… on a quiet day, I can hear her breathing

Tag: Oil Change International

  • As Biden Adviser Speaks at COP29, Green Groups Say Act Before Trump Takeover

    Spread the love

    Original article by Jessica Corbett republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

    John Podesta, U.S. senior adviser to the president for international climate policy, speaks to the media during a United Nations climate summit on November 11, 2024 in Baku, Azerbaijan.  (Photo: Sean Gallup/Getty Images)

    “President Joe Biden must reject all pending LNG export permits and stop the expansion of fossil fuels.”

    As the U.S. senior adviser to the president for international climate policy addressed the United Nations summit in Azerbaijan on Monday, green groups urged the outgoing Democratic administration to do whatever it can to tackle the global crisis before Republicans seize control of the White House and likely both chambers of Congress.

    “I want to address tonight a topic that is on everyone’s mind—the U.S. election,” John Podesta, President Joe Biden’s adviser, told the crowd in Baku on the first day of the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP29), less than a week after President-elect Donald Trump defeated Vice President Kamala Harris.

    Although votes are still being counted, Republicans have secured a majority in the U.S. Senate and are on track to retain control of the House of Representatives—paving the way for Trump’s plans to roll back the Biden-Harris administration’s progress on the climate emergency and “drill, baby, drill,” which would lead to a surge in planet-heating pollution.

    “Podesta’s speech must be followed by swift action to limit U.S. fossil fuel expansion and achieve a strong COP29 outcome.”

    “For those of us dedicated to climate action, last week’s outcome in the United States is obviously bitterly disappointing,” Podesta acknowledged, “particularly because of the unprecedented resources and ambition President Biden and Vice President Harris brought to the climate fight.”

    Noting that Biden pledged to halve emissions this decade, rejoined the Paris agreement, signed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and promised $11 billion in international climate funds, Podesta warned that “the next administration will try to take a U-turn and reverse much of this progress.”

    “As President Biden said in the Rose Garden last week, setbacks are unavoidable, but giving up is unforgivable. This is not the end of our fight for a cleaner, safer planet. Facts are still facts. Science is still science,” he continued. “This fight is bigger than one election, one political cycle, in one country. This fight is bigger still.”

    “We can and will make real progress on the backs of our climate-committed states and cities, our innovators, our companies, and our citizens, especially young people, who understand more than most that climate change poses an existential threat that we cannot afford to ignore,” he added. “Failure or apathy is simply not an option.”

    https://twitter.com/pass_blue/status/1855977029885173929?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1855977029885173929%7Ctwgr%5E5aeb2c3e442822bdef98b9b393761ae5e7d8f1c7%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.commondreams.org%2Fnews%2Ftrump-and-climate-change

    Sorry, this content could not be embedded.
    X

    Responding to the envoy’s remarks in a Monday statement, Collin Rees, United States program manager at Oil Change International, said that “if John Podesta and President Joe Biden are committed to doing everything possible to continue climate progress despite Donald Trump’s reelection, this moment demands a bold agenda that goes beyond locking in clean energy gains and takes real action toward a just transition off fossil fuels.”

    “There is no shortage of critical work to be done before Biden leaves office,” Rees argued. “Here at COP29, the United States must support a new, transformative global finance goal in which rich countries pay their fair share in high-quality, grant-based finance and work to submit a Paris-aligned nationally determined contribution committing to do its fair share of climate action and phase out fossil fuels.”

    In the United States, Rees argued, Biden must “finalize studies on the dangerous impacts” of new liquefied natural gas exports, “reject deadly projects like the Dakota Access oil pipeline and pending LNG facilities in the Gulf South,” and urge Congress to block the latest attempt by outgoing Sen. Joe Manchin (I-W.Va.) “to destroy bedrock environmental protections.”

    Looking toward next week’s Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) meeting, Rees said that “Biden’s administration must support a global agreement to end export credit finance for oil and gas projects, a process which could end tens of billions of dollars in international finance for fossil fuels every year. This agreement would limit the global climate damages Trump and his fossil fuel cronies are able to perpetrate.”

    “Podesta’s speech must be followed by swift action to limit U.S. fossil fuel expansion and achieve a strong COP29 outcome,” he stressed. Leaders at other climate organizations—who have often argued that Biden hasn’t gone far enough to tackle the fossil fuel-driven crisis—issued similar demands on Monday.

    https://twitter.com/benjamingoloff/status/1855964481316151781?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1855964481316151781%7Ctwgr%5E5aeb2c3e442822bdef98b9b393761ae5e7d8f1c7%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.commondreams.org%2Fnews%2Ftrump-and-climate-change

    Sorry, this content could not be embedded.
    X

    Emphasizing that “climate diplomacy on a boiling planet doesn’t stop for a climate denier,” Ben Goloff, senior campaigner at the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute, called on Biden officials to “use the next two months to set up a bulwark of protections and secure their climate legacy.”

    “Beyond urgently getting IRA money out the door, John Podesta must commit the U.S.’s fair share of global climate finance and announce an ambitious NDC climate target,” Goloff said, referring to nationally determined contributions for the Paris agreement.

    Biden, he added, “has to make good on last year’s agreement to transition away from fossil fuels by rejecting pending mega-polluting project,” and “should also act quickly to fill all federal judicial vacancies as a wall of defense to Trump’s rampage of legal attacks.”

    Jamie Minden, acting executive director of the youth-led movement Zero Hour, also declared that “before Trump takes office, President Joe Biden must reject all pending LNG export permits and stop the expansion of fossil fuels.”

    “Our climate is on the brink of collapse, and it is sheer madness that politicians continue to expand and subsidize deadly fossil fuels,” Minden said. “Young people are fighting for our planet because we are facing the worst consequences of the unrelenting greed of these selfish politicians.”

    Original article by Jessica Corbett republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

    Experienced climbers scale a rock face near the historic Dumbarton castle in Glasgow, releasing a banner that reads “Climate on a Cliff Edge.” One activist, dressed as a globe, symbolically looms near the edge, while another plays the bagpipes on the shores below. | Photo courtesy of Extinction Rebellion and Mark Richards
    Experienced climbers scale a rock face near the historic Dumbarton castle in Glasgow, releasing a banner that reads “Climate on a Cliff Edge.” One activist, dressed as a globe, symbolically looms near the edge, while another plays the bagpipes on the shores below. | Photo courtesy of Extinction Rebellion and Mark Richards
    Orcas comment on killer apes destroying the planet by continuing to burn fossil fuels. Second version, corrected text.
    Orcas comment on killer apes destroying the planet by continuing to burn fossil fuels. Second version, corrected text.

  • Ending Oil Subsidies, Taxing the Rich Could Help Free Up $5 Trillion a Year for Climate: Report

    Spread the love

    Original article by Jake Johnson republished form Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

    Wildfires are seen in San Marcos Sierra, Cordoba province, Argentina, on September 23, 2024. (Photo: Stringer/AFP via Getty Images)

    “The real question isn’t whether we can afford to act, but whether we can afford not to.”

    Research published Tuesday estimates that rich countries could mobilize over $5 trillion a year for climate action worldwide by cutting off subsidies to the oil and gas industry, imposing a levy on big polluters, and cracking down on tax evasion by large corporations and the rich.

    The new report from Oil Change International (OCI) was released as world leaders gathered in New York City for high-level United Nations General Assembly talks, a meeting that comes less than two months before the COP29 climate summit in Azerbaijan.

    OCI’s research, which includes a fact sheet outlining various proposals to raise funds for climate action, stresses that “there is no shortage of public money available for rich countries to pay their fair share on fair terms for climate action at home and abroad.”

    “The urgency and extent of growing economic inequality, unfair sovereign debt crises, climate disasters, and fossil fuel profits have created significant momentum towards many of these measures in international and domestic policy spheres,” OCI’s research brief notes. “Finance has been in the spotlight in most major international political fora in the past few years in recognition that our current financial architecture is a major driver of these overlapping crises.”

    Among the proposals laid out in OCI’s brief are an equitable end to “public finance, direct subsidies, and state-owned company investments in fossil fuels,” which could raise $846 billion a year globally; a “climate damages tax” on fossil fuel extraction, which could raise $618 billion a year; a 25% minimum corporate tax rate, which could raise $479 billion annually; and a wealth tax on billionaires, which could raise roughly $2.60 trillion a year in the Global North and over $5.6 trillion worldwide.

