This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
In response, Multnomah County, which includes Portland, filed a lawsuit for over $51 billion against major fossilfuel entities–one of the largest claims for a climate case to date. Now, the case faces resistance, with apparent intimidation tactics aimed at discouraging academics and regulators from getting involved in the case.
While at least one event provided a platform for oil and gas industry greenwashing, others centered people directly affected by fossilfuel-driven climate change who are holding bad actors accountable. I had the honor of moderating one of the latter events, Scientists & Activists vs. FossilFuel Finance.
This year has brought new evidence of what major fossilfuel companies knew and when about the role their products play in climate change, as well as what they did in spite of what they knew. But these technologies are no substitute for sharp cuts in fossilfuels if we keep the goals of the Paris climate agreement within reach.
A new dataset released by InfluenceMap provides information on heat-trapping emissions traced to the 122 largest investor and state-owned fossilfuel companies in the world. Fossilfuels are the main driver of climate change and the terrifying effects of it that we see happening across the world.
Scientists are sounding the alarm because this warming is shockingly bigbigger than what we would have expected given the long-term warming trend from fossilfuel-caused climate change. Meanwhile, sharply cutting our use of fossilfuels is the best way to limit carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions, the primary driver of climate change.
This month, UN Secretary-General António Guterres called for a ban on advertising by fossilfuel companies, invoking the ban on tobacco ads as a relevant precedent. So what can we learn from the ban on tobacco advertising, promotion, and sponsorship that may be relevant to tackling the fossilfuel industry-driven climate crisis?
Some years ago, I began to feel the most important thing I could do was learn how to replace fossilfuel with renewable energy. For 30 years I have been an advocate for offshore wind development off New England’s coast and for the creation of institutions to support a transition from fossilfuels to renewable energy.
Other topics include fighting greenwashing and supporting climate regulations. The post UN Net-Zero Guidance Calls for End of FossilFuels Financial Support appeared first on Environment + Energy Leader.
The decision at the Glasgow climate conference to phase down fossilfuels is an important step forward — and not just because of climate change. We think of fossilfuels as a source of climate change, but that’s only a one part of the problem. Fossilfuels are a case in point. Consider coal.
In an important win for climate accountability in the United States, the US Supreme Court decided that lawsuits filed in Colorado, Maryland, California, Hawai’i, and Rhode Island against fossilfuel companies including ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, Suncor, and others will remain in state courts.
The world’s biggest fossilfuel companies recently released their 2022 earnings reports, revealing record-breaking profits last year; just five companies–ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, Chevron, and TotalEnergies–reported a total of nearly $200 billion in profits.
Production and combustion of fossilfuels imposes enormous costs on society, which the industry doesn’t pay for. A more promising alternative might be a clean-up tax on the fossilfuel industry. A carbon tax could cover the economy without the need for scores of regulations tailored to each industry.
Three decades of deregulation allowed private companies, as opposed to public regulators, to make critical decisions about reliability. In many places state and federal utility regulators delegated decisions about energy supplies to the market. These changes have dramatically reduced the amount of fossilsfuels burned for energy.
But this new study from my colleagues working on climate change and fossilfuel accountability couldn’t be ignored. In short, the study concludes that fossilfuel companies are in part to blame for the extraordinary damages resulting from western wildfires (including those sparked by utilities). That equates to 19.8
Utilities and grid operators prepared for the storm as it was coming down the pike, but they still underestimated the energy demand it would trigger, as well as the number of outages at fossilfuel power plants—mainly natural gas-fired, plus some coal-fired plants.
Replacing fossilfuels with renewable energy from wind and solar will depend on upgrading the electric power grid, which is currently plagued by planning delays and gridlock. The 2021 law allows, but does not require, PJM to plan ahead because various fossilfuel plants must reduce and then cease emissions by a specific date.
You or someone you know needs clean backup power Walking my dog the day after Hurricane Milton swept through my Orlando, FL neighborhood, the rumble of fossilfuel-powered generators interrupted what would have been a welcome quiet after the storm. I don’t blame them. Drivers buying used EVs have less control.
And fossilfuel power plants may not stick to their retirement schedules for a variety of reasons. The bottom line: There’s still a long way to go, and the clean energy transition must move quicker than it has been—despite the fossilfuel industry’s self-serving claims to the contrary. A bit more on those reasons later.
Special session takes on big oil and wins The transition to clean transportation and away from fossilfuels is here. Policies like this will be critical to ensure that the fossilfuels phaseout is equitable and Big Oil doesn’t squeeze every dollar out of California consumers on the way out the door.
As the year kicks off with a very cold January weather forecast, US power grid operators and the regulators who oversee them are paying close attention to ensure that the grid failures of several past extreme winter storms dont happen again. and would greatly facilitate transmission development on a reasonable timeline.
As another summer Danger Season gets underway with extreme floods in Texas and Florida , wildfires in California , and an above-average hurricane season predicted, it’s time for policymakers and regulators to get serious about real solutions to address the insurance crisis.
We progress despite regular cries of impending doom from regulated industries and their enablers. Over its short lifetime, the program has already transformed many segments of the fuels market. If CARB approves amendments to the program, the shift to clean fuels in California will only accelerate. But it’s never easy.
