Despite Media Mewling, Energy Giants Smartly Shift From Renewables To Lucrative Oil And Gas
Oil and gas companies are wise to reject net zero and money-losing renewables.
LINNEA LUEKEN
Rigzone and The Telegraph, among other outlets, are reporting that many major energy companies are tempering net-zero pledges they made in recent years, turning away from renewables and back towards oil and gas. [emphasis, links added]
This move makes sense, as subsidies that wind and solar depend on may dry up, and traditional sources outcompete them.
The Rigzone post, “Leading Energy Companies Holding Back Renewables Commitments, BMI Says,” reports that the Fitch Group, a financial information company, [found] companies like BP, Shell, and others are “holding back renewables commitments to secure higher short-term returns.” [emphasis, links added]
Most notably, Fitch told the outlet that Equinor “halved its low carbon investment from $10 billion to $5 billion,” BP “abandoned its 2030 oil output reduction target and is divesting its U.S. onshore wind business,” and even Shell “weakened its carbon reduction targets and is investing in Bonga North deepwater oil and gas project in Nigeria.”
The reason? Rigzone reports that the high costs for renewables projects, supply chain disruptions, and the need for energy security all factored in, according to the Fitch analysts.
Reporting from the Telegraph in “We were wrong on net zero, BP boss admits,” suggests that pressure from hedge fund Elliott Management incentivized BP to abandon its focus on net zero, because “the company’s shares are underperforming partly because it has wasted too much money on renewables.”
All of this is unsurprising, especially given that many subsidies for wind and solar may soon dry up with the new Trump administration, these companies may be seeing the writing on the wall.
Wind companies in particular have struggled even with large government subsidies backing renewable investment.
For example, Dominion Energy’s Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project cost $2 billion more than promised when the development was first proposed in 2021, and today, with only half the project completed, has again re-evaluated the costs up to another billion dollars.
These costs are being passed on to consumers.
Approximately 46 percent of all federal government subsidies went to wind and solar between 2016 and 2022. President Trump has already paused offshore wind lease sales and paused approvals for onshore wind.
Likewise, the new EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin is working to “claw back” billions from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which threw money at various renewables projects and green organizations.
Oil companies certainly received money from these subsidies and funds for their renewables projects and pledges, and if that cash flow ends, it would be difficult for them to maintain the grift.
Both Rigzone and The Telegraph imply that these divestments from renewables are a bad thing, however, The Telegraph notes the forced “rapid energy transition” has been causing far more harm than benefits and threatens energy security and reliability.
As Climate Realism has covered, for foreign countries, the United States, and individual states, energy security is at risk when the so-called “energy transition” is pursued.
The premature closure of reliable energy sources like coal, nuclear, and natural gas has had grid operators and even individuals from federal commissions sounding the alarm; renewables just cannot fill the gap.
Add to that the fact that there is no transition occurring at a global scale: electricity production data show that while wind, biofuels, and solar are being added to the overall mix, traditional sources of energy are still growing as energy consumption in general increases. (See figure below)
Despite Rigzone’s and The Telegraph’s apparent dismay that major oil companies are backtracking on their net-zero goals and investments in renewables, for consumers and energy security, the move is a boon.
Reliable, affordable energy benefits people and nations.
While reports of these companies’ actions are upsetting climate activists, hopefully, it will signal to other firms and industries that it is safe to divest from climate alarmism.
Read more at Climate Realism
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply