Worried about the cost of climate change? Here is some hope. | A New Shade of Green | Sherry Listgarten | Almanac Online |

Local Blogs

A New Shade of Green

By Sherry Listgarten

E-mail Sherry Listgarten

About this blog: Climate change, despite its outsized impact on the planet, is still an abstract concept to many of us. That needs to change. My hope is that readers of this blog will develop a better understanding of how our climate is evolving a...  (More)

View all posts from Sherry Listgarten

Worried about the cost of climate change? Here is some hope.

Uploaded: Sep 17, 2023

Many of us are wondering how we are going to fund efforts to limit global warming and adapt to the changes we cannot prevent. In California we are rapidly building out clean power plants, new transmission lines, and EV charging stations. We are fighting fires, building sea walls, and hardening homes and infrastructure. We are treating patients for heat exhaustion and smoke inhalation, and wrestling with how to limit biodiversity loss. Periods of extreme drought and flooding are forcing us to rethink how we grow crops, manage forests, and add housing. How are we going to pay for all of this?

California has been getting some money from oil and gas companies via its cap-and-trade program, but now the state is going after the industry more directly. On Friday California issued a scathing lawsuit charging Exxon, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP, and the American Petroleum Institute for intentionally spreading misinformation and delaying action on climate. The lawsuit details a history of egregious behavior by these companies to protect their business interests regardless of the damage it would cause. This is not the first such lawsuit, but it is arguably the most important, coming from a large state with a sizable oil and gas industry.

The lawsuit begins by summarizing how much these companies knew and for how long. As early as the 1950’s and through the 1980’s, the American Petroleum Institute, Exxon, Shell, and others were not just learning about but in fact funding research into the effects of carbon dioxide on our climate. A sampling of that history is listed below.

Source: Section IVB of the lawsuit, pages 35-51.

The lawsuit says that “By 1981, Exxon and other fossil fuel companies were actively monitoring all aspects of CO2 and global warming research, and Exxon had recognized that a shift away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy sources would be necessary to avoid a large CO2 build-up in the atmosphere and resultant global warming.”

Exxon predicted how CO2 would increase over the coming decades in this graph from 1982. Source: Lawsuit

But after that their forthright approach changed. In the 1980’s the US Congress began to consider policy to address climate change. In 1988 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change held its first conference. The lawsuit claims that this political momentum caused the fossil fuel companies to become more circumspect about their findings and to activate an aggressive defense that involved raising doubts about the science. “The Fossil Fuel Defendants -- both on their own and jointly through industry and front groups such as API (American Petroleum Institute) and the GCC (Global Climate Coalition) -- funded, conceived, planned, and carried out a sustained and widespread campaign of denial and disinformation about the existence of climate change and their products’ contribution to it.”

This is clear in statements they issued in the 1990’s. The suit points to a published Shell report from 1994 that says “Scientific uncertainty and the evolution of energy systems indicate that policies to curb greenhouse gas emissions beyond ‘no regrets’ measures could be premature.” In 1996 the CEO of Exxon says that “taking drastic action immediately is unnecessary since many scientists agree there’s ample time to better understand the climate system.” And in 1996 the American Petroleum Institute said that “no conclusive—or even strongly suggestive—scientific evidence exists that human activities are significantly affecting sea levels, rainfall, surface temperatures or the intensity and frequency of storms.”

A consultant for Exxon during the 1980’s acknowledged this discrepancy between internal knowledge and external statements. “The advertisements that Exxon ran in major newspapers raising doubt about climate change were contradicted by the scientific work we had done and continue to do. Exxon was publicly promoting views that its own scientists knew were wrong, and we knew that because we were the major group working on this.”

The lawsuit goes on to say that: “A quantitative analysis of Exxon’s climate communications between 1989 and 2004 found that, while 83% of the company’s peer-reviewed papers and 80% of its internal documents acknowledged the reality and human origins of climate change, 81% of its advertorials communicated doubt about those conclusions.” At the same time the companies were denying the science, they were hardening their drilling platforms and pipeline infrastructure to account for more severe storms and sea level rise.

Fossil fuels are by far the largest contributor to anthropogenic emissions. Source: Global Carbon Project, as presented in the lawsuit.

In the late 1990’s and 2000’s, the communication strategy shifted again, away from outright denial and toward emphasizing doubt and uncertainties. Tactics included funding and promoting scientific outliers, hiring a tobacco lobbyist to magnify uncertainty, and generally discrediting the scientific consensus. “According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, from 1998 to 2017, Exxon spent over $36 million funding numerous organizations misrepresenting the scientific consensus that fossil fuel products were causing climate change, sea level rise, and injuries to California, among other communities.”

The campaign was effective. The lawsuit continues: “A 2007 Yale University-Gallup poll found that while 71% of Americans personally believed global warming was happening, only 48% believed that there was a consensus among the scientific community, and 40% believed, falsely, that there was substantial disagreement among scientists over whether global warming was occurring.”

The deception continues today in the form of greenwashing. “Defendants continue to deceive California consumers through misleading advertisements that portray defendants as climate-friendly energy companies and obscure their role in causing climate change.” This includes marketing fuels like Exxon Synergy and Chevron Techron as “better for the environment” and “lower carbon” when in fact they are extremely polluting.

An ad from ConocoPhilipps claims that the company is on the side of the environment. Source: ConocoPhilipps, as presented in the lawsuit.

Moreover, these companies tout their “net zero” goals and sustainability initiatives when nearly all of their investment is in fossil fuels. The lawsuit cites data showing that Chevron spent about 0.2% of its capital budget on low-carbon energy sources from 2010-2018, and BP only 2.3%. None of the companies seems to be investing more than a small fraction even today in low-emission technology, despite reaping record profits.

In the meantime, California residents are saddled with the effects of the ongoing pollution, struggling in our efforts to transition away from oil and gas, and divided in the discourse and politics of climate change in part due to the companies’ disinformation campaigns. “In 2023, only 20% of Americans understand how strong the level of consensus is among scientists that human-caused global warming is happening, and 28% think climate change is caused mostly by natural changes in the environment.”

Average annual temperatures in California. Source: Lawsuit

I am encouraged that our Attorney General is going after the fossil fuel companies. Their selfish protection of their business interests has done so much damage. I hope that a win will not only help us to fund and accelerate our transition to a low-carbon future, but that it will also encourage the defendants to radically change their behavior and approach. What do you think?

Current Climate Data
Global impacts (August 2023), US impacts (August 2023), CO2 metric, Climate dashboard

“Earth had its warmest August and June–August period on record, and its fifth consecutive month of record-high global ocean surface temperature”

Comment Guidelines
I hope that your contributions will be an important part of this blog. To keep the discussion productive, please adhere to these guidelines or your comment may be edited or removed.
- Avoid disrespectful, disparaging, snide, angry, or ad hominem comments.
- Stay fact-based and refer to reputable sources.
- Stay on topic.
- In general, maintain this as a welcoming space for all readers.
What is it worth to you?


Posted by MichaelB, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows,
on Sep 17, 2023 at 8:04 am

MichaelB is a registered user.

"In the meantime, California residents are saddled with the effects of the ongoing pollution, struggling in our efforts to transition away from oil and gas, and divided in the discourse and politics of climate change in part due to the companies' disinformation campaigns."

No disinformation campaign is needed. Wind and solar are not reliable energy sources and can't supply the requirements of the nation. We're seeing this in real time with rolling blackouts/shortages in this state during summer months - and higher energy prices compared to the national average.

The economy (and our national security) requires a low cost, abundant energy source to operate or we get inflation, a recession, or a reduced standard of living. People don't just want to stagnate or "get by". Petroleum also provides numerous consumer products that people use daily. We also live in a nation where the citizens have individual freedoms, and the government (or you) can't simply force/tell people to ride bikes, take public transit, stop eating meat, where to live, what to think, etc.

Climate change activists (wealthy coastal elites) simply do not care about the economic effects or failure of their policies. They do not want discourse, dismiss/censor other points of view as "deniers", and double down on the same policies claiming the "world will end" if we don't. They want more government control over people for their version of the "collective good" (socialism, communism) and are out of touch with how the average person lives by lecturing/scolding them to "do without, or "go buy an electric car".

The "gloom and doom" predictions from "experts" have also been made before (ice age/running out of oil in the 1970s) - and never came true. It is foolish to not use (or export) abundant domestic natural gas resources, cancel a pipeline from Alberta, and then beg Venezuela for increased oil production.

Posted by Jake Waters, a resident of Birdland,
on Sep 17, 2023 at 11:40 pm

Jake Waters is a registered user.

Climate Alarmism is very profitable. These Climate Zealots scream fear of CO2 and mystical changing weather patterns that surprisingly fall four times a year. As with the Covid, obedient followers echo the uniformed and unsubstantiated claims that they, not God, are in charge of our planet. A few degrees of tilt here, a slight change in orbit there, accompanied by some Sun storms, and bingo we have weather. Every prediction of the planet since the 1920's have failed to come true. Fossil fuels have given us a comfortable living and at one time a strong economy and secure nation. CO2 has made the world comfortable and green with the largest output of food ever. Stop with the fear mongering, you're scaring the kids. It's time to retire Al Gore.

Posted by Sherry Listgarten, a Almanac Online blogger,
on Sep 18, 2023 at 12:16 pm

Sherry Listgarten is a registered user.

Thanks for the comments. I’m not entirely sure how to summarize what you are saying. Maybe it is: “Fossil fuels have been good to us. Moving away from them is difficult and expensive. The reasons to do so are being exaggerated.” Is that about it?

If so, I would agree with the first two parts, but where I think we disagree is on the third. The consensus on climate change is overwhelming and has been proven out year after year, decade after decade. While climate alarmism could be very expensive, so is climate delay. Had we listened to what everyone (including fossil fuel companies) was saying in the 70’s, we would have had a smoother road to switching to cleaner energy. Now it is much more difficult and expensive.

Re kids, my 2c is they are much better off, as are we all, if we face our problems head on and together.

Again, thanks for the comments. There is lots we can do to address this, but it is difficult and expensive, so I am grateful that we are trying to hold fossil fuel companies responsible for their part in delaying action.

Posted by Mondoman, a resident of Green Acres,
on Sep 18, 2023 at 1:32 pm

Mondoman is a registered user.

Could you post links to the sources of the "A sampling of that history is listed below." figure? It would be nice to see e.g. if "pollution" meant noxious tailpipe emissions (as seems likely to me) versus CO2, what "significant temperature changes" were being referred to, etc.

Posted by David Coale, a resident of Barron Park,
on Sep 18, 2023 at 1:32 pm

David Coale is a registered user.

Hi Sherry,

Thanks again for your excellent and well researched post on the high cost of climate change and what California is doing about it. The question that many have is why, if we knew about this deception for so long, why hasn't this happened sooner and why did it take so long? To answer this you have to take a broader look at events.

Yes, peak oil was predicted in the ‘70's. That was the best science at the time and it was correct. Even the oil companies believed it and started to diversify into renewable energy. Shell, Arco and BP all invested in solar technologies and poured lots of money into research. Remember when BP was trying to rebrand itself as Beyond Petroleum?

So what happened? Fracking was invented and since this was what the oil and gas companies already knew how to do, it was cheaper and more profitable then researching renewable energy. So that is what they did. They already had their disinformation campaign going and were able to externalize the cost of most of the pollution and other side effects, global warming, etc. What we heard at the time was they were going to refocus on their core competencies.

They did more than just that. They learned from the tobacco companies how to run their misinformation campaigns and in fact hired some of the same people to do this. This was also very cost effective, but they did not stop there. Starting in the 1990s they dramatically increased their lobbying efforts largely aimed at the Republican party (Web Link ) to make sure they would pay minimum taxes and continue to receive subsidies from the government. This from the wealthiest companies in the world.

So while cheap energy does help the economy (externalizing all the negative effects), one has to ask at what cost? In 2023 there have been 23 weather climate disasters (Web Link ) costing over $1B in the US alone and the hurricane season is not over yet.

Posted by David Coale, a resident of Barron Park,
on Sep 18, 2023 at 1:33 pm

David Coale is a registered user.


A recent analysis by the International Monetary Fund (Web Link ) states that the fossil fuel industry is currently being subsidized at a rate of $13 million per minute! This is 7% of global GDP. It is estimated that it would take just 1% of global GDP to mitigate climate change.

If this rate were applied locally, for example, it could pay for the Bay Area Transit deficit ($2.5B (Web Link )) in 3.2 hours; BART to San Jose ($9.3B (Web Link )) could be funded in 12 hours and High Speed Rail ($128B (Web Link )) could be funded in 6.8 days.

Wind and solar are now the cheapest form of electricity generation (Web Link ). Just think of where we could be had the greedy oil companies continued their research in these areas? We would have even more clean, abundant, affordable renewable energy and we would not be having this “debate".

Yes, it is high time the oil and gas companies pay for all the damage they have caused in the world and be held accountable for it. We can't afford not to. Our future depends on it.

Posted by Sherry Listgarten, a Almanac Online blogger,
on Sep 18, 2023 at 2:24 pm

Sherry Listgarten is a registered user.

@Mondoman, sorry about that, I've added a note below that picture indicating the pages of the lawsuit. For the particular quote that you mention, the source is here, and specifically the segment of the speech shown below. The general tenor of the talk (you can read the whole thing) is that problems aren't new to the industry and they have always done best when facing them squarely. Seems kind of antiquated today.

Posted by Mondoman, a resident of Green Acres,
on Sep 18, 2023 at 4:53 pm

Mondoman is a registered user.

Thanks for the links/pointers! The actual published government report mentioned can be found scanned in on Google Books at Web Link

As I suspected, the suggestion to develop new energy sources for cars was to reduce "traditional" pollution, not CO2 emissions. See for example p27 of the report, recommendation E1, which refers to "...not produce noxious effluents" and later "...to other smog-ridden localities."

As another part of the API President's address noted, "Some writers, politicians, and even research people have found that strong words on pollution are a short way and a certain route to attention." IMHO this seems to be AG Bonta's goal here.

Posted by Sherry Listgarten, a Almanac Online blogger,
on Sep 18, 2023 at 9:01 pm

Sherry Listgarten is a registered user.

@Mondoman, thanks, that was fun to look at. I don't understand your conclusion, though. The report is super clear about the dangers of CO2, going on for pages and pages and pages. It refers to CO2 as a pollutant throughout, and says the top 3 air pollutants it worries about are SO2, CO, and CO2. It also lists CO2 first in its list of major emissions from the automobile. So why, when it refers to "noxious effluents" from automobiles, do you think that does *not* include CO2? Furthermore, the keynote speaker uses this in the sentence just following where he explicitly calls out CO2. So they appear to be linked in his mind as well.

Anyway, not to litigate this here, but read that appendix in the 1966 report, and read the lawsuit, at least pages 35-51. You will be amazed at how much we knew even back then. And the point is that the oil and gas companies also knew it. In fact, they were leading some of this research.

Posted by Jake Waters, a resident of Birdland,
on Sep 18, 2023 at 9:48 pm

Jake Waters is a registered user.

“The consensus on climate change is overwhelming and has been proven out year after year, decade after decade."
With all do respect, I expected that response. Al Gore says it all the time without any embarrassment. It fits with the left's Mantra: ‘The debate is over, the science is in, climate change is a threat.' The debate isn't over because scientists and meteorologist are not allowed to weigh in on the subject or they risk their career or funding. Let's be honest, we still are not at a point to agree or disagree without the left wanting anyone who doesn't accept climate change as a fact will be destroyed. Micheal Mann himself was shot down in court over his ‘Hocky stick' misrepresentation because he refused to show his supporting claims and data. Most people don't read and accept whatever CNN tells them. I do read and listen. And now I refused to stand by when we are treated as outcasts and climate deniers because we are informed of what is and what is not.

Posted by Mondoman, a resident of Green Acres,
on Sep 19, 2023 at 12:02 am

Mondoman is a registered user.

This is your blog, so as you suggested I won't try to litigate -- readers can decide for themselves. I'll just note that I was referring specifically to replacing internal combustion engines in cars, not concerns about CO2 in general. Regarding "noxious", the report distinguishes noxious gases from CO2, as on p12: "Some of these gases...become the noxious constituents of smog; others, like carbon dioxide, ..."

I think we forget just how obviously noxious exhausts were in the 1960s; we can sometimes see that in old movies and TV shows of the era. At the time, attention was on that, not CO2. I suspect the reason CO2 features in the report at all was because Roger Revelle was involved, and presumably brought Keeling and others on board.

Looking back 60 years from our modern perspective, it's harder to appreciate how uncertain things were.

Posted by MichaelB, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows,
on Sep 19, 2023 at 8:01 am

MichaelB is a registered user.

"Wind and solar are now the cheapest form of electricity generation (Web Link ). Just think of where we could be had the greedy oil companies continued their research in these areas? We would have even more clean, abundant, affordable renewable energy and we would not be having this “debate"."

Just think if someone added up the costs of raw materials and usage of land for all of the "free" wind and solar.

Web Link

"The idea that society could windmill and solar panel its way out of fossil fuels and into a carbon-neutral future that is both affordable and can produce sufficient energy to maintain a prosperity-generating economy is, and always has been, based on highly flawed thinking."

Posted by Sherry Listgarten, a Almanac Online blogger,
on Sep 19, 2023 at 10:20 pm

Sherry Listgarten is a registered user.

@Jake, I can hear how frustrated you are. Well, if it helps, whenever you see something incorrect in this blog, if you share a pointer to a correction, I will always read it, and maybe others will too.

@Mondoman: This blog may be mine, but the comments are for anyone who is respectful and relevant and not promoting misinformation. So please say what you want! My 2c: "Uncertain" covers a lot of territory. I mean, there is *always* uncertainty, and *especially* in leading-edge science. But leading-edge is different from established. From reading that report, I do hear uncertainty, but much of it is around when to take action (any effects are decades out) and what action to take, not whether warming is anthropogenic, whether fossil fuels combustion is behind it, or whether seas will rise. But ymmv.

@MichaelB: I'm pretty sure that Lazard (for example) includes the cost of land in its capital costs. It does not include externalities (e.g., from fossil warming, nuclear waste, visual blight, etc). But to your larger point, California is definitely not planning for all solar and wind. In fact, the more you have of a given variable resource, the less valuable it is, because it doubles down on that "shape", and that's reflected in CA policy. Geographic diversity helps (e.g., WY wind vs NM wind), and energy diversity helps (e.g., wind vs solar). But even then they are requiring some firm/baseline energy. Clean is more expensive than dirty right now (not including externalities), and the goal is to get it cheaper. I just hope we figure it out...

Posted by Eric Muller, a resident of Los Altos,
on Sep 20, 2023 at 4:15 am

Eric Muller is a registered user.

While the companies in question have actively mislead us, and should be accountable for that, I think we also have to admit that it was convenient for all/most of us to be deceived. I for one, enjoy the warmth of my house and hot showers, enjoyed having larger and larger cars, etc. And while it may have been hard to be informed fifty years ago, that excuse started to wear thin twenty years ago.

We can see the same pattern in a number of domains: tobacco, painkillers, subprime loans, etc. This starts to look like the norm rather than the exception (of course, at various degrees). The interesting question is then how to prevent those behaviors, not just punish them. Personally, I am intrigued by Doughnut Economics (Web Link

Posted by TimR, a resident of Downtown North,
on Sep 20, 2023 at 8:52 am

TimR is a registered user.

