Crooked Bough News Round-up

— Hedge Fund Boss Paul Marshall Bet Big on Elon Musk Before Trump’s Election

 

at 4/3/25 5:14am

Right-wing media owner Paul Marshall bought a large stake in Elon Musk’s company Tesla prior to the U.S. presidential election, DeSmog can reveal. At the same time, Marshall’s outlets were regularly producing content in support of Musk, now a key figure in Donald Trump’s administration who has decimated several government agencies since the new president’s inauguration on 20 January. The value of the Tesla shares owned by Marshall’s hedge fund, Marshall Wace, increased by more than $500 million in the final three months of 2024. Subscribe to our newsletter Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts Name -- Email Address What content do you want to subscribe to? (check all that apply) All International UK Sign Up (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery); Earlier in the year, Marshall Wace rapidly increased its stake in Tesla, an electric vehicle company, from 1.2 million shares in June to 3.8 million in September – with the value of its position jumping from $247 million to $1 billion. A boom in Tesla’s share price following the election of Trump saw Marshall Wace’s position soar to $1.5 billion on 3.6 million shares by the end of December.  Tesla’s share price has since dipped to its pre-election level, though it’s not yet known whether Marshall Wace sold all or part of its shares prior to this downtrend. In the run-up and aftermath of Trump’s election victory, which saw Musk appointed to lead the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Marshall’s media outlets were full of praise for the Tesla owner. Appearing on GB News on 6 August, former Sun editor Kelvin MacKenzie suggested that, if he had to undergo open heart surgery, he would rather Musk held the scalpel rather than an NHS doctor who may be on strike – the latter described by MacKenzie as “left-wing turds”. On the same day, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage used his GB News show to call Musk a “hero”. These attitudes were mirrored a few months later, on 17 December, when Farage claimed that Musk is “one of the most admired people in the world” and “a gigantic inspirational figure”. The same day, former Home Secretary Suella Braverman stated on GB News – the channel co-founded by Marshall in 2021 – that Musk is “one of the greatest innovators we’ve seen”. Similar sentiments were published in The Spectator during this period – the conservative magazine bought by Marshall for £100 million in September. On 15 October, under the headline “Thank God for Elon Musk”, scriptwriter Gareth Roberts compared “the swoop and grandeur of SpaceX” – Musk’s space exploration firm – to the “petty, noodling nonsense of Ed Miliband’s Great British Energy”. This was followed-up on 13 November by a piece from financial journalist Matthew Lynn, praising Trump’s “brilliant appointment” of Musk, who Lynn described as an “innovator” with a techno-libertarian ideology that “has the intellectual depth to restructure the state”. There is no evidence that Paul Marshall has exerted editorial pressure on his media outlets to support Musk, nor that these outlets promoted Tesla for Marshalls financial benefit. Indeed, another of Marshall’s publications, UnHerd, has carried strong critiques of Musk in recent weeks. Marshall Wace and Paul Marshall declined to comment. GB News has given a prominent platform to anti-climate ideas and individuals since its launch in June 2021. A DeSmog investigation found that one-third of GB News presenters expressed climate science denial on air in 2022, while half attacked the UK’s net zero emissions targets. However, the broadcast regulator Ofcom has so far refused to investigate the channel for spreading false climate claims. “GB News has repeatedly lauded Elon Musks role in the Trump administration and lambasted his critics – all the while choosing not to disclose that their co-owner holds massive investments in one of Musks companies,” said Richard Wilson, director of the campaign group Stop Funding Heat. “This conflict of interest will only add to mounting concerns about Ofcom’s failure to enforce its impartiality rules when it comes to GB News.” GB Newss live studio at the 2021 Conservative Party Conference. Credit: Matt Crossick / Alamy DeSmog also revealed that, as of June 2023, Marshall Wace held shares worth £1.8 billion in 112 fossil fuel companies, including in Shell, Equinor, and Chevron. Marshall and Musk have been leading opponents of climate action in recent months. Speaking at the 2025 Alliance for Responsible Citizenship conference – another project funded by Marshall – the hedge fund manager claimed that the West has been infected by a “climate derangement syndrome” through which we seem willing to “sacrifice our economic prosperity and our people’s livelihoods all for the sake of making some fractional changes to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere”. According to the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), the UK’s net zero economy grew by 10 percent in 2024, employing almost a million people in full-time jobs with an average wage of £43,000 – £5,600 higher than the national average. Meanwhile, Musk has been vocally promoting far-right, anti-climate parties and politicians across the globe over recent months. The Tesla CEO has publicly expressed his support for Reform UK – a party that campaigns to scrap the UK’s 2050 net zero target – as well as the Alternative für Deutschland, which supports withdrawing Germany from the flagship Paris climate agreement. Tesla, GB News, and The Spectator were approached for comment. Musk, DOGE, and Tesla Tesla’s share price soared in the wake of Trump’s victory, reaching a high point of $479.86 on 17 December and propelling Musk’s personal fortune to more than $400 billion – at the time up by $170 billion since the 5 November election. While Trump is expected to slash government support for electric vehicles, which are more climate friendly than their combustion engine equivalents, investors were betting on Musk’s proximity to Trump in turn benefitting Tesla. However, a spate of negative press has sent the company’s stock tumbling in recent months, currently standing at $270 – down 44 percent on its post-election peak. In January, Tesla reported its first ever annual decline in sales, accompanied by lower than expected revenue. Musk’s actions in government have also further impacted the company’s sales. European Tesla sales fell by 49 percent in the first two months of the year compared with the same period in 2024, even as overall sales of electric vehicles grew. Tesla dealerships have also been targeted by protests across the U.S. as Musk has been upending the federal social security system, gutting the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and boosting far-right conspiracy theories. Seemingly in an attempt to halt Tesla’s recent share price collapse, Trump featured in a promotional stunt for the firm outside the White House. Accompanied by Musk, the president personally inspected five Tesla models and pledged to buy one. Trump, who received more than $32 million from the oil and gas sector for his 2024 campaign, has pledged to once again withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, which set an international target for limiting global warming. He has also declared a “national energy emergency” to allow the U.S. to “drill, baby, drill” for new fossil fuels. The post Hedge Fund Boss Paul Marshall Bet Big on Elon Musk Before Trump’s Election appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Doug Ford’s Policies Increased Ontario’s Energy Dependency on U.S., Say Experts

 

at 4/1/25 11:12am

As Donald Trump’s unjust trade war with Canada heats up, Canadian politicians are advocating less economic dependence on energy exports to the United States. But environmentalists are pointing out that Ontario premier Doug Ford — who has championed electricity surcharges on exports to the U.S. — is chiefly responsible for increasing the Canadian province’s dependency on American fossil fuel imports. Ford was one of the first politicians in Canada to advocate using surcharges on electricity as a “counter-tariff” measure in response to tariffs imposed by the Trump administration. Though it at first seemed like Ford was going ahead with a 25 percent surcharge on electricity exports to the United States, he relented after a call with U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, agreeing to fly to Washington D.C. to discuss the matter in person with Trump administration officials. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt described Ford’s counter-tariff as “egregious and insulting” and that it justified Trump’s additional 25 percent tariff on steel and aluminum imports from Canada. The trade war has highlighted a considerable vulnerability in the Canadian economy: an over-reliance on an American market for Canadian energy exports and imports, be they fossil fuels or direct electricity transfers. The interconnectedness of the two nations’ economies is demonstrated by the example of Ontario, which exports electricity to the American states of New York, Michigan, and Minnesota, while importing fracked gas from Ohio and Pennsylvania. The Ontario Clean Air Alliance (OCAA), a longtime critic of the Ford government’s environmental policies, has been sounding the alarm recently, noting Ford is chiefly responsible for making Ontario more vulnerable by increasing its dependence on American fracked gas imports for home heating and electricity. In fact, the Ford government is seeking to increase Ontario’s dependence on natural gas, despite the obvious and considerable environmental and economic consequences. The premier’s recent re-election campaign advocated an expansion of gas plants most Ontarians don’t actually want. “For security, economic and environmental reasons, Ontario needs to get off gas,” said Aliénor Rougeot, senior climate and energy program manager with Environmental Defence. “The problem is that government policies over the last few years have made us more dependent on it. Since 2018, Ontario has tripled its use of gas plants to produce electricity, and the province plans on increasing our use of gas until it makes up a quarter of our electricity mix by 2030.”  This is confirmed by the OCAA, which further notes that use of gas for electricity was only 4 percent in 2017, the year before Ford took office. Renewable Projects Cancelled Despite Doug Ford’s effort to rebrand himself as “Captain Canada” in the trade war, it was Ford who made Ontario’s economy more vulnerable by cancelling nearly 800 renewable energy contracts shortly after taking office in 2018. “The American president’s recent economic attack on Canada has exposed just how dangerous our economic dependence on the U.S. is,” said Rougeot in a statement to DeSmog. “One of the ways Canadians have risen to the occasion is by boycotting U.S. products and focusing on buying Canadian,” said Rougeot. “But despite our efforts, there is one American product that is forced on Ontarians every day: fracked gas. Over the last seven years, Premier Ford’s policies have made Ontarian homes and businesses more dependent on U.S. gas — despite the availability of cheaper alternatives.” Despite threats of annexation and tariffs beginning in late 2024, Ford’s 2025 electoral campaign also supported the expansion of gas in Ontario. Enbridge, a pipeline and fossil fuel company based in Calgary that has been given exclusive rights to expand Ontario’s gas dependency by the Ford administration, has recently indicated gas prices in Ontario may surge by 25 percent. Ford even intervened and overruled a decision by the Ontario Energy Board in 2024 that would have made Enbridge pay for gas pipeline expansion to new housing; Ford decided in Enbridge’s favour. “The question of whose interests are being served by doubling down on gas was clear in December 2023 when it took less than 24 hours for the Ford government to announce theyd take the unprecedented step of passing legislation to overrule the Ontario Energy Board’s landmark ruling that electrically-powered heat pumps were a better economic and environmental option than gas furnaces for new homes,” said Keith Stewart, senior energy strategist with Greenpeace Canada. “At the time, this represented a massive win for Enbridge gas and a loss for consumers and the environment,” said Stewart in a statement to DeSmog. “But in light of the Trump-launched trade war we are now seeing that it has also left us with greater insecurity of supply.” “Seventy percent of the gas Ontario used in 2023 was imported from Pennsylvania and Ohio,” said Environmental Defence’s Rougeot. “This means many of our homes, buildings and factories depend on trade with the U.S. This is problematic: relying on U.S. gas makes Ontario vulnerable to the U.S. withholding some of it, for example, in response to some of our government’s threats to limit our electricity exports to them. It also undermines our ability to inflict economic pain on the U.S. in retaliation to the tariffs. Importing American gas is a weakness for Ontarians, and now is not the time to show weakness to our southern neighbour.” Rougeot also notes that the gas Ontario is importing is fracked gas, a particularly potent fossil fuel. The fracking process releases large volumes of methane, which is over 80 times more potent than CO2 over 20 years. “These fugitive methane emissions are supercharging climate warming,” said Rougeot. Not only has Ford increased Ontario’s economic vulnerability as much as further entrenching the province in a climate-killing fossil fuel, Ford has further undermined the efforts to increase the use of sustainable renewable energy. “Spending time and resources expanding the natural gas network in Ontario is a waste of public money that could otherwise be used to fund renewable energy that would provide affordable, reliable, clean electricity to people living in Ontario that is made in Ontario, said Stephen Thomas, clean energy manager with the David Suzuki Foundation. “When it comes to heating and cooling our homes, high-efficiency heat pumps are available at scale, they will save households money, they are healthier, and they are more that twice as efficient as burning fossil fuels in our homes,” said Thomas in a statement to DeSmog. Thomas further notes that Ford’s doubling down on gas isn’t a smart economic policy, not only because of the dependency on U.S. imports, but because of gas’ cost. “Renewables like wind and solar are the cheapest forms of electricity in history — cheaper than gas, cheaper than nuclear, and cheaper than all other sources of electricity,” said Thomas. “Pairing low-cost renewables with energy storage and grid upgrades provide cheaper electricity with more benefits to people and the grid.”  Path to Energy Security Research provided by the David Suzuki Foundation demonstrates that there is a clear path to affordable, reliable, zero-emissions electricity throughout Canada by 2035. The research demonstrates lower energy costs for households, as natural gas for heating buildings is phased out while households switch to electric heat pumps and other energy efficiency solutions. To justify the Ford government’s retrograde environmental and economic policies, they have frequently misled the public with statements questioning the viability of renewable energy systems to contend with current and future energy needs, says Rougeot. For example, Ontario Energy Minister Todd Smith has described wind and solar energy systems as “intermittent,” despite reporting from DeSmog and others on the think tanks shaping these reliability claims. “The main reason the government has given for ramping up the use of gas-powered plants and building new ones is that they expect growing electricity needs, and that’s also why some nuclear plants are being refurbished,” she said. While Rougeot accepts that electricity demand is indeed expected to grow, there’s no reason for the Ford administration to deliberately reject the cheapest and cleanest energy sources available to Ontarians: wind and solar.  “Importing American gas during a trade war undermines Ontarios energy security and strengthens the U.S.’s leverage, and everyone should agree it is an emergency to reduce our dependence on it,” said Rougeot.  “Plus, burning gas for electricity and home heating is making people sick due to air pollution and putting our lives at risk by accelerating the climate crisis. It is time we get Ontario off gas for good.” The health consequences of increased gas use in Ontario is poorly understood and rarely enters into discussions, but it has real-world economic implications that need to be included in government risk-benefit analyses. “Ontario’s growing reliance on natural gas for heat and electricity is a dangerous step backward for public health and the climate,” said Dr. Mili Roy, ophthalmologist and chair of CAPE Ontario, the Ontario chapter of Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE).  “Gas-fired power plants release air pollutants that worsen asthma, heart disease, and other serious conditions — particularly in vulnerable populations like children and seniors. Expanding gas generation will also drive up healthcare costs, further straining an already burdened system, while locking us into decades of fossil fuel dependency that undermines our climate commitments,” said Dr. Roy in a statement to DeSmog. “Ontario has the solutions — renewable energy, energy storage, and grid efficiency improvements — that can keep the lights and heat on without polluting the air we breathe and harming our health. The Ford government must stop locking Ontarians into fossil fuel dependency and instead invest in clean energy that protects our health, economy, and future.” The post Doug Ford’s Policies Increased Ontario’s Energy Dependency on U.S., Say Experts appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Reform Candidate Arron Banks Has Repeatedly Mocked Basic Climate Science

 

at 4/1/25 9:44am

Arron Banks, who is standing as Nigel Farage’s Reform UK candidate for West of England Mayor, has repeatedly rejected elemental climate facts. The right-wing populist Reform UK describes itself as an “environmentalist” party. However, its leaders and candidates – including Banks – have frequently attacked the science of human-induced climate change. In a trail of social media posts on X (formerly Twitter), Banks has attacked the notion of climate change as “rubbish”, “absolute cock”, “a scam”, and “the ultimate hoax”. Subscribe to our newsletter Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts Name -- Email Address What content do you want to subscribe to? (check all that apply) All International UK Sign Up (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery); Reform is standing in several regional mayoral contests in May and has talked up its chances of gaining large numbers of council seats in the local elections. Banks, the businessman who helped to fund Farage 2016 Brexit campaign, is standing for West of England Mayor, which encompasses Bristol, South Gloucestershire, Bath, and North East Somerset. Reform UK, an anti-immigration party, campaigns to scrap the UK’s 2050 net zero emissions target and to expand fossil fuel extraction. As DeSmog revealed, the party received £2.3 million between the 2019 and 2024 general elections from climate science deniers, fossil fuel interests, and major polluters. However, the views of Reform UK and Banks don’t appear to match those of voters in the West of England. Polling from the area in 2022 found that 65 percent of people supported net zero, while only 11 percent opposed the 2050 target. And while Reform UK has pledged to strip renewable companies of state subsidies, an overwhelming 87 percent of people said they supported renewable projects in their local area. Reform UK and Banks were approached for comment. Climate Denial Posts In his social media posts, Banks has publicly attacked the science of human-induced emissions causing climate change. In January 2024, responding to Conservative MP Chris Skidmore resigning over the government’s support for new oil and gas projects, Banks posted: “CO2 & climate change is the ultimate hoax.” In December 2023, Banks made the familiar argument that the climate has always changed regardless of human emissions. He posted: “Climate change has been in constant flux since the planet was created. A miniscule amount of CO2 in the atmosphere isn’t the likely driver.” In January 2024, he mocked the notion that carbon emissions were causing climate change and extreme weather. “The climate is in permanent flux”, he posted, “20,000 years ago an Ice sheet covered Scotland & half of England.” Banks added an attack on climate activist Greta Thunberg, writing: “Luckily we didn’t have Greta around to tell us a tiny bit of CO2 was the cause. We’ve always had floods & extreme weather like 1953 floods.” The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world’s top climate science body, has stated that carbon dioxide “is responsible for most of global warming” since the late 19th century, and has increased the “severity and frequency of weather and climate extremes, like heat waves, heavy rains, and drought”. Climate scientists working for the IPCC have also said that “it is a statement of fact, we cannot be any more certain; it is unequivocal and indisputable that humans are warming the planet”. As stated by Dr Philipp Breul, a climate scientist from Imperial College London: “We are causing the climate to change significantly faster than it has, to the best of our knowledge, in the last million years.” ‘Snow on the Ground’ Banks – who attended Donald Trump’s inauguration as U.S. President in January – has also suggested that cold weather disproves the rise in global temperatures. In December 2022, Banks posted: “I’ve got to say global warming is coming on a treat, snow on the ground and shaping up to be the coldest December on record. It would be very funny if they got it all wrong and we entering a new ice age.” When challenged, he dismissed climate models as “worthless”. “The climate is in constant flux and always changing”, he posted. “The sheer number of mathematical variables in any climate model render them worthless. Scientists can forecast all they like but guesses remain guesses enjoy the snow and ice.” In fact, climate models have accurately predicted global temperature rises, and observed warming has tracked with the forecasts.  Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, and deputy leader Richard Tice. Photo: Sipa US / Alamy In January 2024, Banks responded to reports of cold temperatures in Sweden by posting: “-43c … global warming knocking it out of the park. Let’s hope the windmills can keep us warm.” Despite cold weather in winter, global average temperatures have been rising over the past century, with some of the hottest years on record taking place in the last decade. In October 2022, Banks shared a post by Reform UK’s then leader Richard Tice, with a (now deleted) article from the Daily Skeptic, which falsely claimed that “global warming has largely stopped in its tracks”. Banks commented: “It would be almost amusing to find after bankrupting the western world in pursuit of the net zero cult that the climate is cooling just like [Covid] lockdown everybody lost their mind.” Net Zero ‘Scam’ Banks has also attacked efforts to cut emissions to net zero by 2050, which scientists agree is the only way to limit temperatures to 1.5C. The Reform UK candidate has attacked net zero as a “religion”, a “cult”, and a “scam”.  In July 2021, he posted: “Net zero is the new religion for stupid people” and, in April 2023 he said: “Net zero and climate change have all the hallmarks of a scam.” When the UK was hosting the COP26 climate summit in November 2021, Banks posted that “protecting the environment is essential but totally different to the absolute cock that is climate change”. He added: “The climate has been changing since the start of time!” A few weeks earlier, Banks had posted: “I own a country park with tens of thousands of trees and have seen no ill affects of climate change.” The following summer, Banks once again pitted environmentalism against climate action, posting: “There is a huge difference between global climate change & looking after the natural world. One is complete rubbish the other is an absolute necessity.” Bankrolling Farage Banks was a major funder of campaigns for the UK to leave the European Union. A former Conservative Party donor, he gave £1 million in 2014 to Nigel Farage’s UK Independence Party (UKIP), which also campaigned against climate policies. During the 2016 EU referendum, Banks gave £8.4 million to Leave.EU, the unofficial Brexit campaign, which was led by Farage and chaired by Tice. In January this year, Farage helped to launch a new UK/Europe branch of the Heartland Institute, a notorious U.S. climate denial think tank. Interviewed at the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship conference in February, the Reform UK leader claimed it was “absolutely nuts” that CO2 is considered to be a pollutant, while admitting that he is “not a scientist”. The post Reform Candidate Arron Banks Has Repeatedly Mocked Basic Climate Science appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Czech MEP Appointed to Climate Role While Paid £10k a Month as Car Consultant

 

at 4/1/25 12:00am

This article was published in partnership with Czech investigative media outlet Deník Referendum A Czech MEP earning €120,000 a year in his second job as an automotive consultant is facing fresh concerns over the “unacceptable” conflicts of interest involved in his latest appointment. Filip Turek was elected to the European Parliament in 2024 as the lead candidate of Czechia’s hard-right oath and motorists alliance, which lobbies for cheaper fuel and against a proposed ban on petrol and diesel powered cars.  A prominent social media influencer and vintage car collector in Czechia, Turek has also pledged to “save” the combustion engine.  DeSmog and Deník Referendum can now report that Turek has been selected by his fellow MEPs as a representative of the Parliament’s industry committee (ITRE) – on a key EU file that could potentially have a major impact on the sector he is paid €10,000 a month to represent. The former racing driver’s earnings from his freelance automotive consultancy almost match his base MEP salary, making him one of Parliaments highest outside earners. In a document submitted to the European Parliament last Tuesday, Turek declared there was no conflict of interest regarding his appointment as rapporteur for opinion. Turek did not respond to DeSmog and Deník Referendum’s questions about the nature of the role. With a remit of “simplifying and strengthening” the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) file – a border tax which aims to put a price on carbon imports – Turek will have a critical role in writing reports, liaising with industry, and presenting the industry committee’s views to the European Parliament. CBAM has so far been a major lobbying target of the automotive and raw materials sectors, which have called for delays and changes on its scope to exempt 90 percent of importers from duties. A report by the global consultancy KPMG says the proposed expansion of the CBAM scheme to all industrial goods would have a “major impact” on the automotive industry. In particular, the authors raise concerns about CBAM’s impact on Germany, where the automotive industry has by far the highest turnover of any domestic sector (€411 billion in 2021). A full review of CBAM – which will assess the expansion of the policy tool to new sectors – was announced in February by the European Commission and is due to be subject to a full review later this year. Turek’s paid side job is listed on his parliamentary records as “consultancy in the field of the automotive industry – Freelancer”. He did not respond to DeSmog and Denik Referendum’s requests for further clarification on the nature of his business activities, or to questions about his clients. “Giving Turek this role is a disaster for the integrity of EU climate policy,” said Oliver Hoedeman, a campaigner from the Brussels-based Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO). The appointment demonstrates “completely unacceptable conflicts of interest,” Hoedeman added. “These roles cannot be combined without unacceptable risks of undue influence.  Mission to Munich CBAM forms a core part of the Green Deal, a package of EU policies aimed at reaching climate neutrality by 2050. Turek has regularly attacked the Green Deal, describing it prior to his election in June 2024 as “one of the biggest scams in history”. Since becoming an MEP, he has continued to criticise the strategy, and opposed some of the specific climate measures – including the EU’s methane regulation – that would help achieve decarbonisation.  A separate declaration submitted by Turek’s office last week also shows the MEP is taking part in an official ITRE delegation to Munich, Germany, from 14 to 16 April. Minutes from a January ITRE committee meeting state the “mission” will include the subject of the automotive industry, as well as “research, aerospace, startups, energy”.  Turek declared no conflict of interest relating to the trip. DeSmog contacted Turek and the industry committee (ITRE) to ask the purpose of the visit, and the details of who he will meet with, but did not receive a response. According to the EU Integrity Watch platform, Turek has held multiple meetings with car industry lobbyists during his nine months in office – including with representatives of Skoda, Koreas Denso, Japan’s Mazda, and Czech and EU-wide automotive associations. Turek is also one of several European politicians to have recently met with the Heritage Foundation, the U.S. ultra-conservative group that produced the Project 2025 blueprint to a second Donald Trump presidency. The subject of the meetings – held in January while Turek was in Washington D.C. for Trump’s inauguration – was on “EU-US Relations and automotive sector policies”.  Daniel Freund, a representative of the Greens in the European Parliament, said a clear dividing line needs to be drawn between parliamentary services and outside interests. “Members of the European Parliament should not offer consulting services – especially not on topics that we are dealing with in our legislative work,” he said. “MEPs should not be for hire or sale.” Raphaël Kergueno, senior policy officer at Transparency International EU, called for an “urgent reform” of the European Parliament’s ethical standards. “When it comes to conflicts of interest, the European Parliaments voluntary system of disclosure raises more questions than answers, he said. To dispel any doubts, it should ban MEPs from engaging in side activities, paid or unpaid, with organisations that are seeking to influence EU policymaking.” Additional research and reporting by Daniel Kotecký The post Czech MEP Appointed to Climate Role While Paid £10k a Month as Car Consultant appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Danielle Smith and Ben Shapiro Discuss Canada Electing ‘Solid Allies’ to Trump at Florida Event

 

at 3/27/25 10:39pm

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and conservative influencer Ben Shapiro discussed how to help Canada elect “solid allies” to the Trump administration during a private gala in south Florida, according to audio of the event obtained by DeSmog and Canada’s National Observer. “There was a massive conservative movement thats happening in Canada,” Shapiro said during the 25-minute conversation with Smith. “I think the obstacles to that need to be removed. It is better for the United States to have actual solid allies running in Canada than to have some of the schmucks that have been running Canada over the past few years.” Against a backdrop of American flags, Smith replied, “I think the President recognizes especially the importance of oil and gas,” adding that “We already ship about 4.3 million barrels a day of oil to the United States. Well keep it coming.” The event comes during an unprecedented surge of Canadian patriotism resulting from Trump imposing costly economic tariffs and threatening to annex the country, saying in mid-March that “Canada only works as a state.” Smith was at the center of a political uproar just days into the federal election when she appeared supportive of the Trump administration in a resurfaced interview with Breitbart News. Recorded in early March before Mark Carney became Liberal leader, Smith told the rightwing U.S. media outlet that “the perspective that Pierre [Poilievre] would bring would be very much in sync with, I think…the new direction in America.” She added that “I think we’d have a really great relationship for the period of time they’re both in,” apparently referring to Trump.  At the event, hosted at a resort and conference center in Boca Raton, Smith and Shapiro joked about Trump annexing Canada. “I know that the premier is taking some flack in her hometown, in all of her hometown neighborhoods, for even being on stage with me, because I made the unfortunate error of making a joke about our soon-to-be 51st state,” Shapiro said. “I come in peace,” Smith said to loud applause. Smith praises US rejection of net-zero The Alberta premier made the case to the well-heeled room, whose participants paid $1,500 and up for tickets to the event, that the U.S. should avoid implementing tariffs on Canada, its closest trading partner, especially around oil and gas. “I feel like the Americans have a lot bigger fish to fry,” she said. She used the opportunity to praise U.S. efforts to turn away from 2050 climate targets. “There is an ideology, as you know, of those who believe we have to hit net zero as quickly as possible. Mark Carney has been behind the net-zero banking move.” Smith claimed that “you cant run the world on solar and wind and batteries. And so now is the time really for us to see a switch. I think Americas been the first to make that switch.” In February, U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright called net-zero climate targets “sinister.” On X, Smith described her conversation with Shapiro as “a meaningful fireside chat to discuss the ongoing Canada-U.S. trade dispute and the benefits of having a tariff- free relationship between our two countries.” Smith and Shapiro joked about Trumps threats to annex Canada. Credit: submitted She added that, “I will always stand up for the best interests of Albertans and I’m grateful for the opportunity I had to share our message with hundreds of Americans tonight and millions more via social media in the weeks to come.” Other speakers at the event included Tiffany Justice, co-founder of the group Moms for Liberty, which has been at the forefront of efforts to get books with LGBTQ content and other themes it deems offensive banned from school libraries. Justice is a close ally of Trump, posting a photo with him in the Oval Office on X in February and writing that “It’s an honor to stand with a President who will Fight Fight Fight for every American!” Shapiro called Canada ‘a silly country’ Shapiro, like other prominent U.S. Trump supporters including Elon Musk and the billionaire Bill Ackman, has endorsed Poilievre for prime minister. In a 9-minute YouTube video entitled “Pierre Poilievre is for the people,” Shapiro said that the Conservative leader is “a tremendous politician.”  Though Shapiro posted in March on Facebook that Trump’s tariffs on Canada are “not a wise move,” he previously spent months appearing to defend the policy and making inflammatory comments supporting Trump’s threatened annexation. Shapiro said on a December podcast that “Trump has basically proposed that we annex Canada, and I feel like they will greet us as liberators at this point, because Justin Trudeau is just absolutely the worst.” Shapiro added that “It’s a silly country that makes maple syrup, hockey and annoying prime ministers,” stating that “we can annex it and then just call it an outlying territory or something like Puerto Rico, but of the North.”  Smith disregarded calls to cancel the event with Shapiro, saying “the way you actually influence the decision on tariffs is you talk to American influencers. She’s meanwhile declined to condemn an effort by a group of Albertans including former Medicine Hat Conservative MP LaVar Payne advocating for Alberta statehood within the U.S. as part of a “delegation to Washington.” Smith has suggested a referendum on statehood would be an appropriate way to deal with separatist sentiment. “If there is support for independence, that process is the proper avenue for citizens to bring it forward for all Albertans to have a say on,” Smith has said. Smith helps raises over $1 million for PragerU The fundraising goal for the East Coast Gala with Premier Smith was $1 million, but organizers announced during the event they had quickly surpassed that goal. The money is not going toward an actual university. PragerU was founded by conservative talk-radio host Dennis Prager as a way to fight against what it claimed was a “liberal bias” in schoolrooms across America. Prager did not attend the event because of an ongoing health issue, his son said. The PragerU event surpassed its fundraising goal of $1 million. Credit: submitted These days it’s a leading producer of conservative digital content, packaging rightwing ideology into videos that PragerU claims have received almost 10 billion views across YouTube and other platforms. Those videos frequently dismiss the urgency of climate change, with one recent video narrated by former University of Alabama assistant professor Matthew Wielicki stating that “The fear that fuels the ‘climate crisis’ is simply not justified by the data.” The U.S. conservative media watchdog group Media Matters has described Weilicki as “a budding star in the climate denial community.” Shapiro’s outlet The Daily Wire is also a major spreader of climate crisis denial, with watchdog groups such as the Center for Countering Digital Hate previously naming it a top 10 U.S. disseminator of climate disinformation. Both conservative organizations have received millions of dollars from Dan and Farris Wilks, Texas brothers who became billionaires after selling their fracking company Frac Tech in 2011. The Wilks gave more than $6.5 million to PragerU in 2013. Prager, the group’s founder, told VICE News in 2022 that “their contribution essentially enabled PragerU to expand more rapidly.” Shortly after, Farris Wilks provided nearly $5 million in seed funding to help launch Shapiro’s The Daily Wire. Wilks remains a co-owner of the outlet, which last year reported over 15 million followers across its social media handles. The post Danielle Smith and Ben Shapiro Discuss Canada Electing ‘Solid Allies’ to Trump at Florida Event appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Former BC Environment Minister Doubts EV Viability, Leads Cenovus-backed Campaign

 

at 3/25/25 5:50pm

In a recent policy forum, former environment minister Barry Penner expressed doubts that British Columbia would meet its targets for electric vehicle (EV) adoption. The province had suggested ambitious targets of 26 percent EV use by 2026 and 90 percent adoption by 2030. Nationally, Canada has mandated that 20 percent of all new vehicles sold must be electric by 2026 and 100 percent by 2035. Penner doubted the ability of governments to meet their carbon reduction goals, seeming to go so far as to doubt the entire endeavor. “Climate goals that we’ve heard so much about in the past seem to be challenged when they run into economic reality,” he said at a recent Resource Works event online. Resource Works describes itself as a “public-interest advocacy and communications not-for-profit” based in Vancouver, B.C., with the stated mission to “reignite the promise of Canada’s economic future leading respectful, inclusive and fact-based dialogue on natural resource development.” Penner is now the chair of a Resource Works campaign focused on energy policy in B.C., the Energy Futures Initiative. Cenovus, which last year produced 586,000 barrels of oil per day from Canada’s oil sands, listed Resource Works as a recipient of more than $25,000 in its 2023 advocacy records. During his time as environment minister in 2008, Penner was instrumental in introducing an early climate action plan, which included the first broad-based carbon tax in North America. In 2023 he joined the Cenovus-backed advocacy group Resource Works. In a press release Stewart Muir, founder and CEO of the company sang his praises. “Barry’s leadership will bring an important and fresh perspective to the conversation on BC’s long-term energy policy.” EV Groupthink Electric car policies have been increasingly scrutinized by conservative think tanks. The Charles G Koch Foundation-funded Macdonald Laurier Institute produced a report in May 2024 that questioned the feasibility of electric vehicles and argued that accelerated timelines for vehicle adoption are an economic and security threat in Canada and the U.S.  “In the absence of a sustainable EV production supply chain, the accelerated transition to EVs would render the United States increasingly dependent on China for critical minerals and manufacturing,” says the report.   In May 2024 the Biden administration slapped a 100 percent border tax on electric vehicles that same year. Penner said this policy was a barrier for EV purchasing in North America. “The government put up a tariff wall, which made it more difficult for consumers to make the switch to electric vehicles, because the cheapest, and some would say some of the better performing electric vehicles now remain in China,” he said. Other conservative think tanks such as the  Fraser Institute, a libertarian think tank with ties to the Koch foundation-funded Atlas Network have also spoken out out against EV mandates around the same time period. The Fraser Institute referred to the electric vehicle mandate as “Soviet-style” and declared that the “the outcomes are miserable all around.” Last month, another Atlas Network partner, the Montreal Economic Institute, released an economic note claiming “forced market transition” to EVs would increase the cost of living in Canada. Experts contacted by DeSmog say EV adoption will actually save Canadians money in the long run. Economy Over Climate? Penner says there’s been a policy shift in government as people’s concerns shift more towards economic concerns than concerns about climate change. “I think there’s going to be a re-evaluation of exactly what the specific policies measures should be,” said Penner about the B.C. government. He said it was a mistake for governments to focus on one type of vehicle. Whenever governments think theyre picking a winner, its quite often they get there a little bit too late, and then other industries are asked through their taxes to subsidize these chosen industries. Penner’s advice to governments was to focus on reducing government oversight and reduce taxes rather than focus on climate-friendly solutions. “Make your overall investment climate more attractive, reduce red tape, reduce taxes across the board, not just for a few chosen industries, instead of again trying to guess what will be the prevailing technology,” he said. Penner and Resource Works have previously campaigned to overturn a ban on gas stoves in Vancouver. The post Former BC Environment Minister Doubts EV Viability, Leads Cenovus-backed Campaign appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Former BC Environment Minister Doubts EV Viability, Leads Cenovus-Backed Campaign

 

at 3/25/25 5:50pm

In a recent policy forum, former environment minister Barry Penner expressed doubts that British Columbia would meet its targets for electric vehicle (EV) adoption. The province had suggested ambitious targets of 26 percent EV use by 2026 and 90 percent adoption by 2030. Nationally, Canada has mandated that 20 percent of all new vehicles sold must be electric by 2026 and 100 percent by 2035. Penner doubted the ability of governments to meet their carbon reduction goals, seeming to go so far as to doubt the entire endeavor. “Climate goals that we’ve heard so much about in the past seem to be challenged when they run into economic reality,” he said at a recent Resource Works event online. Resource Works describes itself as a “public-interest advocacy and communications not-for-profit” based in Vancouver, B.C., with the stated mission to “reignite the promise of Canada’s economic future leading respectful, inclusive and fact-based dialogue on natural resource development.” Penner is now the chair of a Resource Works campaign focused on energy policy in B.C., the Energy Futures Initiative. Cenovus, which last year produced 586,000 barrels of oil per day from Canada’s oil sands, listed Resource Works as a recipient of more than $25,000 in its 2023 advocacy records. During his time as environment minister in 2008, Penner was instrumental in introducing an early climate action plan, which included the first broad-based carbon tax in North America. In 2023 he joined the Cenovus-backed advocacy group Resource Works. In a press release Stewart Muir, founder and CEO of the company sang his praises. “Barry’s leadership will bring an important and fresh perspective to the conversation on BC’s long-term energy policy.” EV Groupthink Electric car policies have been increasingly scrutinized by conservative think tanks. The Charles G Koch Foundation-funded Macdonald Laurier Institute produced a report in May 2024 that questioned the feasibility of electric vehicles and argued that accelerated timelines for vehicle adoption are an economic and security threat in Canada and the U.S.  “In the absence of a sustainable EV production supply chain, the accelerated transition to EVs would render the United States increasingly dependent on China for critical minerals and manufacturing,” says the report.   In May 2024 the Biden administration slapped a 100 percent border tax on electric vehicles that same year. Penner said this policy was a barrier for EV purchasing in North America. “The government put up a tariff wall, which made it more difficult for consumers to make the switch to electric vehicles, because the cheapest, and some would say some of the better performing electric vehicles now remain in China,” he said. Other conservative think tanks such as the  Fraser Institute, a libertarian think tank with ties to the Koch foundation-funded Atlas Network have also spoken out out against EV mandates around the same time period. The Fraser Institute referred to the electric vehicle mandate as “Soviet-style” and declared that the “the outcomes are miserable all around.” Last month, another Atlas Network partner, the Montreal Economic Institute, released an economic note claiming “forced market transition” to EVs would increase the cost of living in Canada. Experts contacted by DeSmog say EV adoption will actually save Canadians money in the long run. Economy Over Climate? Penner says there’s been a policy shift in government as people’s concerns shift more towards economic concerns than concerns about climate change. “I think there’s going to be a re-evaluation of exactly what the specific policies measures should be,” said Penner about the B.C. government. He said it was a mistake for governments to focus on one type of vehicle. Whenever governments think theyre picking a winner, its quite often they get there a little bit too late, and then other industries are asked through their taxes to subsidize these chosen industries. Penner’s advice to governments was to focus on reducing government oversight and reduce taxes rather than focus on climate-friendly solutions. “Make your overall investment climate more attractive, reduce red tape, reduce taxes across the board, not just for a few chosen industries, instead of again trying to guess what will be the prevailing technology,” he said. Penner and Resource Works have previously campaigned to overturn a ban on gas stoves in Vancouver. The post Former BC Environment Minister Doubts EV Viability, Leads Cenovus-Backed Campaign appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Poilievre Mapped: His Inner Circle of Lobbyists and Right-wing Activists

