Message From the Editor

Wind, solar, and batteries are already the cheapest source of electricity and an aggressive shift to clean energy makes more economic sense than a slow one, according to a new study. However, an enormous lobbying effort is underway to block climate policy in the $3.5 trillion budget bill under consideration. Nick Cunningham reports.

Meanwhile, reporting by DeSmog and Sentient Media reveals that a major animal pharmaceutical representative body has been forced to remove an official UN logo from a briefing it produced as a lobbying tool ahead of a UN food summit. The briefing’s climate claims run counter to calls from scientists to reduce animal protein consumption to help tackle the climate crisis. Sophie Kevany has the story.

And in his latest hydrogen analysis, Justin Mikulka debunks the idea that green hydrogen, made from water using renewable energy, is more costly than blue hydrogen made from natural gas. As a new study shows, green hydrogen is expected to be comparable in cost and likely cheaper than blue hydrogen by 2030. This is much sooner than what the blue hydrogen industry is estimating — essentially eliminating the only viable argument to invest in blue hydrogen. Read more here.

Have a story tip or feedback? Get in touch: editor@desmogblog.com.

Thanks,
Brendan DeMelle
Executive Director

P.S. Readers like you make it possible for DeSmog to hold accountable powerful people in industry and government. Even a $10 or $20 donation helps support DeSmog’s investigative journalism.

Rapid Shift to Clean Energy Could Save ‘Trillions.’ But Corporate-Backed Groups Are Fighting the Transition in US Budget Bill

— By Nick Cunningham (9 min. read) —

A slow transition away from fossil fuels would be “more expensive” than a rapid shift to renewable energy, according to a new study, a conclusion that stands in sharp contrast to fossil fuel industry talking points aimed at heading off aggressive climate policy currently being shaped in Congress.

An accelerated clean energy transition would lead to “net savings of many trillions of dollars,” a calculation that does not even take into account the damages from unchecked climate chaos, the recently released study from Oxford University found. On economics alone, the logic of a rapid shift to renewable energy is obvious and necessary.

Major Animal Pharma Industry Group Forced to Remove UN Logo from ‘Misleading’ Briefing on Livestock Climate Impact

— By Sophie Kevany, in a joint investigation by DeSmog and Sentient Media (8 min. read) —

An animal pharmaceutical representative body appears to have made a failed attempt to influence the United Nations by using what experts are calling distorted climate information to protect the livestock industry against calls to reduce food animal numbers and eat less animal protein.

As reporting by DeSmog and Sentient Media reveals, the group has been forced to remove an official UN logo from a briefing it produced as a lobbying tool ahead of a key UN food summit later this week. The briefing’s claims run counter to calls from scientists to reduce animal protein consumption to help tackle the climate crisis.

Major Animal Pharma Industry Group Forced to Remove UN Logo from ‘Misleading’ Briefing on Livestock Climate Impact

— By Justin Mikulka (7 min. read) —

New research predicts that green hydrogen — a clean fuel produced from water using renewables — will be comparable in cost and likely cheaper than blue hydrogen by 2030. This is much sooner than what the blue hydrogen industry is estimating when advocating for the natural gas-based fuel to be widely adopted — essentially eliminating the only viable argument to invest in blue hydrogen.

“The True Cost of Solar Hydrogen,” the report from a European research team led by the European Technology and Innovation Platform for Photovoltaics, was published September 7 in the journal Solar RRL and concludes that “during this decade, solar hydrogen will be globally a less expensive fuel compared with hydrogen produced from natural gas with CCS [blue hydrogen].” (CCS is carbon capture and storage.)

Critics Question the Climate Crisis Benefits of Deep Seabed Mining

— By Ian Urbina (8 min. read) —

Few people have ever heard of the tiny country of Nauru. Even fewer ever think about what happens at the bottom of the world’s oceans. But that may soon change. The seafloor is thought to hold trillions of dollars’ worth of metals, and this Pacific island nation is making bold moves to get a jump on the global competition to plumb these depths.

While commercial mining of the deep seafloor is not yet happening, momentum is building and the world is now seriously entertaining the possibility. The targets of these companies are potato-sized rocks that scientists call polymetallic nodules. Sitting on the ocean floor, these prized clusters can take more than three million years to form. They are valuable because they are rich in manganese, copper, nickel, and cobalt that are claimed to be essential for electrifying transport and decarbonizing the economy amid the green technological revolution that has emerged to counter the climate crisis.

Cook Islands UN Negotiator Paid $700k by Shipping Industry Lobby Group

— By Rich Collett-White (7 min. read) —

A negotiator representing the Cook Islands at the UN who has been criticised for blocking efforts to tackle global shipping emissions has been paid at least $700,000 since 2010 by a US-registered industry lobby group he helps run.

Campaigners said the revelation was a “slap in the face” for those suffering the effects of climate change in the South Pacific, where the archipelago is located.

How Climate-Conscious is Boris Johnson’s New Cabinet?

— By Adam Barnett and Phoebe Cooke (9 min. read) —

Boris Johnson’s reshuffle has dominated the news this week – but what does it mean for government policy on climate change?

As might be expected, several cabinet ministers were involved in campaigning for Brexit, whose crossover with climate science denial and environmental deregulation DeSmog has reported on extensively.

From the Climate Disinformation Database: The Institute for Energy Research

The Institute for Energy Research is a not-for-profit organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that “conducts intensive research and analysis on the functions, operations, and government regulation of global energy markets,” according to its website. Charles Koch was directly involved with the IER at its formation through the IER‘s predecessor organization, The Institute for Humane Studies of Texas. The IER became known for its role in advocating against tax subsidies on renewable energy, as well as the EPA’s proposed limits on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. It has been criticized for its acceptance of funding from Koch family foundations, and the group’s president, Thomas Pyle, is a former lobbyist for Koch Industries.

Read the full profile and browse other individuals and organizations in our Climate Disinformation Database and Koch Network Database.