Fuels
Report: Coal, biomass mix may be in military jet fuel future
http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/12710/report-coal-biomass-mix-may-be-in-military-jet-fuel-future
The U.S. Defense Logistics Agency and the Connecticut Center for Advanced Technology recently released results of a research project that investigated the technical feasibility, commercial viability and environmental compliance of the use of liquefied coal and biomass mixtures as a military jet fuel replacement.
Overall, the research “showed potentially highly effective alternative fuel resources that can end the current debate,” according to the project report. Objectives of the study included the investigation, through analyses and testing of the use of domestic coal and biomass mixtures to make liquid fuel (CBTL), with a focus on gasification.
The project team executed gasification testing and analyses of 150 coal-biomass feedstock tests, performing them at five different partner and facility locations—the Energy and Environmental Research Center in Grand Forks. N.D., the U.S. DOE National Carbon Capture Center in Wilsonville, Alabama, Westinghouse Plasma Corporation at Madison, Pennslyvania, ThermoChem Recovery International, Inc. in Durham, North Carolina, and Emery Energy Company in Laramie, Wyoming.
All CO2 footprint projections of alternative jet fuel made from solid feedstocks tested were below the petroleum baseline for blended jet fuel (50 percent alternative fuel plus 50 percent petroleum-based fuel), thereby satisfying Section 526, according to the report.
Other major findings included:
– When coal was the sole feedstock, the CO2 footprint was the largest and required the most capture.
– Increasing percentages of biomass in the solid feed generally resulted in lower CO2 footprints and smaller amounts of required capture.
– Torrefied wood offers advantages in blending with coal and lowering the CO2 footprint for the CBTL plant.
– Municipal solid waste and biomass (considered to be “nuisance plants” in areas where they are abundant) may be economically feasible for use as feedstocks.
– Feedstock preparation and feed system design are critical to the successful development of a large-scale CBTL project.
– Electricity generation and CO2 displacement credits from CBTL are significant contributors to lower GHG emissions. At a ratio of 30 percent biomass, emissions were 38 to 62 percent below the baseline; with 10 percent biomass, 13 to 33 percent below the baseline; and with no biomass, 2 to 18 percent below the baseline.
On economic findings, the study found that on the rough order of magnitude, cost estimates using the techno-economic model for a 50,000 barrel-per-day CBTL plant with an entrained flow gasifier or transport gasifier showed average required selling price (RSP) of jet fuel ranged from approximately $134 to $170 per barrel, on a crude oil equivalent basis. Instances where coal was the sole feedstock resulted in the lowest RSP; increasing the percentages of raw biomass in the solid feed generally resulted in a higher RSP. Using torrefied rather than raw biomass resulted in a lower RSP, according to the report.
The project team concluded that blending various grades of coal with biomass presents a credible approach for reducing carbon dioxide emissions and producing alternative jet fuel.
The report also includes several factors that can improve commercial viability of CBTL technology, as well as recommendations for future study.
Waste Based Biodiesel to Power 1/3 of London Buses by March 2016
http://waste-management-world.com/a/waste-based-biodiesel-to-power-13-of-london-buses-by-march
Transport for London (TfL)has unveiled plans for nearly one third of the city’s buses on B20 green diesel made from waste cooking oil by March 2016.
TfL explained that two bus operators, Stagecoach and Metroline, have signed deals with Argent Energy to supply them with the B20 green diesel.
The fuel is said to be cleaner burning and made by blending diesel with renewable biodiesel from waste products, including cooking oil and tallow from the meat processing trade.
It was said that the change will result in a reduction to CO2 emissions of 21,000 tonnes each year, in addition to the 48,000 tonne CO2 reduction from 2013 levels as a result of the introduction of lower emitting buses such as hybrids.
TfL said that it requires that biodiesel blended into B20 for London buses is made from waste, rather than crop-based feedstocks. It is estimated that buses running on waste-based B20 produce 10% less ‘well to wheel’ carbon emissions than a bus using ordinary diesel.