 

at 3/25/25 2:23pm

Koch Industries, Elon Musk’s X Corp., Loblaws, Enbridge, Pathways Alliance, the Canadian Gas Association, Rumble Canada, Rebel News, Canada Proud, and Facebook. These are just a handful of the corporate interests and right-wing communications platforms linked to the inner circle of Pierre Poilievre and his federal Conservatives as Canada heads into a snap federal election scheduled for April 28. Today DeSmog is publishing an interactive map illustrating, for the first time, the web of connections between federal lobbyists, political operatives, social media strategists, industrial polluters, tech giants, and the man who could become Canada’s next leader. Poilievre has for years portrayed himself as a champion of the country’s blue-collar workers  who comes from “humble origins,” claiming during a speech last year that “when I’m prime minister, my obsession — my daily obsession — will be about what is best for the working-class people of this country.”  Yet Poilievre and his party are linked to oil and gas companies that have made record profits from gas price inflation, grocery chains accused of price-gouging, and companies owned by the world’s richest man, Musk, a key figure in the Trump administration. To use the DeSmog map, hover your cursor over one of the circles. It will show in thick red lines the connections to other players in the Conservative universe. Click on a name in the map to get more information about the person, company, or organization. Credit: DeSmog Stacked with Lobbyists Using the map, it’s clear that the Conservative Party’s National Council, the party’s highest authority on governance matters, is a hotbed for corporate lobbyists. That isn’t a coincidence, as Conservative party members several years ago voted down a resolution barring lobbyists from the council, as The Breach reported. As a result, the organization has members such as Aaron Scheewe, managing director at the lobby group Capitol Hill Group, whose clients include X Corp. — the social media platform formerly known as Twitter — as well as MBDA Missile Systems and the Canadian International Pharmacy Association. Another council member, Anthony Matar, is a current lobbyist at Crestview Strategies, which represents cigarette companies, the oil and gas sector, and the Canadian arm of the far-right social media platform Rumble. The council’s president, Stephen Barber, is a vice president at the lobbying firm StrategyCorp, whose clients include Pathways Alliance, an industry group comprised of Canada’s six largest oil sands companies. Poilievre himself has close ties to lobbyists. His former director of policy, David Murray, is now a senior vice president with the advocacy, marketing, and research group One Persuasion, which the National Observer reported was behind an anonymous ad campaign on Facebook claiming that “government regulation is making you poorer by stifling investment in Canada’s oil and gas sector.” Murray states on the One Persuasion website that his previous connections to the Conservative leader are an asset to his clients. “Mr. Poilievre has been clear that the old ways of doing [government relations] will not work with Canada’s next government. There are many who speculate on how to approach this. David already knows,” the website says. “That’s why when it comes to crafting your story, building a coalition, or presenting the right plan in the right way, David will take you from just being heard to making a real impact,” it adds. Stephen Harper Connection For the first decade or so that Poilievre was a member of parliament, he served under Conservative leader Stephen Harper. That connection persists to this day through political operatives such as Hamish Marshall, a partner at One Persuasion, who says that “he was the liaison between the central agencies of government and the Prime Ministers Office on all matters relating to public opinion research” during years when Harper was in power. Marshall also co-founded the right-wing media outlet Rebel News in 2015. Harper, who is widely seen as Poilievre’s political mentor, is himself the owner of the lobby group Harper Associates, which shares a staff member with Wellington Advocacy, another lobby group that counts Koch Industries, Suncor, and Pembina Pipeline among its clients. Haley Love, a former Wellington consultant, has helped lead digital services for Poilievre. She also formerly worked with Mobilize Media, the conservative communications firm behind the Facebook account Canada Proud. Mobilize was previously retained to work on Poilievre’s leadership campaign for the federal Conservatives. Canada Proud has been running multiple Facebook ads attacking Liberal leader Mark Carney by insinuating he has connections to Jeffrey Epstein. In mid-March, Canada Proud posted a screenshot of Poilievre apparently “meeting with Canadian workers in a small Franco-Ontarian village,” next to a headline of Carney arriving in London to meet the King of England. “The contrast couldnt be clearer,” stated Canada Proud. Cultivating an impression of working-class relatability is key to Poilievre’s political brand. However, DeSmog’s map shows that the Conservative leader and his party are linked to a constellation of corporate lobbyists and industries far removed from the day-to-day interests of ordinary Canadians. The post Poilievre Mapped: His Inner Circle of Lobbyists and Right-wing Activists appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— EXCLUSIVE: Global Ad Giant WPP Shutters Sustainability-Focused Agency

 

at 3/25/25 7:30am

Global ad giant WPP has closed AKQA Bloom, a Miami-based communications agency specialising in sustainability campaigns, according to an email to staff obtained by DeSmog, and merged its operations with parent agency AKQA. Founded in 2022, AKQA Bloom positioned itself as a forward-thinking advertising agency dedicated to environmental sustainability and social impact. The AKQA staff email said that AKQA Bloom was being integrated into the wider agency’s “new regional structure” in the Americas along with AKQA Bloom’s clients and staff. According to its LinkedIn profile, AKQA Bloom had 10 employees. A source close to AKQA said WPP – a London-based holding company with around 90 agencies worldwide, one of the world’s biggest advertising agencies  – made the decision in response to declining revenues at the holding company. The source, who asked not to be identified for fear of professional repercussions, also said that WPP intends to bring in more clients from the fossil fuel industry. AKQA, which is also based in London, confirmed in a statement that AKQA Bloom was being absorbed, saying the decision would “strengthen our dedication to purpose-driven innovation.” WPP did not respond to a request for comment. AKQA Bloom’s closure in March comes amid concerns that the advertising and PR industry is not doing enough to address its complicity in the climate crisis, since WPP and other major holding companies continue to create campaigns on behalf of some of the world’s biggest polluters. AKQA has worked with Saudi Aramco, the world’s largest oil and gas company by revenue, since at least 2021, according to DeSmog research. WPP had at least 79 contracts in 2024 with other top fossil fuel companies such as Shell, ExxonMobil, TotalEnergies, and BP, according to the campaign group Clean Creatives – more than any of its major holding company rivals including Publicis Groupe, IPG, Omnicom, Dentsu and Havas. WPP’s 2023 annual report stated that it would not take on client work “designed to frustrate the objectives of the Paris [climate] Agreement”. Solitaire Townsend, a sustainability communications expert, termed AKQA Bloom’s closure “equally amusing as it is frustrating,” and an indicator of the advertising industry’s failure to make a long-term commitment to addressing climate change. “These [types of] agencies are always set up with great fanfare,” said Townsend, “with the holding companies claiming to be experts in sustainability. “Then they are closed down when they are not a significantly profitable part of their business.” When the agency launched three years ago, AKQA Bloom executive directors Jean Zamprogno and Fernando Pellizzaro promised to create campaigns that would “protect the planet, open minds, and enrich lives,” according to the trade publication Campaign.  The celebrated advertising veterans previously won a sweep of prestigious Cannes Lions awards in 2021, for a Burger King ad campaign that featured a decomposing burger to highlight the removal of artificial preservatives from the chain’s food. An AKQA spokesperson stated at the time of AKQA Bloom’s launch that AKQA was “the perfect incubator for this project, sharing the same values and goals”, suggesting it was significant that a duo of Zamprogno and Pellizzaro’s acclaim wanted to prioritise environmental sustainability in their work. AKQA Bloom’s notable campaigns ranged from a 2023 project with soccer team Inter Miami to create kits made from recycled materials, to a partnership with the TEDxAmazônia conference, also in 2023, to raise awareness about threats to the Amazon rainforest. The agency also worked on an ad campaign for Coca-Cola in 2024 that promoted the brand’s returnable bottle scheme. Behind the colourful ads, Coca-Cola remains the world’s top plastic polluter. Last year the drinks giant abandoned its pledge to achieve 25 percent reusable packaging by 2030. The advertising and PR industry is under growing scrutiny for its role in enabling the fossil fuel industry to delay meaningful climate action. Some agencies have created ad campaigns for oil and gas clients that emphasise their minute investments in clean energy development, masking the billions more they continue to spend on prioritising oil and gas development. Other campaigns have emphasised the role that technological climate solutions like carbon capture and storage could play in cutting carbon pollution, even though experts — including the fossil fuel industry itself —  know that they are forecast to be marginal at best. UN Secretary-General António Guterres has been calling the ad and PR industry “enablers of planetary destruction” and urging agencies to drop their fossil fuel clients. His statements echo those of campaigners targeting agencies such as WPP for their complicity in blocking climate progress. Two climate groups, Adfree Cities and the New Weather Institute, filed a complaint last month against WPP with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) for allegedly violating OECD guidelines on reducing climate and environmental harms and protecting human rights. WPP responded by saying that it “adhere[s] to the highest regulatory standards in [its] work for clients” and that advertising was crucial to economic growth. Despite WPP’s hesitation to drop its fossil fuel clients, Townsend believes that the ad industry will cycle back around to climate-friendly initiatives when it suits them “They’ll be back again in four years when sustainability is on the upswing, because unfortunately climate change isn’t going anywhere.” Last year was the hottest year ever recorded, The World Meteorological Organisation recently confirmed, with average global temperatures passing the Paris Agreement threshold of 1.5 degrees Centigrade (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial averages. Each of the past 10 years ranked as among the hottest on record, the WMO has reported.   While it is hard to quantify the ad and PR industry’s contributions to the worsening climate crisis,  a 2024 report from Carbon Tracker found that none of the world’s top 25 oil and gas companies are currently on track to slash their carbon emissions in line with the Paris climate agreement.  To visit DeSmog’s database profiling dozens of advertising and PR companies with ties to the fossil fuel industry, click here. The post EXCLUSIVE: Global Ad Giant WPP Shutters Sustainability-Focused Agency appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Some First Nations Ready ‘to Rise’ if Poilievre Lifts BC Oil Tanker Ban

 

at 3/25/25 7:00am

On a clear day overlooking the inner harbour of Prince Rupert, a northwest British Columbia town home to Canada’s third largest port, chances are you’ll see a spurt of water coming from the surface of the ocean. “Ive lived here my whole life and every once in a while, you might get a glimpse of a humpback, but there have been so many humpback whales lately in the harbour, I’ve never witnessed that in my life. It’s a sign that our waters are healthy and abundant,” says Arnie Nagy, a member of the Haida Nation. Traditionally, Nagy is known as Tlaatsgaa Chiin Kiljuu, or Strong Salmon Voice, because of his years fighting to ensure the survival of the fishing industry and wild salmon on B.C.’s North Coast as a member of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers’ Union. He fears that the latest threat to the region’s healthy waters could come from Ottawa. Pierre Poilievre, the federal Conservative leader and the man who might become Canada’s next prime minister — if he can overcome newly minted Prime Minister Mark Carney who is surging in the polls — has long advocated for a west coast energy corridor to ship Alberta oil to Asian markets.  In 2011, hundreds rallied in Prince Rupert to protest the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline. It was a galvanising issue for many coastal communities. The federal Liberal government ultimately rejected the project and passed the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act to protect B.C.s North Coast from future oil export projects. Credit: Daniel Mesec In 2021, Poilievre voted in favour of a private members bill, Bill C-229, that would have repealed B.C.’s North Coast tanker ban to make way for an oil port, saying in a speech to Parliament that he was opposed to “the wrong-headed decision of the Liberal government to ban the shipments of clean, green Canadian energy off the northwest coast of British Columbia.”  In mid-March, CEOs of Canada’s largest oil companies sent an open letter to Poilievre and other national political leaders claiming that “the federal government’s Impact Assessment Act and West Coast tanker ban are impeding development and need to be overhauled and simplified.”  During a recent meeting between Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and Prime Minister Mark Carney, Smith laid out nine non-negotiable demands to avoid what she called an “unprecedented national unity crisis.” One of those demands was for the next federal government to commit to “lifting the tanker ban off the B.C. coast.”  Poilievre called Smith’s demands “very reasonable,” yet he hasn’t offered specifics on his position as Canada heads towards a federal election on April 28, and didn’t respond to a media request from DeSmog seeking to clarify his current views on repealing the ban. Some local First Nations are ready for a political battle if he forms government and moves to allow oil tankers.  “I truly believe people are willing to rise and fight when they see injustice,” Nagy said. “This community is still willing to stand up and defend this place. Governments will do whatever they have to do to weaken that type of connection. And as I’ve always said, Ill fight till my last breath.” Devastating Oil Spills Nagy isn’t a newcomer when it comes to protecting the coast from oil tankers.  When Enbridge proposed its Northern Gateway bitumen pipeline and export project in the mid-2000s, Nagy traveled to Ottawa to speak with cabinet ministers about the devastating impact an oil spill could have on B.C.’s north coast.  That threat includes destroying wild salmon runs that number in the tens of millions and support countless communities and livelihoods along the Skeena and Nass rivers, two of the largest salmon producing rivers in Canada.  A repeat of the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster, when an oil tanker ran aground and ruptured off the coast of Alaska and released over 10 million gallons of crude oil, is one worst-case scenario. But even smaller spills can damage the ecosystem.  In 2016, the Nathan E. Stewart, a tugboat with 110,000 litres of diesel fuel on board, ran aground in the Heiltsuk Nation’s coastal waters near Bella Bella. The spill shut down a robust clam fishery worth $200,000 a year and impacted clam beds, sea cucumbers, abalone and other food sources that have still not recovered in the years that followed.  Despite those risks, political momentum for oil exports on B.C.’s north coast is growing. Protesters in Kitimat during the 1976 Oil Port Inquiry hearings. Credit: Laura How In the wake of U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariff war on Canada, which sends about 97 percent of its oil exports to the U.S., conversation on how to get Canadian oil to tidewater for access to Asian markets have refocused on decade-old proposals to ship oil from B.C.’s North Coast. Yet worries about oil port proposals in the region go back to the 1970s West Coast Oil Ports Inquiry, which determined that the sensitive ecology of B.C.’s North Coast should remain off limits to large oil tankers. The Exxon Valdez disaster, which took place 1,200 kilometres north of Prince Rupert, solidified a voluntary moratorium on oil tanker traffic through B.C.’s central and north coast. But in 2006, during a boom period for Canada’s oil sands in northern Alberta, Enbridge proposed a 1,177-kilometre (731 mile) pipeline that would carry 525,000 barrels a day of heavy bitumen from Bruderheim, Alberta to an export terminal in Kitimat, B.C. for Asian markets. What ensued was a decade-long conflict that consumed the region, culminating in a plebiscite in the town of Kitimat where nearly 60 percent of the community voted to oppose the oil port. “Back then, we were all united against Enbridge, which was the power we had,” says Cheryl Brown, a member of the grassroots organization Douglas Channel Watch, which spearheaded the anti-Enbridge campaign in Kitimat. Members of the grassroots community group Douglas Channel Watch in Kitimat rally together on the day that Kitimat voted 58-41% to oppose Enbridges Northern Gateway project. Credit: Daniel Mesec   Although Stephen Harper’s federal Conservative Government approved Northern Gateway, nearly every coastal municipality and First Nation from Haida Gwaii to Prince Rupert and Kitimat passed resolutions to oppose the ill-conceived project.  In 2016, former Prime Minister Justin Trudeaus Liberal government revoked Enbridge’s permits, effectively canceling the project altogether. Further solidifying environmental protections for the region, the federal government enacted Bill C-48 the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act in 2019. This legislation prohibits oil tankers carrying large quantities of crude oil from docking along British Columbias central and northern coastlines. The act aims to preserve the regions delicate marine ecosystems and respect the wishes of Indigenous populations. Poilievre Backs Tanker Ban Repeal Since then, a Conservative member of parliament from Alberta, James Cumming, has been calling for the repeal of the tanker ban. “Bill C-48 is an overt attack on Alberta’s resource sector,” Cumming said in 2021. “Some have suggested that my bill, Bill C-229, is a waste of a private member’s bill, but frankly, given the absolute sorry state of this country, it is anything but a waste. This bill would right a wrong and fix an incredibly discriminatory piece of legislation.”  Poilievre has in the past wholeheartedly supported repeal of the tanker ban, speaking out in favor of Cumming’s bill in 2021 and saying while he was campaigning to become Conservative leader the following year that prohibiting tankers is an “anti-energy” position.  As the threat of U.S. tariffs intensified in January, opposition to the expansion of hydrocarbon exports through northwest B.C. seemed to be waning among some of the Indigenous community’s most fervent opponents.  On January 21, Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs (UBCIC) held a press conference during which he seemingly voiced potential support for the Northern Gateway pipeline project through Northwest, B.C., a project he had previously fought against. “We are staring into the abyss of uncertainty, the climate crisis and the American threat,” Chief Phillip said in Vancouver. “I would suggest that if we don’t build that kind of infrastructure Trump will and there will not be any consideration for the environment or the rule of law.” As a longtime opponent of the Northern Gateway project, Chief Phillip’s comments were shocking and confusing to many, including Heiltsuk chief councillor, Marilyn Slett, who said at the time that “Our people were on the front lines and fought hard to successfully stop the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline. The environmental risks to our territories were and are too great. Nothing has changed and we are not going to back down.” Chief Phillip soon walked back his statement saying, “there is no room for fossil fuel expansion”. Still, the conversation caught the ear of Alberta Premier Danielle Smith who called for the “immediate construction of Northern Gateway.”  ‘Remain Completely Opposed’ But that might not be as easy as it sounds. For one there is the hurdle of the tanker ban, which would need to be repealed before any oil port proposal could be considered. Then there is the issue of local communities and First Nations. To date, not one North Coast community has supported plans to build an oil port and it would seem those sentiments still hold strong. Chief Yahaan, also known as Donnie Wesley, represents the Gitwilgyoots Tribe of the Nine Allied Tribes of the Tsimshian Nation near Prince Rupert. Yahaan is an old commercial harvester and led the charge against Pacific Northwest LNG when it proposed to build an LNG terminal over Lelu Island and Flora Bank, a major hub for millions of Skeena salmon. Chief Yahaan of the Nine Allied Tsimshian Tribes of Lax Kwalaams, holds up the Lelu Island Declaration to show their opposition to the Pacific Northwest LNG project at the Salmon Nation Summit in Prince Rupert in 2016. The Malaysian state owned oil and gas company Petronas cancelled the project in 2017. Credit: Daniel Mesec   Yahaan says although unity among the nations has waned since the Northern Gateway days, any attempt to build an oil port that would further threaten the fishing industry would still be met with opposition. According to Joy Thorkelson, the North Coast representative for the United Fishermen and Allied Workers’ Union, the united front which stopped Enbridge the last time, is still alive and well and would shut down any attempt to reinvigorate the idea of oil tankers traversing these waters. “We would remain completely opposed to any offshore oil transportation,” Thorkelson said.  Prince Rupert mayor Herb Pond can see the economic value in such a project for his cash-strapped town of 12,000. Yet he acknowledges that “a crude oil pipeline to Prince Rupert is a long shot.” Pond added, “It was a hard push the last time…I think theres far more likelihood that they will find ways to increase the capacity of the existing Trans Mountain pipeline.” The Port of Prince Rupert is rapidly expanding its Ridley Island industrial export capacity, including coal, propane and other products not covered under the Oil Tanker Moratorium. Credit: Daniel Mesec  Down in Kitimat the prospect is much the same. LNG Canada, the largest single energy project investment in Canadian history, is preparing to ship out its first tanker of liquefied natural gas before the end of the year. Although super tankers will be navigating the narrow Douglas Channel from Kitimat to reach the open ocean, those tankers will be filled with LNG not bitumen, which to the Haisla First Nation is an important distinction. That nation sees LNG as a means of economic development, which is why the Haisla are not only investing in LNG Canada but also developing their own LNG export facility, known as Cedar LNG, which just received $200 million from the federal government, signalling the Liberals’ support for the project.  Yet in 2019, Haisla Chief Councillor Crystal Smith spoke in favour of the tanker ban, stating in a Vancouver Sun op-ed that, “Haisla are not quick to offer endorsements for any projects when it comes to our territory. We firmly opposed the Northern Gateway bitumen pipeline proposal, which did not meet our conditions or our standards,” she wrote. “But we’re not talking about oil or bitumen. Coastal GasLink is natural gas, and it should not be confused. A natural gas pipeline will always be a natural gas pipeline.” Members of the Haisla Nation protesting the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline await the results of a plebiscite vote in April 2014 in downtown Kitimat. Credit: Daniel Mesec Following Chief Stewart Phillip’s remarks on Northern Gateway, the Haisla issued a statement reiterating its opposition to all oil ports in its territories. “Our position as a community related to a bitumen pipeline through our traditional territory has not changed since previous Haisla leadership and councils opposed the Northern Gateway project over a decade ago. We firmly believe that we can support economic diversification in our territory for the benefit of our members, as well as the country as a whole, without sacrificing our values,” the statement said. Poilievre Doesn’t Offer Details Phil Germuth, the mayor of Kitimat, was a councillor ten years ago when the community voted to oppose the Northern Gateway project, even grilling former Northern Gateway CEO John Carruthers during one council meeting about leak detection and spill response. Now Germuth says if any oil products are to be shipped through his community, he’d like to see them be refined products, not raw bitumen. “If other countries cant get their resources from us, theyre going to go get them somewhere else, that is a fact,” Germuth said. “If theyre not coming from Canada, then somebody else is getting that opportunity. Enbridge says it has no plans to re-engage on Northern Gateway, after spending $500 million on a project campaign that essentially went nowhere. “We currently have no plans to develop Northern Gateway. Our current effort is focused on leveraging our pipeline in the ground and our existing rights of way,” Jesse Semko, spokesperson for Enbridge, said in a statement. “There’s lots of capacity there that is efficient and less disruptive to communities and the environment.” Still, with 25 percent U.S. tariffs now in effect on steel and aluminum across the country, and 10 percent on energy, the discussions to build pipelines east and west are growing. Poilievre has been vocal about his intentions to expedite energy infrastructure development, especially under current tariff threats. But he hasn’t directly mentioned reviving Northern Gateway.  In January 2024, when asked during a radio interview if he would support an oil export pipeline and facility on B.C. North Coast, the Conservative leader said he wouldnt comment on a project that didn’t exist anymore. “I havent heard any proposals for an oil pipeline since Northern Gateway,” Poilievre said. “So I cant comment on proposals that dont exist. But well definitely keep an eye on it.” Instead Poilievre has pledged to repeal legislation he deems obstructive, such as the Impact Assessment Act, Bill C-69, which he argues hampers energy projects. During an interview with the B.C. news outlet Northern Beat, Poilievre stated, “I will give rapid permits for pipelines so that we can get our energy to market.” Recently, the Conservatives issued a press release calling for the “full repeal” of “the West Coast Tanker Ban.” But at this point, that might be easier said than done.   Paul Bowles, a retired professor of economics and international studies at University of Northern British Columbia who studied the impact of the Northern Gateway project on local communities says a lot of the market access talk back then is the same discussion today. However, in today’s economic and environmental climate it would still take about a decade from start to finish to see a major pipeline project come to fruition, given that governments, communities and especially First Nations would all need to agree on a path forward. But because the opposition was so strong against Enbridge’s oil pipeline a decade ago, Bowles finds it hard to believe it would be a simple task to see it get built today. “The David and Goliath parallel metaphor is a good one,” Bowles said. “What struck me was that the very strength of being David was the local roots and the fact that it was so local. It was people talking about their local areas, the local watershed, the local channel, the salmon and the importance of the way of life.” And that hasn’t changed. For those that live off the coast, there is a saying which represents everything they stand for: “When the tide is out, the table is set.” Nagy believes that as long as the coast remains healthy and without oil tankers, communities and villages will survive for another millennia. “We fought tooth and nail to preserve the coast from the damages of oil and gas exploration tankers, pipelines, and fish farms so things are becoming healthier, and we see it by the creatures that are affected first,” Nagy said. “In a clean environment, the food chain is undisturbed, and you can witness it. But when you start polluting and damaging all those ecosystems, you get nothing.” The post Some First Nations Ready ‘to Rise’ if Poilievre Lifts BC Oil Tanker Ban appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Some First Nations Ready ‘To Rise’ If Poilievre Lifts BC Oil Tanker Ban