    Laurie van der Burg, OCI’s public finance lead, said that the rich nations most responsible for the climate emergency “owe this money to Global South countries that have not caused this crisis and need fair finance to deliver strong climate plans next year that phase out fossil fuels.”

    “This is essential to avoid climate breakdown and save lives,” she added.

    The COP29 climate summit will take place a year after nations agreed at COP28 to transition “away from fossil fuels in energy systems” in a “just, orderly, and equitable manner.”

    The success of that pledge, OCI said, depends on rich nations contributing massively to global climate finance after years of falling short of their pledges and continuing to expand fossil fuel extraction and handouts. Worldwide, environmentally harmful subsidies—including fossil fuel subsidies—have surged to $2.6 trillion a year, according to a report released last week.

    “Global North countries have a responsibility to redirect their share of these subsidies in support of climate action,” OCI said Tuesday.

    The new report comes on the heels of a record-hot summer and amid devastating extreme weather, from massive flooding across Europe and Africa to wildfires in South America.

    Andreas Sieber, associate director of policy and campaigns at 350.org, said Tuesday that “the real question isn’t whether we can afford to act, but whether we can afford not to.”

    “It is a bitter irony that rich nations hide behind claims of fiscal restraint, yet trillions are still spent on fossil fuel subsidies and militarization,” said Sieber. “The truth is simple: the money exists, but the political will does not. By treating climate finance as a zero-sum game, wealthy countries not only deepen global inequality but also undermine their own futures.”

    “The energy transition isn’t charity—it’s an investment in global stability and security,” Sieber added. “Ignoring the need for support only worsens the climate crisis, which knows no borders.”

    Original article by Jake Johnson republished form Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

  • ‘Colossal Waste’: U.S. Leads Way in Public Spending on False Climate Solutions

    Spread the love

    Original article by Julia Conley republished form Common Dreams under a CC licence.

    The Petra Nova Carbon Capture Project is seen on December 20, 2016 in Houston, Texas.
     (Photo: Marie D. De Jesus/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images)

    “The fossil fuel industry delays climate action, distracts from real solutions that would end the fossil fuel era, and does everything in its power to squeeze the last drops of profit from a dying industry, at the expense of all of us.”

    Among the world’s wealthiest countries, the U.S. leads the way in spending public money on so-called climate “solutions” that have been proven to “consistently fail, overspend, or underperform,” according to an analysis released Thursday by the research and advocacy group Oil Change International.

    The group’s report, titled Funding Failure, focuses on international spending on carbon capture and fossil-based hydrogen subsidies, which continues despite ample data showing that the technological fixes have “failed to make a dent in carbon emissions” after 50 years of research and development.

    The report details how five countries account for 95% of all carbon capture spending, with the U.S. investing the most taxpayer money in the technology, at $12 billion in subsidies over the last 40 years.

    Norway comes in second with $6 billion going to carbon capture and storage, while Canada has spent $3.8 billion, the European Union has spent $3.6 billion, and the Netherlands has poured $2.6 billion into the technology, with which carbon dioxide emissions are compressed and utilized or stored underground.

    “It is nothing short of a travesty that funds meant to combat climate change are instead bolstering the very industries driving it.”

    Harjeet Singh, global engagement director for the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, told The Guardian that the subsidies amount to a “colossal waste of money.”

    “It is nothing short of a travesty that funds meant to combat climate change are instead bolstering the very industries driving it,” said Singh.

    While proponents claim carbon capture and storage reduces planet-heating carbon emissions, OCI notes, it was originally developed in the 1970s “to enhance oil production, and this remains its primary use,” with the technology “barely” reducing emissions.

    High-profile carbon capture failures in the U.S. include the Petra Nova project in Houston, Texas, which cost nearly $200 million in taxpayer funds and whose captured emissions were later used for crude oil production, and the FutureGen project, “which swallowed $200 million and never materialized.”

    “Investing in carbon capture delays the transition to renewable energy,” reads OCI’s report. “Instead of wasting time and money on technologies that do not work, governments must commit to justly and urgently phasing out fossil fuels before it’s too late.”

    Despite the lack of data supporting the use of carbon capture, the group said, countries including the U.S. are “preparing to waste hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars on these ineffective technologies, further benefiting the fossil fuel industry.”

    OCI highlighted how the U.S. and Canada, while ostensibly fighting the climate crisis, have spent a combined $4 billion in public money to explicitly “pay oil companies to produce more oil,” with the subsidies going to carbon capture for “enhanced oil recovery.”

    The report also found that in addition to the $12 billion in taxpayer funds the U.S. has spent on carbon capture and fossil hydrogen—a leak-prone gas produced through energy-intensive processes that cause their own emissions—the government has spent an estimated $1.3 billion on the 45Q tax credit, which allows companies to write off tax for every ton of carbon dioxide they store underground.

    The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) increased the amount given to companies in 45Q tax credits from $35 to $60 per ton, meaning that the subsidy could grow to over $100 billion in the next 10 years.

    OCI’s Policy Tracker shows that overall public spending on carbon capture and hydrogen could grow by between $115 billion and $240 billion in the coming decades.

    “We need real climate action, not fossil fuel bailouts!” said OCI in a post on social media.

    The group’s report also highlights that fossil fuel giants such as ExxonMobil have shifted from carbon capture skeptics to outspoken proponents of the technology—with the company bragging to investors that carbon capture and hydrogen would help its Low Carbon Business Unit make “hundreds of billions of dollars” and grow to be “larger than ExxonMobil’s base business.”

    Exxon didn’t launch its carbon capture efforts until 2018, having spent several years and hundreds of millions of dollars on another “climate solution” that ultimately failed: the use of algae to make biofuels.

    Since then, Exxon has “pushed for direct government funding for carbon capture, particularly at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE),” successfully lobbying for $12 billion allocated in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill in 2021 for “carbon management research, development, and demonstration.”

    Exxon also lobbied for the increased rate of the 45Q tax credit in the IRA and “played a ‘central role’ in drafting a 2019 DOE-sponsored report on carbon capture that determined Congress would need to create an incentive of around $90 to $110 per ton to support carbon capture deployment,” according to OCI.

    The Guardian on Thursday reported that Exxon still “chases billions in U.S. subsidies for a ‘climate solution’ that helps drill more oil,” describing how the oil giant hosted an event at the Democratic National Convention earlier this month where senior climate strategy and technology director Vijay Swarup praised the IRA for helping Exxon pursue carbon capture and said: “We need new technology and we need policy to support that technology. We need governments working with private industry.”

    Exxon’s enthusiasm for carbon capture, said OCI, is an example of how “the fossil fuel industry delays climate action, distracts from real solutions that would end the fossil fuel era, and does everything in its power to squeeze the last drops of profit from a dying industry, at the expense of all of us.”

    Original article by Julia Conley republished form Common Dreams under a CC licence.

  • ‘Big Win’: UK Won’t Defend Fossil Fuel Projects in North Sea

    Spread the love

    Original article by Jessica Corbett republished from Common Dreams under a CC licence.

    Activists hold a white sign reading “Rosebank will kill us” on September, 27, 2023 in London, United Kingdom. (Photo: Mike Kemp/In Pictures via Getty Images)

    Oceana U.K.’s leader called the decision “a massive win for campaigners and another step towards… a cleaner, greener future for our seas, planet, and climate.”

    Climate campaigners celebrated Thursday after the United Kingdom’s new Labour government announced it will not legally defend decisions to allow controversial offshore drilling in a pair of areas in the North Sea.

    The two sites are Shell’s Jackdaw gas field and the Rosebank oil field, owned by Equinor and Ithaca Energy. Both projects have been loudly criticized by international green groups as well as U.K. opponents.

    “This is amazing news and a BIG WIN for the climate. The government must now properly support affected workers and prioritize investment in green jobs,” declared Greenpeace U.K., which along with the group Uplift had demanded judicial reviews.

