[Tanada]

Kublikhan- good articles. Do you think ESG will really work? While there are socially minded investors and those who see limited oil supplies as not a good long term investment- a lot of other investors are not ESG and just want the biggest return on their investment in the short term. Also, some ESG's are quietly investing in FF's now.

EvilGenius- your post implies it is conservatives who are blocking new nuclear and renewable energy projects- but the strongest opposition has come from liberal states. California has very powerful rules that give NIMBY objectors an advantage in stalling or preventing projects. People there see it as protecting the environment (desert turtles) or their property values.

Tanada- Bloomberg requires registration to view articles. A tiny quote would help.

Doly- isn't litigiousness similar to democracy in that it gives average citizens power?

Once-Unthinkable Nuclear Green Bonds Are Coming to Europe



EDF plans to distinguish nuclear issuance from ‘classic’ bonds

Nuclear power was included in European Union’s green taxonomy

July 20, 2022 at 1:00 AM EDTUpdated onJuly 20, 2022 at 7:17 AM EDT

Europe’s green bond market is preparing to finance nuclear energy projects for the first time.

Electricite de France SA has updated its green financing framework to include nuclear after European Union lawmakers voted to give certain nuclear energy projects a sustainable label. A number of other companies are talking to investors about it, according to NatWest Markets Plc, one of the top 10 arrangers of environmental bond deals.

Even though nuclear has achieved green status on paper, thanks to low carbon emissions, it’s controversial and some ethical funds plan to continue boycotting it. EDF said it will distinguish between green bonds that finance nuclear and those that don’t, effectively creating two classes of debt to cater for the schism among investors.
“It’s likely we’ll see a European green bond that funds nuclear projects over the next 12 months, as well as green bonds where nuclear is one of multiple energy sources being financed,” said Arthur Krebbers, head of corporate climate and ESG capital markets at NatWest. “This isn’t a blank cheque for nuclear and gas -- there’s a granular list of environmental criteria and safeguards in place.”

The controversy surrounding the branding of nuclear power as green stems from concerns about waste disposal, the potential for weapons proliferation and the risk of accidental radiation. Historic nuclear catastrophes from Chernobyl to Three Mile Island and Fukushima makes expanding the energy source a harder sell.
Its divisive status was reflected by EDF saying that proceeds of green bonds funding nuclear power shall be managed in a separate portfolio. Based on the company’s nuclear projects last year, about 8 billion euros ($8.2 billion) of spending could be eligible for green funding.
EU Lawmakers Remove Last Hurdle to Label Gas, Nuclear as Green
“We are taking into account certain investors who are not ready to invest in nuclear because of their internal policies,” an EDF spokesperson told Bloomberg. “They will always have the choice to invest only in ‘classic’ green bonds -- investing in renewables and hydro projects, for example -- if they wish.”
Any European issuers will look to follow the first successful sales across the Atlantic. Canadian utility Bruce Power LP sold what it said were the world’s debut green bonds for nuclear power last year, and that was followed by Ontario Power Generation Inc. earlier this month.
There should still be plenty of buyers. Around 60% of investors surveyed by Barclays Plc said they would be willing to buy green debt funding nuclear generation, though European respondents were the most reticent. Its appeal was bolstered this year by fears of a European energy crisis following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
EU Fractures Dream of Gold Standard for Green Market Investors
“We recognize the complexity around nuclear waste, safety and costs but are keen to explore all opportunities to enable net zero and therefore we take a cautiously positive view on nuclear as a bridge fuel,” said Scott Freedman, a London-based fund manager at Newton Investment Management.
Attitudes to the energy source differ by region -- reflected by EU member states clashing over its inclusion -- and are linked to decades of protests against nuclear weapons. A Natixis SA survey published last month found investors from Germany, Austria and Switzerland were especially unlikely to finance the sector as these countries have historically been opposed to atomic energy.
The £2.3 billion ($2.8 billion) Rathbone Ethical Bond Fund is among those blacklisting the energy source, seeing any possible benefits outweighed by longer-term risks. An EDF green bond that did not finance nuclear could be acceptable in principle, fund manager Bryn Jones said, though it would need to be assessed on its merits.
“We do not deny that nuclear power offers a low-carbon electricity source,” Jones said. “However, the climate crisis is not the only one which our world faces; biodiversity loss is another critical and often overlooked risk. We are not convinced of the ability to operate nuclear power plants and store waste for long periods of time while guaranteeing no significant impacts on the wider environment.”

LINK

[vtsnowedin]

We are not convinced of the ability to operate nuclear power plants and store waste for long periods of time while guaranteeing no significant impacts on the wider environment.”

Apparently sixty plus years of experience is not enough to convince them. These people will have billions of people starve or freeze to death in the dark because they can not accept anything short of their "perfect vision".

[kublikhan]

Kublikhan- good articles. Do you think ESG will really work? While there are socially minded investors and those who see limited oil supplies as not a good long term investment- a lot of other investors are not ESG and just want the biggest return on their investment in the short term. Also, some ESG's are quietly investing in FF's now.

Yes, I think ESGs will have an impact, in fact they are already having an impact. ESG investments in FFs are pressuring companies to adopt their values.

Certainly the societal implications of a focus on ESG represents an ethical imperative. But the truth is that money talks. BlackRock is the world’s largest investment manager with $10 trillion of assets under management. According to S&P Global, as of February 2021, oil and gas represented 2.55% of its total investments and coal and consumable fuels accounted for 0.36%. Despite these small percentages, the investments are material and represent close to $255 billion and $36 billion respectively in the energy sector. As such, when BlackRock’s CEO Larry Fink speaks, people listen, including those in the energy sector. To that end, in a 2020 letter to investors, Larry Fink warned that “Given the groundwork we have already laid engaging on disclosure, and the growing investment risks surrounding sustainability, we will be increasingly disposed to vote against management and board directors when companies are not making sufficient progress on sustainability-related disclosures and the business practices and plans underlying them.” While BlackRock has been and is instrumental in creating the ESG imperative, it is just one of the many stakeholders pushing companies in all sectors to embrace ESG and to develop metrics to measure progress towards identified goals.

Investments in renewable resources represent a clear environmental opportunity, but not the exclusive one. There is much that energy exploration and production (E&P) companies can do to align themselves with ESG values that extends well beyond their end product. Most of the large integrated energy companies are well on their way to establishing ESG policies and programs and have begun efforts to reduce and minimize their impact on the environment. Just a few examples include:
* In November of 2020, Occidental Petroleum Corp. became the first large U.S. petroleum producer to set a net zero emissions target associated with their own emissions by 2040, and a commitment to reduce GHG associated with their products by 2050.
* Shell Oil, held a shareholder vote this past year to approve their sustainability strategy which was met with 89% approval. The premise of that strategy was their goal to reduce by 100% their carbon intensity by 2050.
* ExxonMobil has announced a four-prong sustainability framework that includes the investment of $3 billion in carbon capture and storage projects.
* British Petroleum invested and continues to invest significantly in wind, solar, and hydrogen and is one of the largest contributors to renewable organizations globally. In 2020 they divested operations that reduced the company’s overall emissions by 5.4 Mte making an initial step towards their stated goal of reducing emissions by 41 Mte by 2050.
* And, Kinder Morgan recently formed a new unit to explore green energy opportunities, including the storage and handling of liquid renewable transportation fuels such as ethanol, biodiesel, renewable diesel, and hydrogen.

What’s clear from the headlines and to anyone working in the industry is that energy companies are paying attention and embracing the ESG revolution. Shareholder buy-in, media pressure, customer expectations and demands are the drivers of change for Big Oil. But what about mid-sized and small players? As noted above, they too will increasingly be motivated by access to capital along with customer expectations and ethical concerns.

ESG: How it Applies to the Oil & Gas Industry and Why It Matters

And it's not just upstream dealing with this. Utilities are facing similar pressures:

Renewable energy is hot. It has incredible momentum, not only in terms of deployment and costs but in terms of public opinion and cultural cachet. To put it simply: Everyone loves renewable energy. It’s cleaner, it’s high-tech, it’s new jobs, it’s the future. And so more and more big energy customers are demanding the full meal deal: 100 percent renewable energy. The Sierra Club notes that so far in the US, more than 80 cities, five counties, and two states have committed to 100 percent renewables.

Even if policymakers never force power utilities to produce renewable energy through mandates, if all the biggest customers demand it, utilities will be mandated to produce it in all but name. The rapid spread and evident popularity of the 100 percent target has created an alarming situation for power utilities. Suffice to say, while there are some visionary utilities in the country, as an industry, they tend to be extremely small-c conservative. They do not like the idea of being forced to transition entirely to renewable energy, certainly not in the next 10 to 15 years. For one thing, most of them don’t believe the technology exists to make 100 percent work reliably; they believe that even with lots of storage, variable renewables will need to be balanced out by “dispatchable” power plants like natural gas. For another thing, getting to 100 percent quickly would mean lots of “stranded assets,” i.e., shutting down profitable fossil fuel power plants. In short, their customers are stampeding in a direction that terrifies them.

The takeaway: Renewables are a public opinion juggernaut. Being against them is no longer an option. The industry’s best and only hope is to slow down the stampede a bit (and that’s what they plan to try).

