Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Energy

Leading environmentalist apologizes for “The Climate Scare”

Published

14 minute read

MICHAEL SHELLENBERG IN MARANHÃO, BRAZIL, 1995

In 2019, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change invited Michael Shellenberger to serve as an independent Expert Reviewer of its next Assessment Report.

He’s been named “Hero of the Environment,”  by Time Magazine.  He’s a Green Book Award winner,  He founded  Environmental Progress.  Now… He’s sorry.  

This week, Shellenberger posted this apology on his website.  It’s important.  Really important. 

From Michael Shellenberg


On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare

On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.

I may seem like a strange person to be saying all of this. I have been a climate activist for 20 years and an environmentalist for 30.

But as an energy expert asked by Congress to provide objective expert testimony, and invited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to serve as Expert Reviewer of its next Assessment Report, I feel an obligation to apologize for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public.

Here are some facts few people know:

  • Humans are not causing a “sixth mass extinction”

  • The Amazon is not “the lungs of the world”

  • Climate change is not making natural disasters worse

  • Fires have declined 25% around the world since 2003

  • The amount of land we use for meat — humankind’s biggest use of land — has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska

  • The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California

  • Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have been declining in Britain, Germany, and France since the mid-1970s

  • Netherlands became rich not poor while adapting to life below sea level

  • We produce 25% more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter

  • Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change

  • Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels

  • Preventing future pandemics requires more not less “industrial” agriculture

I know that the above facts will sound like “climate denialism” to many people. But that just shows the power of climate alarmism.

In reality, the above facts come from the best-available scientific studies, including those conducted by or accepted by the IPCC, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and other leading scientific bodies.

Some people will, when they read this imagine that I’m some right-wing anti-environmentalist. I’m not. At 17, I lived in Nicaragua to show solidarity with the Sandinista socialist revolution. At 23 I raised money for Guatemalan women’s cooperatives. In my early 20s I lived in the semi-Amazon doing research with small farmers fighting land invasions. At 26 I helped expose poor conditions at Nike factories in Asia.

I became an environmentalist at 16 when I threw a fundraiser for Rainforest Action Network. At 27 I helped save the last unprotected ancient redwoods in California. In my 30s I advocated renewables and successfully helped persuade the Obama administration to invest $90 billion into them. Over the last few years I helped save enough nuclear plants from being replaced by fossil fuels to prevent a sharp increase in emissions

But until last year, I mostly avoided speaking out against the climate scare. Partly that’s because I was embarrassed. After all, I am as guilty of alarmism as any other environmentalist. For years, I referred to climate change as an “existential” threat to human civilization, and called it a “crisis.”

But mostly I was scared. I remained quiet about the climate disinformation campaign because I was afraid of losing friends and funding. The few times I summoned the courage to defend climate science from those who misrepresent it I suffered harsh consequences. And so I mostly stood by and did next to nothing as my fellow environmentalists terrified the public.

I even stood by as people in the White House and many in the news media tried to destroy the reputation and career of an outstanding scientist, good man, and friend of mine, Roger Pielke, Jr., a lifelong progressive Democrat and environmentalist who testified in favor of carbon regulations. Why did they do that? Because his research proves natural disasters aren’t getting worse.

But then, last year, things spiraled out of control.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said “The world is going to end in twelve years if we don’t address climate change.” Britain’s most high-profile environmental group claimed “Climate Change Kills Children.”

The world’s most influential green journalist, Bill McKibben, called climate change the “greatest challenge humans have ever faced” and said it would “wipe out civilizations.”

Mainstream journalists reported, repeatedly, that the Amazon was “the lungs of the world,” and that deforestation was like a nuclear bomb going off.

As a result, half of the people surveyed around the world last year said they thought climate change would make humanity extinct. And in January, one out of five British children told pollsters they were having nightmares about climate change.

Whether or not you have children you must see how wrong this is. I admit I may be sensitive because I have a teenage daughter. After we talked about the science she was reassured. But her friends are deeply misinformed and thus, understandably, frightened.

I thus decided I had to speak out. I knew that writing a few articles wouldn’t be enough. I needed a book to properly lay out all of the evidence.

 And so my formal apology for our fear-mongering comes in the form of my new book, Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All.

It is based on two decades of research and three decades of environmental activism. At 400 pages, with 100 of them endnotes, Apocalypse Never covers climate change, deforestation, plastic waste, species extinction, industrialization, meat, nuclear energy, and renewables.

Some highlights from the book:

  • Factories and modern farming are the keys to human liberation and environmental progress

  • The most important thing for saving the environment is producing more food, particularly meat, on less land

  • The most important thing for reducing air pollution and carbon emissions is moving from wood to coal to petroleum to natural gas to uranium

  • 100% renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5% to 50%

  • We should want cities, farms, and power plants to have higher, not lower, power densities

  • Vegetarianism reduces one’s emissions by less than 4%

  • Greenpeace didn’t save the whales, switching from whale oil to petroleum and palm oil did

  • “Free-range” beef would require 20 times more land and produce 300% more emissions

  • Greenpeace dogmatism worsened forest fragmentation of the Amazon

  • The colonialist approach to gorilla conservation in the Congo produced a backlash that may have resulted in the killing of 250 elephants

Why were we all so misled?

In the final three chapters of Apocalypse Never I expose the financial, political, and ideological motivations. Environmental groups have accepted hundreds of millions of dollars from fossil fuel interests. Groups motivated by anti-humanist beliefs forced the World Bank to stop trying to end poverty and instead make poverty “sustainable.” And status anxiety, depression, and hostility to modern civilization are behind much of the alarmism

Once you realize just how badly misinformed we have been, often by people with plainly unsavory or unhealthy motivations, it is hard not to feel duped.

Will Apocalypse Never make any difference? There are certainly reasons to doubt it.

The news media have been making apocalyptic pronouncements about climate change since the late 1980s, and do not seem disposed to stop.

The ideology behind environmental alarmsim — Malthusianism — has been repeatedly debunked for 200 years and yet is more powerful than ever.

But there are also reasons to believe that environmental alarmism will, if not come to an end, have diminishing cultural power.

The coronavirus pandemic is an actual crisis that puts the climate “crisis” into perspective. Even if you think we have overreacted, Covid-19 has killed nearly 500,000 people and shattered economies around the globe.

Scientific institutions including WHO and IPCC have undermined their credibility through the repeated politicization of science. Their future existence and relevance depends on new leadership and serious reform.

Facts still matter, and social media is allowing for a wider range of new and independent voices to outcompete alarmist environmental journalists at legacy publications.

Nations are reverting openly to self-interest and away from Malthusianism and neoliberalism, which is good for nuclear and bad for renewables.

The evidence is overwhelming that our high-energy civilization is better for people and nature than the low-energy civilization that climate alarmists would return us to.

The invitations from IPCC and Congress are signs of a growing openness to new thinking about climate change and the environment. Another one has been to the response to my book from climate scientists, conservationists, and environmental scholars. “Apocalypse Never is an extremely important book,” writes Richard Rhodes, the Pulitzer-winning author of The Making of the Atomic Bomb. “This may be the most important book on the environment ever written,” says one of the fathers of modern climate science Tom Wigley.

“We environmentalists condemn those with antithetical views of being ignorant of science and susceptible to confirmation bias,” wrote the former head of The Nature Conservancy, Steve McCormick. “But too often we are guilty of the same.  Shellenberger offers ‘tough love:’ a challenge to entrenched orthodoxies and rigid, self-defeating mindsets.  Apocalypse Never serves up occasionally stinging, but always well-crafted, evidence-based points of view that will help develop the ‘mental muscle’ we need to envision and design not only a hopeful, but an attainable, future.”

That is all I hoped for in writing it. If you’ve made it this far, I hope you’ll agree that it’s perhaps not as strange as it seems that a lifelong environmentalist, progressive, and climate activist felt the need to speak out against the alarmism.

I further hope that you’ll accept my apology.

 

Before Post

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Alberta

Alberta’s number of inactive wells trending downward

Published on

Aspenleaf Energy vice-president of wells Ron Weber at a clean-up site near Edmonton.

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Deborah Jaremko

Aspenleaf Energy brings new life to historic Alberta oil field while cleaning up the past

In Alberta’s oil patch, some companies are going beyond their obligations to clean up inactive wells.

Aspenleaf Energy operates in the historic Leduc oil field, where drilling and production peaked in the 1950s.

In the last seven years, the privately-held company has spent more than $40 million on abandonment and reclamation, which it reports is significantly more than the minimum required by the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER).

CEO Bryan Gould sees reclaiming the legacy assets as like paying down a debt.

“To me, it’s not a giant bill for us to pay to accelerate the closure and it builds our reputation with the community, which then paves the way for investment and community support for the things we need to do,” he said.

“It just makes business sense to us.”

Aspenleaf, which says it has decommissioned two-thirds of its inactive wells in the Leduc area, isn’t alone in going beyond the requirements.

Producers in Alberta exceeded the AER’s minimum closure spend in both years of available data since the program was introduced in 2022.

That year, the industry-wide closure spend requirement was set at $422 million, but producers spent more than $696 million, according to the AER.

In 2023, companies spent nearly $770 million against a requirement of $700 million.

Alberta’s number of inactive wells is trending downward. The AER’s most recent report shows about 76,000 inactive wells in the province, down from roughly 92,000 in 2021.

In the Leduc field, new development techniques will make future cleanup easier and less costly, Gould said.

That’s because horizontal drilling allows several wells, each up to seven kilometres long, to originate from the same surface site.

“Historically, Leduc would have been developed with many, many sites with single vertical wells,” Gould said.

“This is why the remediation going back is so cumbersome. If you looked at it today, all that would have been centralized in one pad.

“Going forward, the environmental footprint is dramatically reduced compared to what it was.”

During and immediately after a well abandonment for Aspenleaf Energy near Edmonton. Photos for the Canadian Energy Centre

Gould said horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing give the field better economics, extending the life of a mature asset.

“We can drill more wells, we can recover more oil and we can pay higher royalties and higher taxes to the province,” he said.

Aspenleaf has also drilled about 3,700 test holes to assess how much soil needs cleanup. The company plans a pilot project to demonstrate a method that would reduce the amount of digging and landfilling of old underground materials while ensuring the land is productive and viable for use.

Crew at work on a well abandonment for Aspenleaf Energy near Edmonton. Photo for the Canadian Energy Centre

“We did a lot of sampling, and for the most part what we can show is what was buried in the ground by previous operators historically has not moved anywhere over 70 years and has had no impact to waterways and topography with lush forestry and productive agriculture thriving directly above and adjacent to those sampled areas,” he said.

At current rates of about 15,000 barrels per day, Aspenleaf sees a long runway of future production for the next decade or longer.

Revitalizing the historic field while cleaning up legacy assets is key to the company’s strategy.

“We believe we can extract more of the resource, which belongs to the people of Alberta,” Gould said.

“We make money for our investors, and the people of the province are much further ahead.”

Continue Reading

Energy

Canada Cannot Become an Energy Superpower With its Regulatory Impediments

Published on

From Energy Now

By Yogi Schulz


Get the Latest Canadian Focused Energy News Delivered to You! It’s FREE: Quick Sign-Up Here


Prime Minister Carney wants Canada to become an energy superpower. It’s a worthy goal because Canada has rich, undeveloped energy resources. Many Canadians happily endorse his goal because it achieves these benefits:

  • Economic growth and prosperity for Canadians.
  • Reduce the adverse consequences of American tariffs.
  • Additional tax revenue that reduces the mountain of Canadian public debt.
  • Improved energy security and reduced cost for Canadians in Eastern Canada.
  • Improved energy security for Canada’s international energy customers.
  • Alternative energy supply options for NATO allies to replace Russian energy.
  • Greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions that occur when Canadian high ESG energy replaces other energy sources.

However, Canada can achieve these benefits only by overcoming multiple regulatory impediments, including those described below.

Interprovincial trade barriers

Interprovincial trade barriers impose costs on all industries. Consumers, not companies, bear these costs. A Macdonald-Laurier Institute study estimated that eliminating interprovincial trade barriers could boost Canada’s economy by between 4.4 and 7.9 percent over the long term or between $110 and $200 billion per year. Examples of interprovincial trade barriers that affect the oil and gas industry include:

  • Pools that cross provincial boundaries: Producers must build two higher-cost processing facilities, one on each side of the border.
  • Gathering systems that cross provincial boundaries: Producers must obtain a federal pipeline permit, which requires a multi-year approval process, to build a pipeline that crosses a provincial border.
  • Many minor technical differences: Provinces set their own rules, standards, and certifications for topics such as vehicle weight, length, and safety protocols. These differences increase producer operating costs.
  • Professional licensing: Individuals, such as those in skilled trades, must undergo a lengthy, costly process to obtain a license to work in another province, even if they are already certified elsewhere.
  • Administrative hurdles: Producers operating in multiple provinces face a complex web of permit, license, and reporting requirements that vary from one province to the next.
  • Geographical barriers: The dimensional limitations of tunnels in the Rocky Mountains create a shipping barrier for producers, adding costs when importing large facility components.

For Canada to achieve energy superpower status, reducing interprovincial trade barriers will be necessary to enhance its competitiveness. The Canadian Free Trade Agreement (CFTA) and the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act are encouraging federal initiatives to reduce interprovincial trade barriers. The outrageous Trump tariffs have also provided some provinces with a new incentive to lower or eliminate some of their barriers. However, the “mutual recognition” approach may be more symbolic than substantive.

Provincial regulatory incompatibilities

Oil and natural gas producers face slightly different regulations in every province and territory. These incompatibilities incur avoidable operational costs and erode Canada’s competitiveness in the global investment capital market.

Energy industry regulators operate in every province and territory where oil and natural gas are produced. These regulators have independently produced large volumes of regulations that are similar but far from identical. Most of these regulations are derived from those first written in Alberta and various US jurisdictions. Alberta created the first Canadian energy industry regulator because most of the resources are located within its borders.

So far, energy industry regulators have only harmonized the following:

  • Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Z662 Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems. British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan have adopted this standard.
  • Directive 017 – Measurement Requirements for Oil and Gas Operations. Alberta and Saskatchewan have adopted this directive.

Unfortunately, only these two documents, among many dozens, have been harmonized. Parochial thinking appears to be a significant impediment to more harmonization. For example:

  • Some Canadian regulators participate in the Western Regulators Forum (WRF). However, the WRF has yet to harmonize any regulations.
  • Over two decades ago, the Alberta Department of Energy and Minerals sponsored the development of Petrinex with a vision of energy industry-government data management cooperation across multiple provinces. However, the vision has not been realized because the provinces built individual, incompatible systems to protect their turf.

“Producers write more government submissions than technical papers – ten times more. Submissions consume significant effort from technical professionals and include specific oil and gas technical information such as fracking schemes, SAGD operations or facility modifications,” says Granger Low, of Regaware Systems Ltd. “When producers can easily search previous submissions using the artificial intelligence of AppIntel AI, they take advantage of Alberta’s uniquely remarkable oil and gas technical advances, and avoid the delays related to over-regulation and resubmission.”

For Canada to achieve energy superpower status, harmonizing more provincial and territorial oil and natural gas industry regulations will be required to improve its competitiveness.

Provincial regulatory issues

Dealing with regulations is a cost that all oil and natural gas producers bear. Regulations are desirable and necessary to a point. Issues where the energy industry regulators could improve performance include:

  • Reducing and simplifying the enormous number of directives. The issue is that the directives contain extensive related best practices that, while valuable, become indistinguishable from regulatory requirements.
  • Reducing and simplifying the permit application processes for wells, facilities and pipelines. How the current complexity helps regulators fulfill their mandate is unclear.
  • Simplifying reporting and compliance assessment would reduce administrative costs for both producers and regulators.
  • Eliminating the APMC in Alberta would reduce producers’ administrative costs and increase Crown royalty revenue. This article describes the details: It’s Time to Retire the APMC – The APMC Mandate Has Expired, Its Cost is Now Avoidable.
  • Failing to address data quality issues for wells, digital well logs, and cores undermines one of Alberta’s competitive advantages.

For Canada to achieve energy superpower status, reducing the cost of regulatory applications and compliance is a component of improving its competitiveness.

Taxation disparities

Oil and natural gas producers encounter taxation disparities across provinces. The following disparities affect geographic investment decisions:

  • Crown Royalty and Freehold Production Tax calculations and related settlement processes vary considerably by province and type of production.
  • Corporate income tax rates and reporting vary by province.
  • The combined GST and PST/HST rate varies from 5% in Alberta to 15% in some other provinces.
  • Oil and natural gas facility property tax rates and reporting vary by province.

Simplifying these taxation disparities would reduce administrative costs for both producers and the Crown. The combination of taxes and fees that producers pay in Canada is enough to cause some to invest in more profitable jurisdictions.

For Canada to achieve energy superpower status, reducing and harmonizing taxation disparities is a prerequisite to encourage more investment in production.

Additional costs that every producer accepts

Overcoming impediments is particularly important to Canadian competitiveness because the Canadian oil and gas industry incurs higher operating costs than the industry does in most other jurisdictions. The higher cost categories include:

  • Wages and benefits.
  • Health, safety and environmental standards.
  • Abandonment standards.
  • Disclosure of intellectual property in publicly-accessible permit application documents.
  • Lower staff productivity and added heating costs due to lower winter temperatures.

No one is suggesting lowering these Canadian standards and expectations. However, the associated costs increase the urgency of reducing other regulatory impediments to maintain Canada’s competitiveness.

Conclusions

Canada has the resources to become an energy superpower and realize the immense economic, strategic, and environmental benefits that are available. Policymakers can contribute by harmonizing regulations and removing interprovincial trade barriers to ensure investment in Canadian energy is competitive on world financial markets.


Yogi Schulz has over 40 years of experience in information technology in various industries. He writes for Engineering.comEnergyNow.caEnergyNow.com and other trade publications. Yogi works extensively in the petroleum industry to select and implement financial, production revenue accounting, land & contracts, and geotechnical systems. He manages projects that arise from changes in business requirements, the need to leverage technology opportunities, and mergers. His specialties include IT strategy, web strategy, and systems project management.

Continue Reading

Trending

X