A🧡436-word💚2.5-minute💙read
Yesterday’s post discussed the oil industry’s investment in carbon capture. ExxonMobil is also investing in another potential solution: hydrogen.
Right, hydrogen is on the “bad” list too. There are multiple technical issues. It can’t be produced cleanly. And if it leaks, the environmental benefits are negated.
𝗔𝗹𝗹 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁, 𝗯𝘂𝘁…
What if the technology improves? What if it’s produced cleanly? What if leaks are eliminated?
That still wouldn’t be good enough because the climate movement has in essence become a solar movement, conveniently overlooking all its downsides.
Solar is inefficient. It converts less than 25% of sunlight to energy, only works about half the time, and is land inefficient to boot.
It requires battery storage to be useful to grid operators. Yet I don’t see many analyses that factor the cost - or potential environmental impact - of battery storage into the “solar is free” equation.
Solar panels degrade 1% per year, and as of today, no viable solution to recycle the billions of panels the world is installing exists. Not to mention that the power generated is dependent on weather conditions, and weather conditions, as we know, are deteriorating.
Should we abandon solar? Of course not, but we should be honest about its pros and cons.
There is no perfect solution to climate change. However, the climate movement conveniently ignores the downsides of the technologies it supports, and magnifies the downsides of the technologies it doesn’t.
Circling back to Big Oil, numerous states are now suing the oil industry for damaging the climate. The plaintiffs include the usual suspects: California, New York, Vermont, Maine…
In response, the Trump administration is suing the states that are suing the oil industry. The Justice Department is claiming that the suits obstruct the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁’𝘀 𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗵.
The Justice Department’s action drips with irony. And all these lawsuits are a colossal waste of time, energy, and resources.
Riddle me this: who is responsible for the impact from the burning of fossil fuels? The company that produces it, or the people that use the product?
𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝘆𝗽𝗼𝗰𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘆.
I assume all the lawyers and advocates of the lawsuits drive electric cars and have totally electrified their homes. I also assume that they shun using any products that employ plastic. And most assuredly, they only buy clothes made of hemp, and use toothpaste, perfumes, golf balls, eyeglasses, cold crème, vitamin capsules, and pharmaceuticals that are fossil-fuel free.
I don’t particularly relish defending Big Oil, and doing so would be unnecessary if the climate movement would put its collective emotions aside and focus on actually solving the problem.
#fossilfuels #oilandgas #bigoil #hydrogen