean hydrogen.
For those unfamiliar with “forever chemicals,” also known as PFAS (short for per- and poly- fluoroalkyl substances), they are “a group of chemicals used to make fluoropolymer coatings and products that resist heat, oil, stains, grease, and water.” PFAS trigger scientific concern because, as the “forever chemicals” moniker suggests, they don’t break down in the environment, but instead stick around, building up in everything from soil to drinking water to the bodies of people and animals. PFAS have repeatedly made the news already in 2024, as new studies have come out indicating the widespread presence of PFAS in everything from nearly half of the U.S. drinking water supply to packaged tea and processed meats to turf sports fields.
The Biden administration must remain vigilant to the publicity campaigns and streams of lobbying money that extractive corporations deploy in their pursuit of maximal profits without regard to the impact on people, communities, and the planet.
PFAS are associated with a host of health risks. The EPA and CDC have acknowledged peer-reviewed scientific studies that show that exposure to PFAS may lead to reproductive and developmental effects in children, immune system damage, and increase the risk of developing cancer. Research is ongoing to confirm links between the various substances in the PFAS category and these and other worrying health outcomes.
Considering how blithely these companies shirk responsibility for polluting our environment to the extent that human fetusesand the rainnow show traces of forever chemicals, it’s hard to trust them when they say that hydrogen’s a climate winner.
Proponents of hydrogen laud it as a clean-burning alternative to natural gas and an energy carrier comparable to batteries. In reality, as we’ve written about at length, the vast majority of hydrogen production in the United States comes from a highly polluting process involving natural gas and steam. Hydrogen can be produced without natural gas, via electricity, but the vast majority of electricity is produced by fossil fueled power plants as well. So, while burning hydrogen is technically emissions-free, if the electrolysis used to create that hydrogen relies on fossil fuels or polluting forms of energy, the climate impact of “green” hydrogen can be worse than just burning fossil fuels. And due to how hydrogen interacts with other gasses in the atmosphere, hydrogen has over 32 times the indirect global warming potential of carbon dioxide.
These are some of the companies invested in the hydrogen economy that also lobbied aggressively against being on the hook for PFAS clean up:
- Chemours, which has been part of the aggressive, multimillion dollar lobbying blitz against strong PFAS clean up, is part of the Fuel Cell & Hydrogen Energy Association (FCHEA), a coalition of companies advocating for hydrogen as “clean, safe, and reliable.” It is worth noting Chemours opposed stronger hydrogen standards that would ensure they’re clean.
- 3M spent $17.9 million lobbying against the PFAS Act of 2019, which criminalized PFASS in sewers. 3M is currently expanding its research and redevelopment into green hydrogen.
- Dow spent $23.4 million on PFAS lobbying between 2019-2022, largely centered around the LIFT America Act (which would have created a grant program to help filter PFAS). In April, Dow selected Linde as a gas partner supplying hydrogen as a feedstock for Dow’s plastics facility in Canada.
- Honeywell, which spent $200,000 lobbying on the CLEAN Futures Act’s PFAS clean up assistance provisions, is also a member of the Fuel Cell & Hydrogen Energy Association.
- In 2021, Dominion Energy lobbied Congress in regards to the landmark Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which included $2 billion in funding to address contaminants in drinking water like PFAS. Dominion Energy also happens to be a member of the Green Hydrogen Coalition.
- Siemens Energy also lobbied Congress in regards to the CLEAN Futures Act, and also happens to be a Green Hydrogen Coalition member.
- Norfolk Southern, which was party to a lawsuit from the Justice Department over the derailment and toxic chemical release in East Palestine, Ohio, lobbied Congress on the Infrastructure law as well, and utilized hydrogen in its technologies.
These companies have clearly demonstrated that they aren’t committed to preventing their products from poisoning communities. Not only did they fail to prevent widespread pollution in the first place; they then actively spent their money lobbying to argue that they shouldn’t have to clean up their own messes. Rather than, say, spending that money to clean up the messes.
These corporations’ and coalitions’ track records raise immediate red flags regarding the legitimacy of these corporation’s future claims about how clean their hydrogen production is—not that we needed more indicators, given the hydrogen risks and drawbacks that scientists and environmental advocates have been pointing out for years.
The Biden administration also has tools to crack down on many of these polluters. Recently, the FDA announced an initiative to stop the use of certain PFAS in food packaging, based on a “voluntary commitment” by companies to stop selling the products, which the FDA plans to continue to monitor. This kind of agreement should be rigorously reinforced by the use of investigations and penalties by the agencies entrusted with public health, to hold corporations accountable when they flout safety guidelines and laws.
In February, we commented on recent reporting by E&E News that the Energy Department was pushing the Treasury Department to align its clean hydrogen tax credit guidance with industrial polluters’ demands. We argued that it’s crucial that Treasury resist this industry pressure—even when it’s coming from their colleagues at the Energy Department—and address the potential loopholes in its tax credit guidance that could promote the growth of a so-called “clean” hydrogen industry that simply continues many forms of pollution.
The Biden administration must remain vigilant to the publicity campaigns and streams of lobbying money that extractive corporations deploy in their pursuit of maximal profits without regard to the impact on people, communities, and the planet. Otherwise, the same playbook we’ve seen with environmental and health disasters will continue to repeat itself—with continually escalating consequences.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular