Latest news with #fossilFuels
Daily Mail
3 days ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
Ed Miliband attacks 'defeatist' Tony Blair after ex-PM warned Labour's Net Zero is 'doomed to fail'
Ed Miliband yesterday branded Tony Blair 'incredibly defeatist' over his warning that Labour's controversial Net Zero drive is 'doomed to fail'. In a high-profile intervention last month, Mr Blair savaged the Government's obsession with Net Zero, saying voters were being asked to make 'financial sacrifices and changes in lifestyle' that they knew would have 'minimal' effect on global emissions. The former prime minister said Mr Miliband's drive to phase out fossil fuels was 'doomed to fail'. And he urged ministers to rethink the Government's 'irrational' approach. His comments came in the foreword to a report on climate change published by his think-tank. Downing Street declined to criticise Mr Blair at the time, saying that parts of the report were in tune with Government thinking. But Mr Miliband went on the attack on Friday, saying critics of his agenda were being 'far too defeatist about Britain'. He said he was 'absolutely determined' to deliver on Labour's Net Zero plans – and suggested they should even be accelerated. Speaking to the Rest is Politics podcast, Mr Miliband described the former PM's intervention as 'disappointing'. Podcast host Alastair Campbell, who served for years as Mr Blair's chief spin doctor, revealed that on the day of his intervention last month, Mr Miliband sent him a message asking: 'What the f*** is he up to now?' Mr Miliband replied: 'The report itself – he wrote a foreword to the report – is perfectly unobjectionable... but what is disappointing about Tony's foreword, and I have huge respect for Tony, is I think it is incredibly defeatist which is not what Tony is. It is really defeatist. 'It sort of says we're not going to succeed, we're not going to achieve 1.5 degrees – the whole thing is, it's all going badly.' Mr Miliband insisted that global action on climate change was now achieving more than when he previously held a similar role in the last Labour government 15 years ago. 'It is just not true to say the world has not made progress,' he said. Mr Miliband is in charge of Labour's 'mission' to decarbonise the UK's entire electricity supply by 2030 – a goal which many experts believe is impossible to achieve without incurring ruinous costs. Trade unions have warned the plan will cost thousands of well-paid jobs in the North Sea oil and gas industry. On Friday, Mr Miliband vowed to press ahead with his agenda, regardless of the criticism – and insisted that the rest of the world would eventually follow. Mr Miliband was speaking to Rest Is Politics podcast host Alastair Campbell, pictured with Mr Blair in 1994. He served for years as Mr Blair's chief spin doctor 'Let's not have a diminished view of Britain,' he said. 'We really matter in this. So many countries come to me and say, you have got a really important responsibility here.' Mr Miliband suggested there was even a case for accelerating Labour's plans. 'The biggest single risk is that we are held in absolute contempt by future generations,' he said. 'They will say, you knew – as a generation – about the problem, you knew about the scale of the problem, you saw the wildfires and the heatwave deaths... you knew about the problem and had time to do something about it and you totally f***ed it up, you didn't do it.'
The Verge
3 days ago
- Health
- The Verge
Young people sue Donald Trump over climate change
A group of young people — as young as 7 and as old as 25 — are suing the Trump administration to stop its assault on renewable energy and climate action. Executive orders President Donald Trump signed to promote fossil fuels amount to an 'unconstitutional' overreach of power, they allege in a complaint filed Thursday at a US District Court in Montana. The 22 plaintiffs also claim that by increasing pollution and denying climate science, the president's actions violate their Fifth Amendment rights to life and liberty. It's the latest high-profile case brought against governments by youth concerned about how fossil fuel pollution and climate change poses risks to their health and ability to thrive as they grow up. Two brothers, aged 11 and 7, 'were born into climate change-induced smoke seasons that did not exist for older generations' Two brothers, aged 11 and 7 and named 'J.K.' and 'N.K.' in the suit, 'were born into climate change-induced smoke seasons that did not exist for older generations and which compromise their health,' the complaint says. They grew up mostly in Montana but now live in Southern California, and the suit says wildfire smoke has encroached on their lives from state to state. J.K. was born with an abnormal mass of lung tissue and 'experienced nosebleeds, sore throats, headaches, tiredness, coughing, trouble breathing, and eye irritation from wildfire smoke,' according to the suit. N.K. has 'frequent' upper respiratory infections that have led to emergency room visits. They've both missed school days and camp because of feeling sick from smoke and soot in the air from wildfires, it says. Greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels trap heat, and rising temperatures have contributed to longer fire seasons in the western US. With hotter, drier conditions, the area burned by forest fires in the western US doubled between 1984 and 2015. 