Big oil is dropping the ball when it comes to meeting the companies' public pledges to help avert catastrophic climate change, according to a new analysis of the eight biggest U.S. and European producers.
U.S.-based corporations Chevron, ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil each ranked "grossly insufficient" on all the report's criteria.
David Tong, global industry campaign manager for the advocacy group Oil Change International and the report's co-author, said just 5% of the sector's capital investments are in clean energy. Over 90% is going into fossil fuels.
"None of them come anywhere close to aligning with what's needed to confront the climate crisis," Tong contended. "Instead of cutting production, they almost all aim to increase production this critical decade."
Several oil companies mentioned in the report said it misrepresented their climate plans. The oil and gas industry has argued finding new places to drill is necessary to meet demand during a transition to clean energy, especially in hard to electrify industries like concrete production and air travel.
Leading global scientists say fossil fuel pollution must peak before 2025, then fall by 43% by 2030, and reach net-zero by 2050 to prevent the worst impacts of a changing climate. Tong pointed out the science shows there is no pathway to meet the climate targets by expanding oil and gas production.
"If companies stopped approving new fields, what would be left in their existing producing fields would be enough to meet the world's energy demand," Tong argued.
Because oil and gas corporations are not likely to voluntarily transition their business model, Tong believes governments will need to intervene. The marketplace could also play a role. Tong pointed to new global data showing, for the first time, $2 are being invested in clean energy for every $1 invested in fossil fuels.
"The transition is underway," Tong emphasized. "Governments need to resist the pressure from the industry that has done the most to cause the climate crisis, and accelerate the change. It's happening, it's just not happening fast enough."
get more stories like this via email
New Mexico's decades-long drought combined with climate change have more farmers and ranchers embracing the six healthy soil principles, tailoring how each parcel of land is managed.
New Mexico's farming practices date back at least 2,500 years but the state's Healthy Soil Working Group said the arid climate and diverse ecology make a one-size-fits-all approach ineffective.
Dave Dubois, climatologist at New Mexico State University, said the recent storm should improve this year's snowpack but farmers and ranchers must plan five or 10 years into the future.
"The scenarios from climate change models are showing warmer temperatures, hotter droughts and then more evaporation," Dubois explained. "How do you manage all that in a system where we still have agriculture as our cultural identity?"
Agriculture is the state's third-largest industry after energy and aerospace. The majority of New Mexico's farmland is heavily dedicated to growing grass, which feeds livestock, provides sod and serves as a cover crop to protect soil health between harvests.
Many factors contribute to soil degradation: intensive farming practices, deforestation, overgrazing, urbanization and erosion.
Ernest Diswood, a Navajo conservation leader, said using regenerative techniques, he has been improving his range soil since 2009.
"We're seeing, despite the drought now, about 21 species of grasses and we're probably between 700 to 1,000 pounds an acre," Diswood outlined. "For the Navajo Indian Reservation, that's usually a pretty good number."
Keeping soil covered is one of the six healthy soil principles.
Ralph Vigil, owner of Molino de la Isla Organics and an eighth-generation acequia farmer, changed his practices nearly 20 years ago. A lack of moisture led him to reduce the East Pecos land where he grows organic vegetables from five acres, to a half-acre. To improve the soil, he now uses drip irrigation and other conservation techniques.
"The acequia sees less water; I've done more cover-cropping to try to help build my soil, keeping my cover present at all seasons because (of) no snowpack, lack of rain and wind," Vigil emphasized. "Wind is beating us up and it doesn't go away. So, just trying to keep that soil covered at all times."
Significant cuts made by the Trump administration to the Natural Resources Conservation Service are expected to reduce climate-friendly programs nationwide.
get more stories like this via email
Nine in ten people in Colorado and across the globe are worried about climate change and want governments to do something about it, according to a new survey, but they mistakenly assume that others do not share their view.
Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, called this a perception gap.
"The average person believes that other people in their own country tend not to worry about climate change that much when, in fact, the majority of people in most countries do worry about climate change," he said.
That gap in perception has real-world policy implications. In the U.S., almost 80% of congressional staffers underestimated their constituents' support for reducing climate pollution, sometimes by more than 50 percentage points. Leiserowitz said helping more people understand that they are not in the minority could unlock a social tipping point that moves leaders to act.
He pointed to one example where 96% of liberal Democrats and 78% of conservative Republicans supported helping farmers protect and restore soil to absorb more carbon dioxide. But he said progress is stymied by misperceptions.
"If your perception is that Republicans are absolutely against climate policy, then many people might then conclude - especially if you're a policy maker - that we shouldn't be taking action when, in fact there's overwhelming support, even among conservative Republicans," he continued.
Decades of misinformation campaigns, aiming to protect fossil-fuel company profits, play a big role in perception gaps. But Leiserowitz said gaps also persist because any two individuals, not knowing what the other thinks, are likely to avoid topics they believe are controversial, including climate change.
"So, that leads neither of us to talk about it. Well, now expand that to 300 million people, and you can see that we start slipping down this 'spiral of silence.' Nobody talks about it, so nobody talks about it. Which means nobody talks about it," he concluded.
get more stories like this via email
As Boulder and local governments across the U.S. turn to courts to pay for rebuilding after wildfires, floods and other extreme weather events linked to a changing climate, a new study shows it is now possible to pinpoint specific companies that could be held accountable.
Justin Mankin, associate professor of geography at Dartmouth College and study coauthor, said using advanced modeling, his team calculated a price tag for the impacts of extreme heat, just one climate hazard, linked to carbon dioxide and methane emissions from 111 companies over 30 years.
"The world would be $28 trillion more wealthy had those companies found ways to mitigate the extreme heat impacts of those emissions," Mankin reported.
Researchers found 10 fossil-fuel companies - including Chevron, ExxonMobil and Saudi Aramco - were responsible for half of the total losses.
Oil and gas companies have argued in court it was not possible to assign blame to their company's carbon or methane molecules in the atmosphere compared with all the other molecules released. They have also noted oil and gas production has produced numerous public benefits and wealth.
Using emissions data and advanced climate models, Mankin pointed out it is now possible to see what the world would look like if any particular corporation had not produced emissions. He added other industries have not gotten off the hook, including "Big Pharma," just because they produced breakthrough medicines and vaccines.
"That doesn't absolve them for their role in, say, generating the opioid crisis," Mankin contended. "Courts have ruled that they had a role in generating the opioid crisis, and needed to compensate harmed individuals for that."
Hundreds of lawsuits have been filed to hold corporations and trade associations accountable for climate damages. Colorado's Supreme Court has heard oral arguments but has not yet ruled on a case brought by San Miguel County and the city and county of Boulder seeking compensation from ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy.
get more stories like this via email
Contact
