Recent articles on the struggle between the oil and gas industry and organizations attempting to meet the emission reduction goals required to mitigate the effects of the climate emergency point out the need to critically think about the language used to influence opinion.
Electricity or Fossil Fuel?
CBC host Laura Lynch of the program “What On Earth” explored research from Harvard about the language of climate change used in public documents of ExxonMobil.
New analysis from Harvard measures how ExxonMobil used language to make individuals feel responsible for climate change, similar to the strategy used by tobacco companies in the past. Aired: May 16, 20211
Justin Worland, writing in Time magazine, reports on the study that concludes ExxonMobil wants you to take responsibility for Climate Change.
In addition to shifting the responsibility individuals, one of the firm’s recent key strategies has been to emphasize what researchers call “climate risk” framing. Instead of using the term “climate change” in public communications, the company often refers to “climate risk,” along with related phrases like “potential risks” and “long-term risk.” The risk phrasing suggests there is uncertainty about if and how climate change will play out, without explicitly questioning the science. Researchers found this framing prevalent externally but not internally.2
The Journal, One Earth, reports the article by Geoffrey Supran and Naomi Oreskes of Harvard that is a rhetoric and frame analysis of ExxonMobil's climate change communications.
•ExxonMobil's public climate change messaging mimics tobacco industry propaganda
•Rhetoric of climate “risk” downplays the reality and seriousness of climate change
•Rhetoric of consumer “demand” (versus fossil fuel supply) individualizes responsibility
•Fossil Fuel Savior frame uses “risk” and “demand” to justify fossil fuels, blame customers3
Seth Klein, writing in the National Observer, notes that E&E News has exposed leaked documents that revealed many of North America’s major gas companies have been scheming to block electrification.
the consortium notes: “Natural gas (fossil fuel) in for fight of its life.” They are right about that. Hopefully, anyway. But they have no intention of going quietly into the night. Rather, consortium members are exhorted: “Everyone needs to contact legislators in favour of NG (natural gas),” and “Renewable Natural Gas is coming (likely will save NG business).” The slide says partners “have to continue to work together to grow this market.” The messages here cannot be accused of subtlety. They rightly see efforts, particularly at the municipal level, to ban or phase out the use of natural gas in buildings as an existential threat. “The fear of losing market share to non-fossil alternatives terrifies the gas companies,” Greenpeace climate campaigner Keith Stewart wrote in a post about the revelation, “but it should delight the rest of us.” “It’s going to be an ugly fight,” says Kai Nagata, communications director with the non-profit action group Dogwood, which campaigns on climate issues and has run workshops encouraging people to fuel-swap. (Full disclosure: I’m on Dogwood’s board.) “Fortis is a cornered animal. That’s what the consortium documents reveal. But it’s them or us. It’s their shareholders or our kids. Their future requires more houses tying into gas lines and our future requires the opposite.” The simple reality is this — if the number of new buildings tying into gas and the number of existing buildings upgrading their gas systems continues to be larger than those switching to electric heat pumps or other non-carbon fuel sources, then we’re not going to hit our climate targets. With trends like this, we’re fried.4
Benjamin Storrow, E&E News reporter, identifies some of the upcoming battlegrounds where some companies will transform, some will consolidate, and some will go away.
Massachusetts looks like the next battleground. The state recently enacted a climate law to eliminate greenhouse gases by 2050. That will require zeroing out emissions associated with heating and cooling buildings, which accounted for roughly 27% of the state's greenhouse gases in 2017, according to the most recent Massachusetts data. When Massachusetts regulators mapped out a path to zero emissions late last year, they concluded that swapping out oil- and gas-fueled furnaces, boilers and water heaters for electric alternatives constituted the most cost-effective strategy. That represents a potential threat to companies like Eversource, which last year paid $1.1 billion to acquire the Massachusetts-based assets of Columbia Gas, a subsidiary of NiSource Inc. "None of these companies want to write their own obituary," said Deborah Gordon, a former petroleum engineer who now serves as a senior principal at RMI, a think tank that favors electrification. "If you're going to bend this curve, and we bend it quickly, there are going to be casualties. Some will transform, some will consolidate, some will go away."5
Joan Baxter, writing in the Halifax Examiner, reports on the Goldboro Gamble as Germans and Canadians join to oppose a proposed Nova Scotian liquid natural gas plant that “nobody needs."
The Examiner asked Hughes Larry Hughes, professor at Dalhousie University and founding fellow of the MacEachen Institute for Public Policy and Governance, whether he viewed the project as positive for Nova Scotia, and if not, what the disadvantages were. He replied: First, the project is for the export of natgas [natural gas], so Nova Scotians will not benefit from the natgas. There will undoubtedly be short-term (~5 year) employment benefits during the construction phase. Once the plant is operating, the numbers will fall sharply. The promise of jobs in a depressed economy is music to any politician’s ear … However, both the construction and operating phases of the project are emissions intensive. This will affect Nova Scotia’s attempt to reduce its emissions by 53% from 2005 levels by 2030. The 2030 target is about 11 megatonnes and once operating, Pieridae will be emitting 3.7 megatonnes. Without some form of carbon offsetting, the province will exceed its 2030 target. Positive in the short-term, negative in the long-term. The province needs to ask itself, what is more important?6
Reuters Staff reports that Pieridae still plans a final investment decision (FID) by June 30 on the Goldboro LNG export plant.
Pieridae said engineering firm Bechtel Corp plans to deliver a fixed-price proposal to build the plant by the end of May.There are currently 13 projects in North America, including Goldboro, that have said they plan to make FIDs in 2021. Analysts, however, expect only one or two projects will actually go forward this year. One project many analysts expect to go forward this year is Venture Global LNG’s Plaquemines plant in Louisiana. Goldboro is designed to produce about 10 MTPA. Pieridae plans to source the gas for Goldboro from its production in Alberta and transport it via existing pipelines, including the Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline from New England to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, which passes near the Goldboro site.7
https://www.halifaxexaminer.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PHOTO-08-Pieridae-corporate-presentation-showing-pipeline-route.png
The marketing effort to delay action to reduce fossil fuel emissions by promising short term gain for long term pain is a strategy that requires critical study by Nova Scotians who are concerned about the environment that our children and grandchildren will inhabit.
References
No comments:
Post a Comment