'Every additional ton of [greenhouse gas] pollution and increment of heat Defendants cause will cause J.K. and N.K. more days of poor air quality, more smoke, and thus, more harm to their lives, health, and safety,' the complaint adds. In recent years, scientists have been trying to better understand the long-term health impact of wildfire smoke, which previously hadn't been studied as thoroughly as pollution from other sources thought to be more consistent problems, like factories and highways. Now, chronic exposure to wildfire smoke is a growing concern. Wildfire smoke is considered a neurotoxin estimated to be more harmful than other common air pollutants, but its effects on the body can vary depending on what kinds of materials burn and how chemicals released by the fire interact with other substances in the atmosphere. After campaigning on a promise to ' drill, baby, drill ' and accepting more than $75 million in contributions from oil and gas interests, Trump signed executive orders on his first day in office declaring a purported 'national energy emergency,' directing federal agencies to 'unleash' domestic fossil fuel production and promote the use of gas-powered vehicles over EVs. He signed another executive order to 'reinvigorat[e]' the coal industry in April. Coal releases more planet-heating pollution when burned than other fossil fuels and has struggled to compete with cheaper sources of electricity. The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief to block implementation of those executive orders and to declare them unconstitutional. They also claim that Trump lacks the authority to erode environmental protections passed by Congress under the Clean Air Act. The administration's efforts to impede scientific research and remove climate information from federal websites amounts to 'censorship' and denies plaintiffs access to resources they might otherwise be able to use to minimize risks they face from climate change, the suit alleges. In response to the lawsuit, White House assistant press secretary Taylor Rogers said in an email to The Verge, 'The American people are more concerned with the future generations' economic and national security, which is why they elected President Trump in a landslide victory to restore America's energy dominance. Future generations should not have to foot the bill of the lefts' radical climate agenda.' The plaintiffs, who hail from Montana, Oregon, Hawai'i, California, and Florida, are represented by the nonprofit law firm Our Children's Trust, which has also represented young people in similar climate cases. A federal appellate court dismissed another case that youth filed against the Obama administration in 2015 over fossil fuel pollution causing climate change, and the US Supreme Court ended that legal battle this year when it declined to hear an appeal. But there have also been some wins. A group of youth reached a settlement last year with the state of Hawai'i and its Department of Transportation that commits them to a plan to reach zero greenhouse gas emissions from transportation by 2045. J.K. and N.K. were also plaintiffs in a climate suit filed against the state of Montana. Last year, Montana's Supreme Court upheld a district judge ruling affirming their right to a clean and healthy environment and rejecting policies that had barred officials from considering the consequences of climate change when permitting new energy projects.
Fast Company
23-05-2025
- Business
- Fast Company
What is ESG investing, and is it still a thing under Trump?
The first time I met with a financial adviser who wasn't my dad, I told him that I wanted to avoid fossil fuels, weapons manufacturers, and health insurance companies in my retirement investment portfolio. The adviser paused, sighed, and said, 'I've got some bad news for you.' He explained that since I was unwilling to pick individual stocks, it was virtually impossible to avoid investing my money in those industries. And even if I had the time and temperament to trade individual stocks to keep my investments from oil, weapons, and health insurance, my money might not keep pace with the market, or even inflation. In short, my adviser believed I could either grow my money or feel good about my investments, but not both. This conversation took place more than 15 years ago. In the intervening time, socially responsible investing became mainstream. These days, every brokerage and retirement plan offers at least one ESG (environmental, social, and corporate governance) investing option for concerned investors. But just how much have things changed since my adviser poured cold water on my investing idealism? Does the existence of ESG funds truly give you the option of investing responsibly? And considering the way Trump has declared war on the very idea of corporate responsibility, will ESG investing be around much longer? In a financial world that thinks morals are paintings on walls, here's what you need to know about investing your values. Rating companies on ESG performance The ESG rating system measures the performance of a fund, security, or company in environmental, social, or corporate governance issues. Specifically, analysts look at how the company fares in terms of its environmental sustainability, its social impact, and how its internal governance promotes equity. The goal of the ESG rating system is to provide an objective analysis and rating of the company's relative performance compared to other companies in the market. The rating is no more than a snapshot in time, since industry changes, market conditions, social and environmental shifts, policy adjustments within the company, and other situational changes can affect a score. ESG doesn't mean what you think it means If ESG investing specifically highlights companies for their environmental or social impact, or for their commitment to equitable corporate governance, then investing in highly rated ESG funds means you are not only doing right by your money but also helping the planet and your fellow humans. At least that's what you'd assume ESG investing was all about. Unfortunately, that's not necessarily what highly rated ESG investments are doing. According to Kenneth P. Pucker and Andrew King, writing for Harvard Business Review in 2022, 'the ESG ratings which underlie ESG fund selection are based on single materiality —the impact of the changing world on a company profit and loss.' This is in contrast to companies considering double materiality, which looks at environmental impact in both directions: How do the organization's decisions affect the environment and climate, and what potential effect will the climate and environment have on the company's bottom line? By looking only at single materiality, highly rated ESG funds are only interested in providing value to shareholders. The underlying companies may pay lip service to sustainability or social responsibility, but their business practices don't accept responsibility for actually making any changes that will help the environment or social issues. Paying more for less Even if highly rated ESG companies aren't necessarily playing fast and loose with the definition of 'socially responsible,' it's likely that you're going to pay more to invest your money with an ESG fund—and get less for your investment. That's because ESG funds typically charge higher management fees than passive index funds while providing worse returns. This means ESG investing is an emotional decision rather than a sound investment in improving the planet, society, or your nest egg. Gaming the system The ESG rating system isn't set up to reward companies that are doing the hard work of mitigating negative environmental and social impacts. This doesn't necessarily mean that all highly rated ESG funds are full of companies headed by Gordon Gekko types. But there are certainly a number of companies that are happy to use the ESG rating system to their advantage. For instance, in 2023, presidential pal and hat weirdo Elon Musk decried the ESG rating system for ranking Tesla below Philip Morris (of cancer stick fame). Although Tesla's business model is about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, Philip Morris earned a significantly higher ESG score for promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion policies within its C-suite. Musk claimed that Phillip Morris gamed the rating system to garner its 84/100 ESG score, compared to Tesla's measly 37/100. And as much as it pains me to admit it, Musk was probably right. There's not much a cigarette company can do to improve its environmental or social impact, so if it wants to improve its ESG score, it has to focus on corporate governance. Despite having an eco-friendly product, Tesla was dinged for the lack of diversity within its corporate governance. Instead of ESG spurring environmentally friendly companies like Tesla to embrace DEI initiatives in the boardroom—which is what most idealistic investors probably would have preferred to see—the rating system created a way for companies like Philip Morris to greenwash their image. Navigating the ESG landscape in the Trump era It may come as no surprise that the current president is no fan of ESG investing. Between rolling back environmental regulations, disproportionately affecting women and people of color in his mass layoffs, and axing all diversity, equity, and inclusion within his line of sight, Trump has made it abundantly clear that he does not share any of the ESG values. His distaste for these values is shared by many within the Republican party. Even before Trump returned to D.C. for his second term, multiple Republican-led states had adopted anti-ESG legislation generally aimed at keeping ESG investing out of state pension funds. While the backlash against ESG is going strong, it's unlikely that investors interested in putting their money in ESG funds will be shut out. Not only is ESG a good marketing strategy for businesses (see Philip Morris, above) but it is also popular globally, with 68% of global retail investors stating that their ethical views are an important consideration when choosing an investment, according to AXA Investment Managers. The ESG rating system isn't going anywhere. There are too many forces keeping it in place, even though high-profile tantrum throwers would prefer it to be gone. Invest like a cynical optimist I felt pretty low after my meeting with my financial adviser 15 years ago. Other than trading individual stocks—which will never be my investment style—my only option was putting my retirement money into companies I hated. When ESG investing first gained traction a few years later, my cynicism kept me from becoming too enthusiastic about the new socially responsible investing options. It was no longer my first rodeo, and I knew that there was no easy answer to values investing. And that is the trick to investing your values: recognizing that there are no easy answers. It is possible to invest your money only in companies and organizations that you truly believe in, but you will have to handpick your investments and live with the risk of low returns or potentially losing principal. You can accept the flawed ESG rating system as the best option among a bad lot, but you will have to accept higher management fees and lower returns compared to index funds. Or you can invest passively in index funds, pay lower fees, and expect average returns—but you have to accept that your money is flowing to companies you do not support. None of these options can relieve you of your ethical guilt, provide you with the investment returns you need, and require little-to-no active management on your part—because no investment can do all of that at the same time. Accepting that the perfect investment doesn't exist is the fastest way to finding an investment strategy you can live with. As for me, I've chosen to stick with the passive investing strategy that best fits my skills and temperament while committing to donating a percentage of my returns to organizations working to make the world a better place. It's an imperfect solution, but it works for me.
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Why is the Ohio Power Siting Board allowing fossil fuel interests to shut down solar farms?
