• 5 minutes Closing the circle around Saudi Arabia: Where did Khashoggi disappear?
  • 10 minutes Iranian Sanctions - What Are The Facts?
  • 15 minutes U.N. About Climate Change: World Must Take 'Unprecedented' Steps To Avert Worst Effects
  • 2 hours Censorship has a price: Google’s CEO Defends Potential Return to China
  • 4 hours Gold price on a rise...
  • 3 hours Two Koreas: U.N. Command Wrap Up First Talks On Disarming Border
  • 1 min Judge Approves SEC Settlement With Tesla, Musk
  • 6 hours WTI @ $75.75, headed for $64 - 67
  • 2 hours $70 More Likely Than $100 - YeeeeeeHaaaaa
  • 1 hour Can the World Survive without Saudi Oil?
  • 4 hours Saudis Threaten Retaliation If Sanctions are Imposed
  • 5 hours Who's Ready For The Next Contest?
  • 1 hour UN Report Suggests USD $240 Per Gallon Gasoline Tax to Fight Global Warming
  • 50 mins Saudi Crown Prince to Trump: We've Replaced All Iran's Lost Oil
  • 57 mins Porsche Says That it ‘Enters the Electric Era With The New Taycan’
  • 1 hour Mexico State Oil
Alt Text

Global Carbon Dioxide Emissions Set New Record

The average concentration of atmospheric…

Alt Text

Europe’s Toxic Radiation Cloud Remains A Mystery

Last month’s mysterious radiation cloud…

Robert Rapier

Robert Rapier

More Info

Trending Discussions

Refiners Aren’t To Blame For Climate Change

Refiner

For about a decade, Texas has considered the idea of erecting a coastal barrier to protect against the impacts of hurricanes. Texas A&M researchers concluded that a direct hit to Galveston from a massive hurricane could cause $31.8 billion worth of damage to homes and apartments from a storm surge. This estimate excludes the potential harm to commercial buildings and ports.

The study concluded that building a coastal barrier about 60 miles long from Galveston to the Bolivar Peninsula could reduce the potential damage by 80 percent to $6 billion. Texas subsequently requested $12 billion for the full coastal spine.

However, some enterprising soul recognized that this could also protect significant refining assets around the Houston Ship Channel, and a viral headline was born: Big Oil asks government to protect its Texas facilities from climate change

As one person asked me, “How dare these refiners ask for protection from a problem they caused?” I was asked if I could defend this “outrage”, and indeed I did. Here was the defense.

First, the vast majority of what is being protected isn’t the refineries. This area is a major population center, with numerous homes and businesses. Some of those businesses happen to be refineries, but there are also wetlands, miles of coastline, and two national wildlife refuges in the immediate vicinity. And people. Lots and lots of people.

Related: Major Airlines Expect Oil Prices To Rise

Second, refiners didn’t cause climate change. They played a role, as did everyone who helped find, extract, refine, and transport oil (as well as coal and natural gas). True, many people along the supply chain have profited as a result, but that includes the federal and state governments from oil production taxes, taxes on gasoline, property taxes, and income taxes on oil industry employees and oil company profits.

But the reason refining is a major business is because there is a huge demand for the product. Every person who ever consumed fossil fuels — and that pretty much covers all of us — is complicit in carbon dioxide emissions. We all contribute a share.

Some people like to rationalize that they only consume oil because oil companies suppressed alternatives, but that’s nonsense. Oil is the backbone of transportation in every developed country in the world, not because of a global oil lobbying effort, but because oil was relatively cheap, easy to transport, and easy to use.

So the notion that refiners caused climate change may enable a rage-inducing headline, but I think a fact-checker would label it “Mostly False.”

Related: Russia Looks To Boost Gas Sales In Tighter European Markets

Finally, let’s say that we don’t build this barrier. Who is going to suffer? Refiners? Yes, during a major storm they may go offline like they did during and after last year’s Hurricane Harvey. Remember what happened? Gasoline prices spiked, and there were local gasoline shortages. Does that sound like a better option?

Sure, it’s easy to get outraged over the idea that the oil industry caused climate change and is now asking for taxpayer-funded protection from its effects. But a decision to build the barrier should be made on the basis of a sober assessment of facts, and not on manufactured outrage designed to get clicks.

By Robert Rapier

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:




Back to homepage

Trending Discussions


Leave a comment
  • Dan on September 16 2018 said:
    The earth is designed to sustain life over time. Life on land and life in the sea. Each species benefits from these changes by sustainable food sources. The sun, the water create the basis of food for both sea and land. Through time the sea is fed nutrients from erosion of coastal soils and plant life. The sea rises and falls to create this system. Don't build on someone's plate. The sea is hungry. Has anyone defined climate change any better?
  • Rod Van Mechelen on September 17 2018 said:
    Water vapor comprises 95 percent of the greenhouse gases and accounts for 75 percent of the greenhouse effect. CO2 is a trace gas that has a tiny effect, and human emissions of CO2 are minor compared to natural emissions. The sun is the primary driver of climate change, global warming ended in 1998, global cooling began in 2015, and we are now in a grand solar minimum that could turn into another little ice age.

Leave a comment




Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News