London’s bus network is one of the largest in the world, carrying almost 2.4 billion passengers every year. Currently, the 8900 strong bus fleet is said to use around 240 million litres of fuel per year. Under the new deals, about 80 million litres of the new greener blend of fuel per year will be consumed.
“This is ongoing progress for running our bus fleets on waste products and cutting CO2,” said deputy mayor for environment and energy, Matthew Pencharz.
“We will continue to work with our industry partners to use more of London’s used cooking oil turned into biodiesel right here in the city, creating green jobs and fuel self-sufficiency benefits,”he continued.
Mike Weston, TfL’s director of buses, added:“Our bus fleet is now making a major contribution to improving air quality and bringing down CO2 emissions… It’s just one of a number of measures we are taking to make London’s environment better for everyone.”
Quick Facts
· The Greater London Authority is undertaking a cost benefit analysis of biodiesel use and other renewable fuels in local authority fleets to help boroughs decide where the best opportunities lie to cut carbon and improve local air quality
· No mechanical change is needed to run a bus on a 20% blend of biofuel. The biodiesel being supplied by Argent Energy is all made from wastes and residues. This will be added to standard road diesel (EN590) which may already have a blend of up to 7% biodiesel allowed within the legislation
· B20 is a mix of 80% standard diesel with 20% biodiesel which are blended at Argent Energy’s London blending facility
· Delivering London’s Energy Future – the Mayor’s Climate Change Mitigation and Energy Strategy’ commits to minimising CO2 emissions from transport through the use of low carbon vehicles, technologies and fuels.
Is Oil & Gas the New Tobacco? Fossil Fuel Divestment Movement Reaches New Milestone
http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/33839-is-oil-a-gas-the-new-tobacco-fossil-fuel-divestment-movement-reaches-new-milestone
The growing campaign for divestment from the gas, oil and coal companies reached a new milestone today. 350.org Executive Director May Boeve announced more than 500 institutions representing over $3.4 trillion in assets have now made at least a partial commitment to divest from fossil fuels. In France, 19 cities have just endorsed divestment, including Lille, Bordeaux, Dijon, Saint-Denis and Île-de-France. Last week, the French National Assembly adopted a resolution encouraging companies and local authorities not to invest in fossil fuels. Over the past few months, the global fossil fuel divestment movement has claimed a number of victories; Uppsala, Sweden and Munster, Germany divested from fossil fuels and the London School of Economics abandoned its holdings in coal and tar sands.
Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: We are broadcasting live from COP21, the United Nations Climate Summit, here in Paris, France. We begin looking at a new milestone in the growing campaign for divestment from the gas, oil and coal companies that are fueling climate change. May Boeve, Executive Director of 350.org, made the announcement just before our broadcast today.
MAY BOEVE: We are very pleased to be announcing the new commitments to divest from fossil fuels and before I announce them to all of you, I just want to, once again, remind everyone what this movement for divestment is all about. We are here for a historic summit on climate change, and the divestment movement is about something quite simple: if it’s wrong to cause climate change, it’s wrong to profit from causing climate change. And the divestment movement has taken off all over the world with this as its rallying cry.
So without further a do, today we are announcing that as of today, total divestment commitments have passed the $3.4 trillion mark, that is $3.4 trillion of assets under management now Fossil-free. That includes a combination of different types of commitments, both commitments to full divestment, which we define as divestment from coal, oil, and gas, and also partial divestment, which includes one of those fuels or some other combination.
Now, I also want to say that because there are varying degrees of level of disclosure with these commitments, we don’t have the exact total of amount divested, but do know that standard portfolios contain around 3.7% of fossil fuels. But the point here has never been exactly how much is pulled out in that way. That is why we measure the total amount of assets. That’s for simple reason. A growing number of investors representing a growing amount of capital do not want to be associated with this industry any longer. It is a rogue industry. And that is what these commitments represent. It demonstrates that investors are taking climate risk extremely seriously.