 

at 3/25/25 7:00am

On a clear day overlooking the inner harbour of Prince Rupert, a northwest British Columbia town home to Canada’s third largest port, chances are you’ll see a spurt of water coming from the surface of the ocean. “Ive lived here my whole life and every once in a while, you might get a glimpse of a humpback, but there have been so many humpback whales lately in the harbour, I’ve never witnessed that in my life. It’s a sign that our waters are healthy and abundant,” says Arnie Nagy, a member of the Haida Nation. Traditionally, Nagy is known as Tlaatsgaa Chiin Kiljuu, or Strong Salmon Voice, because of his years fighting to ensure the survival of the fishing industry and wild salmon on B.C.’s North Coast as a member of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers’ Union. He fears that the latest threat to the region’s healthy waters could come from Ottawa. Pierre Poilievre, the federal Conservative leader and the man who might become Canada’s next prime minister – if he can overcome newly minted Prime Minister Mark Carney who is surging in the polls – has long advocated for a west coast energy corridor to ship Alberta oil to Asian markets.  In 2011, hundreds rallied in Prince Rupert to protest the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline. It was a galvanising issue for many coastal communities. The federal Liberal government ultimately rejected the project and passed the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act to protect B.C.s North Coast from future oil export projects. Photo: Daniel Mesec In 2021, Poilievre voted in favour of a private members bill, Bill C-229, that would have repealed B.C.’s North Coast tanker ban to make way for an oil port, saying in a speech to Parliament that he was opposed to “the wrong-headed decision of the Liberal government to ban the shipments of clean, green Canadian energy off the northwest coast of British Columbia.”  In mid-March, CEOs of Canada’s largest oil companies sent an open letter to Poilievre and other national political leaders claiming that “the federal government’s Impact Assessment Act and West Coast tanker ban are impeding development and need to be overhauled and simplified.”  During a recent meeting between Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and Prime Minister Mark Carney, Smith laid out nine non-negotiable demands to avoid what she called an “unprecedented national unity crisis.” One of those demands was for the next federal government to commit to “lifting the tanker ban off the B.C. coast.”  Poilievre called Smith’s demands “very reasonable,” yet he hasn’t offered specifics on his position as Canada heads towards a federal election on April 28, and didn’t respond to a media request from DeSmog seeking to clarify his current views on repealing the ban. Some local First Nations are ready for a political battle if he forms government and moves to allow oil tankers.  “I truly believe people are willing to rise and fight when they see injustice,” Nagy said. “This community is still willing to stand up and defend this place. Governments will do whatever they have to do to weaken that type of connection. And as I’ve always said, Ill fight till my last breath.” Devastating Oil Spills Nagy isn’t a newcomer when it comes to protecting the coast from oil tankers.  When Enbridge proposed its Northern Gateway bitumen pipeline and export project in the mid-2000s, Nagy traveled to Ottawa to speak with cabinet ministers about the devastating impact an oil spill could have on B.C.’s north coast.  That threat includes destroying wild salmon runs that number in the tens of millions and support countless communities and livelihoods along the Skeena and Nass rivers, two of the largest salmon producing rivers in Canada.  A repeat of the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster, when an oil tanker ran aground and ruptured off the coast of Alaska and released over 10 million gallons of crude oil, is one worst-case scenario. But even smaller spills can damage the ecosystem.  In 2016, the Nathan E. Stewart, a tugboat with 110,000 litres of diesel fuel on board, ran aground in the Heiltsuk Nation’s coastal waters near Bella Bella. The spill shut down a robust clam fishery worth $200,000 a year and impacted clam beds, sea cucumbers, abalone and other food sources that have still not recovered in the years that followed.  Despite those risks, political momentum for oil exports on B.C.’s north coast is growing. Protesters in Kitimat during the 1976 Oil Port Inquiry hearings. Photo: Laura How In the wake of U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariff war on Canada, which sends about 97 percent of its oil exports to the U.S., conversation on how to get Canadian oil to tidewater for access to Asian markets have refocused on decade-old proposals to ship oil from B.C.’s North Coast. Yet worries about oil port proposals in the region go back to the 1970s West Coast Oil Ports Inquiry, which determined that the sensitive ecology of B.C.’s North Coast should remain off limits to large oil tankers. The Exxon Valdez disaster, which took place 1,200 kilometres north of Prince Rupert, solidified a voluntary moratorium on oil tanker traffic through B.C.’s central and north coast. But in 2006, during a boom period for Canada’s oil sands in northern Alberta, Enbridge proposed a 1,177-kilometre (731 mile) pipeline that would carry 525,000 barrels a day of heavy bitumen from Bruderheim, Alberta to an export terminal in Kitimat, B.C. for Asian markets. What ensued was a decade-long conflict that consumed the region, culminating in a plebiscite in the town of Kitimat where nearly 60 percent of the community voted to oppose the oil port. “Back then, we were all united against Enbridge, which was the power we had,” says Cheryl Brown, a member of the grassroots organization Douglas Channel Watch, which spearheaded the anti-Enbridge campaign in Kitimat. Members of the grassroots community group Douglas Channel Watch in Kitimat rally together on the day that Kitimat voted 58-41% to oppose Enbridges Northern Gateway project. Photo: Daniel Mesec   Although Stephen Harper’s federal Conservative Government approved Northern Gateway, nearly every coastal municipality and First Nation from Haida Gwaii to Prince Rupert and Kitimat passed resolutions to oppose the ill-conceived project.  In 2016, former Prime Minister Justin Trudeaus Liberal government revoked Enbridge’s permits, effectively canceling the project altogether. Further solidifying environmental protections for the region, the federal government enacted Bill C-48 the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act in 2019. This legislation prohibits oil tankers carrying large quantities of crude oil from docking along British Columbias central and northern coastlines. The act aims to preserve the regions delicate marine ecosystems and respect the wishes of Indigenous populations. Poilievre Backs Tanker Ban Repeal Since then, a Conservative member of parliament from Alberta, James Cumming, has been calling for the repeal of the tanker ban. “Bill C-48 is an overt attack on Alberta’s resource sector,” Cumming said in 2021. “Some have suggested that my bill, Bill C-229, is a waste of a private member’s bill, but frankly, given the absolute sorry state of this country, it is anything but a waste. This bill would right a wrong and fix an incredibly discriminatory piece of legislation.”  Poilievre has in the past wholeheartedly supported repeal of the tanker ban, speaking out in favor of Cumming’s bill in 2021 and saying while he was campaigning to become Conservative leader the following year that prohibiting tankers is an “anti-energy” position.  As the threat of U.S. tariffs intensified in January, opposition to the expansion of hydrocarbon exports through northwest B.C. seemed to be waning among some of the Indigenous community’s most fervent opponents.  On January 21, Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs (UBCIC) held a press conference during which he seemingly voiced potential support for the Northern Gateway pipeline project through Northwest, B.C., a project he had previously fought against. “We are staring into the abyss of uncertainty, the climate crisis and the American threat,” Chief Phillip said in Vancouver. “I would suggest that if we don’t build that kind of infrastructure Trump will and there will not be any consideration for the environment or the rule of law.” As a longtime opponent of the Northern Gateway project, Chief Phillip’s comments were shocking and confusing to many, including Heiltsuk chief councillor, Marilyn Slett, who said at the time that “Our people were on the front lines and fought hard to successfully stop the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline. The environmental risks to our territories were and are too great. Nothing has changed and we are not going to back down.” Chief Phillip soon walked back his statement saying, “there is no room for fossil fuel expansion”. Still, the conversation caught the ear of Alberta Premier Danielle Smith who called for the “immediate construction of Northern Gateway.”  ‘Remain Completely Opposed’ But that might not be as easy as it sounds. For one there is the hurdle of the tanker ban, which would need to be repealed before any oil port proposal could be considered. Then there is the issue of local communities and First Nations. To date, not one North Coast community has supported plans to build an oil port and it would seem those sentiments still hold strong. Chief Yahaan, also known as Donnie Wesley, represents the Gitwilgyoots Tribe of the Nine Allied Tribes of the Tsimshian Nation near Prince Rupert. Yahaan is an old commercial harvester and led the charge against Pacific Northwest LNG when it proposed to build an LNG terminal over Lelu Island and Flora Bank, a major hub for millions of Skeena salmon. Chief Yahaan of the Nine Allied Tsimshian Tribes of Lax Kwalaams, holds up the Lelu Island Declaration to show their opposition to the Pacific Northwest LNG project at the Salmon Nation Summit in Prince Rupert in 2016. The Malaysian state owned oil and gas company Petronas cancelled the project in 2017. Photo: Daniel Mesec   Yahaan says although unity among the nations has waned since the Northern Gateway days, any attempt to build an oil port that would further threaten the fishing industry would still be met with opposition. According to Joy Thorkelson, the North Coast representative for the United Fishermen and Allied Workers’ Union, the united front which stopped Enbridge the last time, is still alive and well and would shut down any attempt to reinvigorate the idea of oil tankers traversing these waters. “We would remain completely opposed to any offshore oil transportation,” Thorkelson said.  Prince Rupert mayor Herb Pond can see the economic value in such a project for his cash-strapped town of 12,000. Yet he acknowledges that “a crude oil pipeline to Prince Rupert is a long shot.” Pond added, “It was a hard push the last time…I think theres far more likelihood that they will find ways to increase the capacity of the existing Trans Mountain pipeline.” The Port of Prince Rupert is rapidly expanding its Ridley Island industrial export capacity, including coal, propane and other products not covered under the Oil Tanker Moratorium. Photo: Daniel Mesec  Down in Kitimat the prospect is much the same. LNG Canada, the largest single energy project investment in Canadian history, is preparing to ship out its first tanker of liquefied natural gas before the end of the year. Although super tankers will be navigating the narrow Douglas Channel from Kitimat to reach the open ocean, those tankers will be filled with LNG not bitumen, which to the Haisla First Nation is an important distinction. That nation sees LNG as a means of economic development, which is why the Haisla are not only investing in LNG Canada but also developing their own LNG export facility, known as Cedar LNG, which just received $200 million from the federal government, signalling the Liberals’ support for the project.  Yet in 2019, Haisla Chief Councillor Crystal Smith spoke in favour of the tanker ban, stating in a Vancouver Sun op-ed that, “Haisla are not quick to offer endorsements for any projects when it comes to our territory. We firmly opposed the Northern Gateway bitumen pipeline proposal, which did not meet our conditions or our standards,” she wrote. “But we’re not talking about oil or bitumen. Coastal GasLink is natural gas, and it should not be confused. A natural gas pipeline will always be a natural gas pipeline.” Members of the Haisla Nation protesting the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline await the results of a plebiscite vote in April 2014 in downtown Kitimat. Photo: Daniel Mesec Following Chief Stewart Phillip’s remarks on Northern Gateway, the Haisla issued a statement reiterating its opposition to all oil ports in its territories. “Our position as a community related to a bitumen pipeline through our traditional territory has not changed since previous Haisla leadership and councils opposed the Northern Gateway project over a decade ago. We firmly believe that we can support economic diversification in our territory for the benefit of our members, as well as the country as a whole, without sacrificing our values,” the statement said. Poilievre Doesn’t Offer Details Phil Germuth, the mayor of Kitimat, was a councillor ten years ago when the community voted to oppose the Northern Gateway project, even grilling former Northern Gateway CEO John Carruthers during one council meeting about leak detection and spill response. Now Germuth says if any oil products are to be shipped through his community, he’d like to see them be refined products, not raw bitumen. “If other countries cant get their resources from us, theyre going to go get them somewhere else, that is a fact,” Germuth said. “If theyre not coming from Canada, then somebody else is getting that opportunity. Enbridge says it has no plans to re-engage on Northern Gateway, after spending $500 million on a project campaign that essentially went nowhere. “We currently have no plans to develop Northern Gateway. Our current effort is focused on leveraging our pipeline in the ground and our existing rights of way,” Jesse Semko, spokesperson for Enbridge, said in a statement. “There’s lots of capacity there that is efficient and less disruptive to communities and the environment.” Still, with 25 percent U.S. tariffs now in effect on steel and aluminum across the country, and 10 percent on energy, the discussions to build pipelines east and west are growing. Poilievre has been vocal about his intentions to expedite energy infrastructure development, especially under current tariff threats. But he hasn’t directly mentioned reviving Northern Gateway.  In January 2024, when asked during a radio interview if he would support an oil export pipeline and facility on B.C. North Coast, the Conservative leader said he wouldnt comment on a project that didn’t exist anymore. “I havent heard any proposals for an oil pipeline since Northern Gateway,” Poilievre said. “So I cant comment on proposals that dont exist. But well definitely keep an eye on it.” Instead Poilievre has pledged to repeal legislation he deems obstructive, such as the Impact Assessment Act, Bill C-69, which he argues hampers energy projects. During an interview with the B.C. news outlet Northern Beat, Poilievre stated, “I will give rapid permits for pipelines so that we can get our energy to market.” Recently, the Conservatives issued a press release calling for the “full repeal” of “the West Coast Tanker Ban.” But at this point, that might be easier said than done.   Paul Bowles, a retired professor of economics and international studies at University of Northern British Columbia who studied the impact of the Northern Gateway project on local communities says a lot of the market access talk back then is the same discussion today. However, in today’s economic and environmental climate it would still take about a decade from start to finish to see a major pipeline project come to fruition, given that governments, communities and especially First Nations would all need to agree on a path forward. But because the opposition was so strong against Enbridge’s oil pipeline a decade ago, Bowles finds it hard to believe it would be a simple task to see it get built today. “The David and Goliath parallel metaphor is a good one,” Bowles said. “What struck me was that the very strength of being David was the local roots and the fact that it was so local. It was people talking about their local areas, the local watershed, the local channel, the salmon and the importance of the way of life.” And that hasn’t changed. For those that live off the coast, there is a saying which represents everything they stand for: “When the tide is out, the table is set.” Nagy believes that as long as the coast remains healthy and without oil tankers, communities and villages will survive for another millennia. “We fought tooth and nail to preserve the coast from the damages of oil and gas exploration tankers, pipelines, and fish farms so things are becoming healthier, and we see it by the creatures that are affected first,” Nagy said. “In a clean environment, the food chain is undisturbed, and you can witness it. But when you start polluting and damaging all those ecosystems, you get nothing.” The post Some First Nations Ready ‘To Rise’ If Poilievre Lifts BC Oil Tanker Ban appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— How Jordan Peterson Became a Global Anti-Net Zero Power Broker