Utilities have a problem: the public wants 100% renewable energy, and quick

So there's no doubt that western FF companies and utilities are facing pressure from ESG, customers, etc. The question is will they be able to deliver on the energy transition that is being demanded? I have concerns we may be dismantling the old system faster than we are building the new system. Shutting down our refineries, reducing drilling and letting oil & gas fields deplete, all the while EVs are just a small fraction of the automotive market and even less transition going on in our other modes of transportation & shipping like trucks, ships, planes, etc. Not to mention the grid is getting less reliable every day with a growing threat of blackouts:

In a dire new assessment, the North American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC) described regions of the country pushed closer than ever toward energy emergencies by a combination of climate change impacts and a transition from traditional fossil fuel generators to carbon-free renewable power. “It’s a very sobering report. It’s clear the risks are spreading.” NERC’s analysis examined the potential punch of extreme weather, which may wreak havoc on everything from reduced hydropower to transmission lines brought down by wildfires. Grid operators are dealing with an increasing reliance on intermittent resources like wind and solar as coal units retire and the reliability and emissions of gas resources comes under scrutiny.

The issue is not a reason to back away from moving the grid to carbon-free wind and solar, Moura said. “We truly support that,” he said of the clean energy shift. But the challenges demand quick action on setting technical equipment standards to deal with the problem, he added. “The pace of our grid transformation is a little out of synch” with the technical requirements for the system’s operation.

Grid monitor warns of U.S. blackouts in ‘sobering report’

Tanada- Bloomberg requires registration to view articles. A tiny quote would help.

I found a trick to get around the bloomberg subscription. Open the article in firefox, chrome and edge are blocked for me. If the article won't open in firefox, try clearing your cookies first and trying again. It complains my firefox is not up-to-date, but the article loads fine for me. I'm not sure if the newest version of firefox implements bloomberg's blocking feature.

[Newfie]

Anyone remember this defunct MOX plan? 17 billion sounds cheap.

https://publicintegrity.org/national-se ... by-moscow/

The disposal method that Washington has been pursuing – and which is spelled out in the now-cancelled agreement – involves building a plant at the Savannah River Site nuclear installation in South Carolina to convert 34 tons of weapons-usable plutonium into fuel for commercial nuclear power plants while Russia converted a like amount. But a report by the Department of Energy and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers last month said construction of the so-called Mixed Oxide (MOX) plant alone would not be complete until 2048 and that it would cost more than $17 billion, or roughly four times the cost promised in 1994, when the deal with Russia was initially struck.

[Tanada]

Anyone remember this defunct MOX plan? 17 billion sounds cheap.

https://publicintegrity.org/national-se ... by-moscow/

The disposal method that Washington has been pursuing – and which is spelled out in the now-cancelled agreement – involves building a plant at the Savannah River Site nuclear installation in South Carolina to convert 34 tons of weapons-usable plutonium into fuel for commercial nuclear power plants while Russia converted a like amount. But a report by the Department of Energy and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers last month said construction of the so-called Mixed Oxide (MOX) plant alone would not be complete until 2048 and that it would cost more than $17 billion, or roughly four times the cost promised in 1994, when the deal with Russia was initially struck.

Those figures are, to put it mildly, insane! The first ton or so of material was converted into MOX in France and used as test fuel for the Duke energy plant almost a decade ago. For a figure far less that 17 Billion dollars France would gladly convert the rest to standard MOX fuel for use in PWR reactors. Also it would be done in 18 months, not 26 years!

[Tanada]

Pro-nuclear office holders plan their push for new reactors | The Asahi Shimbun



Pro-nuclear forces within the ruling Liberal Democratic Party and the government are starting to prepare for building next-generation nuclear reactors--something that for the past decade has been viewed as a political third rail.

Because of the harsh public criticism directed at nuclear energy in the wake of the 2011 triple meltdown at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, government officials have mostly focused on restarting existing reactors.

And there has been little open debate about constructing new ones.

But the Russian invasion of Ukraine caused a spike in petroleum prices and concerns are now growing about an electricity shortage.

On top of all that, the global trend for decarbonization has provided fuel for nuclear energy proponents.

Politicians in the Diet who advocate for nuclear power have taken note of their newfound momentum.

A group of pro-nuclear LDP lawmakers held a hastily called meeting on Aug. 4 headed by Tomomi Inada, a former LDP policy chief.

“I want to pass on our views on replacing old reactors to the green-transformation council recently set up by the government,” Inada said.

The council, designed to examine ways to realize a carbon-neutral society, held its first meeting at the prime minister’s office on July 27.

Prime Minister Fumio Kishida asked the panel to clarify items where a government decision is required, including resuming operations at nuclear power plants and “any future developments.”

While Kishida never was clear about what he meant by future developments, the LDP group wants that to include the construction of replacement reactors.

The government is in the meantime working on a potential course for the construction of new nuclear reactors.

One recent proposal stands out. It was presented at a July 28 meeting of an expert panel tapped by the economy ministry, which oversees energy policy, for building next-generation reactors.

It compared the advantages and disadvantages of advanced light-water reactors, micro light-water reactors and fast reactors. It concluded the government should place a priority on advanced light-water reactors because they can be developed with current technology and other nations are already building them.

It also included projections suggesting these reactors could be put into operation as early as the 2030s.

But that appears to be a few steps ahead of where the Cabinet is on the matter.

At his Aug. 2 news conference, Koichi Hagiuda, the economy minister, said building advanced reactors is not being considered as a possibility for replacing old reactors.

But he did say the government wants to promote research and development of advanced reactors and foster the personnel needed to eventually operate them.

Hagiuda said the economy ministry’s proposal was presented to give a timeline for its research and development goals.

Government officials, though, are clearly using the recent changes in the international environment to push for more nuclear energy.

One source said any sort of green transformation will not be possible without relying on nuclear power.

LINK

[C8]

Tanada- that article makes me wonder about why the nuclear power industry doesn't seem to fight for itself more. Oil companies and renewable energy companies spend millions lobbying, running commercials, etc. But the nuclear power industry seems to do little of that compared to other energy industries. I wonder why?

[vtsnowedin]

Tanada- that article makes me wonder about why the nuclear power industry doesn't seem to fight for itself more. Oil companies and renewable energy companies spend millions lobbying, running commercials, etc. But the nuclear power industry seems to do little of that compared to other energy industries. I wonder why?

I think the immense legal fees and delay cost the industry got saddled with back in the eighties have soured all possible builders on building or even proposing any new plants.
That won't change as long as the NIMBIES and lawyer sharks are capable of pouncing on them.

[Doly]

ESG investments in FFs are pressuring companies to adopt their values.

And how is that supposed to work, exactly? I have a fairly interesting book called "Don't even think about it" about why climate change activism hasn't worked. I don't agree with a number of things it says. (It suggests, for example, that closing the partisan gap in the USA would be needed to fix the problem - it was written a while ago. But the notion that closing the partisan gap is even possible seems pretty ludicrous these days.) But it has a good chapter on fossil fuel companies being obsessed about health and safety as a way of overcompensating for climate change, and also saying these companies are really not good at alternative energy, because, well, alternative energy is not where their skills are.

I have concerns we may be dismantling the old system faster than we are building the new system.

Precisely. I recently got a call from Greenpeace to increase my subscription and as a consequence of the call I decided to cancel it instead. The fundraiser was giving me as an argument their lobbying against fossil fuels. And that reminded me of the very shaky plan that Greenpeace has put forward on their idea of a good energy mix, based mostly on believing in unicorns and rainbows as opposed to realistic engineering. I told myself that I don't want to be funding a campaign with a goal that I don't actually support. And I already donate money to the Centre for Alternative Technology, that at least know something about what they are doing, so I told myself, I shouldn't have made the mistake of donating to Greenpeace in the first place.

I don't think that lobbying of any sort works, actually. In the sense that, even if it does work, it just gets a clueless politician to do something that probably shouldn't be done anyway. Governments should be thinking strategically, and instead of doing that, a lot of the time they seem to be delegating their thinking to the most awful mix of whatever the richest donors want, that often only care about their own interests and don't give a damn about anything else, and populist policies, that are just some sort of regurgitation of who-knows-what, because the average voter certainly isn't voting for what is in their own best interests.

[kublikhan]

ESG investments in FFs are pressuring companies to adopt their values.

And how is that supposed to work, exactly? I have a fairly interesting book called "Don't even think about it" about why climate change activism hasn't worked. I don't agree with a number of things it says. (It suggests, for example, that closing the partisan gap in the USA would be needed to fix the problem - it was written a while ago. But the notion that closing the partisan gap is even possible seems pretty ludicrous these days.) But it has a good chapter on fossil fuel companies being obsessed about health and safety as a way of overcompensating for climate change, and also saying these companies are really not good at alternative energy, because, well, alternative energy is not where their skills are.

Well first off, this might not exactly be a good thing. These ESG pressures, among other things, are making FF companies gun-shy about pulling the trigger on new FF investments. Projections are for oil & gas demand to stay high for many years to come. But if new supply does not come online to meet this demand, it is going to cause high prices and price volatility:

The Giant Oil Supply Problem
Despite rising oil prices, we’re not seeing the investments in new supply that we would’ve seen in previous cycles before the pandemic. For the West’s international oil companies (the “supermajors” like BP, Shell, Chevron, ExxonMobil, etc.), the attack is along all fronts. There has been: 1) a lack of access to financing because of climate concerns, 2) investor demands to decarbonize, and 3) a shortage of sufficient investments in new supply for many years. As my Forbes colleague Dan Eberhart explains, the growing ESG movement means increasing climate pressure to “not invest in new oil production” – a “cart before the horse” energy fantasy bound to devastate.

And all of this is happening as Western governments, politicians, and environmental groups continue to brag about their foolish end goal: “let’s put our oil companies out of business, that’ll show em!” The constant chant of “oil demand will soon peak” is creating great uncertainty and thereby denying investment approvals from the corporate boards of the big oil companies. Simply put, they’ve become unwilling to sanction multi-billion dollar upstream projects that take many years to bring more oil online and even more to see project payout. In turn, especially as environmental activism seeks to blitz them from energy angle, the easiest path forward for the oil industry is to do exactly what it has been doing: paying out dividends, buying back shares, paying down debt, pursuing non-oil opportunities, and quietly and slightly upping production.

Make no mistake, naturally-occurring oil field declines mean that even high investments can still lead to drops in oil production. There is no “standing still” in the oil E&P business, and the Red Queen Effect is especially wrecking for shale because its decline rates are higher and faster. I’ve already said it but the anti-oil business today could be installing the next recession tomorrow. We’ll be trapped in a guessing game of how high gasoline prices could go as our refineries continue to be closed.

ESG And The Dangerous Structural Increase In The Price Of Oil

Second, ESG is not new, not even for FFs. It is simply getting more attention and increased priority lately. And it's not all about renewable energy either. It could also cover reducing flaring, reducing methane leaks, making operations less carbon intensive, carbon capture, etc.

Historically, Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) issues within the oil and gas industry has been placed in various positions along the priority scale. However, as ESG public policy has become more of a focus in recent years, and advances in environmental friendly technology have been made available, ESG has become a high priority of most oil and gas operators. This trend is likely to continue as the industry grows and matures. Oil and gas companies that ignore ESG will find themselves at a competitive disadvantage and subject to regulatory penalties.

How does EGS apply in the oil and gas industry in the United States?
The U.S oil and gas industry has been highly impacted by the growing trend toward ESG issues and compliance. Investors that identify as socially conscious are increasingly investing in companies that have made ESG a high priority within the organization. There is also a significant increase in requests from investors and customers for environmental impact reporting. Aside from the direct economic cost and benefits to businesses undertaking ESG initiatives, there is growing regulatory pressure on companies to address environmental issues resulting from the governments efforts to meet worldwide climate and other environmental imperatives.

Biden has issued several executive orders directing federal agencies to implement ESG-related practices, including a key order on Jan. 27, called “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad." It's also clear that the administration is relying on regulatory agencies (i.e. EPA, OSHA) to advance ESG policies.

Why is ESG important in the oil and gas industry?
According to an EPA press release from November 2021, one third of the warming from greenhouse gases today is due to human-caused emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas 30 times more powerful than CO2 in trapping heat in the atmosphere over a 100-year period. Methane is a primary constituent of natural gas, and in the United States, the oil and gas industry is the largest industrial source of methane emissions. Increased scrutiny of the upstream carbon intensity associated with the production of fossil fuels (oil and gas) has prompted investors, consumers, and producers to seek new and innovative ways to reduce their carbon footprint and methane intensity.

The Importance of ESG in the Oil and Gas Industry

[Tanada]

The problem with ESG is despite the name the real drivers are politics and what is best scientifically is not often in line with what is best politically. IMO it is actually a step down from grreenwashing which for all its many faults expected business to still take place. ESG is often interpreted as what the local Green Party higher ups declare it means, not what actual climate or other science experts recommend, and a lot of their actions are ideologically oriented, not real world oriented.

[C8]

I don't think that lobbying of any sort works, actually. In the sense that, even if it does work, it just gets a clueless politician to do something that probably shouldn't be done anyway. Governments should be thinking strategically, and instead of doing that, a lot of the time they seem to be delegating their thinking to the most awful mix of whatever the richest donors want, that often only care about their own interests and don't give a damn about anything else, and populist policies, that are just some sort of regurgitation of who-knows-what, because the average voter certainly isn't voting for what is in their own best interests.

There is a hell of a lot of wisdom in this quote yet it will never come to pass. Govt. rarely thinks strategically. I am impressed with how even dictatorships have difficulty following a plan- and theoretically this is the most advantageous aspect of a dictatorship- central planning. China can't get its fishing industry under control- fishermen keep overfishing key areas, in violation of guidelines, and bribing officials. China also is fighting corruption in their semiconductor industry- they gave it lots of money to become competitive but it seems to have been squandered.

Humans everywhere have great difficulty in following a plan. I have a plan for what I will do today, but I have no idea if it will be followed- and I only have one person to boss around- me.

[C8]

The ESG issues in Kublikhans articles are why the Manchin Senate deal is so interesting to me. Congress is writing FF leases into law- which should be able to withstand future executive orders and allow more security for FF companies to embark on more exploration and long term projects.

ESG's in the US can try to defund these projects, but international investors will pick up the ball if there is a profit to be made. The US stock market is a worldwide venture and not so easily controlled. I think ESG stuff is more "feel good" than effective. My experience with organizations devoted to causes is that 80% of the money goes to the organization and 20% to the cause- often it results in a 5% change in behavior.

[Doly]

ESG's in the US can try to defund these projects, but international investors will pick up the ball if there is a profit to be made.

I don't think profit should be what decides what gets or doesn't get done where it comes to energy. Energy is too important to allow it to be available or not depending on whether an investor makes money out of it.

My experience with organizations devoted to causes is that 80% of the money goes to the organization and 20% to the cause- often it results in a 5% change in behavior.

I've worked in the voluntary sector, both as volunteer and paid, and in one of my positions I worked with many other voluntary organizations, so I got a good overview. The figures are more often close to 50-50, though it depends on the organization and what it does. And the reason that too much of the money goes into admin is because the donors are usually that unashamedly lazy. They want the voluntary organisation to do all the work of proving that it's trustworthy. I find it quite galling. When it comes to private companies, investors are supposed to do their due diligence. When it comes to nonprofits, donors are lazy and demand that the nonprofit pays for the due diligence. It's utterly unfair. They try to buy feeling good at the cheapest possible price, and then they complain that they get cheap feelgood.

I do agree that nonprofits often fail at changing behavior, and that's because people dedicated to a cause often get put into impossible situations. Essentially, they have to be hugely committed to do the work that they do while being paid almost always less than the market rate for similar work. And the problem is, hugely committed people have genuine trouble understanding people who are not so committed, so they have no clear ideas on how to go about changing other people's behavior. At the same time, they have to do this on a shoestring, with no access to the sort of tools and knowledge that marketing experts have.

Then, from time to time some rich person decides to put their money and marketing expertise behind something/someone. For example, Greta Thunberg. But what they won't do at all is get in touch with any grassroots groups while they run their particular campaign that is often pure symbolism. I've written to one such well-funded organisations when they pulled their particular stunt, telling them: "Hey, I saw that you managed to get about a thousand local people for your particular stunt that actually changed nothing, can you share with me your email list of people in the local area so I can get them into my own event where they can learn something about energy saving activities and products?" The response was that they would share with me info on how to build my own email list, not their email list. Sorry, not good enough. They were the ones doing the purely symbolic act, they owed the email list to the person doing things in the real world.

Another example: when Extinction Rebellion and Greta Thunberg engaged in their own particular bunch of symbolic acts, I was in a meeting of local people discussing how they could make their own local initiatives blend with the guidelines imposed from above, without any apparent consultation with us little people, coming from XR and Greta. And the problem was, the guidelines had suddenly changed completely. All along, above was saying that the right way of doing climate change was being all positive, now you had to be apocalyptic. It's hard to do a U-turn when you are in a precarious position to start with. But then, it happens with funding all the time, that is available or not on the whims of people you often can't even talk with. What irritates me the most is that I bet rich people, after spending their entire time urinating and defecating on any grassroots groups that exist that they aren't even aware of because we are like ants to them, are probably convinced that grassroots action is entirely ineffective. Well, yes, the rich are correct that way. Surprise, surprise, when rich people don't believe in someone, that person does not exist. Not to any practical purposes, anyway.

[kublikhan]

ESG's in the US can try to defund these projects, but international investors will pick up the ball if there is a profit to be made. The US stock market is a worldwide venture and not so easily controlled. I think ESG stuff is more "feel good" than effective. My experience with organizations devoted to causes is that 80% of the money goes to the organization and 20% to the cause- often it results in a 5% change in behavior.

The problem with that is it's not just ESG pressuring FF companies. Other pressures include high inflation, rising borrowing costs, concerns about the long term viability of the sector, etc. All of these combined pressures are constricting FF investments relative to alt energy. I don't think the world you imagined in your original post of alt energy being chained down by lawsuits and citizen protests while FFs soar is happening in reality.

Global investment growth in clean energy is set to outpace fossil fuel spending this year as uncertainties over future energy demand scenarios keep oil, gas and coal capital expenditures below the levels seen prior to the pandemic in 2019. Led by power sector spending on renewables, grids, and storage, clean energy investment is expected to exceed $1.4 trillion in 2022, accounting for almost three-quarters of the growth in overall energy investment, the IEA said in its World Energy Investment 2022 report.

At the same time, while oil and gas investment is up 10% from last year, it remains well below 2019 levels, the IEA said, noting that surging energy prices this year have done little to spur additional spending plans for fossil fuels. "Policy uncertainty is high, financing can be difficult to secure and companies are generally shying away from large commitments of capital that may take many years to pay back." "A growing storm of new factors is worsening the underinvestment problem and creating a red alert for energy markets. At a time when the global energy crisis calls for more supply, underinvestment in hydrocarbons will be the main reason for supply shortages, higher prices and volatility for the foreseeable future."

In the downstream sector, investment in new refineries and upgrades increased by about 30% in 2021 but that was not enough to offset the near-record 1.8 million b/d of plant retirements that saw the first reduction in global refining capacity in 30 years.

Clean energy boom leaves fossil spending behind as inflation, climate woes weigh

[C8]

I've worked in the voluntary sector, both as volunteer and paid, and in one of my positions I worked with many other voluntary organizations, so I got a good overview. The figures are more often close to 50-50, though it depends on the organization and what it does. And the reason that too much of the money goes into admin is because the donors are usually that unashamedly lazy. They want the voluntary organization to do all the work of proving that it's trustworthy. I find it quite galling. When it comes to private companies, investors are supposed to do their due diligence. When it comes to nonprofits, donors are lazy and demand that the nonprofit pays for the due diligence. It's utterly unfair. They try to buy feeling good at the cheapest possible price, and then they complain that they get cheap feelgood.

My 80-20 view comes from my work in the social services and education fields where the poor pretty much stay poor and the service providers become comfortable with the status quo and no real change happening. Outsiders call these people "poverty pimps" who have no vested interest in effectiveness since it would eliminate the rationale for the charity's existence if the poor became middle class and left.

I do agree that nonprofits often fail at changing behavior, and that's because people dedicated to a cause often get put into impossible situations. Essentially, they have to be hugely committed to do the work that they do while being paid almost always less than the market rate for similar work. And the problem is, hugely committed people have genuine trouble understanding people who are not so committed, so they have no clear ideas on how to go about changing other people's behavior. At the same time, they have to do this on a shoestring, with no access to the sort of tools and knowledge that marketing experts have.

God, this is so true- the helper and the helped come from completely different worlds. I wasted many years of frustration on this issue.

I bet rich people, after spending their entire time urinating and defecating on any grassroots groups that exist that they aren't even aware of because we are like ants to them, are probably convinced that grassroots action is entirely ineffective. Well, yes, the rich are correct that way. Surprise, surprise, when rich people don't believe in someone, that person does not exist. Not to any practical purposes, anyway.

I don't think the rich really see regular people as much more than cattle for the most part. The rich are the most segregated group in America in that they almost never interact with lower classes.

[C8]

The problem with that is it's not just ESG pressuring FF companies. Other pressures include high inflation, rising borrowing costs, concerns about the long term viability of the sector, etc. All of these combined pressures are constricting FF investments relative to alt energy. I don't think the world you imagined in your original post of alt energy being chained down by lawsuits and citizen protests while FFs soar is happening in reality.

To be fair, I don't recall writing the "FF's soar" part unless you would like to point it out. I simply said that granting drilling leases by Congressional law makes them less risky from future Executive Actions to shut down drilling.

I agree with you about al the other pressures on FF's BTW. But FF projects do tend to be more removed from where people live and therefore encounter less resistance in terms of lawsuits.

It will be interesting to see where all this new renewable energy money will go. Far from reducing subsidies, the Senate bill actually increases them for renewable energy. We are going in the opposite direction from what was predicted to happen to subsidies by renewable energy advocates years ago.

[kublikhan]

But FF projects do tend to be more removed from where people live and therefore encounter less resistance in terms of lawsuits.

Have you not been following the news?

The world’s most polluting companies are increasingly being targeted by lawsuits challenging their inaction on climate change and attempts to spread misinformation, according to a new report. Research by the London School of Economics Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment found a surge in legal cases against the fossil fuel industry over the past year – especially outside the US – and growing action in other corporate sectors.

People have been filing legal challenges on climate change grounds since the mid-1980s, but it is a strategy that has recently come into its own. The number of climate change-related litigation lawsuits around the world has more than doubled since 2015 and roughly one quarter of the 2,002 recorded cases to date were filed in the past two years alone.

Fossil fuel industry faces surge in climate lawsuits

Dutch Court Orders Shell to Reduce Emissions in First Climate Change Ruling Against Company

Via an unprecedented wave of lawsuits, America’s petroleum giants face a reckoning for the devastation caused by fossil fuels. An unprecedented wave of lawsuits, filed by cities and states across the US, aim to hold the oil and gas industry to account for the environmental devastation caused by fossil fuels – and covering up what they knew along the way.

“Even if they’ve got a pretty good chance of winning the litigation in places, the discovery of pretty clearcut wrong doing – that they knew their product was bad and they were lying to the public – really weakens the industry’s ability to resist legislation and settlements.”

Big oil and gas kept a dirty secret for decades. Now they may pay the price

2020: A Year of Pipeline Court Fights

It will be interesting to see where all this new renewable energy money will go. Far from reducing subsidies, the Senate bill actually increases them for renewable energy. We are going in the opposite direction from what was predicted to happen to subsidies by renewable energy advocates years ago.

It all depends on what your goal is. If you simply want solar and wind to compete fairly in the market place, no one getting subsidies, they could do that. But not at the rate that would keep us below 1.5 degrees of temperature increase. It would require significant subsidies to get the world on track to below 1.5 degrees of warming. Also, let us not forget FFs pulled in even greater subsidies. It really does your argument a disservice when you decry renewable subsidies while turning a blind eye to FF subsidies:

Globally, fossil fuel subsidies are were $5.9 trillion or 6.8 percent of GDP in 2020 and are expected to increase to 7.4 percent of GDP in 2025.

IMF: Fossil Fuel Subsidies

[C8]

But FF projects do tend to be more removed from where people live and therefore encounter less resistance in terms of lawsuits.

Have you not been following the news?

The world’s most polluting companies are increasingly being targeted by lawsuits challenging their inaction on climate change and attempts to spread misinformation, according to a new report. Research by the London School of Economics Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment found a surge in legal cases against the fossil fuel industry over the past year – especially outside the US – and growing action in other corporate sectors.

People have been filing legal challenges on climate change grounds since the mid-1980s, but it is a strategy that has recently come into its own. The number of climate change-related litigation lawsuits around the world has more than doubled since 2015 and roughly one quarter of the 2,002 recorded cases to date were filed in the past two years alone.

Fossil fuel industry faces surge in climate lawsuits

Nothing you have written or posted refutes what I said. I never said that FF projects aren't sued- just [b]less often if they are in a congressional bill as law.[/b]

Dutch Court Orders Shell to Reduce Emissions in First Climate Change Ruling Against Company

Via an unprecedented wave of lawsuits, America’s petroleum giants face a reckoning for the devastation caused by fossil fuels. An unprecedented wave of lawsuits, filed by cities and states across the US, aim to hold the oil and gas industry to account for the environmental devastation caused by fossil fuels – and covering up what they knew along the way.

“Even if they’ve got a pretty good chance of winning the litigation in places, the discovery of pretty clearcut wrong doing – that they knew their product was bad and they were lying to the public – really weakens the industry’s ability to resist legislation and settlements.”

Big oil and gas kept a dirty secret for decades. Now they may pay the price

2020: A Year of Pipeline Court Fights

Notice the bold above- the FF companies are winning. But many renewable projects are losing against resident's lawsuits

It will be interesting to see where all this new renewable energy money will go. Far from reducing subsidies, the Senate bill actually increases them for renewable energy. We are going in the opposite direction from what was predicted to happen to subsidies by renewable energy advocates years ago.

It all depends on what your goal is. If you simply want solar and wind to compete fairly in the market place, no one getting subsidies, they could do that. But not at the rate that would keep us below 1.5 degrees of temperature increase. It would require significant subsidies to get the world on track to below 1.5 degrees of warming. Also, let us not forget FFs pulled in even greater subsidies. It really does your argument a disservice when you [b]decry renewable subsidies while turning a blind eye to FF subsidies:[/b]

I am not "decrying" anything, I am simply noting it. These companies are feeding at the govt. trough just like FF companies are- I would do the same if Biden offered me the money!

Kublikhan- why do you assume you know my feelings and thoughts well beyond what I write? You keep making all kind of horrible assumptions about me that have no basis other than your conjecture. I don't do this to you. I treat you fairly and only respond to what facts you write about- I never attack you personally. It is exhausting to deal with all your assumptions.

Please be fair and stick to facts- avoid personal attacks- thank you

Globally, fossil fuel subsidies are were $5.9 trillion or 6.8 percent of GDP in 2020 and are expected to increase to 7.4 percent of GDP in 2025.

IMF: Fossil Fuel Subsidies

[AdamB]

[b]Kublikhan- why do you assume you know my feelings and thoughts well beyond what I write? You keep making all kind of horrible assumptions about me that have no basis other than your conjecture.

What kind of baby are you? First you manufacture some claim about me treating you poorly, and now Kublikhan? Go find your happy place in an insulated room designed to stop all thoughts that aren't your own, and be happy. Leave the adults to whatever form of intellectual argument, debate, insults and brilliance they are capable of without whining from the gang that can't stand a wafting intellectual breeze, let alone a Cat 5.