The Industrial Revolution, and the fossil fuels powering it, are the reason we can sit her today, in our leisure, reading and writing on computers. Fossil fuels enabled the world to end human slavery. They ushered in women's rights. They expanded life expectancy. They saved the whales (no more need to use blubber) Etc, etc. Look around you right now at all your creature comforts, and every single item has be touched by fossil fuel. And yes, now are faced with the environmental consequences. But to spend time and resources blaming oil companies is fruitless at best, scapegoating at worst. Fixing the problem we're all responsible for is the way forward, not blaming everyone but ourselves.

Posted by Sherry Listgarten, a Almanac Online blogger,
on Sep 20, 2023 at 10:36 am

Sherry Listgarten is a registered user.

FWIW, I would guess a good part of the argument against this will be about agency. If the fossils knew it, so did everyone else, and the politicians did ... what? The voters cared ... how? I think there's no question that responsibility for this is shared, but imo the fossils played an outsized role. The lawsuit addresses the question of agency some on page 92. And then as the lawsuit points out, the deception from fossils is ongoing, which is problematic. @Eric, I really like your point that we should rethink the social and political structures that get us to this sort of situation again and again and again.

Posted by BobB, a resident of Vintage Hills,
on Sep 20, 2023 at 11:15 am

BobB is a registered user.

I think this is not good news. I think it is bad news. It amounts to a very inefficient carbon tax. If you like this lawsuit, then why not just go straight to a carbon tax and not a lawsuit which is slow, expensive, and enriches lawyers in the process? Why not cut out the middleman?

On a side note, you included a quote the "Union of Concerned Scientists". Please note that they are a biased lobby group with a political agenda. They do not represent it any kind of scientific consensus.

Posted by Ben J., a resident of Birdland,
on Sep 20, 2023 at 8:14 pm

Ben J. is a registered user.

We are in the midst of history's greatest wealth transfer. Government subsidized support for wind systems, solar arrays, and electric vehicles overwhelmingly benefits the wealthy members of society and rich nations. The poor and middle class pay for green energy programs with higher taxes and higher electricity and energy costs. Developing nations suffer environmental damage to deliver mined materials needed for renewables in rich nations.Which is more environmentally friendly, an energy source that uses one unit of land to produce one unit of electricity, or a source that uses 100 units of land to produce one unit of electricity? The answer should be obvious. Nevertheless, green energy advocates call for a huge expansion of wind, solar, and other renewables that use vast amounts of land to replace traditional power plants that use comparatively small amounts of land


Posted by Eric Muller, a resident of Los Altos,
on Sep 21, 2023 at 9:25 am

Eric Muller is a registered user.

A number of the comments defend the fossil fuel economy, but that is not the question.

The question is the behavior of specific companies. It happens that they are in the fossil fuel business, but they could be in the cryptocurrency business, or promising revolutionary blood tests. Although not in the lawsuit, it also worth remembering that those companies managed to impose the disastrous Energy Charter Treaty on the world. Since those companies claim personhood, don't they deserve to be sent to jail?

Please discuss, on subject.

Posted by TimR, a resident of Downtown North,
on Sep 21, 2023 at 10:21 am

TimR is a registered user.

Eric, in the 1970s, the UN also got serious about "ending poverty" by helping poor countries expand their economies. And since "poverty" is just another word for low carbon footprint, did the UN know how disastrous this would be for the climate? Did they have any knowledge of the science of C02 emissions and climate change? Were the oil companies involved in this nefarious anti-poverty plan? There are so many facets and so many people involved in all this.

Posted by Sherry Listgarten, a Almanac Online blogger,
on Sep 21, 2023 at 12:20 pm

Sherry Listgarten is a registered user.

@BobH: That is a great question. Maybe because we haven't been successful in getting a carbon price? I bet if we ever did, the fossils would condition it on nullifying all pending government lawsuits... BTW, there seems to be genuine bi-partisan push behind the Prove It Act, which addresses one of the complications with carbon pricing, namely a border adjustment. Maybe it is a prelude to a real carbon price! That would be great imo.