Solar panels in Damariscotta, Maine. (Photo by Evan Houk/ Maine Morning Star) It is now well-documented — such as this news story by the Pulitzer Prize winning ProPublica about actually purchasing a newspaper in Knox County to use as a source of misinformation — that the exorbitantly wealthy fossil fuel industry in Ohio is seeking to halt solar farms because they are competition. As Jake Zuckerman reported for in March: 'Ohioans and their elected representatives have killed enough solar development to roughly power the state's three largest cities in the three years since state lawmakers passed one of the nation's most stringent restrictions on new solar development.' But this is now poised to take a quantum leap due to a case at the Ohio Supreme Court. At issue is whether the Ohio Power Siting Board will be allowed to grant what is essentially 'veto power' over solar projects to a small handful of local officials. If granted, it will provide an almost perfect vehicle for causing the demise of solar projects across Ohio. Here is how this policy translates into solar rejections. When decisions are given to only a few individuals, there is no longer any need to persuade a majority of the public — the way a democracy works. Instead the 'blitz' can be focused on just these few, making abuse extraordinarily easy. Solar advocates are becoming placed in an essentially impossible bind. If local officials are already 'locked up' by excessive lobbying from fossil fuel interests, there now appears virtually no chance of prevailing. It is not an exaggeration to call this a de facto 'rigging' of the process. A notorious example of this process at work is the Grange Solar Grazing Project. A count revealed a full 80% of public comments were in favor. Yet when a handful of local officials expressed opposition, this 80% majority — and the democratic process itself — got over-ridden and the project was rejected by power siting board staff. Rural Ohioans oppose solar farms, right? Not so, developer finds The Grange project was located in the home district of Ohio Senate President Rob McColley, R-Napoleon — a primary co-sponsor of the openly anti-solar SB 52 legislation. This writer is not privy to details, but it stands to reason this juxtaposition generated major pressure on local officials. The pattern repeated again on April 17: 'In yet another case of the state's hostility to utility-scale projects, state regulators have unanimously rejected a 150 MW project outside Canton because of organized opposition from local officials.' Due to an appearance of favoritism, the solar advocacy group Third Act Ohio legitimately asked the OPSB to explain why such authority was being handed to local officials. While completely ignoring the question, this group was referred to 'criteria' in a statute to guide decisions, and directed to a link. When examined, this statute contained no requirement that a project meet approval of local officials. Instead, the group found a separate statute specifically FORBIDDING such. The very title is 'No Local Jurisdiction.' There is a strong appearance that this action is being 'manufactured out of thin air.' If reinforced by the state Supreme Court, the stage seems set for a sweeping shutdown of utility scale solar in Ohio. Why does this matter? Ohio is not just one state among many. It is the fifth most prolific producer of carbon emissions. Failure in Ohio would combine with a nationwide failure promoted by Trump and the Republican Party to inflict drastic global consequences. Science warns that crossing a climate 'tipping point' will unleash a continuing spiral of increasing temperatures, with little public awareness about the immense scale of harm that would bring. When our current 1.5 degree C increase spirals toward a 3 degree C increase, a band around the earth paralleling the equator would dry up from massive drought. This area — called a 'dead zone' because of its unlivability — would spread north and south. Tens of millions affected by collapsed food supply would escalate into the hundreds of millions. On a matter affecting survival of life as we know it, the OPSB must not be allowed to become the proverbial 'fox guarding the chicken coop' and tilt the process toward the vested interests it was supposed to regulate! Gary Houser is a long time Ohio solar advocate, who also produces video resources on the frightening danger of a climate tipping point. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
E&E News
16-05-2025
- Business
- E&E News
GOP plan would let oil, carbon pipelines use eminent domain
A House Republican proposal to extend federal eminent domain power to developers of oil, hydrogen and carbon dioxide pipelines would rewrite decades of oversight — and likely anger a swath of rural voters. The proposal was rolled out as one small part of the GOP party-line megabill that the House Energy and Commerce Committee advanced this week. Easing regulatory requirements on pipelines has already drawn the ire of environmental groups, who oppose new fossil fuel projects. The fate of the reconciliation bill remains up in the air, meaning the pipeline provision could still be altered or deleted. Advertisement But moving to broaden companies' ability to take property from unwilling sellers stands to upset rural Republicans who have increasingly protested the use of eminent domain by private pipeline builders. In particular, landowner opposition in Iowa and South Dakota has derailed a 2,500-mile carbon dioxide pipeline network proposed for six states in the Midwest. Opponents see the reconciliation proposal as an effort to revive the project from Summit Carbon Solutions.
