The oil and gas industry waged a decades-long war against America’s transition to a carbon-free energy system despite its benefits for public health, the economy and climate stability. The industry won battle after battle until 2021 and 2022, when Congress passed two bills that offer hundreds of billions of dollars in incentives for America to invest in zero-carbon energy.
But the industry hasn’t lost the war yet, and it hasn’t stopped fighting. It has turned its heavy artillery toward states and communities, which will decide whether to take advantage of the new incentives. Unsurprisingly, oil and gas companies are not playing nice. They are pushing back against communities that want to reduce their use of fossil fuels.
The stakes could hardly be higher. The industry’s profits have averaged $2.8 billion daily over the last several decades. The value of the world’s underground reserves fluctuates with market prices, but it is said to be as high as $100 trillion. Scientists warned several years ago that most of these assets must remain underground to prevent catastrophic changes in the Earth’s climate. That would strand new pipeline and infrastructure investments and deprive investors of profits.
The industry spends heavily to prolong its future. The oil and gas sector spent nearly $30 million on congressional campaigns before America’s midterm elections last year, with Republicans receiving six times more than Democrats. The industry spent over $124 million and employed 739 lobbyists to influence energy legislation.
In addition, research by Robert Brulle of Brown University and Christine Downie of the Australian National University found that trade associations spent $2 billion on “political activities” from 2008 to 2018 to oppose climate action. Nearly 90 trade associations in the oil and gas sector spent most of it, $1.3 billion, during that period.
Brulle and Downie also found that trade associations involved in climate-change issues spent $2.2 billion on advertising. Another study found 87 groups connected with fossil fuels spent as much as $4 million on more than 3,700 Facebook ads in the weeks before the United Nation’s international climate conference COP27 last November. One result was the conference’s failure to set a date for the world to phase out fossil fuels.
As Congress dilly-dallied for a generation, states assumed leadership on mitigating climate change, partly by requiring electric utilities to generate some of their electricity with carbon-free resources like sunlight and wind. But now, localities are up against the industry’s disinformation campaigns.
For example, High Country News tells how city officials in Gunnison, Colo., approved a plan to cut greenhouse gas pollution in half by 2030. They wanted to electrify new residential and commercial buildings and half of the remodeled buildings by 2030. But the local gas company intervened, warning customers that the new policies would increase home prices and raise energy costs by $1,200 annually.
Closer inspection found the company’s statements were based on “faulty assumptions.” For example, energy efficiency saves money. And the dominance of natural gas is fading in the U.S. because solar and wind power are cheaper — 33 percent less expensive in the case of utility-scale solar and 44 percent less for energy from onshore wind farms.
Nevertheless, the gas company’s disinformation resulted in Gunnison’s leaders tabling their energy-efficient building policies for three years.
In Arizona, a 2020 law reportedly prohibits localities from banning natural gas and blocks them from making buildings more energy efficient. Elsewhere in Colorado, a group called Coloradans for Energy Access opposes “forced electrification” policies.In Ohio, Republican Gov. Mike DeWine signed legislation that defines natural gas as “green energy,” even though it clearly is not. And as news media reported recently, individuals and groups are discouraging rural communities from allowing the development of utility-scale wind and solar farms.
Yet, wind and solar farms create economic windfalls for rural governments and landowners. The Inflation Reduction Act President Biden signed into law last year earmarks $315 million for rural and tribal communities to increase home energy efficiency, modernize electric grids, and it invests in renewable energy technologies.
So, state legislatures and local officials have a decision to make: decarbonize or keep using fossil fuels. Objective assessments show natural gas is not the best bet. It’s mainly methane, a potent greenhouse gas responsible for about one-third of global temperature increases since the industrial revolution. There are 2.4 million miles of gas pipelines in the U.S., more than half built before 1960. The industry is under growing pressure to stop its aging infrastructure from leaking methane, but it would cost about $270 billion to replace old cast iron and bare steel pipes in the system.
However, investments like these are very risky. They may be stranded as the United States shifts to cleaner and less expensive renewable resources. On the other hand, the pressure to continue using new pipelines for another 50 years would delay progress on America’s goal to achieve a net-zero carbon economy by mid-century.
If the stakes are high for the industry, they are even higher for Americans and people worldwide. We must measure the cost of unmitigated climate change in lives, property and economic disruptions as well as dollars. But Deloitte estimates insufficient action against climate change could cost the U.S. economy $14.5 trillion and 900,000 jobs over the next 50 years, while costing the global economy $178 trillion. On the other hand, the United States would gain $3 trillion in GDP and add nearly 1 million jobs by rapidly decarbonizing. The world would gain $43 trillion in additional GDP if countries “unite in a rapid, systemic net-zero transition.”
At every level of government, American citizens and their elected leaders must decide what makes more sense: investing in a future of escalating climate disasters and environmental degradation from gas extraction or a future of clean and renewable energy. If it’s the latter, communities should arm their people with good information because they aren’t likely to get it from their local gas company.
William S. Becker is a former U.S. Department of Energy central regional director who administered energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies programs, and he also served as special assistant to the department’s assistant secretary of energy efficiency and renewable energy. Becker is also executive director of the Presidential Climate Action Project, a nonpartisan initiative founded in 2007 that works with national thought leaders to develop recommendations for the White House as well as House and Senate committees on climate and energy policies. The project is not affiliated with the White House.