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
wenonah hauter
Watchdog Group Launches Counter Attack on 'Dangerous Carbon Capture Hype'
"Carbon capture and storage is a lifeline for the fossil fuel industry and a dangerous distraction from the pressing need to move off oil and gas," said one advocate.
May 15, 2023
The national climate watchdog group Food & Water Watch on Monday unveiled a new interactive multimedia resource where users can learn more about "false narratives" regarding carbon capture and storage, an unproven technology pushed by fossil fuel companies eager to avoid what scientists and energy experts say is the actual solution to the climate emergency: Ending the burning of coal, gas, and oil to bring down carbon emissions.
Visitors to the group's new "resource hub" first encounter a title card reading, "The Carbon Capture Solution" before the last word is crossed out and replaced with "Scam."
The site, titled Carbon Capture Scam, includes video storytelling, expert testimonials, analysis, infographics, and other content that help explain to readers why carbon capture and storage (CCS) is simply "a lifeline for the fossil fuel industry" rather than a real solution that will reduce carbon emissions in the atmosphere and planetary heating.
CCS refers to technologies that are designed to trap and remove carbon emissions from smokestacks and the atmosphere, such as a $1 billion project at Petra Nova coal plant in Texas and one at the San Juan Generating Station in New Mexico, both of which were found to be unfeasible.
"What carbon capture and storage is, is a complex set of machines that is attached to a smokestack where carbon dioxide is being emitted, and it captures that CO2," said biologist Sandra Steingraber in a video featured on the site. "Problem one, it's going to increase the energy, just to run the machinery, by 20%."
Other emissions aside from carbon also increase with the use of CCS technology, added Steingraber, such as smog, formaldehyde, and benzene.
"These are chemicals that we know cause heart attack and stroke, that shorten lifeaspans, that are linked to childhood asthma, and are also linked to preterm birth—preterm birth being the number one cause of disability in the United States," said Steingraber.
The Carbon Capture Scam, Explained by Dr. Sandra Steingraberwww.youtube.com
Despite evidence that CCS is more expensive than its proponents admit as well as being energy-intensive and actually contributing to a net increase in emissions, the Environmental Protection Agency last week unveiled new power plant rules that rely heavily on the unproven technology and include plans to build thousands of miles of new pipelines to carry the emissions proponents say will be trapped and stored.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act also allocated billions of dollars to expand CCS.
"The fossil fuel industry has spent millions of dollars promoting carbon capture and policy makers at all levels have taken the bait, doling out billions of dollars to support its development. But CCS is a lifeline for the fossil fuel industry and a dangerous distraction from the pressing need to move off oil and gas," said Food & Water Watch executive director Wenonah Hauter on Monday.
"Our Carbon Capture Scam web hub exposes the industry lies behind CCS through detailed research, and gives people an opportunity to take action and fight back against CCS and for a truly clean, renewable energy future," she added.
Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have joined the fossil fuel industry in attempting "to lull consumers into thinking there's an easier fix than ending fossil fuel use," reads Carbon Capture Scam.
"Stop spreading false hope about direct carbon capture," said climate scientist Peter Kalmus, who is quoted on the site. "It won't help prevent catastrophic damage in the short term, it would require tremendous energy, and it may never scale up. Keep researching, but don't bet on it happening. [Definitely] don't bet the whole planet."
Instead of investing in CCS, Carbon Capture Scam says, Congress must stop peddling "dangerous carbon capture hype," end its industry-approved "delay tactics," and ramp up efforts to shift to a renewable energy system.
"Renewable energy and energy efficiency are reliable, cost-effective, and ready for widespread deployment," reads the website. "Given huge advances in production and storage, we could meet 100% of our energy needs with clean, renewable energy—today. All we need is the political will to make it happen."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Biden Power Plant Rule Relies on 'Industry Propaganda Scheme' of Carbon Capture: Critics
"Billions of dollars have been wasted trying to prove that this technology is real—and all we have to show for it are a series of spectacular failures," said one campaigner.
May 11, 2023
The Biden administration on Thursday unveiled a power plant emissions rule whose effectiveness at slashing planet-warming pollution would heavily depend on a major expansion of carbon capture, an oil industry-backed technological scheme that climate advocates view as wasteful, ineffective, and actively harmful.
