“ Anything but the truth”, by IRINA SLAV
Disinformation, propaganda, denial, and false narratives. These are the most popular names that the corporate media has used to undermine the hard facts about the energy transition.
Anything but the truth
DEC 09, 2024
∙ PAID
Disinformation, propaganda, denial, and false narratives. These are the most popular names that the corporate media has used to undermine the hard facts about the energy transition. The facts keep fighting back, however, and undermining them is becoming increasingly difficult. This, of course, has not stopped the transition trumpeteers. At this point, they would say anything but the truth because the climate narrative is on its last legs. And vultures such as myself would only be too happy to speed things along.
“Fostering investment in clean energy and transport systems is essential if the European Union is to achieve the 2030 climate goal of a 55 percent emissions reduction relative to 1990,” Belgian energy think tank Bruegel reported last week. Bruegel is a relatively reliable source of energy policy information, as in, relative to Ember and suchlike. Alas, it has started quoting said Ember in its reports, so there goes its reliability. It is, however, more honest than others about what the trumpeteer crowd calls “challenges”.
In that report, Bruegel admitted the transition in Europe will be very hard. In fact, it called reaching the necessary level of investment in the transition “exceptionally difficult” over the next five years. And then it went and ruined the good impression by citing “increasingly difficult trade-offs between decarbonisation, competitiveness and security, and the spreading false narratives on climate policy promoted by populist nationalist parties.”
The false narratives? The argument that the energy transition kills economies and energy security, “when it is exactly the opposite,” according to the good people at Bruegel. Here’s the full quote because it is precious.
“Even before the 2024 US presidential election, swings to populist nationalist parties in large countries including Germany and France suggested unease among voters about climate policy. These parties indeed often preach the false belief that decarbonisation is detrimental to competitiveness and security, when it is exactly the opposite. Green investment is fundamental for the EU to meet its pressing competitiveness and security objectives, even if complex trade-offs exist between these different societal objectives.”
Note that the “complex trade-offs” feature prominently in the report in a sign that there is a remnant of conscience left in the authors, which is commendable. These days, it’s the most we can hope for. Meanwhile, reality marches on oblivious of the obfuscation and straight-out fabrication efforts of the climate crusade camp. I mean, even Wood Mackenzie recently had to admit that oil exploration is flourishing and, horror of horrors, creating value for investors — while European governments crumble down and ArcelorMittal goes the way of Big Oil, reconsidering green investments.
“Exploring for new oil and gas fields gets a bad rap. Public opinion is negative, investors indifferent and some governments have ceased to issue new permits. As a result, the once-mighty exploration sector has shrunk to a hard core of the biggest of Big Oil.”
This is the beginning of a recent Wood Mac report on deepwater drilling. The reference to “indifferent” investors is charming but not half as charming as the admission that “New discoveries can play an important role in the future, delivering affordable energy and bolstering energy security.” Not only that, but Wood Mac’s analysts also admitted that “The energy transition is moving more slowly than is ideal, and the global economy will rely on oil and gas for decades.”
Do take a moment to compare the above to a recent FT lead about the green subsidy race: “As the global race for renewable energy accelerates, the billions of dollars of subsidies that the US, Europe and China dole out to vie for market dominance are likely to have implications for investors.”
Point to WoodMacindor, I suppose, and zero points for Huff-and-Puff, which tried to convince its readers that the EU pro-transition policies are already bearing fruit by writing that “For example, ArcelorMittal, the world’s second-largest steelmaker, has started testing a carbon capture project in Ghent, Belgium, according in a Morgan Stanley report in June.”
It is with significant —and growing — exasperation that I must report this is the same FT that wrote in late November that “ArcelorMittal said it would put on hold ambitious plans to invest in greener forms of steelmaking in Europe, blaming a lack of progress from EU policymakers to support the transition.”
It’s also closing plants, despite the EU’s green subsidy and policy push, which is obviously too embarrassing for the FT to admit, so it doesn’t admit it. But Fortune does, on the same date of that November FT report: “ArcelorMittal had indicated last week that the two sites [in France] were suffering from a “sharp drop in activity” among its industrial and automotive customers “which has accelerated in recent months”. Yes, the green subsidy race is totally working.
But let’s go back to Bruegel and its false narrative. According to its report, the EU would need to invest close to 1.4 trillion euro annually until 2030 to have a chance of hitting its emission reduction targets. After 2030, it would need to invest more than 1.5 trillion euro annually to get to net-zero as planned by 2050. Both figures represent over 7% of the EU’s collective GDP—which is plummeting thanks to transition efforts, incidentally.
Only that’s a false narrative because Bruegel says so: “The EU is endowed with abundant domestic renewable energy resources, which can be exploited in a cost-effective manner, as generating electricity with wind and solar energy is now cheaper than doing so with coal and gas (Ember, 2024).” Yes, they did quote Ember for that blatant disinformation that keeps getting refuted again and again, on a daily basis almost. Anything but the truth to keep the narrative stumbling along for a little bit longer.
The Bruegel report is a treasure trove of lies and obfuscation, which I feel tempted to eviscerate in more detail in a special post, so that’s what I’ll do at a later date. For now, let’s pop back in with Wood Mac and its almost nonchalant acknowledgment that offshore oil and gas exploration is making money — you know, despite those “indifferent” investors and the “accelerating” transition.
“Since 2015, new field discoveries have created over US$160 billion of value after all costs, based on our analysis and assuming an industry planning price of US$65/bbl Brent long term. Full-cycle returns have been consistently in double digits every year since 2015, averaging 15%.” Oh. So, the oil industry is not taking its dying breath, then. Wood Mac is extra-delicate in acknowledging this.
“Will exploration ever again be seen as useful for society?” it asks at the end of the report. The answer follows: “The ship has already sailed on wider public sentiment in many developed countries. But some consumers may eventually come to appreciate if explorers quietly succeed in delivering low-cost, low-emissions barrels to meet resilient demand in the coming years.”
“Some consumers” is an interesting way of saying “everyone but the climate billionaires” but, I suppose, there’s no accounting for taste and style of lying. Which will continue, of course, and intensify further as the truth leaks multiply and grow bigger. The problem for the liars is that you can only plug the leaks with a false narrative for so long. The laws of physics are merciless and truth has put its boots on.
