Dear friends,
Welcome to the January/February edition of BIC Magazine. Last summer, I wrote about what I perceived to be a nascent rebellion against ESG and green energy policy. I’m encouraged by recent events but we must remain vigilant in protecting our energy freedom.
Economic prosperity hinges on protecting energy freedom
Thomas Brinsko, CEO, BIC Alliance
As a reminder, much of the ESG/green policy is in pursuit of the primary goal of the Paris Accord, the landmark climate agreement signed in 2015 that calls for governments to try to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial temperatures. Proponents of the Paris Accord believe this can be accomplished through the reduction of so-called greenhouse gases, especially CO2, which is now subject to the IEA’s net-zero goal for 2050. This, they say, requires a transition away from fossil fuels to green forms of energy.
However, there is a logical scientific theory that a growing CO2 environment won’t have the warming effect presented by some climate experts. These words are heresy to those who claim science is ‘settled’ on the matter. There is also the issue that much of the world’s CO2 is not man-made. I’m not a scientist, but I know that most of the world’s accepted science was heresy at some point. When new data and thoughts are presented, science is, by definition, obliged to consider it. I believe that the earth’s temperature has changed over time, so I wouldn’t argue the point one way or another. Perhaps the earth is warming a bit; I’d gladly affirm that it is.
Over the last 100 years, CO2 has increased from about three-tenths of 1% of the atmosphere, to four-tenths of 1%. This tiny trace compound in the air is intentionally doubled or tripled by farmers to facilitate plant growth. We are rearranging our entire economy because CO2 levels have risen by only one-tenth of 1% over a hundred years. For plant health at least, CO2 levels have a long way to go before they become harmful. The earth is greener and contains more vegetation than it did 100 years ago because of this increase in CO2.
Could a slight rise in trace gas, leading to accelerated growth in our food supply, simultaneously contribute to global warming today and serve as a precursor to a potential disaster? I don’t know, but I do know that growing more food is a good thing.
If the earth is warming today because of a rise in CO2, what is not occurring is catastrophic consequences from that warming. During the last 100 years, during the rise of man-made CO2, the world has witnessed a 98% decline in climate related deaths.
Why is this? As one of my favorite energy researchers, Alex Epstein, points out that the benefits of fossil fuels are never taken into account by the pro-ESG and green policy movement. Fossil fuels enable irrigation and food transportation. They allow us to master the climate with heating and cooling. If the temperature goes up a bit more over the next 100 years and we have more food — plus cheap air conditioning and central heat — is there really an existential threat because of the climate?
It’s good to understand the real cost-benefit risk analysis of energy and CO2, but I think American public sentiment is moving away from the war on fossil fuels for mostly pragmatic economic reasons. Cheap energy is essential to driving any economy. Cheap energy derived from fossil fuels has played a pivotal role in elevating the quality of life and extending the lifespan across the entire planet.
Most people realize that cost-effective energy is essential for creating a prosperous and secure world. More energy is not just desperately needed in the U.S. but by billions of people around the world. What’s changing is that folks are beginning to understand that fossil fuels are uniquely able to provide cost-effective energy. We need energy addition, not an energy transition.
Understanding this, people are questioning if we need to wreck our economy and our power grid by lunging into an unknown future of government-directed green energy.
ExxonMobil and Chevron shareholders last year uniformly shot down several ESG proposals. Shell is actively selling some of its green energy business units. More recently, Chevron agreed to acquire Hess and ExxonMobil will acquire Pioneer Natural Resources. They did this because they realized the world will need O&G in the future no matter how much politicians subsidize green energy.
Top U.S. banks are voting down ESG resolutions, calling for the lenders to wind down fossil fuel financing. Global offshore wind projects are being scrapped because they aren’t expected to be profitable, even with massive subsidies. Ford and GM are putting EV manufacturing plants in neutral, citing low consumer demand.
Still, many of our politicians and unelected technocrats push the ESG and green agenda. Last month at the UN’s annual climate confab — known as COP28 — the EU’s climate commissioner stated, "I want COP28 to mark the beginning of the end for fossil fuels."
The IEA, working off the U.N.’s latest climate science report, says that global consumption of oil must fall by 77% and natural gas by 78% by 2050 for the world to hold warming to 1.5°.
A new report in time for COP28 from the Global Carbon Project estimates that worldwide CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels will increase by 1.1% this year, a new peak.
Emissions would have to drop by 9% annually to achieve the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. However, American fossil fuel producers have reduced emissions consistently over the last decade and in 2023 as well. The big problem is that China’s emissions are set to rise by twice as much as the U.S. decline.
Our CO2 production will not matter as long as China and India continue to build more fossil fuel plants, and they are doing so significantly. Should we hamstring our economy with a forced energy transition to achieve vague far-away goals, while China and India accelerate their fossil fuel production, negating any chance to achieve the stated goals?
America is not bound by what the EU, UN or IEA desires, and we can vote leaders out of office who take positions with which we don’t agree.
It’s a free country as we love to say. Energy gives us the freedom to enjoy convenience. It gives us freedom from being controlled by our environment. We need energy freedom policies that allow the development and choice of energies that will most benefit our country and the world — be it solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal or hydrocarbons.
In this issue of BIC, we feature insight from Jose Trevino, CPChem plant manager for the Sweeny, Clemens and Old Ocean facilities in Texas, about pushing for excellence amidst the company’s constant growth, and from Justine Franchina, COO with Ketjen about empowering teams with leadership and collaboration.
This issue also highlights: ExxonMobil’s chemical production expansion in Baytown, Texas; Chevron on the hydrogen economy; American Chemical Council, Shell and ExxonMobil weigh in on Louisiana’s production outlook in 2024; EIA’s forecast on growing Texas natural gas production; and much more.
Wishing you a very happy New Year and a prosperous 2024!