 

at 3/24/25 3:59am

This special investigation between Canada’s National Observer and DeSmog was produced in collaboration with the Institute for Sustainability, Education and Action and TRACE Foundation. “No more carbon apocalypse-mongering,” Jordan Peterson told an audience of thousands in February at a global conservative conference in London known as the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC). The crowd applauded loudly. The world is “certainly not going to hit our 2030 targets” for achieving net-zero on climate change, Peterson claimed, because those targets “were proposed by buffoons and liars.” “We’re not going to hit our 2050 targets either,” he told the audience, which, according to a leaked attendee list, ranged from fossil fuel executives and Trump administration officials and allies, to climate denial organizations, political leaders from Europe, and right-wing tech billionaires. To Peterson, the prospect of this failure is cause for celebration, because he ridicules the notion that climate change is an emergency and views government efforts to reduce emissions as an affront to personal freedom.  For him, attacking net-zero appears to be a stand-in to attack all climate action. Others in the ARC network are leading efforts to ban wind energy, roll back conservation laws and undermine institutions promoting global action on emissions. Peterson grew up in Alberta, Canada — home to the third-largest oil deposits in the world. He is known to millions of people for dispensing self-help advice through best-selling books. He’s also a well-known conservative influencer whose podcast has often featured multi-hour interviews with prominent conservative figures, and is distributed by Ben Shapiro’s right-wing media outlet The Daily Wire. Now, Peterson’s influence is growing beyond the world of conservative punditry into geopolitics and policy making, especially his strident opposition to policies aimed at achieving net-zero. Jordan Peterson is interviewed on GB News at the ARC Conference. Credit: Marc Fawcett-Atkinson. During the ARC Conference – a multi-day right-wing networking event organized, promoted, and moderated by Peterson – journalists from DeSmog and Canada’s National Observer observed efforts to spread anti-net zero strategies across a growing conservative network that includes Canada, the US, the UK, Europe, and Australia. Attendees said they were using the conference to help develop national political party platforms, deepen transatlantic alliances, disseminate anti-renewable energy messages globally, and shift rightward the boundaries of acceptable public debate on net-zero. ARC’s overarching goals when it comes to climate change are to debunk “the environmentalist climate scam” and end the “appalling policy” of net-zero worldwide, Peterson said while moderating a panel with Nigel Farage, the leader of the conservative political party Reform UK.  Farage helped launch a UK branch of the Heartland Institute, the Chicago think tank that is at the forefront of denying the science of climate change, and that in recent months worked with politicians in Austria and Hungary to oppose a major European Union ecosystem restoration law. Now is the moment, Peterson declared to an enthusiastic conference hall packed with attendees who’d traveled from dozens of countries, “for conservatives to really push the envelope.”  *** Less than a month earlier, world leaders and business executives had met in Davos, Switzerland, for the World Economic Forum (WEF). That forum’s annual meetings, which typically include discussions around sustainability and climate goals, have become potent fodder for conservative conspiracy theories. These include false claims advanced by Peterson and others that “tyrannical bureaucrats” want to force people to live in “15-minute cities,” an urban planning concept emphasizing walkable neighborhoods that has become right-wing shorthand for fears about shadowy global elites. Some at ARC saw Peterson’s conference as an emerging alternative to the Davos gathering. Delivering a virtual keynote address on opening day, Congressman Mike Johnson, the speaker of the United States House of Representatives and leader of its Republican majority, told the conference that “organizations like the World Economic Forum lose their dominance when organizations like ours seek to challenge their hegemony.” Whereas the WEF has actively championed and encouraged net-zero pledges from corporations and countries, speakers at ARC envisioned eradicating the global framework for climate action entirely.  “Net zero 2050 is a sinister goal”, U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright told the conference in a live video appearance. Echoing dubious conspiracy theories that frame climate action as an authoritarian effort to control people’s movements and actions, he added that net zero has “certainly been a powerful tool used to grow government power, top-down control, and shrink human freedom.” Wright, who was the CEO of the fracking services company Liberty Energy before joining the Trump administration, argued that instead of pursuing net-zero initiatives that will help shift the world away from fossil fuels and towards cleaner sources of power, countries should “get out of the way of the production, export, and enhancement of our volumes of coal, oil and gas.”  US Energy Secretary Chris Wright speaks to ARC by video. Credit: Marc Fawcett-Atkinson Official net-zero pledges by countries, states, regions, cities and large publicly traded companies have been proliferating rapidly over the past few years, growing from 769 in 2020 to 1,750 in 2024, according to a report from the independent research group Net Zero Tracker.    One ARC organizer said privately that Wright’s comments about net-zero being “sinister” wouldn’t have been politically acceptable on the world stage even one year ago. The conference, in the organizer’s opinion, was providing a platform for shifting the international conversation on climate action rightward. That shift is also being accelerated by the Trump administration, which has created a National Energy Dominance Council for driving up oil and gas production, moved to ban wind energy projects and is taking steps to repeal the federal legal basis for regulating greenhouse gases as a pollutant. It’s all welcome news to Paul Marshall, an owner of the right-wing UK television broadcaster GB News. Marshall runs a hedge fund that in 2023 had $2.2 billion in fossil fuel investments. “What I am describing is a European problem and a Canadian problem and an Australian problem,” Marshall said during a keynote speech that attacked net-zero as a form of “climate derangement syndrome”.  “These countries have been infected by an ideological zeal, which is leading us to sacrifice our economic prosperity and our peoples’ livelihoods, all for the sake of making some fractional changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,” he claimed. *** Peterson is in some ways an unlikely figure to be helping lead a global campaign against net zero. The former University of Toronto psychology professor rose to notoriety in 2016 for protesting a federal Canadian law aimed at preventing gender discrimination. Videos of Peterson attacking the bill as a threat to free speech and refusing to use students’ preferred gender pronouns went viral, turning him into a digital right-wing celebrity. That initial groundswell of internet attention helped make Peterson’s 2018 self-help book 12 Rules for Life into an international bestseller, and launched his career as an online reactionary popular among young disaffected men. The pressures of fame seemed to catch up to him in early 2020, when the CBC reported that he was seeking medical treatment in Moscow for severe withdrawal from the anti-anxiety medication clonazepam. In 2021 Peterson published his second self-help book, Beyond Order. While it was a bestseller, mainstream media interest in the controversial professor had started to wane. But in the place of New Yorker profiles and BBC interviews, Peterson has built a social media following that rivals — if not surpasses — the online reach of legacy outlets, including on platforms such as YouTube, where he currently has over 8.6 million subscribers. In 2022 he signed a distribution deal for his podcast with The Daily Wire, a major conservative outlet founded with nearly $5 million in seed funding from Texas fracking billionaire Farris Wilks. Peterson has in recent years ramped up his anti-net zero content by regularly featuring climate crisis deniers on his podcast, generating millions of views for fringe figures rarely taken seriously by most legacy media. They include Judith Curry, a U.S. climatologist who has gained conservative fame for disputing well-established climate science, including by disputing that “humans are the dominant cause of recent climate change.” Peterson, in turn has leveraged his online platform to build his power in the conservative movement across a huge swath of the English-speaking world. In 2023, Peterson used his podcast to launch ARC, a network of policymakers, investors, activists, and journalists from the U.S., Canada, the UK, Europe, and Australia that hosts in-person networking events. A video trailer for ARC’s first London conference, held in November 2023, began with Peterson reading a statement: “We do not believe that humanity is necessarily and inevitably teetering on the brink of apocalyptic disaster.” At this conference, as DeSmog reported, Peterson and other speakers generally avoided explicitly political language on climate change. By 2025’s second ARC conference in London, this seemingly cautious approach appeared to give way to full-blown climate denial. *** During a private drinks reception at ARC, Kevin Roberts, head of the Heritage Foundation, claimed that the enormous wildfires that devastated parts of Los Angeles in January had “nothing to do with the fiction of climate change and everything to do with the reality of liberal elite failure.” Scientists have concluded that the lingering drought and other weather patterns that accelerated the disaster were largely due to climate change.   Subscribe to our newsletter Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts Name -- Email Address What content do you want to subscribe to? (check all that apply) All International UK Sign Up (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery); The Heritage Foundation is behind Project 2025, the radical conservative plan for hollowing out the U.S. government that is now being implemented by the Trump administration. The Project 2025 leader vowed to support European conservatives in their own efforts to downsize government and oppose international institutions. “Our friends from Europe, from other parts of the world, if we can reclaim our country, if we can reclaim our institutions, including the bloated, ridiculous overreach of the federal government, you can do what is necessary in your country,” Roberts told the conference room. ARC co-founder David Stroud asked the powerful conservative figures gathered in London to take what they’d learned during the conference and bring it back to their home countries. “There are communities of leaders on the ground in Canada and in America and in South America and in Brazil that are working these ideas out,” Stroud said during the same private drinks reception. “So the purpose of this evening is to enable as many of you as possible to connect and to have a meaningful conversation.” By plugging more deeply into the network, he added, “you will strengthen your hand.” Less than a month after the conference, the Heritage Foundation seemed to make good on that promise. It convened several conservative groups from Poland and Hungary for a meeting in Washington. The goal was to generate ideas for overhauling the current structures of the EU, according to the Polish investigative outlet VSquare, an outcome that could severely curtail the EU’s ability to achieve net zero by 2050. A researcher and campaigner at the transparency watchdog Corporate Europe Observatory said in reaction to news of that meeting that the growing transatlantic alliance fostered by Trump allies was “quite simply terrifying.” *** In early March the leader of the UK Conservative Party, Kemi Badenoch, officially announced that she would be abandoning her party’s 2050 net zero target, claiming incorrectly that it was “bankrupting” the country. Badenoch appeared well on her way to this position during her appearance at Peterson’s ARC conference the month before. During her keynote speech at ARC, she likened her party to Trump’s MAGA movement and took aim at net-zero initiatives, arguing that “whether it is pronouns or DEI or climate activism, these issues aren’t about kindness, they are about control.”   She seemed eager to learn from other speakers and attendees about specific strategies for advancing a conservative agenda on climate change and other issues. “My party is starting the largest renewal of policy and ideas in a generation,” she said. “This conference is part of finding those answers.” During his panel with Farage, who is Badenoch’s leading conservative rival, Peterson said that this is an opportune political moment for conservatives to get more aggressive in their opposition to net-zero. “You have an opportunity now, because the right is split in the UK, to really hash things out on the conservative side,” he said. Jordan Peterson (left) speaks with Reform UK leader Nigel Farage at ARC. Credit: Marc Fawcett-Atkinson Peterson then invited Farage to criticize the global net-zero framework, asking, “how appalling is it?” Farage began his answer with an attack on Badenoch – “the Conservative Party is not on the right in any measurable way” – and then questioned whether human-caused climate change is real. “I’m not a scientist,” he said. “I can’t tell you whether CO2 is leading to warming or not, but there are so many other massive factors.”  Well-established climate science has long confirmed that the CO2 pollution created by burning fossil fuels is the primary driver behind climate change. That basic scientific fact was acknowledged at the conference by Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish author and speaker, but he noted that while climate change is real, it’s “not the end of the world.”  Lomborg, who is an advisor to ARC, has attempted for decades to convince the world that there are more pressing global problems to address than climate change, including by writing an internationally syndicated newspaper column and recently appearing on the HBO show Real Time With Bill Maher. Lomborg had a booth in the conference’s exhibition hall promoting his most recent book, Best Things First (a copy of which Peterson presented to Elon Musk last year), and made himself easily accessible to media, even hosting a press briefing on the final day. Bjorn Lomborg speaks about his most recent book during a press briefing at ARC. Credit: Marc Fawcett-Atkinson During a keynote speech, he described the idea of the global economy smoothly transitioning off fossil fuels as a “green fantasy,” saying that renewable energy advocates are being “dramatically misleading” in their insistence that wind and solar are the cheapest forms of power, and arguing that net zero will “drive us bankrupt.” Climate experts argue it is Lomborg who is being misleading by drawing on outdated energy statistics and cherry-picking data that presents renewables in the worst possible light. The ARC conference gave Lomborg a platform to spread his anti-net zero message to a highly influential group of people. A leaked ARC attendee list obtained by DeSmog named executives and other senior figures from such industries as fossil fuels, finance, tech, business consulting, and defense, alongside representatives of prominent religious right groups, libertarian think tanks, and rightwing media outlets.   Peterson in turn urged attendees to fight for an energy system where coal, oil, gas, and nuclear remain dominant for decades — if not centuries — to come. “It’s not a net zero vision,” he said. “I can tell you that.” The post How Jordan Peterson Became a Global Anti-Net Zero Power Broker appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy, Politics]

— Strong Support Among Europeans for Banning Fossil Fuel Ads, Study Finds

 

at 3/21/25 4:05am

Almost half of people surveyed across the European Union are in favour of banning fossil fuel advertising — nearly twice as many who oppose such a move, according to a new study. Climate campaigners are urging governments to impose tobacco-style restrictions on advertising for oil and gas companies and high-carbon goods and services such as flights, cruises and SUVs. Authors of the study, published in Nature Climate Change, said their findings suggested that laws modelled on a first-of-its kind fossil fuel ad ban introduced in The Hague in the Netherlands in January could be popular elsewhere in Europe. A fossil ad ban sends out a powerful message, showing that fossil-fuel products and services should not be promoted,” said study co-author Thijs Bouman of the University of Groningen. “It compels others to implement similar measures, which ultimately lead to carbon emission reductions. The study was based on responses from more than 19,000 citizens in 13 EU countries — with 46.6 percent of respondents in favour of a ban, and 24.9 percent opposed. Support for a ban was highest in Greece, France, Spain, and Italy, running at between 56 and 59 percent of respondents. The highest level of opposition (32 percent) was in the Czech Republic, but this was still lower than the level of support in the country (34 percent). The law passed in The Hague prevents advertising for fossil energy contracts, petrol, diesel, aviation, cruise ships, and non-electric cars in publicly accessible places. Robert Barker, deputy mayor of The Hague and a key supporter of the fossil fuel ad ban in the city, said the study showed that more municipalities should follow suit. “Allowing fossil fuel ads while at the same time trying to reduce CO2 emissions is counterproductive,” said Barker. “Advertising normalises behaviour we need to discourage, like frequent flying or reliance on fossil fuels.” A growing number of city councils around the world have pledged to ban fossil fuel advertising in public spaces owned or managed by the local government, including Scotland’s capital city Edinburgh. However, The Hague’s new rules go further by also banning fossil ads from privately owned ad spaces. In London, Mayor Sadiq Khan has faced calls from politicians to address concerns about fossil fuel advertising after a DeSmog investigation found that more than 200 advertising campaigns by oil and gas producers had been placed on the city’s public transport network since his pledge to make London “carbon zero” by 2030. Complaints Upheld The advertising industry defends its work for polluters by arguing that ad agencies can help their clients move towards more sustainable products and services. Legal and regulatory complaints brought against polluting companies for deceptive advertising practices have spiked in recent years, however. Companies including oil major Shell and car manufacturer Toyota have had to withdraw ads after rulings by UK regulator the Advertising Standards Authority, while a Dutch court ruled that airline KLM had broken national advertising laws for making unsubstantiated claims about “sustainable” flying. U.S. congressional investigators concluded in a report published last year that some of the world’s biggest oil companies, including Shell, BP, and ExxonMobil, had for decades used advertising and public relations to present themselves as good faith actors in the fight against the climate crisis. At the same time, the report found, these companies had been actively lobbying against climate action and regulation and were promoting climate solutions they knew were not genuinely green or feasible. “Given the denial, delay, greenwashing and other deceptions in fossil fuel ads, it’s no surprise Europeans want an end to the fossil fuel advertisements — no one likes being lied to,” said Philip Newell, communications co-chair of the Climate Action Against Disinformation coalition. UN Secretary-General António Guterres has urged governments to ban fossil fuel ads and called upon advertising and PR agencies to stop acting as enablers to planetary destruction by working with fossil fuel clients. In February, campaigners filed a complaint with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), arguing that UK-based WPP — one of the world’s largest communications companies by revenue — had violated the OECD’s corporate guidelines on climate and human rights through its work for major polluters. WPP responded by saying that it “adhere[s] to the highest regulatory standards in [its] work for clients” and that advertising was crucial to economic growth. To visit DeSmogs database profiling dozens of advertising and PR companies with ties to the fossil fuel industry, click here. The post Strong Support Among Europeans for Banning Fossil Fuel Ads, Study Finds appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— An Open Letter from EPA Staff to the American Public

 

at 3/20/25 11:39am

This op-ed was written by a group of current and former employees of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), who have asked to remain anonymous due to concerns about retaliation. It was originally published by Environmental Health News and is republished with permission. The Trump administration is making accusations of fraud, waste, and abuse associated with federal environmental justice programs under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) as justification for firing federal workers and defunding critical environmental programs. But the real waste, fraud, and abuse would be to strip away these funds from the American people. As current and former employees at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) who developed and implemented the agency’s environmental justice funding and grant programs, we want to offer our first-hand insights about the efficiency and importance of this work. This is not about defending our paychecks. This is about protecting the health of our communities. IRA funding is often described as a “once-in-a-generation investment,” putting billions of dollars toward improving the lives of American families in red, blue, and purple states. Working with communities, we’ve been placing these resources directly into their hands, supporting people to better protect the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land where we live, learn, work, play, and grow — including key protections from natural disasters.  As civil servants, we took an oath to protect and invest in the American public. We are committed to providing effective programs and being responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars, and there are many policies in place to ensure our accountability. But despite our careful planning and oversight, the new administration is halting programs Americans depend on for their health and wellbeing.  We should work together to demand that the Trump administration restore this critical funding back to the people. The Risks of Losing a Once-in-a-generation Investment The Bush administration introduced environmental equity (and justice) programming to the EPA in the 1990s. EPA staff working on environmental justice programs partnered with communities to meet their needs and used rigorous systems to track funds and results.  The Trump administration recently paused many of these environmental justice programs that fund community-led projects like air, water, and soil testing; training and workforce development; construction or cleanup projects; gardens and tree planting; and preparing and responding to natural disasters. Other examples of the EPA’s environmental justice programs include providing safe shelters during and after hurricanes, land cleanups to reduce communities’ exposure to harmful pollutants, and providing water filters to protect residents from lead in drinking water.  Global Investigations Follow DeSmog's reporting on MAGA's climate agenda Name -- Email Address What content do you want to subscribe to? (check all that apply) All International UK Sign Up (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery); This administration has halted funds, claiming “the objectives of the awards are no longer consistent with EPA funding priorities.” In reality, these funds were approved by Congress, and these grants remain in alignment with the agency’s mission to protect human health and the environment. Even though there are court orders to unfreeze billions of dollars in federal grants, the Trump administration continues to withhold this critical money from the people who need it most. We cannot stand by and allow this to happen. We need to hold this administration accountable to serving the American people, applying the same mandates that we have held our federal workforce and grant recipients to: follow the law, follow the science, and be transparent. Terminating the EPA’s Environmental Justice Programs Is Hurting Our Communities and the Economy Some grant recipients who have lost access to EPA funding had already been working for more than a year on projects that must now be paused. Many recipients have hired local employees and made commitments in their communities. Now that funds are being pulled back, these organizations have had to lay off staff, pause local contracts with private companies and small businesses, and shut down community-driven projects. These attacks will impact the integrity of programs funded by our hard-earned tax dollars and take money away from communities across the country. By withholding promised funding and terminating existing contracts, the Trump administration is exposing the EPA to increased risks of litigation. Relationships that were built through years of meaningful engagement between communities and the federal government are being jeopardized. Organizations, institutions, and companies will likely shy away from future federal grant or contracting opportunities because no one wants to work with someone who doesn’t pay their bills and backs out on their promises.  It is a waste of taxpayer dollars for the U.S. Government to cancel its agreements with grantees and contractors. It is fraud for the U.S. Government to delay payments for services already received. And it is an abuse of power for the Trump administration to block the IRA laws that were mandated by Congress. How to Take Action to Restore Funding to the American People  It can feel impossible to keep up with the news right now, but this story touches all of us. We should pay attention to what’s going on in our communities and find ways to stay engaged, like attending town halls to hear about the local impacts of federal policies and making your voice heard. If you are interested in advocating for the return of federal funding to the American people, we urge you to: Share on social media. Share our story or similar news stories on social media with  #federalfundingfreeze, #federalcuts, or #truthtopower.  Advocate for funding to be restored in your community. Take part in local town hall and other events in your area to advocate for federal funding to be returned to the people. Make your voice heard and claim your right to clean water, clean air, and a safe environment. Learn how the EPA’s environmental justice programs are investing in your state, city, or community. View this environmental justice grants map to see where IRA dollars and funding from the EPA’s environmental justice programs were invested. Learn how federal cuts are impacting your communities. Stay tuned to view a Federal Cuts Tracker Map (we’ll add a link here when it’s live) to read and share stories about how federal cuts are currently impacting your communities. The post An Open Letter from EPA Staff to the American Public appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Politics]

— Q & A: Kritee (Kanko) on Navigating the Emotional Toll of the Assault on Climate Action

 

at 3/20/25 5:45am

This interview extract was published in partnership with Unthinkable and Resonant World. To watch a video of the whole conversation, please click here. Outrage, grief, and dread: The Trump administration’s war on climate policy has left many people who care about preserving a liveable planet reeling. Kritee is a climate scientist, Zen Buddhist priest, and co-founder of the Rocky Mountain Ecodharma retreat centre in Colorado, who is well-versed in the art of supporting people in staying grounded despite the deluge of terrible climate news. Kritee Born into the family of a Gandhian freedom fighter and lawyer in India, Kritee, whose dharma name is Kanko, moved to the United States more than 20 years ago to work in climate science. In more recent years, she left her research role at a major environmental nonprofit to focus on supporting people to confront the psychological and spiritual dimensions of the polycrisis. Also the founder of Boundless in Motion, another climate- and healing-focused Colorado-based nonprofit, Kritee leads grief-rage ceremonies to help people connect with the depths of their emotional responses to climate breakdown and ecological collapse — providing her with deep insights into the power of collective healing.  In a candid and moving conversation with Matthew Green, DeSmogs global investigations editor, Kritee describes how to address the pervasive spiritual loneliness thats cut people off from the sense of connection thats essential in times of chaos. Kritee also explains how shes been coping with her own feelings of shock and anger by drawing strength from both the meditation practice of her Buddhist lineage and the justice-warrior courage embodied by the lionhearted Hindu deity Kali.  Kritee advocates finding ways to “reindigenize” (embracing sometimes lost “indigeneity”) by learning to regulate our nervous systems, build community, connect to nature where we live, and call on the support of our ancestors and the invisible realms. At this moment of extreme peril, Kritee sees the opportunity for an accelerated “spiritual revolution” that can help us remember who we really are — and provide the wisdom and resolve needed to fight for a viable future, starting by supporting Indigenous communities to return to their ancestral lands.  The below is a lightly edited extract of Matthew and Kritees conversation, which can be watched here.        Matthew I know you have enormous experience in holding people in the depth of the emotions that can arise when we confront the reality of the climate crisis. And of course, that hasnt gone away. But at the same time, weve seen this cascade of events unfolding in the U.S. since January the 20th. How are you doing in all of this? Kritee I was in India when Trump took office, but of course the chaos began as soon as he was elected. He was making these very, very heart-breaking decisions.  I came back on 26th January, and it took time for the toxic news to begin to impact my nervous system. And I tell you why there is still a shield between me and the deep chaos: because I have been holding on very tightly to my meditation practice. I cannot let my practice go, because if I let that go, Im going to feel like Ive fallen into a bottomless pit of fear, grief, and maybe rage too. I dont rage very easily, but its insane whats happening.  I wonder if you could say a little bit more about how all this is landing in the people around you.  There is some organizing thats happening, but because this administration is throwing so much at us all at once, its like carpet bombing, and you dont know where exactly you lift your head and start planning resistance. So, I feel like there has been a lot of panic, a sense of chaos. Not only are people losing their jobs, people I personally loved and respected are given 15 minutes to vacate their offices. So youre disrupting individual lives and people, but there’s also this erasure of the systems were dependent on — as communities, neighborhoods, watersheds, ecosystems — the information systems, the websites are being taken down. And what my job has been in this panic — after Ive taken care of my own nervous system — is to do emergency panic-tending. And I feel like my job has been holding the hands of my community — sometimes one-on-one and sometimes in group settings — and saying, our ancestors have gone through catastrophic events before. Folks, we can do this, right? I feel your strength as a community leader, and I want to honor the amazing training and years of practice that youre drawing on.  I have been really calling in my ancestors, my spirit guides and my deities from both my Buddhist lineage and the Hindu lineage that I was born in. Kali is this fierce goddess. I feel like we need her courage and groundedness in these times. She is practically naked. Shes wearing a garland of skulls. And around her groin, her pelvic area, is a garland of chopped hands of demons. And she drinks blood and she walks on uneven surfaces where wars have happened. But shes just like this completely raw, roaring embodiment of courage, and there is a part of us that has that courage. And Ive been calling on Kali to support me as I support the community because its impossible otherwise. Its so easy to begin to collapse because the news is disgusting and also ridiculous. Where am I deriving my courage from? Its the traditional meditation practice, yes. Its the neurobiological techniques that mainstream Western science talks about, yes. But I think I have a feeling that were going to need to lean in more deeply on these ancestral shamanic forces. Youre drawing on very rich lineages of Hinduism and Buddhism to serve your community.  I feel like the biggest poison we are dealing with at the root of all this is spiritual loneliness. The mainstream way our finance systems, economy, corporations, businesses, even education work, we have done away with the shamanic and animist ways of life. And we are killing each other. We are killing other species and Mother Earth. And no ones watching. We feel that we have no accountability and no one is there to guide us. And thats what I mean by spiritual loneliness. And the mainstream capitalist colonial structures have promoted this way of thinking, so you are either a consumer or you are a producer of some product, but the love, the devotion, the communication with the invisible realms is suppressed. And yes, lets do emergency panic-tending, hand-holding, work on our grief and fear and shame. But in the long term, I hope, I pray that we dont feel so spiritually lonely because we will not find our courage, our sense of direction without that. Thats the prayer Im holding. And its like these crises are calling for a deep spiritual revolution. For your book project, youve developed this framework of re-indigenizing to address the polycrisis. Could you say a little bit more about that? The first step is always emergency tending. If people listening to this are feeling acute trauma, acute anxiety, a sense of panic, then please be in relationship with one being who will hold your screams and wailing and mourning right now. And it could be a tree, it could be a human, it could be your own Higher Self, like your own inner Kali. But dont do trauma tending with a sense of loneliness. Trauma healing — taking care of both the short-term and long-term layers of trauma — is a basic requirement for long-term reindigenizing. Its almost like if we didnt allow ourselves to pass through the portal of trauma healing, we wouldnt be able to access the invisible realms — because its like we are psychically, spiritually clogged, stuck. And that trauma needs to be alchemized, metabolized, composted.  I feel like our current psychological paradigm in the West of one-on-one psychotherapy is not enough for the scale and depth of trauma we have. So Im a huge proponent of doing community-level ceremonies for taking care of these layers of trauma. You trust people, you open up, you become vulnerable. And that vulnerability creates solidarity and courage. Its like when we are no longer wearing these masks, these layers of make-up around our traumatized bodies, we access our love. So the second aspect of reindigenziing is knowing how to create and sustain human communities and how to reindigenize our communities and organizations.  The third aspect of reindigenizing is connecting with local ecosystems. Did you ever think of offering flowers, incense, or water to ecosystems around you? Can we hear the call of the mountain? Can we hear the waters flowing around our ecosystems? Because even if we have lost all the indigeneity of our own lineages, there is something about our hearts that can re-indigenize where we are right now. And it begins by accepting that mountains and rivers and soil and birds have deep intelligence, sentience and agency. And then the last aspect of reindigenizing for me is the invisible realm of ancestors and deities. The reason Indigenous tribes of the world took such beautiful care of their ecosystems was because of their spiritual communication with their ecosystems. And the fundamental premise here is that we badly need empowered Indigenous communities to take care of our ecosystems. Without their trauma healing,  and empowerment, we will not be able to protect much. Youve worked for years at the highest levels of science and research. And youre also a Zen priest and a grief-rage ceremony leader, and you are very much in touch with the invisible realms. I feel I’m witnessing the emergence of a version of yourself that integrates all of these strands together in a new way. In the first year after quitting my mainstream nonprofit work, I did a lot of research on Indigenous ecological knowledge [TEK] systems. And in this first year, I thought, “Well, we just need to sit with Indigenous elders, respectfully ask for their blessings and get their traditional ecological knowledge so we can better manage our global ecosystems.” But last year, in 2024, I realized you cannot transfer traditional ecological knowledge. It is so deeply rooted in their spiritualities. Without the spirituality, this Indigenous knowledge system that the West wants to almost steal from Indigenous communities will be useless. We need to communicate with Kali, Isis, the Olokun, the Ganesha, the Shiva, or even Christ. I reached a point where science didnt seem to have a vocabulary to talk about this connection.  Perhaps this crisis that were now in can accelerate the emergence of that understanding? We all have the Newtonian, black-and-white, rigid, linear mind in us, right? It has served us in some ways. But this is the time for spiritual evolution, and it begins by acknowledging that there is something quantum in this world beyond linear cause and effect. And the clues for that quantum world exist in all traditions, faith traditions, lineages in the world, if only we are humbly willing to look. Is there anything else you’d like to add? One very crucial component of reindigenizing is that we work to bring the original stewards of all lands back.  So what does that mean? I live in Colorado, these lands were the homelands of Arapaho, Ute and Cheyenne nations and these nations — at least their elders, their shamans — knew how to talk to their lands. And the whole system of colonization snatched the lands away from their people, and people from their land. I have a beloved friend Bianca Acosta who is Indigenous to Mexico. She says people are pining to go back to their lands. Yes, tribal nations want to go back to their land but the land is also waiting for its people. The indigeneity of tribal nations is buried under layers of trauma — not just for people who have lost their Indigenous roots, but also for people who are proudly Indigenous, proudly members of tribal nations – but they have been separated, brutally sometimes from their land, and that trauma needs healing. Without this healing, we cannot work on the polycrisis.  I cannot emphasise enough that yes we immigrants and others who have lost connection to their ancestral lands must work on healing our own hearts and minds and bodies — and reconnect to our local communities, ecosystems and our deities. And I think we also really, really need to honour that call of the land. And we must work to bring trauma healing, empowerment, and land back to Indigenous tribes — on their terms. To watch a video of Kritee and Matthews whole conversation, please click here. The post Q & A: Kritee (Kanko) on Navigating the Emotional Toll of the Assault on Climate Action appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Kemi Badenoch Made Anti-Net Zero Speech at Shell Ad Agency

 

at 3/18/25 10:33am

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch today ditched her party’s commitment to the UK’s flagship climate target in a speech hosted by an advertising group that works for Shell, DeSmog can reveal. During her address, Badenoch suggested that we are “bankrupting ourselves” in the pursuit of reaching net zero emissions by 2050. She said that the country should still seek to reduce its climate impact, but shouldn’t set a date for achieving net zero. Badenoch said that Britain has “the highest electricity bills in the developed world” – which is caused by expensive gas prices rather than the cost of renewables – and claimed that the UK is “only responsible for 1 percent of global emissions”. In reality, taking into account its colonial history, the UK is responsible for more than five times this figure. The Tory leader, who has received recent donations from fossil fuel interests and climate science deniers, made her speech at the Havas Village in King’s Cross, London, and was introduced by H/Advisors CEO Neil Bennett. H/Advisors is owned by Havas – one of the world’s largest public relations and advertising agencies, based in France. Bennett said he was “delighted” to welcome Badenoch to the Havas campus for her speech, to ensure the company stays “at the heart of public debate”. In September 2023, news broke that Havas had won a major Shell advertising contract – a move condemned by climate campaigners. Subscribe to our newsletter Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts Name -- Email Address What content do you want to subscribe to? (check all that apply) All International UK Sign Up (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery); Shell is still committed to exploring for new sources of oil and gas and does not have any plans to reduce the overall amount it produces by 2030. In 2021, the District Court of the Hague found that the total CO2 emissions of the Shell group exceeded the emissions of many states, including the Netherlands. In August, the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority watchdog began reviewing a Shell campaign produced by Havas that ran on UK television in the first half of the year. The campaign had prompted complaints that it painted a misleading picture of the Shell’s role in the energy transition. In October 2023, Havas CEO Yannick Bolloré told Campaign that he had been happy to pitch for the Shell account, saying “we believe the most effective change comes from within.”  “We won’t participate in any greenwashing whatsoever and we will accompany [Shell] and help achieve their transition,” Bolloré said. In July 2024, four Havas agencies were stripped of their “B Corp” status for high environmental, ethical, and governance standards following complaints raised over the company’s Shell contract. H/Advisors bid for Shell’s global public relations account last year, although the work eventually remained in the hands of Edelman. Havas has worked with a number of fossil fuel clients in recent years, although the company had seemed on track to reduce its involvement with polluters, prior to the 2023 Shell contract. The firm has worked in various capacities for BP, Kuwait Petroleum International, and TotalEnergies since 2019, while Imperial Oil and Gas was a H/Advisors client in 2023.  H/Advisors, Havas, and Shell were approached for comment. Badenoch’s Climate Denial Ties While serving in the last Conservative government, Badenoch described the 2050 net zero emissions target as “crucial”. However, her support for the policy has waned in more recent times. The Tory premier, who was elected to the role in November, received funding and office space during her leadership campaign from Neil Record, chair of Net Zero Watch, the campaign arm of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) – the UK’s foremost climate science denial group. Record – who is also lifetime president of the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), a think tank that received funding from BP every year from 1967 to at least 2018 – in July wrote that achieving net zero by 2050 “will restrict our freedom, and is likely to be eye-wateringly expensive”. Record has donated to both the IEA and GWPF. Over the past two decades, the Conservative Party has accepted £7.2 million from senior figures at the GWPF. Badenoch also received £10,000 during her leadership campaign from House of Lords member Dambisa Moyo, who is a director at the fossil fuel giant Chevron. A press release from the GWPF celebrated Badenoch’s statement today, saying that it could have been drafted by the group’s late founder Nigel Lawson “almost verbatim”. Green groups were not so enthusiastic. “Today marks a dark day in the history of the Conservative Party,” said Ed Matthew, director of the UK programme for climate change think tank E3G. “By abandoning net zero by 2050, Badenoch has sold out the interests of the British people to the fossil fuel industry. “This is an act of political cowardice and it will not fool the British people or British business, who strongly support ambition climate action. The price will be electoral oblivion.” The post Kemi Badenoch Made Anti-Net Zero Speech at Shell Ad Agency appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Supermarkets Accused of Major Methane ‘Blindspot’

