The oil industry’s aggressive opposition to measures to counteract global warming seemed to jump the shark earlier this year. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a front-group funded by oil companies (most notably Exxon Mobil), unveiled a TV ad that hoped to convince Americans not to worry about climate change — because carbon dioxide is inherently good. It was perhaps the single most ridiculous advertisement ever made.
A great deal has changed since. Oil companies have pulled their support of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the reality-based community will have a majority in Congress, and the industry has resigned itself to a certain reality: we’re going to have to address this looming crisis, whether they like it or not.
While the political debate over global warming continues, top executives at many of the nation’s largest energy companies have accepted the scientific consensus about climate change and see federal regulation to cut greenhouse gas emissions as inevitable.
The Democratic takeover of Congress makes it more likely that the federal government will attempt to regulate emissions. The companies have been hiring new lobbyists who they hope can help fashion a national approach that would avert a patchwork of state plans now in the works. They are also working to change some company practices in anticipation of the regulation.“We have to deal with greenhouse gases,” John Hofmeister, president of Shell Oil Co., said in a recent speech at the National Press Club. “From Shell’s point of view, the debate is over. When 98 percent of scientists agree, who is Shell to say, ‘Let’s debate the science’?”
I don’t expect any energy CEOs to join the Sierra Club anytime soon, but progress is progress.
The WaPo article suggests the industry considers this a fait accompli. The climate is changing. Temperatures are rising. Policy makers will have to do something. They might as well acknowledge reality, sit down at the table, and have some role in shaping the inevitable changes. The alternative is letting solutions unfold without their input — which they accurately believe would be far more painful for their companies.
John Stowell, Duke Energy’s vice president for environmental policy, said, “Our viewpoint is that it’s going to happen. There’s scientific evidence of climate change. We’d like to know what legislation will be put together so that, when we figure out how to increase our load, we know exactly what to expect.”
As it turns out, state and regional policy proposals seem to have spurred the industry into action.
One reason companies are turning to Congress is to avert the multiplicity of regulations being drafted by various state governments. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a group of seven Northeastern states, is moving ahead with a proposed system that would set a ceiling on greenhouse gas emissions, issue allowances to companies, and allow firms to trade those allowances to comply with regulations.
California is drawing up its program. Other states are also contemplating limits. Even the city of Boulder, Colo., has adopted its own plan — a carbon tax based on electricity use.
“We cannot deal with 50 different policies,” said Shell’s Hofmeister. “We need a national approach to greenhouse gases.”
For what it’s worth, the Supreme Court will hear arguments this week in case involving whether the Clean Air Act covers carbon dioxide emissions. It’s not entirely a make-or-break case — Congress can add additional protections to the Clean Air Act if necessary — but the ruling, which will probably come in the spring, will be interesting nevertheless.
Stay tuned.