    The approvals for both North Sea sites occurred under Conservative rule—in 2022 for Jackdaw and last year for Rosebank, the country’s biggest untapped oil field. Voters handed control of the government back to the Labour Party in May.

    Then, as The Guardian detailed, “in June, the cases against the oil and gas fields received a boost when the Supreme Court ruled in a separate case that ‘scope 3’ emissions—that is, the burning of fossil fuels rather than just the building of the infrastructure to do so—should be taken into account when approving projects.”

    “Now we need to see a just transition plan for workers and communities across the U.K. and an end extraction in the North Sea for good!”

    The U.K. Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, led by Secretary Ed Miliband, cited the “landmark” Supreme Court ruling in a Thursday statement that highlighted the government’s decision not to defend the approvals “will save the taxpayer money” and “this litigation does not mean the licences for Jackdaw and Rosebank have been withdrawn.”

    “Oil and gas production in the North Sea will be a key component of the U.K. energy landscape for decades to come as it transitions to our clean energy future in a way that protects jobs,” the department claimed, while also pledging to “consult later this year on the implementation of its manifesto position not to issue new oil and gas licenses to explore new fields.”

    Welcoming the U.K. government’s acceptance of the recent high court ruling, Uplift founder and executive director Tessa Khan said on social media that “the immediate consequence… is that the Scottish Court of Session is very likely to quash the decision approving Rosebank, although we’re likely to have to wait a while before that’s confirmed.”

    “If Equinor and Ithaca Energy decide they still want to press ahead with developing the field,” Khan explained, “then the next step will be for them to submit a new environmental statement to the [government] and regulator… that includes the scope 3 emissions from the field.”

    “If you need reminding, those emissions are massive: the same as 56 coal-fired power plants running for a year or the annual emissions of the world’s 28 poorest countries,” she added. “If Equinor and Ithaca try to push Rosebank through again, the U.K. [government] must reject it.”

    Greenpeace similarly stressed that “Rosebank and Jackdaw would generate a vast amount of emissions while doing nothing to lower energy bills,” and “the only real winners from giving them the greenlight would be greedy oil giants Shell and Equinor.”

    “To lower bills, improve people’s health, upgrade our economy,” the group argued, the government must: increase renewable energy; better insulate homes; and boost support for green jobs.

    Celebrations over the government’s decision and calls for further action weren’t limited to the groups behind the legal challenges.

    Oceana U.K. executive director praised the “incredible work” by Greenpeace and Uplift, and called the government dropping its defense “a massive win for campaigners and another step towards… a cleaner, greener future for our seas, planet, and climate.”

    Oil Change International also applauded the government’s “incredibly important and correct decision.”

    “There is no defending more fossil fuel extraction,” the organization said. “Now we need to see a just transition plan for workers and communities across the U.K. and an end extraction in the North Sea for good!”

    Global Witness similarly celebrated the government’s move, declaring on social media that “this is brilliant news!”

    “New oilfields are an act of climate vandalism,” the group added. “Governments must prioritize people, not polluters’ profit.”

    Original article by Jessica Corbett republished from Common Dreams under a CC licence.

  • ‘Colossal Waste’: US Leads Way in Public Spending on False Climate Solutions

    Spread the love

    Original article by Julia Conley republished from Common Dreams under a CC licence.

    The Petra Nova Carbon Capture Project is seen on December 20, 2016 in Houston, Texas.  (Photo: Marie D. De Jesus/Houston Chronicle via Getty Images)

    “The fossil fuel industry delays climate action, distracts from real solutions that would end the fossil fuel era, and does everything in its power to squeeze the last drops of profit from a dying industry, at the expense of all of us.”

    Among the world’s wealthiest countries, the U.S. leads the way in spending public money on so-called climate “solutions” that have been proven to “consistently fail, overspend, or underperform,” according to an analysis released Thursday by the research and advocacy group Oil Change International.

    The group’s report, titled Funding Failure, focuses on international spending on carbon capture and fossil-based hydrogen subsidies, which continues despite ample data showing that the technological fixes have “failed to make a dent in carbon emissions” after 50 years of research and development.

    The report details how five countries account for 95% of all carbon capture spending, with the U.S. investing the most taxpayer money in the technology, at $12 billion in subsidies over the last 40 years.