 

at 3/18/25 7:15am

Leading supermarkets are failing to address the methane pollution in their supply chains, a new report has found, putting their own climate pledges at risk.The study from environmental non-profits Changing Markets Foundation and Mighty Earth analysed the climate plans of the U.S and EU’s top-grossing supermarkets, including the UK’s Tesco and Sainsbury’s, U.S. retail giant Walmart, and German chains Lidl and Asda.The meat and dairy sector is responsible for around a third of atmospheric methane and accounts for a third of all supermarket emissions. Scientists say the highly potent greenhouse gas – 80 times more powerful than carbon dioxide over a 20 year period – must be slashed by 40-45 percent by 2030 to meet climate goals.Despite this urgency, Thursday’s analysis identified an overwhelming lack of action to tackle the powerful climate-heating gas. None of the retailers analysed had a target in place to reduce methane, or to report on how much of the greenhouse gas they are responsible for through the products they sell.Only five of the supermarkets surveyed had plans to boost sales of plant-based proteins, despite eating less meat and dairy being a key recommendation of climate scientists who say it’s crucial to meeting climate goals. And just six had concrete plans to reduce their overall supply chain emissions. The report calls on all the retailers to set an ambitious target for reducing methane by at least 30 percent by 2030, echoing the aims of the Global Methane Pledge, a voluntary framework led by the EU and U.S., and agreed by world leaders in 2021. Maddy Haughton-Boakes, senior campaigner at the Changing Markets Foundation, said methane emissions were a “major blindspot” for supermarkets.“Cutting methane this decade is our emergency brake on runaway global heating, yet retailers are barely pressing it,” she said. ‘No Real Leaders’ The report looked at top performing U.S. and EU supermarkets – based on their yearly revenue, volume of grocery sales and dominance in the meat and dairy retail market.  These supermarket chains were then assessed on their ability to tackle methane against 18 indicators, including on set targets, reported emissions, and plans to scale up plant-based alternatives to animal-sourced food. Not one of the 20 retailers had plans to reduce – or even report on – their methane emissions. The highest scoring retailer – Tesco – scored 51 out of 100 in the assessment. Germany’s Schwarz Group – the world’s fourth largest retailer – was in second place with just 35 points.  The average score across all indicators amongst retailers was 20 out of a possible 100 – a rating the authors said indicated a “dismal lack of action and major room for improvement”.Two supermarkets – the U.S chain Albertsons and Spain’s Mercadona, scored no points at all.All the U.S “big four” supermarkets – including retail titan Walmart and Albersons, as well as Costco and Kroger – were in the bottom half.The lack of reporting and target-setting puts retailers behind other companies in their methane ambitions.  European dairy giant Danone set a precedent for large food firms for introducing a methane reduction goal in 2023. Other dairy companies, including French multinational cheese marketer Bel Group, and the U.S subsidiary of French dairy company Lactalis, are also now reporting on their emissions. Gemma Hoskins, global methane lead at Mighty Earth, accused supermarkets of “ignoring the methane problem in their meat and dairy aisles”.“Retailers are uniquely positioned to urgently drive down agricultural methane emissions in their supply chains,” she said. “That starts with being honest about the impact of the products they sell and working harder and faster to reduce that impact.” More Action Needed  The report identifies an apparent “disconnect” between retailers’ ambitious climate promises and action.Nearly half (nine) of the retailers analysed had set net zero targets. This included the UK’s Tesco, which has said it is aiming to meet net zero emissions across its supply chain by 2050.Eleven supermarket chains acknowledged that emissions from animal agriculture significantly drive climate change, and several – including Casino and Tesco – suggested increasing sales of plant-based foods could help reduce climate impacts.However, these pledges were not accompanied by real-world actions to reduce emissions.Only six retailers had set targets to reduce Scope 3 emissions as part of their climate commitments. This category of emissions – which includes the transport, production and distribution of food – make up an estimated 93 percent of supermarkets’ overall climate footprints.   The report called on supermarkets to ensure net zero targets were accompanied by real reductions in Scope 3. Retailers should introduce a “comprehensive plan” on how to reduce emissions from across their value chain, the report argued, including time-bound near and long term targets for reductions in greenhouse gases.“Given the sheer scale of meat and dairy emissions, retailers cannot credibly meet their net zero targets without tackling methane,” Hoskins of Mighty Earth told DeSmog. “Increasing plant-based products and reducing methane emissions from meat and dairy must be a core strategy for every supermarket.” Plant-based Transition  Most retailers had no plans to increase sales of plant-based products, the report found. Just five of the retailers surveyed – Tesco, Asda, Carrefour, Schwarz Group, and Dutch supermarket group Ahold Delhaize – have set measurable targets for increasing alternative protein sales globally.This is despite the world’s leading climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), calling for wealthier consumers to transition to more plant-based diets to tackle harmful greenhouse gas emissions.  In a 2024 analysis, the non-profit Madre Brava and the consultancy firm Profundo found a 50 percent shift to plant-based proteins by six leading food retailers alone could also save emissions equivalent to removing 25 million petrol and diesel cars from the EU.A shift to plant-based proteins also has considerable health benefits. Scientific assessments have shown Europeans eat twice as much meat as is recommended by the “healthy diet basket” a metric used by the UN as a benchmark for ideal nutritional intake. In a landmark report last year, the UN’s World Health Organisation (WHO) estimated that diets high in processed meats – which are linked to cancer, heart diseases and other non-communicable diseases – are responsible for 117,290 deaths across Europe. A study published in December found that even processed plant-based products – such as veggie burgers – still offer substantial environmental, health, and nutritional benefits compared to animal products, though these are even greater for unprocessed alternative proteins.Changing Markets and Mighty Earth argued that supermarkets should take heed of the recommendations of the EAT-Lancet, a major 2019 scientific commission into climate-friendly diets, and aim to sell 60 percent plant-based protein products versus 40 percent animal-based proteins by 2030. Food retailers should roll out attractive own-brand plant-based ranges across their stores, the authors recommended, and shift marketing and store front efforts to promote healthy alternative proteins such as legumes and tofu over animal-based foods. The post Supermarkets Accused of Major Methane Blindspot’ appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Atlas-Affiliated Think Tank Wants Canada to Pump Breaks on EVs

 

at 3/17/25 10:09am

Arguing that electric vehicles (EVs) are too expensive and will lower Canadians’ quality of life, the Montreal Economic Institute (MEI) — an anti-regulation lobby group associated with Atlas Network — wants the Canadian government to repeal its EV mandate. In December 2023, Canada’s federal government announced that all new cars, SUVs, crossovers, and light trucks sold by 2035 must be zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs). The government further established target goals of 20 percent new ZEV sales by 2026, and 60 percent by 2030. The new regulations are part of the Canadian government’s effort to combat climate change. As reported by Reuters, EV sales represented just over 12 percent of new vehicles sold in Canada in the third quarter of 2023. In an “economic note” published in late February, MEI claimed this “forced market transition” will cut into Canadians’ food and leisure budgets and put pressure on electricity grids. The note, published under the title “Let’s Abolish the Federal Ban on the Sale of Gas-Powered Vehicles,” also suggests the global EV market is lagging. “MEI is repeating a common but misleading talking point about EV sales stalling out,” said Keith Brooks, program director with Environmental Defence. “This has been debunked.” “Most troubling is that they claim that EVs would increase the cost of living and cite a PBO (Parliamentary Budget Office) report on this matter, but the PBO found that in all scenarios, the total cost of ownership of a battery electric vehicle (BEV) is less than that of a car with an internal combustion engine,” said Brooks in a statement to DeSmog.  “The shift to EVs will save Canadian households money,” said Thomas Green, senior climate policy adviser with the David Suzuki Foundation. In a statement to DeSmog, Green said that EVs are more efficient than gas cars because they run on electricity, which is far cheaper than gasoline. Moreover, unlike gas, electricity prices are not affected by volatile global markets. “Gas cars pollute our communities, make us sick and increase healthcare costs while EVs are much cheaper to maintain,”  said Green. “So EVs are a win for affordability, a win for quality of life, and thanks to the EV standard, they are becoming more readily available and affordable.” According to Environmental Defence’s research, the government’s ZEV sales standard would reduce BEV costs thanks to economies of scale, not to mention by encouraging car companies to bring economy ZEVs to market to meet the sales targets. Rather than relegating ZEVs to the luxury market and keeping their margins as high as possible, Environmental Defence argues automakers need to be directed to build and sell cars for a broad swath of consumers. “The argument that ZEVs would place a burden on the electricity system is also a red herring,” said Brooks. “Grid managers are preparing for the electrification of the economy including the adoption of EVs, and if jurisdictions move forward with bi-directional charging, the adoption of EVs actually increases the resilience of grids and can smooth out peaks by allowing cars to charge off peak, and then feed electricity back to the grid at peak times, acting like a big, distributed battery energy storage system.” Brooks further notes that, because of the time it will take to ensure 100 percent of all vehicles are ZEVs by 2050 (which is non-negotiable if net-zero goals by that year are to be maintained), then 100 percent of new car sales have to be ZEVs by 2035. Trade War Benefits The regulations also offer a potential boost to Canadian industry, now threatened by an American-instigated trade war. “The ZEV regulations can help buoy Canada’s nascent battery and EV assembly industry which is threatened by U.S. tariffs,” said Brooks. “We want to keep Canadian demand high for Canadian made products, and that has to include EVs.”    It isn’t surprising that MEI would oppose government regulations designed to direct a transition to ZEVs. MEI’s position is consistent with other anti-regulation lobby groups operating in Canada, such as the Macdonald-Laurier Institute (MLI), which has similarly produced numerous statements arguing against the policy. Among others, MLI criticizes what they argue is the carbon intensity of ZEV production as well as “non-exhaust particulate matter emissions,” which they claim “create substantial risks for adverse health effects and premature fatalities.” These arguments don’t sit well with Dr. Joe Vipond, an emergency room physician and past president of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE). “Arguments against EV mandates ignore the substantial harms that fossil-fuel-driven vehicles inflict upon the health of people across Canada,” said Vipond. “Gas-powered cars release a range of toxic air pollutants which impact our immediate health. Their emissions also fuel the climate crisis that threatens our current and future health.” “MEI seems intent on delaying the technological transformation of transportation to the new era of emissions-free EVs,” said Vipond in a statement to DeSmog.  “We as a country have the intellectual prowess and engineering skills to be leaders, rather than followers, into the new age.”  Atlas Network Partners Both MEI and MLI have been listed as partners in Atlas Network, a global alliance of anti-regulation organizations that have played a leading role in climate change denial and campaigns against environmental regulations. DeSmog research has revealed that both institutes (neither of which have any academic affiliations) have received funding from many of the same foundations. MLI has additionally received direct funding from Koch family foundations. Koch Inc. and Koch family foundations have played a leading role against the adoption of EVs, clean energy, and clean air standards, all while working to rehabilitate the image of oil and gas. MLI and MEI are influential organizations, particularly within the ecosystem of oil industry advocates and radical anti-regulation activists. As an example, MEI’s report was circulated by Canada Action, a third party advertiser that spreads pro-oil propaganda on social media platforms. Among MEI’s false climate change claims, they have previously stated that “climate change (…) will have positive net effects due in particular to higher crop yields.” This is one of the earliest false claims climate change could be beneficial for the planet, and was advanced in the 1990s by the Greening Earth Society, an astroturf effort by the American coal industry. MLI recently cohosted an event in Victoria, British Columbia with Resource Works, featuring former B.C. cabinet minister Barry Penner who echoed MLI and MEI’s EV criticisms. Penner, who was recently named chair of Resource Works’ Energy Futures Institute, said EV mandates were “aggressive” and reiterated an MLI talking point that Norway’s “expensive” EV subsidy was between five and six billion dollars, though this is in fact about 1 percent of Norway’s GDP. Irrespective of cost, Norway’s considerable EV incentives have had the effect of making 89 percent of new vehicles purchased last year EVs, according to the Norwegian Road Federation, up from less than 1 percent in 2010. Norway is well on its way to becoming the first nation on Earth to fully transition to electric vehicles, ahead of its own projections and far ahead of its European neighbours. Instead of following Norway’s successful lead and adapting an aggressive EV policy, Energy Futures’ Penner instead advocated ‘consumer choice’ and hydrogen alternatives. Hydrogen in Canada is primarily derived from natural gas, and the Energy Futures Institute is funded by Cenovus, which has major interests in Canada’s natural gas sector. Recent reporting by DeSmog further highlights that Cenovus funded astroturfing groups that opposed climate laws. And while fossil fuel advocates claim transitioning to electric vehicles is a costly proposal, there’s considerable evidence to the contrary. Electric vehicles are better both for individuals as much as the national economy. Green of the David Suzuki Foundation argues that car manufacturers make more money selling highly polluting SUVs, and this in turn locks consumers into high fuel costs for a decade or more.  “No surprise: big oil and their lobbyists want to keep people hooked on gas to boost their profits, despite the harm to our health and communities,” said Green. Keith Stewart, senior energy strategist with Greenpeace Canada, agrees. “This report ignores the massive subsidies flowing to the oil and gas sector as part of the business-as-usual way those companies are exercising their power politically to maintain their near-monopoly on transportation options,” said Stewart in a statement to DeSmog. “The truly high-cost option, for our economy and our environment, would be to trap Canadians in gas-powered vehicles that are polluting our air while destabilizing our climate and our politics.” The post Atlas-Affiliated Think Tank Wants Canada to Pump Breaks on EVs appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Heritage Foundation and Allies Discuss Dismantling the EU

 

at 3/14/25 10:57am

The group that drafted a key blueprint for Donald Trump’s second term convened a meeting in Washington D.C. this week to consider proposals for bulldozing the European Union (EU). The Polish investigative outlet VSquare revealed that the Heritage Foundation gathered hardline conservative groups on 11 March to hear how they would overhaul the current structures of the EU. The “closed-door workshop” featured a debate on a new paper produced by the lobby groups MCC and Ordo Iuris entitled: “The Great Reset: Restoring Member State Sovereignty in the 21st Century”. The paper proposes dismantling the European Commission and the European Court of Justice. It claims that the “EU is evolving into a quasi-federal state, limiting national decision-making power” and is imposing “ideologically motivated policies on member states, without any mandate”. Under the plan, the EU would cease to function in its current guise, and would instead be renamed the European Community of Nations (ECN). Kenneth Haar, a researcher and campaigner at the transparency watchdog Corporate Europe Observatory, said it was “quite simply terrifying” to see the Heritage Foundation moving its attention to Europe.” “Most of the attacks made by the Trump presidency in recent weeks on civil rights, on migrants, on LGBTQ+ rights and more, can be traced back to Project 2025,” he said. “We should be worried about them building up ambitions and strength in Europe.” DeSmog can also reveal that the Heritage Foundation has been holding private meetings with European politicians in recent months, as the group attempts to forge new alliances on the continent. Subscribe to our newsletter Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts Name -- Email Address What content do you want to subscribe to? (check all that apply) All International UK Sign Up (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery); MCC and Ordo Iuris have ties to national-conservative political parties that have been hostile to the EU’s agenda in recent years – in particular the bloc’s attempts to institute climate reforms. Ordo Iuris has promoted an agenda often supported by Poland’s hard-right Law and Justice party, which ruled the country from 2015 to 2023. The party was accused of clamping down on democratic freedoms and the rights of minority groups while in power. Ordo Iuris itself has been accused of “spearheading an effort to roll back women’s and LGBT rights”. MCC is directly backed by autocrat Viktor Orbán’s Hungarian government. The group is chaired by Orbán’s political director, Balázs Orbán, who has said: “It is our goal for Hungary to become an intellectual powerhouse, in which MCC plays a key role.” In 2020, MCC received more than $1.3 billion in Hungarian state funding, largely via a 10 percent stake in the country’s national oil company. MCC-Ordo Iuris document claims to support a reformed EU that “emphasises decentralisation, national interests, flexibility, deregulation, and a stronger role for member states.” The Heritage Foundation led the way in creating Project 2025, the 922-page guide to radically retrenching the U.S. government. The blueprint urged Trump to “dismantle the administrative state”, reverse policies on climate action, slash restrictions on fossil fuel extraction, scrap state investment in renewable energy, and gut the Environmental Protection Agency. Many of these policies are being executed by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which has decimated several departments including the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), while several individuals with ties to Project 2025 have roles in the new administration. The 11 March meeting also featured the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a Christian legal activist group that was responsible in 2022 for helping convince the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, the constitutional right to an abortion.  The Southern Poverty Law Center legal advocacy group has argued that the ADF should be deemed a “hate group because it has supported the idea that being LGBTQ+ should be a crime in the U.S. and abroad.” Project 2025 proposed limiting reproductive rights, including further limiting access to abortions as well as access to contraceptives. The Heritage Foundation “seeks to steer America towards autocracy under Trump’s rule,” said Martin Schirdewan, a Member of European Parliament (MEP) for Die Linke and the co-chair of The Left group. “Since his election we have seen that they intend to follow through on those plans to the very end. We now know that the Heritage Foundation and their allies in Europe want to replicate that model here. We must protect our services, rights and liberties from these oligarchs at all costs.” More than 100 nonprofits led by the Heritage Foundation, which have close ties to Donald Trump and JD Vance, have signed on as advisors to the Project 2025 “Mandate for Leadership” document. Design: DeSmog Speaking at a side event during the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) conference in London on 17 February, Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts appeared to hint at the group’s new European focus – calling for closer collaboration between national-conservative politicians across the Western world. He claimed that when Trump and his vice president JD Vance “say America First, when they say they’re going to revitalise the spirit of America, that’s not at the expense of Europe. It’s not a zero sum game, which is what Brussels wants you to believe.” Roberts added that the Heritage Foundation would support “our friends from Europe” to “reclaim” their institutions. He claimed that supranational organisations like the EU, United Nations, and World Health Organisation “rob us of our individual sovereignty”. “This is all about reclaiming sovereignty, reclaiming the spirit, the sovereignty of each of our nation states,” he said. “And so I can speak for a lot of Americans here and certainly all of us from the Heritage Foundation Weve drawn a line in the sand and we’re ready to lead the world again.” Trump this week announced $8 billion tariffs on EU goods, including a 25 percent tax on steel and aluminium, after claiming that European countries are “ripping off” the U.S. on trade. He has also accused the EU of being “one of the most hostile and abusive taxing and tariffing authorities in the world”. The Heritage Foundation, MCC Brussels, and ADF were approached for comment. MCC and Ordo Iuris Hungary and Poland have faced a number of conflicts with the EU in recent years over their attempts to impose reactionary, anti-democratic policies. Viktor Orbán’s government has severely restricted political, media, and judicial freedoms in Hungary over recent years, and has declared plans to “occupy” Brussels in order to shape its policies on migration, climate, and gender. The Hungarian autocrat is also an ally of Trump. Speaking in March 2024, while hosting Orbán at his Mar-a-Lago home in Florida, Trump said: “There’s nobody that’s better, smarter or a better leader than Viktor Orbán. He’s fantastic.” MCC, which helps to spread Orbán’s ideologies at home and abroad, is funded heavily by fossil fuel finance. In 2020, Orbán’s administration gave MCC a 10 percent stake in Hungarian oil company MOL, a 10 percent stake in the pharmaceutical firm Gedeon Richter, plus $462 million in cash, and $9 million in property. In 2023, MCC received €50 million in dividends from MOL, a firm that receives 65 percent of its oil from Russia, according to an investigation by German broadcaster ZDF. The group’s Brussels arm has called on the EU to “ditch the net zero madness” and has helped to convene anti-green groups from across Europe over the past year. It recently stated that one of its key campaigning objectives in 2025 was to help create “a Europe unshackled from environmentalism”, and has called for the introduction of an EU DOGE. The European Parliament must take this threat seriously, including by closing lobbying loopholes,” said Nick Aiossa, director at Transparency International EU, “otherwise shady think tanks with anti-democratic agendas will be able to sway policy at will. Meanwhile, Poland followed the lead of Hungary under its previous Law and Justice administration. Media freedom watchdog Reporters Without Borders stated that, “During the eight years of rule by the Law and Justice party, the public media were turned into propaganda tools”. Before the party lost power in 2023, Human Rights Watch reported that the Law and Justice administration undermined the “rule of law by strengthening its control over the judiciary and smearing journalists and human rights activists critical of the government”. In keeping with MCC, Ordo Iuris has been advocating for “structural reforms” of the EU for several years. In 2022, the group said it would work closely with MEPs who oppose the “further federalisation” of the EU and want to see the bloc returned to its “Christian roots”. A spokesperson for Ordo Iuris said that the group “is an independent foundation funded solely by private donors. It has never received public grants or subsidies and has no affiliation with any political party.” Heritage Foundation’s European Meetings DeSmog can also reveal that the Heritage Foundation has been holding private meetings with European politicians in recent months. On 21 February, the group met with Hungarian MEP Ernö Schaller-Baross in Washington D.C. Schaller-Baross is a member of Orbán’s party Fidesz, which is part of the far-right Patriots for Europe group in European Parliament. He currently serves as a commissioner for the office of Viktor Orban, and formerly acted as Hungary’s deputy state secretary for international affairs from 2018 to 2021. The MEP seems to share many of the ideologies held by the groups gathered by the Heritage Foundation on 11 March. In an interview in January with the pro-Orbán newspaper Magyar Nemzet, he called for “a viable European alternative to Brussels’s misguided policies.” “Our aim is to guide the European Union back to the path of common sense and offer effective, real solutions to the continent’s challenges,” he said – criticising the EU’s “economically harmful, extreme green policies”. On 19 and 20 January, the Heritage Foundation met with Czech MEP Filip Turek, who is also a member of the Patriots for Europe group. Turek was in Washington D.C. for Trump’s inauguration – one of several populist European politicians invited by the incoming president. Turek was also pictured with Musk during the trip. Like Musk, Turek has faced allegations over his use of Nazi gestures in the past. During the 2024 EU election campaign, several old photos of Turek were circulated online, including one in which he appeared to give a Nazi salute from a car, and one featuring a candlestick with a swastika. Turek has stated that he is a collector of Nazi artefacts, and also has a knife used by SS soldiers, but denied that he was a Nazi sympathiser – saying his gesture was “dark stupid humour”. Turek, a former professional racing driver, is a social media influencer who wants to “save” the combustion engine. He is also a climate science denier. The EU’s Green Deal “is one of the biggest scams in history,” Turek said in a debate prior to his election in 2024. “It needs to be repealed, repealed, repealed.” “Are we in a time of climate crisis?” YouTuber Šimon Žd’ársky asked Turek in an interview in March 2024. “No, we are not,” Filip Turek replied. “What we see in the European Parliament at the moment, is a love affair between traditional conservatives and the far-right,” said Kenneth Haar from Corporate Europe Observatory. “They command a majority, and they have already shown to be willing to use it to roll back democracy, climate policies, and environmental protection. They could change the face of the EU decisively in the coming years.” The sole responsibility for any content supported by the European Media and Information Fund lies with the author(s) and it may not necessarily reflect the positions of the EMIF and the Fund Partners, the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation and the European University Institute. The post Heritage Foundation and Allies Discuss Dismantling the EU appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Trump Plan to Use EPA to Promote AI Could Harm the Climate and Drive Up Electric Bills

 

at 3/14/25 8:00am

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chief Lee Zeldin announced this week that the Trump administration will “reconsider” federal rules that pushed power companies to start planning to reduce their climate-altering pollution over the next couple of decades. “[W]hen coal plants are open, viable and thriving,” the EPA wrote in a fact sheet accompanying the announcement, “we won’t have to rely on energy sources from adversaries.” The U-turn throws open the doors for utilities to keep their coal plants running for decades without curbing their climate-altering emissions, part of a wider deregulatory surge the EPA announced this week. Subscribe to our newsletter Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts Name -- Email Address What content do you want to subscribe to? (check all that apply) All International UK Sign Up (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery); In justifying its retreat from climate action, the EPA said it sought to “Make the United States the Artificial Intelligence Capital of the World,” and cited Trump executive orders related to AI and energy. It also said that “[c]oncerns have been raised” over the costs and feasibility of the technology that power plants would need to hit federal standards on greenhouse gas pollution, and described objections that the technologies are “not adequately demonstrated or are too costly.” The EPA’s deregulations come after roughly a dozen electrical companies wrote a Jan. 15 letter to Lee Zeldin, Trump’s then-expected nominee to lead the EPA, part of a broader lobbying push first reported by Canary Media. Carbon capture and sequestration, or CCS, “is the only option that allows a coal-fired plant to operate past 2039,” the utilities wrote, adding that CCS will also be required at new natural gas plants built after 2032, under emissions-reduction rules set by the EPA last year. The rules would also require all coal plants still in operation after 2039 to install technology like CCS to reduce emissions. “But this option is unproven, extremely costly, and impossible to implement by 2032,” the utilities wrote to Zeldin. Zeldin’s plans to use the EPA to promote AI were first announced back in early February but drew relatively few headlines amid all of the chaos and uncertainty stirred up by the Trump administration’s erratic moves to gut its own environmental agency and upend the distribution of federal funds.  But it could prove to be costly to ignore for electricity customers across the U.S. — in no small part because burning more fossil fuels to power artificial intelligence (AI) would not only make climate change happen faster and be more destructive, but, new research shows, it also risks driving up power bills and adding to inflation. AI Demand Makes Deregulation More Critical to Utilities When utility giant PPL Corp. announced the Department of Energy planned to give the company $72 million for a carbon capture project at its natural gas power plant in Louisville, Kentucky, CEO Vincent Sorgi offered high praise for carbon capture. Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) are “technologies that can be scaled safely, reliably, and affordably to meet our customers’ energy needs,” he said in a February 2024 press release. Less than a year later, PPL’s Kentucky subsidiaries struck a very different tone in the Jan. 15 letter to Zeldin, stating how expensive and difficult to implement the technology is. It’s hardly the first time a power company has offered up conflicting messaging on carbon capture. Electrical utilities have a long history of asking regulators to assume they’ll be able to use carbon capture to address their climate-altering pollution someday in the future while expressing their own skepticism over the technology. More recently, PPL and others have also begun arguing that a massive surge in demand from data centers and AI companies makes rolling back carbon capture requirements more urgent. “The numbers simply don’t add up on the nation’s current path to net-zero,” PPL said in a 2024 presentation to investors, citing AI demand expectations. One of PPLs coal-fired plants in Louisville, KY. Credit: Wikimedia Commons Today’s environmental regulations “hinder the expansion of electric power generation to support the critical development and deployment of Artificial Intelligence and related technologies,” the utilities wrote, pushing for Zeldin to review not only carbon capture requirements but also federal smog controls, rules for wastewater from coal-fired power plants, and regulations for “coal combustion residuals” or coal ash. The letter to Zeldin was also signed by executives from major publicly-traded utilities like Duke Energy (NYSE: DUK), Vistra Corp. (NYSE: VST), and Talen Energy (NYSE:TLN), as well as local power collectives like Touchstone Energy’s Basin Electric Power Cooperative in North Dakota and the City Utilities of Springfield, Missouri, which calls itself a progressive, community-owned utility.” Their lobbying push has found a receptive audience in the Trump administration, which has made promoting AI a priority across a number of agencies, including those that regulate the energy industry. One of Zeldin’s first moves when he became EPA chief was to announce on February 4 that promoting AI would become one of “five pillars” of the agency’s mission on his watch. The very next day the EPA requested that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit pause a pending court case over the 2032 CCS deadline, “to allow time for new EPA leadership to review the issues,” according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing from Duke Energy. The court granted the EPA’s request for a pause, setting an April 21, deadline — but the EPA’s announcement this week suggests the agency intends to scrap the rules before the court has a chance to weigh in. Mixed Messages on CCS Amid Coal Revival When the EPA set its 2032 deadline to install carbon capture at fossil fuel plants last year, experts said the move was an effort to prod the few remaining holdouts on coal power to start planning to adjust to the realities of climate change and to slow their contributions to it. “The coal industry is already in a moment of structural decline,” Brendan Pierpont, director of electricity modeling for the think tank Energy Innovation, told E&E News in May 2024, as the rules were announced. “What the EPA is doing here is really bringing the laggards of the industry up to the decision-making point that the rest of the industry is already facing.” The Biden-era rules pushed power utilities to decide in the near-term whether they’ll retire polluting fossil fuel power plants, particularly coal-fired power plants, or make concrete plans to install carbon capture at those plants. If carbon capture isn’t commercially viable, in other words, the rules would require utilities to move away from fossil fuels — and to start planning for those moves sooner rather than later. Some of the utilities companies that signed the Zeldin letter publicly opposed the EPA’s deadline even before the November election. This included Duke Energy, which challenged the EPA’s rules as a member of a coalition of utilities calling themselves Electric Generators for a Sensible Energy Transition, according to Duke’s latest annual report. But as forecasts for demand for power from data centers, which are used for AI, cryptocurrency, and other applications, have increased rapidly, utilities have begun slowing down their coal power plant retirements. Since the end of 2023, the coal capacity utilities nationwide plan to retire by 2027 has plunged by 12.6 percent, according to trade publication S&P Global. In theory, utilities could keep that power generation without the climate-altering emissions — if they could deliver on carbon capture.  But that’s a big if, given the power industry’s track record on carbon capture, which is strewn with failed and abandoned attempts. Passing on CCS Costs to Consumers Some of the same companies that are fighting the EPA’s carbon capture requirements in court have also asked utility regulators to let them charge carbon capture research projects to their customers. “So you have basically three different messages as Im seeing it,” Sue Sturgis, a research and communications manager at the Energy and Policy Institute, told DeSmog, describing how Duke’s messages on carbon capture to investors, to utilities regulators, and in the letter to Zeldin create different expectations about the technology’s viability.  In 2023, Duke Energy was awarded $8.2 million in federal funding to study adding carbon capture to its Edwardsport coal plant in Indiana — after a prior study concluded that carbon capture wasn’t feasible at the plant. When companies like Duke talk to utilities regulators about carbon capture funding, for example, they tend to strike a more optimistic tone, Sturgis said. Duke Energys Edwardsport coal plant in Knox County, IN. Credit: Duke Energy/Flickr “Theyre very cautious about it — but not so cautious that they wont risk [millions] of other peoples money for it,” she said. When theyre talking to investors, theyre much more cautious about it. But then in that letter, [to Zeldin] theyre like, no, its just not possible,” Sturgis added. And it’s not just federal taxpayer money on the line as utilities scramble to make carbon capture commercially viable (or at least viable enough to justify postponing coal power plant retirements). There’s also the question of whether state-level regulators will allow the company to pass CCS study costs along to customers in their power bills. “Duke got $8 million from the DOE. Thats not enough to do the study,” Sturgis said. “They need another $10 million from ratepayers to do the study.” Duke recently got permission from the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission to track costs for a carbon capture study at its Edwardsport plant in Indiana — bringing the company one step closer to including the costs of that study in customers’ power bills in the future. “So maybe they dont think carbon capture is so viable,” Sturgis said, “yet its viable enough for them to spend ratepayer money on a carbon capture and storage study, and also taxpayer money.” The companies’ position in the letter to Zeldin that CCS remains unproven and extremely costly could come back to bite them in state-level rate cases, which are closely watched by utilities investors. Public advocates, environmental watchdogs, and others including industrial power customers, can intervene in rate cases and raise objections — and often do. That applies, Sturgis said, not just to Duke, but to rate cases involving other companies that signed onto the Zeldin letter. Duke Energy did not respond to a request for comment. Even going years back, Duke offered up conflicting messaging on carbon capture. “I think carbon capture and storage as a magical technology that solves the carbon problem for coal plants has been oversold,” Duke’s then-CEO Jim Rogers said in 2008 at a trade conference. At this time Duke was a member of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, which aired a TV commercial in May 2008, a month prior to Rogers comment, with an artist’s rendering of the FutureGen CCS plant — a flagship project already shelved by the George W. Bush administrations Energy Department.  That ad described a world in which, according to a voiceover, “our most abundant fuel, coal, generates our electricity with even lower emissions, including the capture and storage of CO2. It’s a big challenge, but we made a commitment, a commitment to clean.” AI and Your Power Bill “The EPA is going to aggressively pursue an agenda Powering the Great American Comeback,” Zeldin told Breitbart News in an exclusive interview published February 4. “That is our agenda we wanted to announce with you — that’s what we call it, that’s our purpose, and it’s what will keep us up at night.” “We have to make the United States the AI capital of the world,” Zeldin said. The “Powering the Great American Comeback” initiative Zeldin referenced is a Trump administration plan to shoehorn promoting AI growth, “energy dominance,” incentivizing the automobile industry, and “partnering with businesses” into the EPA’s mission — a set of “five pillars” that the agency announced would “guide the EPA’s work over the first 100 days and beyond.” During that same Breitbart interview, Zeldin first mentioned a now-notorious video post on X by Project Veritas in December 2024, in which an EPA employee appears to compare the rush to award green funding under Biden-era laws to, as Zeldin put it, “tossing gold bars off the Titanic.” “Mentioning Project Veritas is a way for Zeldin to wear his political affiliations on his sleeve,” Fordham University communication and media studies professor Tim Wood told DeSmog. “None of the ‘five pillars’ Zeldin is promoting explicitly address wasteful EPA spending, so the Veritas video doesnt even connect to Zeldins proposed policies.” “It gets mentioned for the same reason that Zeldin announced the initiative exclusively to Breitbart,” Wood said, “so these issues become instantly politicized, polarized, and therefore taken off the table for any form of genuine public conversation.” But while Zeldin has made a major austerity push at the EPA, his mission to promote AI carries significant costs — and not just in terms of the environment and climate change. Not only is AI being offered by utility companies as a reason to justify rolling back the environmental standards the EPA is charged with enforcing, new research suggests the rush to build out AI data centers may already be driving up your electrical power bill. A new paper from Harvard Law School’s Electricity Law Institute, titled “Extracting Profits from the Public: How Utility Ratepayers Are Paying for Big Tech’s Power,” lays out a case that the data centers used for AI and other Big Tech ambitions have left American consumers subsidizing trillion-dollar tech companies while increasing utility profits. “Without systematic changes to prevailing utility rate-making practices,” authors Eliza Martin and Ari Peskoe told Utility Dive, “the public faces significant risks that utilities will take advantage of opportunities to profit from new data centers by making major investments and then shifting costs to their captive ratepayers.” Additional reporting by Rebecca John. The post Trump Plan to Use EPA to Promote AI Could Harm the Climate and Drive Up Electric Bills appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Heartland Institute UK Chief: Group Is Influencing Trump Policy ‘at the Highest Level’

 

at 3/13/25 10:03am

The Heartland Institute is “extremely influential” in Donald Trump’s policy circles, according to the head of the climate science denial group’s UK-EU branch. Speaking on the Peter McCormack Show on 26 February, Lois Perry claimed that the institute boasts “very strong affiliations” with “certain big individuals” in Trump’s team.  “Heartland has been extremely influential in helping to shape policy at the highest level… under Trump’s administration, and in other Republican administrations,” she said.  Subscribe to our newsletter Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts Name -- Email Address What content do you want to subscribe to? (check all that apply) All International UK Sign Up (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery); In December, the Heartland Institute launched its new UK-EU arm, pledging to “establish a satellite office to provide resources to conservative policymakers throughout Europe”. The launch featured a speech from Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, who made a keynote address to the group’s 40th anniversary fundraiser in Chicago, Illinois, in September. Farage is an ally of Lois Perry. Both are former leaders of the UK Independence Party (UKIP).  As revealed by DeSmog, Heartland has been working closely with far-right politicians in Europe to undermine the bloc’s green reforms. Over the past year, the Heartland Institute’s campaigns in Europe have “quickly grown to a torrent”, according to the group. Trump, who received more than $32 million from the oil and gas sector for his 2024 campaign, has pledged to once again withdraw the U.S. from the flagship 2015 Paris Agreement, which set an international target for limiting global warming. He has also declared a “national energy emergency” to allow the U.S. to “drill, baby, drill” for new fossil fuels. These policies mirror the 10-point wish list delivered to Trump’s transition team by the Heartland Institute, which urged the incoming president to adopt a radical anti-climate, pro-fossil fuel agenda. The group has denied that humans are driving climate change, which it has called a “delusion”. Heartland received at least $676,000 between 1998 and 2007 from U.S. oil giant ExxonMobil, and has received donations from foundations linked to the owners of Koch Industries – a fossil fuel giant and a leading sponsor of climate science denial. Perry has said it’s her “personal belief” that climate change “is happening” but “is not man made”. She formerly ran the anti-net zero pressure group CAR26, which has claimed that carbon dioxide is “essential to all life” and that its “welcome growth has greened our planet saving countless human and other lives”. The Heartland Institute “specializes in the promotion of climate change denial and fossil fuel industry propaganda” climate scientist Michael Mann told DeSmog. “The fact that the Trump administration would have any connection to them at all speaks to how deeply embedded the fossil fuel industry – and petrostate actors such as Russia – are in the new Trump administration.” The Heartland Institute was approached for comment. Heartland’s Influence According to Heartland Institute senior fellow Anthony Watts, Trump’s climate policies are epitomised by two phrases: “slash and burn”, and “scorched earth”. During Trump’s first term, the Heartland Institute contributed to the president’s anti-climate agenda.  The group advised a member of the president’s National Security Council on how to dispute long-established climate science. William Happer – who once claimed that carbon dioxide had been demonized much like “the poor Jews under Hitler” – sought Heartland’s advice on how to challenge the idea that burning fossil fuels is leading to dangerous levels of global heating. Heartland’s then-CEO, Joseph Blast, was invited by the president to the White House Rose Garden on 1 June 2017 when Trump first announced the withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris Agreement (a policy reversed by President Joe Biden in 2021). The Heartland Institute also advised the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) during Trump’s first term. Former Republican congressman Tim Huelskamp, who was at the time running the Heartland Institute, admitted in 2018 that the group had been “working with the EPA on policy and personnel decisions.” He added: “They recognized us as the pre-eminent organisation opposing the radical climate alarmism agenda and instead promoting sound science and policy.” Emails obtained by the Environmental Defence Fund and the Southern Environmental Law Centre showed how John Konkus, a senior EPA official, assured the institute that it would invite Heartland-affiliated scientists and economists to a public hearing on science standards. While in Congress, Huelskamp’s top donor was Koch Industries. Heartland has been an influential force on Trump’s administrations despite controversies surrounding the organisation. In 2012, the group launched a billboard campaign comparing believers in global warming to “murderers and madmen” such as the Unabomber Ted Kaczynski, Charles Manson, and Osama bin Laden.  Heartland was forced to pull the campaign within 24 hours, and lost an estimated $825,000 in expected donations, a number of its directors, and almost its entire branch in Washington D.C. “We’re bringing a little bit of the American magic to the UK,” Lois Perry said in her interview with Peter McCormack. “We want to influence policymakers. We want to talk to politicians. And we’re already doing all this stuff.” Heartland Institute director Lois Perry. Credit: Peter McCormack Show / YouTube Perry previously told DeSmog that Heartland is “advocating for a balanced, evidence-based approach to climate policy, not the one-size-fits-all alarmism that seems to make headlines.”  She added: “As for my past with UKIP and CAR26, I wear those roles with pride. I’ve always been upfront about my views: climate change happens, but the hysteria around human causation is, frankly, a bit of a stretch. CO2 is indeed vital for life, turning our planet into a blooming, green paradise rather than a barren wasteland.” In reality, authors working for the world’s foremost climate science body, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), have said that “it is a statement of fact, we cannot be any more certain; it is unequivocal and indisputable that humans are warming the planet”. The IPCC has also stated that carbon dioxide pollution “is responsible for most of global warming” since the late 19th century, which has increased the “severity and frequency of weather and climate extremes, like heat waves, heavy rains, and drought” – all of which “will put a disproportionate burden on low-income households and thus increase poverty levels.” The post Heartland Institute UK Chief: Group Is Influencing Trump Policy ‘at the Highest Level’ appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

As of 4/3/25 3:17pm. Last new 4/3/25 7:06am.