So to close, I just want to highlight some of the commitments themselves. Over 500 institutions have committed to divest, that includes, just today, 19 cities here in France, including Bordeaux, Saint-Denis, and Dijon. The French Parliament has endorsed divestment. And between last September, when we announced the $2.7 trillion mark, and today, Uppsala became the largest city in Sweden to divest from fossil fuels, Münster became the first German city to divest, Melbourne, Australia, second-largest city committed, and the London School of Economics, another primary institution — we have someone to speak to that here. They have committed to divest.
So we’re really seeing a surge of commitments. It’s very exciting. And to close, I just want to say thanks to all the people who helped make all of these commitments possible. This movement works because it is powered by tens of thousands of individuals who are powering these commitments forward. So we thank you, all of you who fought for divestment, and who will fight for reinvestment of where those resources go. Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s May Boeve of 350.org.
Biomethane from Organic Wastes Could Quadruple by 2021
Biomethane Availability and Usability
Utilization of green energy has progressed tremendously over the last few decades. However, many renewable and environmentally friendly sources of energy pose a challenge when it comes to availability or usability, or both. Solar energy for instance can be successfully harnessed only in regions which have a high amount of sunshine, wind turbines can be used to generate electricity only in areas with sufficient amount and power of the wind, etc. which makes their usability largely limited to regions which have ideal geographical or/and weather conditions. Biomethane production, on the other hand, has no such limits. On the contrary, methane which is derived from organic matter and is equivalent to fossil fuel derived methane when it comes to both chemical structure and usability can be produced just about everywhere.
Biomethane is produced by anaerobic digestion (bacterial breakdown in absence of oxygen) of organic matter such as organic household waste, dead animal and plant material, manure, slurry, sewage and other organic materials which are found in large quantities on literally every step all over the world. The usability of anaerobic digestion of organic matter for power generation was discovered many years ago, however, biogas plants were not economically feasible due to relatively low cost of natural gas and other fossil fuels just a few years ago. But due to highly unstable fossil fuel prices, fears that peak oil has already been reached and the potentially catastrophic effects of global warming, the interest in sustainable and environmentally friendly sources of energy has increased dramatically in the recent years. Renewable energy, however, accounts for a small part of the total global energy output.
This is partly related to the fact that efficient technology for power generation from alternative sources of energy has been developed only recently but it is partly also related to limited availability/accessibility to green sources of energy. But the percentage of global energy that is generated from renewable and environmentally friendly sources of energy is steadily rising also thanks to biomethane. It provides a stable and efficient source of energy to regions which do not have the ability to generate power from solar energy, wind power, etc. Biomethane production requires only collection of organic waste material and construction of biogas plants which are very simple in technological terms and relatively inexpensive in comparison to other green power generation facilities of comparable power output.
Usability is another great advantage of biomethane besides availability. Since it is identical to fossil fuel derived methane, it can be used for space heating, water heating, cooking, etc. but it can also be used for electricity generation and if compressed, as fuel for vehicles. Burning biomethane produces the same amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as burning the conventional natural gas. But in contrary to the latter, biomethane does not increase the greenhouse effect and global warming because its utilization produces the same quantity of greenhouse gases as if organic matter would be left to decompose in nature.
New Energy [R]Evolution Scenario from Greenpeace
http://www.airclim.org/acidnews/new-energy-revolution-scenario-greenpeace
The new 364-page Greenpeace scenario (GPER)1 portrays a world that is dominated by solar and wind by 2030 and even more so by 2050. Together they provide 43 per cent of electrical energy in 2030 and 75 per cent in 2050, replacing first lignite and nuclear, then coal and then gas. Biomass, geothermal and ocean power are given a minor role, but together with hydro they can help balance intermittent wind and photovoltaics. Much of this is what you would expect. Solar thermal, which produces power from solar heat, will also make also a big contribution, almost 19 per cent of all electricity by 2050, not so far behind PV. Heat can be stored, so power output is (somewhat) dispatchable, unlike PV, and can provide power at night. However, unlike photovoltaics, solar thermal power has so far not lived up to its promises. Greenpeace has long had high hopes for it, but has now postponed its breakthrough.
The hard part of reducing CO₂ emissions is not electricity, though. Neither is it heat, which can be provided via electricity, and that is what GPER counts on.