    Norway comes in second with $6 billion going to carbon capture and storage, while Canada has spent $3.8 billion, the European Union has spent $3.6 billion, and the Netherlands has poured $2.6 billion into the technology, with which carbon dioxide emissions are compressed and utilized or stored underground.

    “It is nothing short of a travesty that funds meant to combat climate change are instead bolstering the very industries driving it.”

    Harjeet Singh, global engagement director for the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, told The Guardian that the subsidies amount to a “colossal waste of money.”

    “It is nothing short of a travesty that funds meant to combat climate change are instead bolstering the very industries driving it,” said Singh.

    While proponents claim carbon capture and storage reduces planet-heating carbon emissions, OCI notes, it was originally developed in the 1970s “to enhance oil production, and this remains its primary use,” with the technology “barely” reducing emissions.

    High-profile carbon capture failures in the U.S. include the Petra Nova project in Houston, Texas, which cost nearly $200 million in taxpayer funds and whose captured emissions were later used for crude oil production, and the FutureGen project, “which swallowed $200 million and never materialized.”

    “Investing in carbon capture delays the transition to renewable energy,” reads OCI’s report. “Instead of wasting time and money on technologies that do not work, governments must commit to justly and urgently phasing out fossil fuels before it’s too late.”

    Despite the lack of data supporting the use of carbon capture, the group said, countries including the U.S. are “preparing to waste hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars on these ineffective technologies, further benefiting the fossil fuel industry.”

    OCI highlighted how the U.S. and Canada, while ostensibly fighting the climate crisis, have spent a combined $4 billion in public money to explicitly “pay oil companies to produce more oil,” with the subsidies going to carbon capture for “enhanced oil recovery.”

    The report also found that in addition to the $12 billion in taxpayer funds the U.S. has spent on carbon capture and fossil hydrogen—a leak-prone gas produced through energy-intensive processes that cause their own emissions—the government has spent an estimated $1.3 billion on the 45Q tax credit, which allows companies to write off tax for every ton of carbon dioxide they store underground.

    The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) increased the amount given to companies in 45Q tax credits from $35 to $60 per ton, meaning that the subsidy could grow to over $100 billion in the next 10 years.

    OCI’s Policy Tracker shows that overall public spending on carbon capture and hydrogen could grow by between $115 billion and $240 billion in the coming decades.

    “We need real climate action, not fossil fuel bailouts!” said OCI in a post on social media.

    The group’s report also highlights that fossil fuel giants such as ExxonMobil have shifted from carbon capture skeptics to outspoken proponents of the technology—with the company bragging to investors that carbon capture and hydrogen would help its Low Carbon Business Unit make “hundreds of billions of dollars” and grow to be “larger than ExxonMobil’s base business.”

    Exxon didn’t launch its carbon capture efforts until 2018, having spent several years and hundreds of millions of dollars on another “climate solution” that ultimately failed: the use of algae to make biofuels.

    Since then, Exxon has “pushed for direct government funding for carbon capture, particularly at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE),” successfully lobbying for $12 billion allocated in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill in 2021 for “carbon management research, development, and demonstration.”

    Exxon also lobbied for the increased rate of the 45Q tax credit in the IRA and “played a ‘central role’ in drafting a 2019 DOE-sponsored report on carbon capture that determined Congress would need to create an incentive of around $90 to $110 per ton to support carbon capture deployment,” according to OCI.

    The Guardian on Thursday reported that Exxon still “chases billions in U.S. subsidies for a ‘climate solution’ that helps drill more oil,” describing how the oil giant hosted an event at the Democratic National Convention earlier this month where senior climate strategy and technology director Vijay Swarup praised the IRA for helping Exxon pursue carbon capture and said: “We need new technology and we need policy to support that technology. We need governments working with private industry.”

    Exxon’s enthusiasm for carbon capture, said OCI, is an example of how “the fossil fuel industry delays climate action, distracts from real solutions that would end the fossil fuel era, and does everything in its power to squeeze the last drops of profit from a dying industry, at the expense of all of us.”

    Original article by Julia Conley republished from Common Dreams under a CC licence.