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
saudi aramco
Saudi Aramco Leads Fossil Fuel Firms in 'Sportswashing' Sponsorships: Analysis
"Oil companies who are delaying climate action and pouring more fuel on the fire of global heating are using Big Tobacco's old playbook and trying to pass themselves off as patrons of sport."
Sep 18, 2024
Aramco, the state-owned Saudi firm, has the most sports sponsorships of any fossil fuel company in the world, with $1.3 billion in active deals, followed by Ineos, TotalEnergies, and Shell, according to a Wednesday report that compares the industry's methods to those once used by Big Tobacco.
The 23-page report, Dirty Money: How Fossil Fuel Sponsors Are Polluting Sport, details one of the ways in which countries and corporations "sportswash" their reputations: sponsorships of popular athletes, teams, events, or leagues. Other means of sportswashing, such as Saudi Arabia's development of a new golf tour and purchase of major soccer clubs, aren't included in the analysis, which was produced by the New Weather Institute (NWI), a climate think tank.
Aramco, which is about 98% owned by the Saudi Arabian government, is the most profitable company in the world and is responsible for over 4% of global carbon emissions since 1965, the most of any firm. It pays out more than $300 million per year in sports sponsorships in motorsports, soccer, golf, and cricket, with active deals worth about $1.3 billion over their lifespans, the report says.
Overall, the report authors found 205 sponsorship deals by the fossil fuel industry worth a total of $5.6 billion.
"Oil companies who are delaying climate action and pouring more fuel on the fire of global heating are using Big Tobacco's old playbook and trying to pass themselves off as patrons of sport," Andrew Simms, NWI's co-director, said in a statement.
The report emphasizes the negative impact fossil fuel companies have not just on the climate but also, more immediately, on public health—and the ability to play sports—citing research that shows the burning of their products leads to millions of excess deaths per year.
"Air pollution from fossil fuels and the extreme weather of a warming world threaten the very future of athletes, fans, and events ranging from the Winter Olympics to World Cups," Simms said. "If sport is to have a future it needs to clean itself of dirty money from big polluters and stop promoting its own destruction."
The dirty money polluting sport - our new report on how oil and gas companies are exploiting sport even as they destroy the climate conditions for it 👇👇👇 https://t.co/d4AItJnglv
— Andrew Simms (@AndrewSimms_uk) September 18, 2024
The term sportswashing, related to whitewashing and greenwashing, has gained use in the last decade as a way of describing efforts to distract attention from wrongdoing through affiliation with popular sports. Critics often levy the charge at Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states.
Saudi Arabia's sovereign wealth fund, which draws financing from Aramco, has reportedly spent more than $2 billion on its LIV Golf tour in the last three years. Saudi Arabia is expected host the World Cup in 2034, and neighboring Qatar did so in 2022, spending over $200 billion.
Saudi Arabia and Aramco have long been accused of greenwashing. Yet poor environmental credentials aren't their only public relations issue. The country, in addition to sourcing its wealth from planet-destroying fossil fuels, is led by an authoritarian regime that has a terrible human rights record, one under more scrutiny since the 2018 killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who worked for The Washington Post.
In response to the sportswashing critique, Saudi leaders have been blunt and defiant.
"If sportswashing is going to increase my GDP by 1%, then we'll continue sportswashing," Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the country's de facto leader, toldFox News last year.
In addition to Aramco, the NWI report focuses on three Western fossil fuel companies. Shell and Ineos, two U.K.-based multinationals, each spend more than $100 million per year on sponsorships in a wide variety of sports. TotalEnergies, a French multinational, spends more than $60 million.
The NWI report recommends that sports organizations institute tobacco-style bans on fossil fuel sponsorships and improve due diligence on donors and sponsors.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Next Few Years Will Decide What Kind of Future We Leave for My Grandchild
Everyone’s job this decade is to arrest the sudden and sickening lurch upward in temperature, so that there’s somewhere at least a little stable for young people to stand as they build that new world that must come.
Mar 31, 2024
Asa Caleb Crane was born over the weekend; he came into the world with a full head of hair, and on first impression an undeniable charisma, a full array of important moral virtues, and a calm but determined approach to the new world in which he found himself.
And I found myself both entirely agog at his general niftiness, and bowled over by the fact that I now know, very intimately, someone who God willing is going to exist in the 22nd century.