The hardest part is transport. There are three options: biofuels, electric cars, and hydrogen. Biofuels are produced in large quantity now, but mainly from farmland, where they may compete with food production and biodiversity. Electric cars are favoured by many car manufacturers, but Toyota, the biggest of them all, opts for hydrogen-powered fuel cell cars. GPER bets on both.
“The limited potentials of biofuels and probably also battery electric mobility make it necessary to have a third renewable option”, i.e. hydrogen.
This still means a tremendous increase in electricity (batteries) for road traffic: from 9 petajoules (PJ) in 2012, to 400 PJ in 2020 and 23,000 in 2050. Biofuels also increase, but only to about twice the present volume.
“The use of biofuels is limited by the availability of sustainably grown biomass. It will primarily be committed to heavy machinery, aviation and shipping, where electricity does not seem to be an option for the next few decades. Outside the transport sector, biomass is needed for specific industries to supply process heat and carbon”.
Let me add a personal note. When I interviewed people at the pro-CCS organisation Bellona in Oslo in 2008, their main line of argument was that CCS is needed because you cannot cut emissions enough without it. “Look at Greenpeace’s brand new [R]Evolution scenario”, they said. “It does not do the job!”
I found that this was true. The 2008 GPER projected just a 2 per cent global emission drop from year 2000 to year 2030. Fossil use in global primary energy demand would decrease only 50 per cent from 2010 to 2050. Obviously this was no way to save the world.
Intriguing. Greenpeace are no cowards. They are brave, outspoken, and smart!
They now have improved their act since 2008. The 2015 [R]Evolution sets 2050 CO₂ emissions at 4,358 Mtons, compared with 10,589 in the 2008 scenario. This means a fair chance of limiting warming to 2 degrees. But almost all the cuts are projected to take place after 2030. And this is not compatible with limiting warming to 1.5 degrees.
Maybe that is what is likely to happen, but what then is the point? The scenario should look at possibilities, to explain what Greenpeace wants, not what it guesses.
Now energy modelling is a tricky business. You feed in a lot of data and assumptions and the least you should ask for is internal consistency, so all the sums add up. It is mathematically quite demanding to construct a model that generates numbers on coal consumption In China in 2050 that fit together with economic growth assumptions and wind power installations in North America in 2025. Obviously you do not want wind power to grow very fast one year and then grind to a halt the next year, because unless you have a fairly consistent trend, the model will get very unstable, so a small change in one assumption will cause a landslide of big changes everywhere else. Unless the computer overheats.
But this requirement for stability and smoothness of curves in the model seems to lead to an unwarranted conservatism about the rate of change.
In the real world things happen superfast, stop or even slide backwards, and then skyrocket again. Two neighbouring countries move at extremely different speeds. Take solar power development in a group of countries since 2007.
In 2007, Germany was practically alone in its quest for solar, though Spain had just started. Then several countries experienced growth rates of several hundred per cent for several years. Spain, for example, grew its solar production from 0.5 TWh in 2007 to 12 TWh in 2012, i.e. by a factor of 24, or an average annual growth of 89 per cent. The 2008 growth was more than 400 per cent. The reasons for the fits and starts are overwhelmingly political. The 470 per cent growth that was seen in Italy in 2011 decelerated in 2013 not because the infrastructure would not permit more or because the market was saturated. It decelerated because of political decisions, just as the boom started as a result of political decisions.
Much the same can be seen for wind power. Between 2013 and 2014, Egypt’s wind power grew by 3,244 percent. Denmark’s solar power capacity grew by 2,040 per cent in 2012.
The opposite, contraction, can also happen pretty quickly. As a result of the Fukushima accident, Japan went from 292.4 TWh of nuclear power in 2010 to zero in 2014. There was also a drastic change in Germany. UK coal use fell by 20 per cent in 2014. Gas consumption in Europe fell dramatically between 2011 and 2014.
Over a longer time span and over larger regions, curves get smoother. Not because of physical constraints or saturation – but because governments cave in to the fossil and nuclear lobby.
But even on longer timescales and around the whole world, the models tend to underestimate change. The IEA has consistently overestimated nuclear and coal, and underestimated wind and solar in its canonical annual World Energy Outlooks.
NGO scenarios have tended to bend and stretch the IEA models, but to stay within their framework. In models, CO₂ emissions appear as a product of GDP, population, energy intensity etc. This is highly questionable, because emissions are real, while GDP and energy intensity are just derived numbers. Population is real but its effect on emissions is too erratic to be useful for any prediction or prescription. Luxemburg, with just 0.5 million people, uses as much electricity as Ethiopia, which has 100 million people.
The 2008 [R]Evolution scenario projected 386 TWh solar PV for 2020. Greenpeace was too shy to even hope for what happened anyway.
Evolution, according to Charles Darwin, moves slowly by small, small steps. But then he did not know that all multicellular life started with one single extremely improbable event, and that one asteroid killed off all the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.
The world is less inert, more susceptible to change, than the models depict. Perhaps it would be better to think more about the next 15 years, never mind 2050!
It is hard to get it right even so. Who now believes the GPER assumption that the oil price will be $106 by 2020 (and stay there)? It is $45 in November 2015. The difference has large consequences for all energy markets – but it does not have a strong influence on political decisions such as feed-in-tariffs or renewable certificates.
One advantage of modelling is, however, that it can optimize the use of resources, for example by avoiding building more power lines and storage than is really needed. If the world would follow the GPER recipe, it would save a lot of money. But don’t bet on a smooth transition!
Fredrik Lundberg
1. Also briefly presented in AN October 2015
EPRI says with R&D, coal power can be clean without carbon capture
http://www.elp.com/articles/2015/11/epri-says-with-r-d-coal-power-can-be-clean-without-carbon-capture.html
Carbon capture with underground storage is considered by many to be the best option to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants. But development and application of CCS systems face technology, policy and cost challenges.
The Electric Power Research Institute looked at several technologies available or in development that have the potential to enable power plants fueled solely by coal to reduce CO2 emissions through more efficient combustion and use of heat. The results of EPRI’s study have been published in a new white paper, Can Future Coal Power Plants Meet CO2 Emission Standards Without Carbon Capture and Storage?
EPRI’s paper analyzes current and anticipated U.S. and global CO2 emission standards for coal plants, identifies key challenges associated with CCS deployment, and provides detailed descriptions of coal-only technologies that are not ready for commercial deployment but that present opportunities to reduce CO2 emissions.
Today’s most efficient coal-fired plants are the ultra-supercritical plants that produce steam at high temperature (above 593 degrees C or 1,100 degrees F) and emit about 800 kg (1,760 pounds) CO2/MWh. EPRI looked at several technology options for increasing the thermal efficiency of the processes for generating electricity with coal, including:
· Rankine cycles (used by most of today’s coal plants) with higher steam temperatures;
· Combined heat and power applications (also known as cogeneration); and
· Coal gasification integrated with one of four systems — combined cycles (gas turbine plants), supercritical CO2 Brayton cycles (which use the CO2 instead of water or steam as the working fluid), solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs), and “triple cycles” (a combination of combined cycles and SOFCs).
However, none of the options considered in EPRI’s analysis are currently commercially available, economically viable, and suitable for broad deployment.
National R&D programs in the United States and elsewhere are making progress, but additional public-private R&D investment is needed to accelerate the deployment of many of these technologies.
“It’s critically important for the electric power industry to have as many generation technology and fuel options as possible,” said EPRI Vice President of Generation Tom Alley. “Reducing emissions will be one of the key drivers as the industry makes decisions about existing assets and about the designs and fuels used in the next generation of power plants. EPRI research like this can be invaluable in informing those decisions.”
US forests under threat as demand for wood-based biofuels grows – report
An increase in US wood pellet exports intended to reduce reliance on fossil fuels may be threatening ecologically important forests across the country, according to a new report from the Natural Resources Defense Council
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/oct/21/us-forests-under-threat-as-demand-for-wood-based-biofuels-grows-report
European Union (EU) rules intended to reduce power plant reliance on fossil fuels are threatening significant areas of ecologically important hardwood forests across the southeastern US, and will do little to mitigate carbon emissions, according to a new report.