The Environmental Protection Agency's newly proposed emission standards for coal- and gas-fired power plants were described as the most strict ever proposed in the U.S., and the rule garnered praise from major environmental groups.
If implemented—far from a sure thing given the Supreme Court's recent decision hamstringing the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gas pollution—the rule would require most new and existing fossil fuel power plants to capture 90% of their emissions by between 2035 and 2040. Coal- and gas-fired power plants are the nation's second-largest source of greenhouse gas emissions.
"The draft rules offer utilities years of lead time to build out carbon capture or hydrogen infrastructure—or to take their plants offline," E&E Newsreported.
Climate campaigners expressed dismay that the EPA rule relies so significantly on the large-scale adoption of unproven carbon capture and storage technology, which would entail the construction of thousands of miles of new pipelines to carry the trapped emissions.
"Carbon capture is nothing more than a fossil fuel industry propaganda scheme," said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch (FWW), an environmental group that has described the technology as a "dangerous fantasy."
"Billions of dollars have been wasted trying to prove that this technology is real—and all we have to show for it are a series of spectacular failures. Throwing good money after bad is not a climate solution—it's an industry bailout," Hauter argued. "Even if the technology managed to meet even the lowest thresholds for emissions capture, the energy required to power the facilities would negate much of the supposed benefit."
Last year, President Joe Biden and congressional Democrats approved large subsidies for the carbon capture industry via the Inflation Reduction Act, a law that proponents said would slash U.S. carbon emissions by 40% by the end of the decade.
But critics at the time cast doubt on that projection given that it hinges on the effectiveness of largely unproven carbon capture initiatives—and similar questions will likely be raised about EPA estimates of the power plant rule's potential impact. The EPA said the rule "would avoid up to 617 million metric tons of total carbon dioxide (CO2) through 2042."
Ozawa Bineshi Albert, co-executive director of the Climate Justice Alliance, said that "if we are to combat climate change we must do so with real, viable solutions—not unproven technologies that only promise to continue the legacy of dumping pollutants onto frontline communities."
"Let's be clear: Carbon capture and sequestration technologies are harmful and unproven," Albert added. "They do not operate at scale, and to expand carbon capture to a fraction of what is envisioned by this order would require constructing thousands of miles of polluting pipelines into communities already most impacted by the burning of fossil fuels. A study in the European Union showed that adding carbon capture to power plants increased nitrogen oxides by 44%, particulate matter by 33%, and ammonia by a whopping 30-fold increase. CCS projects will exacerbate environmental disparities and lead to more environmental racism. This is a distraction—one that will let fossil fuel extraction continue unchecked."
"There is no technological quick fix for our climate crisis. We must cut fossil fuels off at their source and transition to clean, renewable energy now."
In a recent report, FWW analyzed major carbon capture projects and found that the technology's "track record makes it appear to be a handout to fossil fuel corporations, publicly financing their attempts to keep their harmful product viable."
Despite such findings, the EPA determined in its new rule proposal that "carbon capture represents a 'best system of emissions reduction,' which means it's been adequately proven," Politico noted Thursday.
"In the U.S., only one power plant has ever captured carbon dioxide at scale: the W.A. Parish Generating Station near Houston," the outlet observed. "The carbon capture technology at Petra Nova, bolstered by nearly $200 million in federal money, grabbed coal-produced CO2 and piped it to an oil field to be used for crude oil production."
In a statement, EPA Administrator Michael Regan ignored concerns about the efficacy of carbon capture, declaring that the new rule would harness "proven, readily available technologies to limit carbon pollution and seizes the momentum already underway in the power sector to move toward a cleaner future."
The EPA rule will undergo a 60-day public comment period after it is formally published in the Federal Register.
\u201cThis entire rule is based on carbon capture technology. As it stands, no carbon capture goal has been met. Why should we expect anything different?\nhttps://t.co/FYd0saFQuR\u201d— Andrew Ahern (@Andrew Ahern) 1683803212
Instead of resting its climate agenda on dubious carbon capture schemes, Hauter said the Biden administration should be prioritizing "immediate actions to limit the supply of dirty fossil fuels" and expand renewable energy, which research has shown to be a much better climate investment than carbon capture.