I can compass the passage of time; my grandmother, who I knew well, was born in the latter part of the 19th century, and I can imagine most of the changes of her life—feel in some visceral way the increase in mobility, in communication, in opportunity, in ease. My parents were born in the Depression and came of age in the great postwar boom; my daughter was born just as the internet was getting off the ground. It all makes more or less sense to me; but of course the future is harder, and the future now is harder than ever. In fact, there have been a spate of stories this week pointing out that even our greatest climate scientists are having a hard time explaining the rapid rise in global temperature over the last 12 months—and others explaining just how hot it has become. Here’s a compelling Guardian account of the record heat across much of Africa in recent weeks.
Tarly in Ivory Coast explained: “All I can do is open the windows and the door to let the air flow, but even the air doesn’t move.”
He lives with a one-year-old child, who cries at night because he is hot, and his two teenage daughters, who wake up in the middle of the night to shower before returning to bed where they lie in front of the fan. Still, the heat clings; it does not go away.
“At four in the morning, it’s when it’s least hot and you can sleep better, but I have to wake up to go to work,” Tarly said. “When it’s this hot, mixed with humidity, time stands still.”
Of course time in the larger sense, rushes on—and right now the very real-time acceleration of warming scares me more than I want to admit. It also makes me think—as you might guess from the title of this newsletter—that the next few years may be the crucial ones between now and 2100, maybe even between now and 5100. Because if we don’t break the momentum of the warming then it will build unstoppably on itself—and that will foreclose all kinds of options.
It’s keeping those options open that matters to me. I don’t think we can reasonably plan all that far into the future—new technologies, new politics, new attitudes will inevitably shape how things happen 20 or 60 years from now. But I do think we can see the outline of our politics through the end of the decade, and I think it basically involves a single choice: Do we go all-in on the energy transition as the world pledged in December at the last global climate talks, or do we back off, following the advice of, say, the (wildly applauded) Saudi Aramco CEO who said last week at a Houston energy conference that “we should abandon the fantasy of phasing out oil and gas and instead invest in them.”
The first option—going all-in on the energy transition—doesn’t get us where we need to go, and certainly not by 2030. I don’t see any chance that the temperature won’t still be rising then. But done with vigor it keeps possibilities open: Politico this week reported, for instance, on the growing competition among blue-state governors to come up with more renewables and more efficiency, and the remarkable Kingsmill Bond at the Rocky Mountain Institute reported on the growing competition between the superpower blocs for green energy supremacy.
China, Europe, and the United States make up 80%–90% of deployment of key clean technologies.
China dominates the supply chain, but change is happening. China has outspent the United States and Europe 10-fold in the past five years to achieve market share in manufacturing of over 90% in solar and 70% in batteries. But United States and European capital expenditure is set to increase 16-fold by 2025, and opportunities for leadership abound; only 20% of final energy demand has been electrified; and technologies to enhance flexibility are still in the early stages.
Europe leads in solar and wind share of generation. Europe has the largest share of electricity from solar and wind, and all three regions are moving rapidly up the S-curve towards solar and wind dominance.
What I’m trying to say is, we have the chance to move over the next five years to establish a counter-momentum to the rising temperature. If we do, by 2030 we’ll be in a place to weigh the options going forward; if we don’t then nature will be making decisions for us, and we’ll be reacting.
For those like me of a certain age we have no real business telling young people what kind of world to build—that will be their opportunity and their responsibility, and my sense is that they have the savvy to do a good job of it. But our job—everyone’s job these next five years—is to arrest the sudden and sickening lurch upward in temperature, so that there’s somewhere at least a little stable for those young people to stand as they build that new world that must come. The best proxy for that stability is the number of solar panels and wind turbines and batteries we install between now and the end of the decade.
I’ve always thought this to be true; it’s why this newsletter is called what it is, and it’s why I do the work I do at places like Third Act. It’s just that all of a sudden I take it even more personally. Hi Asa!
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Climate Crisis Calls for Wisdom—Not Artificial Intelligence
There’s no way we can build out renewable energy fast enough to meet this kind of extra demand—it’s going to be at the bleeding edge of the technically and politically possible to power the things we already do.
Mar 23, 2024
We’re getting right to the nub now.
This week the World Meteorological Organization officially certified 2023 as the hottest year in human history. Just to put on the record here what should have been the lead story in every journal and website on our home planet:
Andrea Celeste Saulo, secretary general of the WMO, said the organisation was now “sounding the red alert to the world.”
The report found temperatures near the surface of the earth were 1.45°C higher last year than they were in the late 1800s, when people began to destroy nature at an industrial scale and burn large amounts of coal, oil, and gas.