The report, produced by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) in collaboration with the Conservation Biology Institute, detailed a 150% increase in wood pellet exports (pdf) from the US during the past three years. Most are bound for Europe, where power companies are replacing coal and other fossil fuels with wood-based biofuels in order to benefit from EU incentives on renewable energy sources.
Debbie Hammel, senior resource specialist for NRDC’s Land and Wildlife Program, said that the EU has few safeguards to ensure that wood pellet biofuel comes from plantation-grown trees and wood remnants, rather than wood harvested from mature forests. That calls into serious question EU claims of carbon-neutral biomass fuels, she said.
“When you burn wood pellets you are immediately and instantaneously releasing carbon into the atmosphere,” said Hammel. “And there’s very little certainty that those forests will continue to grow over the long term.”
The report detailed geographic information system mapping (GIS) conducted in bottomland hardwood forests and wetlands in Virginia, North Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi and southeastern Georgia – areas that have experienced rapid expansion of wood pellet manufacturing since 2012. It identified parts of Louisiana as another emerging zone of concern.
The report warned that 24m acres of unprotected forest lands across the southeastern US are at risk, largely from European biomass operations. It predicts that wood pellet manufacturing throughout the region could increase twelve-fold by 2020.
As new pellet mills come online, the report said, the areas they target for wood harvesting are likely to overlap with those of existing mills, creating what the report referred to as wood sourcing hotspots and intensifying potential ecosystem damage.
Southeastern forests in the US have long been under threat from urban sprawl, agriculture and the pulp and paper industries. Today, they are also increasingly under threat from rising sea levels. With the rise of the wood pellet industry, the risks to these ecosystems, which include hundreds of endangered, imperiled and threatened species, could escalate dramatically, warned James Strittholt, president of the Conservation Biology Institute.
“It makes perfect sense that we work toward a non-fossil fuel energy source – no argument there – but the issue is the alternatives we pick are not always benign and we need to be thoughtful about that,” Strittholt said. “Just because it’s trees and not fossil fuel, it shouldn’t be everything goes, because everything will indeed go if there aren’t some kinds of controls.”
Strittholt observed that development of new wood pellet facilities is moving much faster than regulators can respond. He noted that some of the forest lands identified just last year in the mapping project as future harvest sites have already been affected.
“From the looks of the data we’re seeing … there’s an economic opportunity, there’s a market, so the corporate response can be quite rapid compared with any safeguarding mechanisms already in place,” he said.
Pellet manufacturer Enviva and British utility Drax Power are leaders in the region’s expanding biomass industry. In an email, Enviva’s vice president of communications, Kent Jenkins Jr, countered some of the report findings. He said the majority of wood used by Enviva’s production plants in Virginia and North Carolina comes from upland forest and mixed stands rather than mature bottomland hardwood.
“Regardless of the source, we use only leftover and low-grade wood that undergoes a rigorous sustainability assessment, certified by independent third parties,” Jenkins said.
Hammel dismissed wood pellet makers’ sustainability standards as “extraordinarily insufficient”. She said companies need to be more transparent about the source of wood used in their products and decrease reliance on mature forests that might take hundreds of years to regrow, thereby undermining any potential emission mitigation.
The NRDC is urging the EU to enact more stringent standards for biomass carbon accounting. The organization is also asking the EU to cap the amount of biofuel permitted in power generation so the demand doesn’t outstrip the supply of actual low-carbon biomass like sawdust and remnant wood.
“These forests are our best defense against climate change,” Hammel said. “They soak up carbon and provide habitat for critically endangered species. EU policymakers need to do the right thing and protect forests and climate.”
Exxon’s Climate Cover-Up Should Be Investigated By DOJ, Tobacco Prosecutor Says
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/10/20/3713761/exxon-climate-denial/
A former U.S. Department of Justice attorney who prosecuted and won the massive racketeering case against Big Tobacco thinks the agency should consider investigating Big Oil for similar claims: engaging in a cover-up to mislead the public about the risks of its product.
Sharon Eubanks, who now works for the firm Bordas & Bordas, told ThinkProgress that ExxonMobil and other members of the fossil fuel industry could be held liable for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) if it’s discovered that the companies worked together to suppress knowledge about the reality of human-caused climate change. She said that, considering recent revelations regarding ExxonMobil, the DOJ should consider launching an investigation into big fossil fuel companies.
“I think a RICO action is plausible and should be considered,” she said.
Eubanks’ comments come a few days after two House Democrats urged Attorney General Loretta Lynch to launch an investigation into ExxonMobil for hiding the results of its own climate change research. Recent investigations from Inside Climate News and the Los Angeles Times discovered that ExxonMobil conducted research in 1977 affirming that climate change was caused by carbon emissions from fossil fuels, yet continued to fund politicians and organizations that deny climate science and work to prevent regulations limiting carbon emissions.
Many have compared the situation to the actions of the tobacco industry. In 2006, a federal judge found that the big tobacco companies colluded to “deceive the public” about the health hazards of smoking, which amounted to a racketeering enterprise. The reason they did it, Eubanks said, was to avoid health regulations and save money.
“The cigarette companies actively denied the harm of cigarette smoking, and concealed the results of what their own research developed,” she said. “The motivation was money, and to avoid regulation.”
It appears to me … that there was a concerted effort by Exxon and others to confuse the public on climate change.
Based on the revelations about ExxonMobil, Eubanks said the Department of Justice should consider investigating whether similar collusion occurred among big fossil fuel companies and other high-carbon-emitting industries that would profit from climate denial.
“It appears to me, based on what we know so far, that there was a concerted effort by Exxon and others to confuse the public on climate change,” Eubanks said. “They were actively denying the impact of human-caused carbon emissions, even when their own research showed otherwise.”
In addition to giving millions of dollars to politicians and groups that deny climate science, ExxonMobil helped found the Global Climate Coalition, “an alliance of some of the world’s largest companies seeking to halt government efforts to curb fossil fuel emissions,” according to Inside Climate. Exxon’s company leaders also argued against the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty to fight climate change which the U.S. refused to sign. Exxon reportedly advised then-President George W. Bush not to sign it.
Critics say ExxonMobil did this while knowing full well the risks of climate change, which is expected to include the displacement of millions of people and even the erasure of some low-lying island nations.
Because of this, calls for a DOJ investigation into ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel companies are getting louder. Last week, Democratic presidential candidate and former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley tweeted his support for an investigation, drawing yet another parallel to the tobacco industry.
“We held tobacco companies responsible for lying about cancer,” O’Malley said. “Let’s do the same for oil companies and climate change.”
However, Eubanks warned that if the charge is anything like the tobacco case, a DOJ investigation would need bi-partisan support — or a Democratic-controlled Congress and White House — to be successful. She recalled dealing with a Republican-controlled Congress during the prosecution of the tobacco industry, and then later, a Republican president who did not want to see the industry hurt.
“We filed the case under the Clinton administration, and we struggled with budget issues — many of the Republicans pushed hard to push us down,” Eubanks said.
After Bush was elected, the environment at the DOJ worsened. “They were trying to choke the case off,” she said. “It was a long time ago, but i still get queasy feeling when I think about working seven-day weeks all the time, and a nine-month trial, to see these people trying to kill the case.”
She did eventually win the case, but at a cost, Eubanks said. Instead of the $130 billion her team had sought, Bush administration loyalists pushed her team to seek only $10 billion, she said.
“This is more important than just running a case.”
Still, Eubanks stressed than a similar investigation into ExxonMobil could be worthwhile under any political circumstances — even if it’s to find out that there’s not enough evidence to bring a lawsuit at all.
“I can’t tell you that it clears every hurdle,” she said. “I’m not an environmental lawyer. But I know it’s important…This is more important than just running a case. That much I’m sure of.”