@Eric and @Tim: I heard an interview recently with the author of The Parrot and the Igloo, a book about the history of climate denial. He does say that some of the denialists were attention-seekers, not related to fossil interests. But there was definitely fossil backing behind much of it. Sure, you can argue (and they do) "But we need fossils." But we could certainly need a lot less had we acted earlier.

@Eric, what is the "Energy Charter Treaty" and why is it disastrous?

@TimR: We should continue to fight poverty imo. There are ways to reduce poverty without unduly increasing emissions, for example by reducing emissions elsewhere and by using clean energy. But do you think there is room for everyone (up to 9B) to have a good quality of life and still be sustainable (the proverbial "doughnut")?

Posted by Eric Muller, a resident of Los Altos,
on Sep 22, 2023 at 8:35 am

Eric Muller is a registered user.

On poverty and climate:

Today, the 10% highest polluters are responsible for 50% of GHG emissions, and the 50% at the bottom are responsible for 10% of emissions. With the current UN goal to lift one billion people out of poverty (extreme poverty and half of those in poverty), the world emissions would increase by ... 2%. (Web Link The same 50/10 rule applies to the growth of emissions between 1990 and 2015. (Web Link

I don't have data since the 70s, but I doubt the pattern is much different.

On this topic, I highly recommend Esther Duflo's talk at Stanford a few months back, "Good Economics for Warmer Times" (Web Link

I have never been close to poverty myself. But given what I have read, I hope I would not say or write anything that could be (mis?)understood as blaming the poors.


Posted by Eric Muller, a resident of Los Altos,
on Sep 22, 2023 at 9:31 am

Eric Muller is a registered user.

Energy Charter Treaty:

From https://www.endfossilprotection.org

The Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) is a major obstacle to [the] transition [to clean energy]. It protects investments in energy supply, including coal mines, oil and gas extraction, pipelines, refineries and power stations. The treaty allows energy firms to challenge almost any state measure that impacts the investor's expected profit. Legal disputes of this kind are not settled by national courts but in non-transparent private arbitration hearings. Awards worth billions of euros (of taxpayers money) are being made against governments. Investors can even claim and receive compensation for expected future profits.

See also this article in The Guardian Web Link

Reminds me of what we (France and the US) did to Haiti. Web Link


Posted by Ronen, a resident of Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle,
on Sep 23, 2023 at 7:25 pm

Ronen is a registered user.

Sherry, as always your blog is informed and informative. Thank you.

However, some of the commenters appear to be (ed note: misinformed).
Climate change is the biggest single threat to civilizations yet some misinformed individuals are shouting about freedom. (Portion removed.)

You are being offered a better and cheaper solution that has the added benefits of not killing your kids, and potentially saving you from pollution caused diseases.

(Portion removed.)

Posted by Sherry Listgarten, a Almanac Online blogger,
on Sep 23, 2023 at 9:00 pm

Sherry Listgarten is a registered user.

@Eric, thanks, that's a helpful article. I love this phrase: "as the drumbeat of EU countries leaving threatens to turn into a samba march." It sounds like the latest proposal (07/23) is for the entire EU to withdraw.

Follow this blogger.
Sign up to be notified of new posts by this blogger.



Post a comment

In order to encourage respectful and thoughtful discussion, commenting on stories is available to those who are registered users. If you are already a registered user and the commenting form is not below, you need to log in. If you are not registered, you can do so here.

Please make sure your comments are truthful, on-topic and do not disrespect another poster. Don't be snarky or belittling. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

See our announcement about requiring registration for commenting.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from Almanac Online sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

Holiday Fun in San Francisco- Take the Walking Tour for An Evening of Sparkle!
By Laura Stec | 8 comments | 2,535 views

Pacifica’s first brewery closes its doors
By The Peninsula Foodist | 0 comments | 2,291 views

Premiere! “I Do I Don’t: How to build a better marriage” – Here, a page/weekday
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,692 views


Support local families in need

Your contribution to the Holiday Fund will go directly to nonprofits supporting local families and children in need. Last year, Almanac readers and foundations contributed over $300,000.