Last year’s spike was so scary that NASA’s Gavin Schmidt—Jim Hansen’s heir as keeper of NASA’s climate record—wrote in Nature this week that it raised the most profound possible implications. Please read his words slowly and carefully:
It could imply that a warming planet is already fundamentally altering how the climate system operates, much sooner than scientists had anticipated. It could also mean that statistical inferences based on past events are less reliable than we thought, adding more uncertainty to seasonal predictions of droughts and rainfall patterns.
Much of the world’s climate is driven by intricate, long-distance links—known as teleconnections—fuelled by sea and atmospheric currents. If their behavior is in flux or markedly diverging from previous observations, we need to know about such changes in real time.
And now, with equal care, read the words of the biggest oil producer on earth, the CEO of Saudi Aramco, who was in Houston last week for the annual hydrocarbon festival known as CERAWeek.
We should abandon the fantasy of phasing out oil and gas and instead invest in them adequately reflecting realistic demand assumptions.
That is to say, the powers that be want to abandon what the World Meteorological Organization, in their “red alert” report called the “one glimmer of hope”: that renewable energy installations rose 50% last year.
Understand that the battle is fully joined. The fossil fuel industry—as Exxon CEO Darren Woods helpfully explained—is in an all-out fight to derail anything green, because it won’t return “above average profits.” They have plenty of allies: Everyone noted former President Donald Trump threatening a “bloodbath” last week, but fewer noted the actual target of his wrath: electric vehicles. The Biden administration, after listening to the rhetoric at the Houston conference, backed EVs in a straightforward and earnest way today, announcing new rules that attempt to spur the rapid growth of a crucial climate-fighting technology. But of course that produced the requisite reaction: as The New York Timesreported:
The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, a lobbying organization, has started what it says is a “seven figure” campaign of advertising, phone calls, and text messages against what it falsely calls “Biden’s E.P.A. car ban” in the swing states Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, and Arizona, as well as in Ohio, Montana, and the Washington D.C. market.
So, like it or not, the climate crisis is going to be a key part of this election campaign. The November outcome may hinge on whether Americans can imagine making even this small change in the face of the gravest crisis our species has ever wandered into: replacing the gas tank in a car with a battery. That doesn’t seem like much to ask?
It won’t solve the climate crisis, of course—nothing will solve it. But accelerating momentum towards green energy is the likeliest card we have to play in a world where people seem unwilling to moderate their demands for mobility, and indeed for consumption of any kind.
One particularly depressing set of statistics about that ever-increasing demand for more emerged last week, as the energy implications of artificial intelligence started to become clearer. Here’s what Bloombergreported on Wednesday:
John Ketchum, CEO of utility NextEra Energy Inc., told attendees that U.S. power demand, which has been relatively flat for years, is poised to increase by 81% over the next five years. Toby Rice, chief of the largest U.S. natural gas driller, EQT Corp., cited a prediction that AI will gobble up more power domestically than households by 2030.
As Elizabeth Kolbert explained in The New Yorker a few days ago, this “obscene” power demand comes because when you ask AI to, say, help you with your bracket for the NCAA tournament, it has to sort through all human knowledge ever. As even AI apostle Sam Altman explained at Davos this year
“I think we still don’t appreciate the energy needs of this technology.” He didn’t see how these needs could be met, he went on, “without a breakthrough.” He added, “We need fusion or we need, like, radically cheaper solar plus storage, or something, at massive scale—like, a scale that no one is really planning for.”
The truth is, there’s no way we can build out renewable energy fast enough to meet this kind of extra demand—it’s going to be at the bleeding edge of the technically and politically possible to power the things we already do, live drive cars and heat homes. And so, in a rational world, faced with an emergency, we would put off scaling AI for now. The irony, of course, is that’s it’s often been touted as a tool to help solve climate change. But we have the tools we need—plain old intelligence gave us cheap solar panels.
With the able technological assistance of my wife, I asked Anthropic’s AI bot Claude to comment. It was amazing how much he sounded like a PR man; after spinning a lot of jargon-filled guff about how “responsible AI can likely be part of the solution to environmental challenges,” he allowed as how he had no idea how much energy he was using. “In general, the electricity usage of large language models like myself is a relevant consideration from an environmental perspective, but quantifying the exact amount would require additional information I don’t have access to.”
Whatever. What we need is not more intelligence. We need more wisdom, to guide us through this pinch point in the human experiment. Including the wisdom to say no to some things, at least until the emergency subsides.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular