There’s a Messaging Battle Right Now Over America’s Energy Future

Climate scientists, oil executives, progressives and conservatives all agree that the energy transition is upon us.

The burning of fossil fuels for more than a century has warmed the planet significantly, and cleaner and more sustainable sources of power are needed in order to avoid further catastrophic changes to the environment.

Even as adversaries use the same terminology, they are often talking about vastly different scenarios.

The scientific consensus states that the energy transition requires a rapid phasing out of fossil fuels and the immediate scaling up of cleaner energy sources like wind, solar and nuclear.

Many in the oil and gas business say the energy transition simply means a continued use of fossil fuels, with a greater reliance on natural gas rather than coal, and hope that new technologies such as carbon capture and sequestration can contain or reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses they produce.

Anthony Leiserowitz, the director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, said that the term energy transition is used by both the climate hawks and the oil and gas industry. What does that mean?

Dr. Leiserowitz said that the phrase has become a floating signifier. He said it was a blank term that you could fill with your own definition.

Efforts to move the world away from fossil fuels have been going on for a long time. Climate advocates and the oil and gas industry are at odds over how the energy transition should be carried out, with Russia's invasion of Ukraine prompting them to argue.

Climate researchers say there is no room for ambiguity. The need to phase out fossil fuels and the damaging effects of planet warming emissions has been underscored by a series of major scientific reports.

Image

The International Energy Agency said in a report last year that new coal-fired power plants and oil and gas fields should be stopped immediately because of the effects of climate change.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body of experts convened by the United Nations, said last month that the number of people suffering irreparable loss or dislocation because of extreme weather would soar without a rapid shift away from fossil fuels.

The war in Ukraine has put a spotlight on Europe's heavy reliance on Russian oil and gas, which has driven home the urgent need to transition away from fossil fuels, according to those in favor of a fast pivot to clean energy.

Mark Brownstein is the senior vice president of energy at the Environmental Defense Fund, a nonprofit organization that advocates for swift action to address climate change.

The general public is in favor of a move away from fossil fuels, with 69 percent of Americans saying that developing sources of clean energy should be a high priority for leaders in Washington. Only 31 percent of those surveyed thought the United States should completely phase out fossil fuels.

The public supports the transition to clean energy due to the view that burning fossil fuel is bad for health and the planet.

Oil and gas executives have different views on how the energy transition should play out.

There were more than 100 panel discussions and presentations about the energy transition at the major energy industry conference in Houston last week.

Image

The chief executive of Saudi Aramco said at the conference that all energy sources will be needed to support a successful transition.

Mr. Nasser said that politicians were discouraging oil and gas production without allocating enough resources to develop renewable energy sources that could replace fossil fuels. Mr. Nasser did not mention that oil companies have been lobbying to weaken and block legislation that would address climate change, such as the President Biden's Build Back Better bill, which would dedicate $550 billion in tax incentives to clean energy.

He said that they don't really have a transition plan.

The war in Ukraine is proof that the fossil fuel industry is still important. Many major oil and gas companies have pledged to ramp up production in the short term in an effort to stabilizing global energy markets, even as they talk up their part in the energy transition.

The chief executive of Exxon Mobil said in a speech that his company was increasing oil production while at the same time using its technology to help address the challenge of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and supporting the transition to a net zero future.

Kathleen Sgamma, president of the Western Energy Alliance, which represents oil and gas companies, dismissed the idea that the energy transition meant a significant drop in the use of fossil fuels. The Energy Information Agency predicted last year that demand for oil and gas will continue to rise.

There is no oil, natural gas or coal in that idealistic future.

She argued that renewable energy sources like wind and solar are unreliable and difficult to scale.

Right now we don't have a technology that can provide all of our needs, so if we're going to talk about a transition, let's find something that we can transition to. She said that we are going to be here through 2050 and many years after.

Image

The oil and gas industry's insistence on the value of fossil fuels is viewed as deceptive by critics.

David Victor is a climate policy expert at the University of California, San Diego.

The door is open for greenwashing.

Any company, even an oil company, can say that they are behind the energy transition.

He said that it was a clever way of tapping into the broader narrative of transitioning.

Even if the term means different things to different people, the fact that fierce adversaries share a common language could be a useful development.

If not everyone agrees on the particulars right away, having a shared set of terms is an important step in efforts to find common cause.

She said that the word "transition" opens the window for multiple stakeholders.

The fact that the oil and gas industry was acknowledging the need for change was a major breakthrough, according to Dr. Leiserowitz.

The positive side is that it is a flexible term that everyone can use, and that it is important that everyone moves in the same direction. You have already established the fundamental direction of progress.

Semantics are not likely to dictate the pace at which fossil fuels are replaced with cleaner energy sources. John Podesta is the founder of the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank.

Will fossil fuel plants that use technology to capture and store carbon dioxide be competitive with wind and solar along with battery storage? When electric vehicle charging stations are more plentiful, will paying to fill the tank of a gas-powered car still be the best choice?

Mr. Podesta said they would let the marketplace decide.