The regulator can only be effective if it is independent from the industries it oversees. The regulator can only be effective if it is independent from the industries it oversees. The AER has consistently failed to fulfill its mandate to ensure safe, environmentally responsible energy development.
Statement by Alienor Rougeot, Senior Program Manager, Climate and Energy, on Ontario’s claims regarding the federal Clean Electricity Regulations. The federal government’s proposed regulations to reduce emissions in electricity generation are achievable without breaking the bank.
The multiple perspectives in the fuller picture have to be on the minds of electricity sector decision makers, from the prospective project proponents to the public utility commissioners and environmental regulators in charge of assessing a project on behalf of the public. And we don’t need to have all the answers to make a difference.
Although the country’s federal energy regulator has had a disconcertingly nonchalant attitude towards these events.) Even with the clean energy transition well underway, gas plants will be around for a while as we phase out fossilfuels.
CARB’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) seeks to incentivize the production and sale of alternative, lower emissions transportation fuels in order to displace conventional fossilfuels. To identify which fuels should be promoted, CARB calculates the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuels.
This decision , reached with a 6-3 majority led by Chief Justice John Roberts, marks a significant shift in administrative law and has profound implications for environmental regulations and climate accountability. Successful court cases could limit the scope of future regulations. Worse, agencies may decide not to even try.
New science has shown that the largest fossilfuel, dairy, and waste methane super-emitters contribute a sizeable fraction of the total methane emissions in the regions the study authors monitored. Their use of these tactics underlie the calls to hold both the fossilfuel and meat and dairy industries accountable for their actions.
At the top of the list of key climate regulations that need to be finalized before March 24th is the governments cap on pollution from the oil and gas industry. Without a strong oil and gas pollution cap, fossilfuel companies will continue to prioritize their profits at the expense of our health, climate and future.
And we know that as our climate warms further—driven by burning fossilfuels—the risk of large wildfires will only grow. This alarming finding clarifies the significant role and responsibility of fossilfuel companies to not only stop their harm moving forward, but also to address damage they have already done.
A big shift to renewables could leave stranded assets — existing fossilfuel plants that the utility will no longer get paid for using. In much of the country, those wholesale transactions are under the control of regional transmission organizations established by federal power regulators, but that’s not true everywhere.
That’s because the case, which was about the nature and scope of EPA authority in regulating carbon emissions from existing power plants, turned on a rule that does not exist. Because while this decision does still recognize EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, it simultaneously sharply curtails the agency’s ability to do so.
Paul Arbaje is an energy analyst in the Climate & Energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists and an expert on electricity policies and reforms that reduce fossilfuel use and reliance. The energy enthusiast who owns their own homes can take further steps toward making their homes completely free of direct fossilfuel use.
Prompted by a state law, California’s utility regulator has proposed to change the way electricity is billed by adding a fixed monthly charge to all rate plans and making a corresponding reduction to the cost for each unit of electricity used. We’re at a critical moment in California.
Scientists launch a new research center to study what they say is now a leading disease risk factor: corporations. By Liza Gross Theres been a marked shift in the types of diseases causing the most harm around the world over the past few decades.
California’s transportation fuel policy is knee deep in cow poop, and it’s not a good look. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is considering amendments to its Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) regulation, but indicated they have no plans to address the problems caused by counter-productive subsidies for manure biomethane.
Methane emissions come from two main sources : fossilfuels and agriculture—primarily animal-based agriculture. Despite the obvious dangers of fossilfuel production and the multi-decade climate disinformation campaigns fossilfuel producers have perpetrated, the industry still holds political sway.
Many of my colleagues have already described the various ways we’ve gotten into this elevated fuel price mess, why doubling down on fossilfuels at this moment is a horrible idea, and why doing so would not improve our current or future economic, geopolitical or environmental problems. How Did We Get Here?
Now the reports driven by these resolutions are beginning to roll in, and while they certainly provide some insight into the fossilfuel industry’s investment in political influence, a sleight of hand is preventing investors from seeing the companies’ full strategy. The organization received between $2.5
In December, the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service proposed regulations governing implementation of the 45V Clean Hydrogen Production Tax Credit , passed as part of 2022’s Inflation Reduction Act. In particular, emissions loopholes related to biomethane and fugitive methane (i.e.,
Specifically, the motion would require new buildings to be constructed to source their power from the city’s energy grid — which is anticipated to be carbon-free by 2035 — rather than from fossilfuels. The post Los Angeles Considers Zero-Carbon Requirement for All New Buildings appeared first on Environment + Energy Leader.
What are the physical limitations of this fossilfuel resource that make it vulnerable during, say, summer droughts , or the types of extreme heat waves the world has been experiencing for months now? But what does extreme weather actually do to cause gas plants to run into trouble?
EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act (CAA) A. Nuclear power regulation D. FERC pipeline regulation (natural gas and hydrogen). Rules relating to renewable and fossilfuel development on public lands and offshore. California authority to regulate new vehicles D. Co-benefits E.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 12,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content