Top climate scientists blamed disinformation and lobbying campaigns including those from Exxon Mobile for slowing down efforts to curb emissions, a leaked draft report obtained by Politico said.
The report, part of an upcoming review of climate science by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has a section called “resistance to climate change science” under its North American section.
The report blamed think tanks, foundations, and trade associations that represent fossil fuel companies for spreading fake science that misleads the public and hampers efforts to curb the climate crisis.
“Rhetoric on climate change and the undermining of science have contributed to misperceptions of the scientific consensus, uncertainty, unduly discounted risk and urgency, dissent, and, most importantly, polarized public support delaying mitigation and adaptation action, particularly in the US,” the report said.
This comes after Greenpeace investigation project Unearthed released videos showing an Exxon Mobil official who was tricked to believe he was in an interview speaking frankly about the group’s lobbying strategies.
Keith McCoy, Exxon’s senior director for federal relations, spoke about “shadow groups” working to influence senators to weaken parts of President Joe Biden’s infrastructure bill.
“Joe Manchin, I talk to his office every week,” McCoy bragged to the interviewer. He called the Democratic senator from West Virginia a “kingmaker” and discussed how “on the Democrat side we look for the moderates on these issues” in their efforts to stop policies that could hurt the company’s business.
In a statement, Exxon Mobil Chairman and CEO Darren Woods said: “We condemn the statements and are deeply apologetic for them, including comments regarding interactions with elected officials.”
Khanna also said he and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse will write laws that force these companies to disclose what money is going to groups that distort climate information.
“It is a major problem. One of the reasons that we haven’t had action is that we don’t have a common source of facts,” Khanna told Politico. “Until we solve the climate disinformation issue or at least mitigate the issue, it becomes very hard to build a broad-based political consensus that is needed to take the kind of bold steps that are needed to tackle the crisis.”
The 18-year-old climate activist testified before a House oversight committee on Earth Day to discuss the impact of the fossil fuel industry on the environment, saying that subsidizing fossil fuels is “clear proof that we have not understood the climate emergency at all.”
“It is the year 2021, the fact we are still having this discussion and even more that we are still subsidizing fossil fuels using taxpayer money is a disgrace,” she said.
President Joe Biden’s $2.3 trillion vast infrastructure plan includes a detail aimed at rolling back US financial support of fossil fuels, which would bring in $35 billion to the federal government over a decade, The Guardian reported.
During the congressional hearing, Thunberg said putting an end to subsidizing fossil fuel companies is the “very minimum” the US should do in an effort to combat the climate crisis, otherwise lawmakers would have to “explain to your children why you are surrendering on the 1.5 C target, giving up without even trying.”
“Unlike you, my generation will not give up without a fight,” she said. “How long do you honestly believe that people in power like you will get away with it? How long do you think you can continue to ignore the climate crisis without being held accountable?”
“Young people today will decide how you will be remembered, so my advice for you is to choose wisely,” Thunberg added.
Rep. Ralph Norman, a Republican from South Carolina on the committee, said “the left has resorted to fear tactics on climate change.”
Thunberg replied saying she does not want people to panic but instead, she wants people to “get out of their comfort zones” when it comes to the climate crisis.
Americans across the nation have been watching in horror as frigid conditions have cut power to millions of Texas homes and thrown people into desperate circumstances. They’re now wondering: Could that happen here?
The answer is “yes.” Texas faced a similar winter energy crisis in 2011. Just last year, California cut power to millions of people to prevent wildfires sparked by live power lines. Floods and hurricanes have disrupted power supplies for many Americans in recent memory as well.
The hard truth is that our energy system is more fragile than it should be. With climate change bringing more extreme weather, that’s only likely to get worse. In order to prevent a catastrophe, we need to fix three key vulnerabilities in our current system.
First, we’re dependent on too few centralized power plants that produce most of our energy, and we rely on transmission lines to carry it long distances to our homes. Problems with just a few of those power plants or transmission lines can quickly affect millions.
Second, extreme weather events are becoming more frequent. The infrastructure we built 30 or 50 years ago isn’t equipped to handle more common or severe deep freezes in Texas, increasingly abundant wildfires in the West, or today’s wetter, more powerful hurricanes.
Third, our energy system’s dependence on fossil fuel is adding more climate change-causing pollution to our air, which will cause even more extreme weather in our future. And as the events in Texas showed, fossil fuels can be unreliable when you need them most.
What happened in Texas should be a wake-up call, and it must spur elected officials, regulators and utility companies to build a better and more resilient system.
Preparing for the next Texas-sized disaster
What might a more resilient energy system look like? And how do we make this a reality?
First, US communities need to produce more of our power locally, and redesign the grid so that problems in one area are less likely to cause outages far, far away. Rooftop solar, energy storage technologies such as batteries, electric vehicles, and community “microgrids” all have a role to play.
Rooftop solar panels can be a difference-maker in extreme weather because they produce energy very close to where we use it. Meanwhile, more batteries in our garages, basements, or in our electric vehicles, allow us to store energy for later. Local energy generation also allows us to actually use much more of the power we produce, since at least 67% of the power we generate from fossil fuel power plants is lost through escaped heat and we lose even more when that power has to travel long distances over inefficient lines.
Another way to build energy resilience is to use less energy in the first place. Energy efficiency improvements can reduce stress on the grid at times of high demand, and better-insulated homes, schools and offices are more comfortable in any weather.
State leaders could cut energy waste by requiring utilities to hit energy-saving targets by helping their customers use power more wisely. The utilities can use a medley of approaches, including behavioral programs that put smiley faces on the bills of the most efficient customers, rebate programs for efficient appliances such as electric heat-pumps, and giving customers access to free energy audits, weatherization services and low-cost financing.
Paradoxically, even as we produce and store more of our energy locally, we should reinforce our ability to share electricity across the country. Texas’ standalone grid left it unable to receive sufficient help from other parts of the country as its own power plants were going offline. Even the most self-sufficient areas will need to get help sometimes – and that’s what good neighbors do.
From wildfire-ravaged California to hurricane-hit Puerto Rico, utility planners are learning from their experiences. They aren’t blindly replacing the same flawed centralized energy systems. Instead, they are deciding to daisy-chain together local microgrids, heavily powered by solar, which can function independently and as a network. Under this set-up, if there’s a problem in one area of one local network, it stays contained, and those who have surplus power can come to the aid of areas that have high demand.
Let’s be clear: improving the resilience of our energy system also requires moving away from fossil fuels. Renewable energy is necessary to reduce the disruptive impact of climate change, and studies have shown that it is possible to build an energy system that runs on clean energy and keeps the lights on. And, unlike fuels such as gas and coal that are inherently finite, renewable energy sources will always, well, renew.
As 29 million people huddle in the cold in Texas trying to keep warm, governors, state lawmakers, and regulators should pay close attention to what went wrong, and recognize that simply doubling down on the same failed approaches that put the state at risk will only serve to set us up for the next disaster. A cleaner, safer, more resilient energy system is possible. With smart planning and decisions, we can make it a reality.
Johanna Neumann is the senior director of Environment America’s Campaign for 100% Renewable Energy. Environment America is a national network of 29 state environmental groups with members and supporters in every state.