Results for: Fossil Fuels

Stephen Moore, co-founder of the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, criticizes the growing trend of lawsuits targeting fossil fuel companies and states for their use of energy. He argues these lawsuits, often driven by environmental groups and trial lawyers, threaten to abolish fossil fuels through the courts, ignoring the devastating economic and social consequences. Moore emphasizes the life-saving and economic benefits of fossil fuels, while questioning the validity of claims about their negative environmental impact.

An investigation by Global Witness reveals that the UAE’s state-owned oil company, ADNOC, sought nearly $100 billion worth of oil, gas, and petrochemical deals during the COP28 climate summit in Dubai. The report alleges that ADNOC leveraged its prestige as COP host to pursue these deals, including a joint venture with BP and bids for stakes in Braskem and Petrobras. Global Witness warns that this could set a dangerous precedent for future COPs, with the incoming host, Azerbaijan, potentially seeking to emulate UAE’s approach.

More than a fifth of Shell shareholders voted against the company’s climate strategy at its annual general meeting, rejecting a resolution calling for alignment with Paris Agreement goals. The meeting was marked by interruptions from protesters condemning Shell’s environmental and human rights record. Despite a slight decrease from last year, nearly 19% of voters supported the climate resolution, reflecting investor concerns over Shell’s commitment to reducing emissions.

Despite commitments to lower emissions, Europe’s top banks provided $24.2 billion to fossil fuel companies in 2023. The Banking on Climate Chaos report found that European banks contributed just over a quarter of the global fossil fuel financing last year, with Barclays, Santander, and Deutsche Bank among the biggest lenders. European banks appear to be particularly blind to the risks associated with the expansion of LNG, financing new facilities that will lock us into fossil gas for decades to come.

Two elderly Just Stop Oil protestors have damaged the protective case around the Magna Carta in a symbolic protest against the government’s inaction on climate change. Reverend Dr Sue Parfitt, 82, and Judy Bruce, 85, entered the British Library in London and vandalized the enclosure, demanding that the UK commit to phasing out fossil fuels by 2030. Their protest comes after a High Court ruling criticized the government’s lack of plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, highlighting the urgency of addressing the climate crisis.

Capital Power’s decision to halt its Genesee carbon capture project highlights the financial and technological challenges facing such initiatives. The $2.4-billion project aimed to reduce carbon emissions, but uncertainty over carbon credit value and the fate of carbon pricing, along with the risks and costs associated with using the technology in a gas plant, contributed to the decision. While other carbon capture proposals may continue, analysts believe the risks are lower in industries with more established technologies.

A carbon capture and storage project in Saskatchewan, Canada, has fallen short of its emissions reduction targets, casting doubt on the technology’s cost-effectiveness. According to a report by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, the Boundary Dam project, a coal-fired power plant that began capturing carbon dioxide in 2014, has not consistently met its goal of capturing 90% of emissions. The average capture rate has been approximately 57%, primarily due to technical issues and limited demand for carbon dioxide from the energy industry. While proponents argue that the project has provided valuable experience and lessons for future CCS projects, critics maintain that carbon capture is unlikely to be a cost-effective solution for reducing emissions on a large scale.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) final power plant rule is a grave threat to America’s energy supply. The rule mandates that coal plants and any new natural gas plant drastically reduce or capture carbon dioxide emissions by 2032. However, carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), the technology upon which the rule relies, remains highly expensive and largely unsuccessful. As a result, the EPA’s rule could force many power plants to shut down, leading to increased reliance on intermittent and unreliable renewable energy sources. This transition would result in soaring electricity prices and jeopardize grid reliability, potentially jeopardizing American safety and livelihoods.

The Biden administration has finalized regulations cracking down on fossil fuel-fired power plants as part of its climate agenda. The rules target coal-fired generation and future natural gas power plants, aiming to reduce carbon emissions by 90%. Critics warn that the regulations will strain the power grid, leading to blackouts and higher energy prices. Environmentalists and Democrats applaud the move, while the fossil fuel industry and Republicans criticize it. The regulations have been met with legal challenges and congressional investigations.

Carbon capture technology has emerged as a potential solution to mitigate climate change by capturing and storing carbon dioxide emissions from industrial processes. However, its effectiveness and practicality have been subject to debate. This article delves into the complexities of carbon capture, its potential benefits and challenges, and its role in the broader context of addressing climate change. The article highlights the need for a balanced approach that considers both the limitations and opportunities presented by carbon capture technology.