"This requires using existing federal authority to halt new drilling and fracking, and stop new fossil fuel infrastructure like power plants, pipelines, and export terminals," Hauter continued. "There is no technological quick fix for our climate crisis. We must cut fossil fuels off at their source and transition to clean, renewable energy now."
Jason Rylander, legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute, said it is "no surprise" that the EPA's proposed standards "fall far short of what the climate emergency demands given the right-wing Supreme Court's restrictions on power plant rules."
"The EPA needs to get serious about cutting carbon emissions by creating a national science-based cap on greenhouse gas pollution through the National Ambient Air Quality Standards program," said Rylander. "That's the best way to spur the economy-wide decarbonization we need now."
Other environmental groups were less critical of the Biden administration's proposal as a whole, welcoming it as a meaningful step in the right direction while acknowledging that more ambition is needed to fend off the worst of the climate emergency.
"We're pleased to see the Biden Administration continue to address climate pollution in a serious way. Now, the administration must finish the job and ensure the final standards are as strong as possible," said Ben Jealous, executive director of the Sierra Club. "But we know the work to confront the climate crisis doesn’t stop at strong carbon pollution standards. The continued use or expansion of fossil power plants is incompatible with a livable future. Simply put, we must not merely limit the use of fossil fuel electricity: we must end it entirely."
Julie McNamara, the deputy policy director of the Climate and Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, called the release of the power plant rule "a pivotal turning point, with Administrator Regan rightfully and necessarily moving to hold coal- and gas-fired power plants to account for their ongoing carbon pollution."
But McNamara also implored the administration to "prioritize robust environmental justice protections and environmental and public health safeguards, especially when it comes to carbon capture and sequestration and hydrogen co-firing."
"The agency must protect against greenwashing attempts by fossil fuel interests that would worsen, not lessen, environmental injustices," McNamara said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Environmental Watchdog Says Buttigieg 'Can and Must' Restore Obama-Era Railway Safety Rules
"While the serious health impacts of the derailment in East Palestine have only just begun to emerge, we know that toxic spills like these can be devastating to communities and families for decades," said one advocate.
Mar 09, 2023
As industry employees push for improvements to bipartisan railway safety legislation and reject efforts by rail companies to introduce new safety rules on their own, one public health advocacy group on Thursday called on the Biden administration to do everything in its power to make trains safer for workers and American communities.
Last month's train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio—which sent toxic chemicals into the environment as officials conducted a controlled release of the vinyl chloride that was carried by the train—was the result of successful lobbying by the rail industry against safety regulations, said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch.
U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and President Joe Biden have the power to reinstate crucial Obama-era regulations that could prevent further accidents, said the group.
"Secretary Buttigieg and this administration must act immediately to reduce the risks of these horrific derailments by first reestablishing the commonsense rail freight safety standards implemented by [former President Barack] Obama and unconscionably rolled back by [former President Donald] Trump," said Hauter.
The Trump administration in 2018 rolled back regulations mandating the use of highly responsive electronic braking systems for trains carrying oil and other flammable materials.
A preliminary report by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) found that an overheated wheel bearing rather than the brake system was likely behind the derailment of the Norfolk Southern train in East Palestine, but a number of other derailments in recent weeks have prompted calls for the regulations to be reinstated immediately.
On Thursday, just before the CEO of Norfolk Southern testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and apologized for the accident, another train owned by the company left the tracks in Alabama. CEO Alan Shaw was informed of the accident by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who said, "You may need to look into that."
On Wednesday, a train owned by freight company CSX derailed in Sandstone, West Virginia and released an "unknown" quantity of diesel fuel and oil into the New River.
"While the serious health impacts of the derailment in East Palestine have only just begun to emerge, we know that toxic spills like these can be devastating to communities and families for decades," said Hauter. "All trains carrying dangerous toxic chemicals should be classified as 'high-hazard flammable trains,' which would require more stringent safety requirements and notice to state and local officials of their contents."
"These are actions," she added, "that Secretary Buttigieg and the administration can and must make immediately."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular