Scientists overwhelmingly agree that heat-trapping gases, such as those released from burning coal, oil and natural gas, are raising global temperatures, causing sea level rise, extreme weather and species extinction. But Rep. John Curtis, R-Utah, said it would be wrong to demonize fossil fuels. “I think we have to decide as a world: We hate greenhouse gas emissions or we hate fossil fuels,” said Curtis, who is known for founding the Conservative Climate Conference. “It’s not the same thing.” Like Curtis, Rep. Garret Graves, R-La., has suggested that fossil fuels could be a form of clean energy, if only the carbon released from their extraction and burning could be safely captured and stored. “One of the things we need to do is not attack oil and gas, it’s attack the emissions associated with it, to the point where it might be indistinguishable from other renewable energy technologies,” he told an audience at the stand. of the US at the climate talks in Sharm El Sheikh. That, Graves argued, would make fossil fuels “an arrow in the quiver as we try to address our goals of energy affordability, reliability, cleanliness, exportability and supply chain security.” The views of House Republicans are likely to matter more given the expected swing of the House to Republican control. The comments echo industry efforts in recent years to separate carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in public perception. Andrea Dutton, professor of geosciences and MacArthur Fellow at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said that’s not possible. “Burning fossil fuels releases greenhouse gases that cause temperatures to rise rapidly, and this is the most important factor in the global warming we are experiencing,” he said in an email. “This is not a matter of belief but rather a matter of scientific evidence.” While the fossil fuel industry has made some progress in reducing emissions per unit of fuel burned—largely due to government regulations and pressure from those concerned about climate change—neither coal, oil, nor natural gas is nearly a clean source of energy. . One solution promoted by industry is the idea of carbon sequestration, to prevent emissions from reaching the atmosphere, usually by storing the exhaust gases underground. There’s also “direct air capture,” in a nascent stage, that could remove emissions once they’re in the air. No one has demonstrated a cost-effective way to do it at scale, said Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University. “Renewables are currently the cheapest energy – even without carbon sequestration in fossil fuels – so adding carbon sequestration is never going to be the economically superior solution,” he said. Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, said replacing one fossil fuel — coal — with a slightly cleaner one — natural gas — would already result in big emissions cuts. In the United States natural gas has already displaced coal in many cases and is responsible for significant reductions of a major greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, in recent years. “Let them build the pipelines they need, let them build the export terminals they need,” Crenshaw told the audience in Egypt, adding that the result would be “the equivalent of giving every American solar panel, giving to every American a Tesla and to double our wind capacity”. Several experts contacted by The Associated Press said it was not an ideal solution. Natural gas consists mainly of methane. Satellites show the potent greenhouse gas leaking from equipment at every stage of production. “To solve the climate crisis we must stop emitting carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere,” said Jonathan T. Overpeck, dean of the University of Michigan’s School of Environment and Sustainability. “Producing and using natural gas does both, so we need to stop using natural gas as soon as possible.” Overpeck warned that all the fossil fuel infrastructure now being built, including natural gas, risks becoming a stranded asset if governments are to meet their commitments to curb climate change. “This is why we need to move beyond gas-based solutions to renewable-based solutions, plus battery storage, plus hydrogen,” he said in an email to the AP. Crenshaw, the Texas lawmaker, accused “radical environmentalists” of exaggerating the threat posed by climate change and misrepresenting the science. “Let’s not lie to our children and scare them to death, then tell them they’re going to be burned alive because of it,” he said. Donald Wembles, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Illinois, former assistant director of the White House Office of Science, Technology and Policy and former lead author on the UN’s independent climate science panel, said the claim was wrong. “No one is out there saying kids are going to burn to death,” Wuebbles wrote. “What we’re saying is that this is an extremely serious problem, perhaps the most serious problem that humanity has ever faced, and we have to deal with it.” The Republican delegation spoke shortly before US President Joe Biden delivered a speech to a packed room at the same venue, where he announced additional measures to crack down on methane emissions and promoted his administration’s recent climate law designed to strengthen the absorption of solar and electric cars on the top floor. .
