Happy Nice Mall

Climate scientists, oil executives, progressives and conservatives agree on one thing these days: the energy transition is ahead.

Over a century of unhindered burning of fossil fuels has already significantly warmed the planet, and cleaner and more sustainable energy sources are urgently needed to avoid further catastrophic changes to the environment.

But even if longtime foes use the same terminology and call for an “energy shift” in unison, they often talk about completely different scenarios.

According to the scientific consensus, the energy transition requires the rapid decommissioning of fossil fuels and the rapid expansion of cleaner energy sources such as wind, solar and nuclear.

But many in the oil and gas industry say the energy transition means continued use of fossil fuels, with greater reliance on natural gas than coal, and in the hope that new technologies such as carbon capture and sequestration can contain or reduce that amount. greenhouse gases they produce

“The term energy transition is interpreted one way by climate hawks and completely different by those in the oil and gas industry,” said Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Climate Change Communications Program. “It’s such a vague term. Like, what does it mean?”

Dr. Leiserowitz said the phrase has become what’s known in linguistic circles as a “floating signifier.” He called it “an empty term that you can fill in with your own preferred definition.”

Efforts to get the world off fossil fuels have been going in slow motion for years, as nations and companies move forward in scattered efforts to reduce emissions. But the transformation is reaching a turning point today, as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine spurs climate advocates and the oil and gas industry to act. advanced dueling narratives about what the energy transition is and how it should be done.

Climate researchers caution that there is little room for uncertainty. With the growing urgency, a number of key scientific reports have highlighted the need for fossil fuel phasing out and the detrimental effects of planet-warming emissions.

Last year, a landmark report The International Energy Agency said in a statement that countries around the world must immediately stop certifying new coal-fired power plants and new oil and gas fields and quickly phase out gasoline-powered vehicles to avoid the worst effects of climate change.

and last monthThe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of experts convened by the United Nations, said the number of people suffering irreparable loss or displacement due to extreme weather conditions will increase rapidly without a rapid shift from fossil fuels.

Those in favor of a swift return to clean energy argue that the war in Ukraine, which highlights Europe’s over-reliance on Russian oil and gas, is only driving home the urgent need to move away from fossil fuels.

“There’s a well-understood path here that we should all follow,” said Mark Brownstein, senior vice president of energy for the Environmental Defense Fund, a nonprofit that advocates for swift action to address climate change. “A radical shift from oil and gas production and use to renewable sources.”

Public opinion also supports a determined move away from fossil fuels, with 69 percent of Americans saying the development of clean energy sources should be a high priority for leaders in Washington, and the same share supporting the US economy’s transition to new energy. 100 percent clean energy by 2050 last survey by the Pew Research Center. At the same time, only 31 percent of respondents think the US should eliminate fossil fuels entirely.

“Public support for accelerating the clean energy transition is largely driven by the view that burning fossil fuels is bad for people’s health and the health of the planet, and that the transition to clean energy will generate more jobs and strengthen our economy more than sustained confidence. Edward Maibach, director of the Climate Change Communication Center at George Mason University, said in an email. “Public perception is in line with the views of health professionals and economists on these points.”

But oil and gas managers have a very different view of what the energy transition should look like.

At CERAWeek, a major energy industry conference held in Houston last week, there were more than 100 panel discussions and presentations on the “energy transition”, the term used to describe programs that express a range of visions from virtually eliminating coal use. Using all forms of energy, including gas and oil, fossil fuels for the foreseeable future, but capturing emissions that harm the planet.

“All energy resources will be needed to support a successful transition,” Amin Nasser, CEO of Saudi Aramco, the world’s largest oil company, said at the conference. “Our industry should also do its part”

Mr. Nasser lamented the lack of a coherent intergovernmental plan for the energy transition and said politicians are discouraging oil and gas production without allocating enough resources to develop renewable energy sources that can quickly replace fossil fuels. Mr. Nasser made no mention of oil companies lobbying to weaken and block laws that address climate change, such as President Biden’s Build Back Better bill, which would devote $550 billion in tax incentives to clean energy.

“We don’t really have a transition plan,” he said. “We have a chaotic transition plan.”

Fossil fuel managers cited the war in Ukraine as proof that their industry remains indispensable. Many major oil and gas companies have pledged to increase production in the short term to stabilize global energy markets, even as they voice their role in the energy transition.

Darren Woods, CEO of Exxon Mobil, said in a speech that his company is using its technology to help solve the problem of “reducing greenhouse gas emissions and supporting the transition to a net zero future” while increasing oil production. “Exxon is among several major oil and gas companies investing in efforts to capture and store carbon and generate power with hydrogen, which is derived from fossil fuels but produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions.

In an interview in Washington this week, Kathleen Sgamma, president of the Western Energy Alliance, which represents oil and gas companies, dismissed the notion that an “energy transition” means a significant reduction in the use of fossil fuels. Energy Information Agency last year. estimated It is predicted that the demand for oil and natural gas will continue to increase steadily until 2050.

“We can talk about this idealistic pseudo-future without oil, gas and coal,” Ms. Sgamma said. “But that’s not the truth.”

He argued that while renewable energy sources such as wind and solar are cheap, they are difficult to scale and unreliable.

“So if we’re going to talk about a transition, let’s find something we can switch to, because right now we don’t have the technology to meet all of our needs 24/7. We certainly don’t,” he said. “So to be realistic, we’ll be here by 2050 and years from now.”

Critics of the oil and gas industry see its insistence on the lasting value of fossil fuels as a distraction tactic at best and deceptive at worst.

“It’s a cover for ‘We don’t want a real transition,'” said David Victor, a climate policy expert at the University of California, San Diego.

Dark terminology also leaves the door open for a greenwash.

Dr. “Any company, even an oil company, can say, ‘Oh, we’re behind the energy transition,'” Leiserowitz said, citing examples such as Exxon’s marketing of algae biofuels and BP’s attempt to rebrand itself as “Beyond Oil.” ”

“This is a clever way to capitalize on this broader narrative of the transition,” he said.

However, even though the term means different things to different groups, it can be a useful development for the fierce enemies to share a common language.

Teenie Matlock, a professor of cognitive sciences at the University of California Merced who studies the semantics of climate change, said that even if not everyone agrees on the details, having a common set of terms is an important step in efforts to find a common cause. immediately.

“With the word ‘transition’ and the way it is used, it opens the window for multiple stakeholders,” he said. “It invites everyone to participate in a dialogue.”

Dr. Leiserowitz agreed, adding that the fact that the oil and gas industry recognized the need for change was a major breakthrough.

“The upside is that it’s a term flexible enough to move everyone in the same direction, and how important that is can’t be overstated,” he said. “Just using the term ‘energy transition’ means we are going from where we are today. So you’ve already identified the fundamental direction of progress, and that’s huge.”

Semantics alone is unlikely to determine the rate at which fossil fuels are replaced by cleaner energy sources. John Podesta, a former senior adviser to President Barack Obama and founder of the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank, said the economy will determine how long the world will “shift” to clean energy and leave behind fossil fuels.

Can fossil fuel plants that use technology to capture and store hazardous carbon dioxide emissions compete with wind and solar alongside battery storage? With EV charging stations more plentiful, will paying to refuel a gas-powered car still be the best choice?

“We’ll let the market decide that,” Mr. Podesta said. “I’ll bet on renewable resources plus storage, but you know, other people make different bets.”