Latest Blog Post from Bill McKibben - No Minds Changing Here

Thanks for flagging, @Paul Kane. That's pretty disappointing. To be honest I find McKibben's discussion here of the Energy Permitting Reform Act and associated emissions analyses quite muddled and unclear. Here's the full excerpt:

The numbers on whether this trade “makes sense” are complicated and contentious. Here’s a report from Third Way arguing yes, here’s a set of charts from the veteran energy analyst Jeremy Symons arguing that it will dramatically raise gas prices for those American consumers still tied to propane. New peer-reviewed numbers from the gold-standard methane scientist Bob Howarth at Cornell make it clear that these LNG exports are worse than coal; that prompted 125 climate scientists to write to the administration asking them to “follow the science.”

In the end, this decision will likely come down to politics. It’s not just Big Oil that’s willing to make such a trade—New Mexico’s Martin Heinrich, in line to be Democratic leader on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee when Manchin yachts back to West Virginia, has come out for the trade, assuredly because New Mexico gets a large share of its government revenues from taxing the natural gas under its part of the Permian basin. Northeastern Democrats will vote against, fearing not just climate destruction but the rise in gas prices as we send the commodity abroad. Meanwhile, the good people of the Gulf suffer from the grievous local environmental impacts of these giant plants, and the amount of methane in the atmosphere keeps rocketing up.

If Trump wins, there’s no need for a deal—the LNG projects will be approved, and permitting reform for renewables will be dead. If Harris wins and the Dems hold the Senate, at least there’s a chance that environmentalists can make it easier to build solar and wind without yielding on the massive carbon bomb and EJ disaster that is LNG export.

So, McKibben points to the expert energy modeling analysis finding that the Energy Permitting Reform Act will significantly reduce climate pollution. But then most of the rest of this comments only consider the LNG export provisions, disregarding the benefits from the transmission and other clean energy provisions. That's weird.

As for Howarth's analysis, we discussed it and persuasive arguments about its flaws over on the Nerd Corner. I think Jesse Jenkins made perfectly reasonable assumptions in his analysis of the bill's LNG provisions, finding that they will have a very minimal net impact on the climate.

I also don't like McKibben's shot at Senator Heinrich, suggesting he only likes the bill because New Mexico is in the Permian Basin. Senator Heinrich is a climate champion, and a number of his cohorts have also come out in support of the bill (remember the 15–4 bipartisan committee vote, for example, including my California Senator Alex Padilla who is no friend to fossil fuels).

And I also disagree with McKibben's final political thoughts in the above excerpt. Regardless of who wins the presidential election, there's still a good chance that the Energy Permitting Reform Act will pass in the lame duck session, although the overall election results will certainly be a factor in that outcome. And for Democrats to get a better permitting reform deal in 2025 would require the extremely unlikely outcome involving a sweep of the House, Senate, White House, and an elimination of the filibuster.

Anyway, I deeply respect Bill McKibben and he's absolutely a great ally, but I disagree with his thoughts on this topic. And it's important to remember that it's okay to disagree with our allies sometimes.

@Dana Nuccitelli I can't help but think that personal values and anti-fossil fuels tribalism is playing a big role in Bill McKibben's position on the permitting bill. We are all human after all.

@Dana Nuccitelli

If you read the full McKibben post from the link provided by @Paul Kane , he introduces a paradox citing IEA's report stating the need to build lots of infrastructure to meet clean energy targets…..

+The world could triple its renewable energy capacity by decade’s end, getting back somewhere near the path scientists have said we must get on to avoid the very worst. But as the new report from the International Energy Agency concluded,

It’s still a tough climb ahead with a hell of a lot new infrastructure needed. But falling costs and supportive policies can help them get there.

“To ensure the world doesn’t miss this huge opportunity, the focus must shift rapidly to implementation,” IEA executive director Fatih Birol said

Countries are going to need a lot more renewable energy to succeed. And they’re going to have to make major investments in infrastructure, the report says. Around 25 million kilometers (15.534 million miles) of electricity grids need to be built or updated by 2030. A decade later, by 2040, the equivalent of all of the world’s existing power grids would need to be refurbished or built new to support Paris climate goals, the IEA has previously estimated.

I too respect Bill McKibben enormously, but respectfully disagree with his position on the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024. @Thomas Rausch may have it right….despite McKibbens statement publicly that environmentalists need to become builders, not blockers (because we're in a real crisis), he can't seem to see the need to compromise…..or to work to influence the final bill as it moves through the legislative process.

@Dana Nuccitelli
f Trump wins, there’s no need for a deal—the LNG projects will be approved, and permitting reform for renewables will be dead. If Harris wins and the Dems hold the Senate, at least there’s a chance that environmentalists can make it easier to build solar and wind without yielding on the massive carbon bomb and EJ disaster that is LNG export.

Why is there no need for a deal if Trump wins, if Trump wins, then that takes away the down side of this deal, if Harris wins, then it may be less clear, when they start debating the bill, they will know who the next president and Congress is. I suppose that is why there is no action any issue now.

@Dana Nuccitelli
McKibben, Sierra ect are partisan. We are not. So there kinda has to be an inherent disagreement between us, at least on politics. Maybe we agree on science. Also please be aware that environmentalists have fighting permit reform for decades. I was against permit reform until I came here and saw the light.

@Rob Johnson
Thank you for pointing out the partisan and policy difference between CCL and the vast majority of environmental / climate NGOs.

We are unique! CCL:

• Is truly grassroots. A hundred or so wealthy donors control the overwhelming majority of climate NGOs.
• We advocate for CF&D, not grotesquely inefficient subsidies, regulation, mandates, and other command and control schemes.
• We influence by educating legislators in the framework of personal relationships, not with litigious threats.
• We support a a diverse mix of technologies and don’t pick winners and losers.
• Our support of the market over government mandates and our acceptance of the continued use of fossil fuels as the energy system transitions allows us to work with both political parties.

I respect Bill McKibbons’ long service to the cause of reducing CO2 emissions.

However, I fail to see how the JustStopOil-related movements‘ plans to cripple Western oil companies, which provide only 10-15% of world petroleum, is a winning strategy for the climate or the people of Europe, North America, and the Global South.

@Robert Blackburn
Environmental activism has been about taking something away from someone. So McKibbens stance should not be surprising. CCL is unprecentended in that we don't take away anything. We don't even take away CO2 ! CCL is all adding stuff. That is not what McKibben/Sierra are about.