This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/27/opinion/environment/how-long-can-americas-climate-hypocrisy-last.html

The article has changed 8 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 5 Version 6
How Long Can America’s Climate Hypocrisy Last? How Long Can America’s Climate Hypocrisy Last?
(about 3 hours later)
On the same day this month that the head of the International Energy Agency confidently declared that fossil fuel demand would peak this decade, the climate advocacy group Oil Change International found that the United States would be responsible for over one-third of all planned fossil fuel expansion through 2050. The following week, as President Biden emphatically called climate change an “existential threat” and announced the creation of a climate conservation corps, the United States broke a record for oil production.On the same day this month that the head of the International Energy Agency confidently declared that fossil fuel demand would peak this decade, the climate advocacy group Oil Change International found that the United States would be responsible for over one-third of all planned fossil fuel expansion through 2050. The following week, as President Biden emphatically called climate change an “existential threat” and announced the creation of a climate conservation corps, the United States broke a record for oil production.
It’s nothing new for climate ambition and climate hypocrisy to flicker back and forth like the two faces of a lenticular hologram. When the United States helped forge the Paris agreement in 2015, it still forbade the export of crude oil and was shipping a pretty trivial amount of natural gas overseas. But that legal ban was lifted the same month the climate agreement was reached, and today the United States — already the biggest producer of oil in the world and its biggest consumer — is also the world’s second-largest interregional exporter of crude. In 2015, the United States was shipping out just 1 percent as much liquefied natural gas as Qatar, the world’s biggest exporter; today, it is the world’s largest exporter, as well as the largest consumer and largest producer.It’s nothing new for climate ambition and climate hypocrisy to flicker back and forth like the two faces of a lenticular hologram. When the United States helped forge the Paris agreement in 2015, it still forbade the export of crude oil and was shipping a pretty trivial amount of natural gas overseas. But that legal ban was lifted the same month the climate agreement was reached, and today the United States — already the biggest producer of oil in the world and its biggest consumer — is also the world’s second-largest interregional exporter of crude. In 2015, the United States was shipping out just 1 percent as much liquefied natural gas as Qatar, the world’s biggest exporter; today, it is the world’s largest exporter, as well as the largest consumer and largest producer.
On the diplomatic stage, the United States likes to admonish nations it describes as petrostates. But we’ve been pumping more petro almost every year in the age of climate alarm. And often bragging about it, as when the Biden administration touted its draining of the strategic petroleum reserve, or when President Barack Obama, two years out of office, proudly took credit for the American fossil fuel production boom. “That was me, people,” he told an audience in Texas. “Have you checked where your stocks were when I came into office and where they are now?” he asked. “What are you complaining about? Just say ‘thank you,’ please.”On the diplomatic stage, the United States likes to admonish nations it describes as petrostates. But we’ve been pumping more petro almost every year in the age of climate alarm. And often bragging about it, as when the Biden administration touted its draining of the strategic petroleum reserve, or when President Barack Obama, two years out of office, proudly took credit for the American fossil fuel production boom. “That was me, people,” he told an audience in Texas. “Have you checked where your stocks were when I came into office and where they are now?” he asked. “What are you complaining about? Just say ‘thank you,’ please.”
Obama called the basic rule of his energy policy “all of the above,” and having it both ways has been the basic preference of the Democratic Party, and indeed the country, ever since. The country’s move away from coal has helped lower its emissions by nearly 20 percent since 2005, a more impressive decline than most Americans realize and many climate advocates acknowledge. But if the two poles of climate policy are “keep it in the ground” and “drill, baby, drill,” it’s not clear which pole the United States has been closer to.Obama called the basic rule of his energy policy “all of the above,” and having it both ways has been the basic preference of the Democratic Party, and indeed the country, ever since. The country’s move away from coal has helped lower its emissions by nearly 20 percent since 2005, a more impressive decline than most Americans realize and many climate advocates acknowledge. But if the two poles of climate policy are “keep it in the ground” and “drill, baby, drill,” it’s not clear which pole the United States has been closer to.
The Inflation Reduction Act was by far the largest investment the country has ever made in renewables, one which has already kicked off a genuine green manufacturing boom and accelerated the country’s energy transformation. But even optimistic projections of its impact show barely any decline in American production of fossil fuels over the next decade.
Many analysts believe renewable technologies are poised to really take off and finally replace some fossil energy rather than simply adding more total capacity, not just in the United States but throughout the world. Europe is a bit farther ahead, despite spending nearly a trillion dollars in fossil fuel subsidies in the aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. But we’ve known for years that just rolling out renewables wouldn’t be enough, that some existing fossil fuel assets would have to be “stranded” to meet the world’s ambitious goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, and that additional fossil exploration or buildout threatens to push us past its riskier two-degree target, as well. There may be reason to think that U.S. natural gas could help some coal-heavy countries in the short term, and some European officials have come to believe the continent will need our L.N.G. for decades. But at some point, you have to find a way to leave those fossils in the ground.