Oil companies line up for billions of dollars in subsidies under US climate law Inflation Reduction Actâs tax credits include technologies favoured by fossil fuel sector
An oil industry that opposed President Joe Bidenâs signature climate law is now manoeuvring to claim billions of dollars of US tax credits established by the legislation.
The Inflation Reduction Act, passed in 2022, aims to slash greenhouse gas emissions by supercharging clean energy industries. Its $369bn in climate provisions has sparked new investments in renewable power generation and in manufacturing everything from electric vehicle batteries to solar panels.
But the law also includes generous incentives for a set of lower-carbon technologies and fuels where oil and gas executives argue they hold a big advantage. Oil companies are starting to plough cash into projects to capture and lock away carbon dioxide, to retool refineries for making biofuels, and produce low-emission hydrogen, all supported by the IRAâs green subsidies.
âThereâs a lot of activity in this space, a lot of interest, particularly with the IRA,â ExxonMobil chief executive Darren Woods told investors last month.
âI think weâre very well positioned there,â he said. âThis is not a game for start-ups. These are large, world-scale projects that require the kind of project expertise that we have, require the kind of size and balance sheet capacity that we have.â
Energy trade associations including the powerful American Petroleum Institute opposed the IRA before Biden signed it into law in August, calling its tax increases and new government spending âthe wrong policies at the wrong timeâ.
Now oil companies are moving into position to take advantage of the IRA. They include shale producer Continental Resources, Gulf of Mexico-focused oil company Talos Energy and Phillips 66, an oil refiner. Exxon in December increased planned low-carbon spending by 15 per cent and outlined plans to invest $17bn on its low-carbon business through to the end of 2027, about 10 per cent of overall spending.
Well, I've seen no citation where either of them actually said that in those exact words. Cows produce methane which is non-toxic to humans, carbon dioxide is toxic - so the "garage' experiment is not a valid test. Pollution and poisonous fumes are not the same things. Closer to what they (and others) have said is that methane released worldwide by cows is estimated to be comparable to the amount of pollution released by cars and trucks, and that methane is more potent when it comes to warming the planet.
True, true, true. But it is funny (thanks kurtster!). And it does hint at something that climate change/disruption activists have missed.
Climate emissions and health emissions are highly correlated.
Reduce climate change emissions and one will end up with a healthier population. A healthier population that is in a far better position to cope with deadly threats such as the SARS2 pandemic.
ââââââââââââââ-
In passing, harsh restrictions on natural gas flaring would have likely slowed the pace of the once frenetic shale oil boom and created more social wealth for the USA instead of destroying social wealth. Unfortunately, such regulations would interfere with the 'get rich quick 'n easy' and closely related 'freedom' narratives.
wrong assumption, as usual. I was at work when I posted stuff earlier today.
Contrary to accusations made by haresfur, I do not work under the influence of anything.
Dealing with crazy people (present company excepted) is best done sober and as lucidly as possible.
Without getting into an argument about potential longer-term residual effects of marijuana, I believe my point is that that I'm glad I no longer see the urologist who was busted for reckless driving under the influence of drugs with children in the back seat, whether or not he was high when he was blasting a green laser at my insides like a Jedi.
