This week, the Senate Committee on the Budget met to discuss claims that the energy sector has been downplaying the effects on the climate of oil and natural gas consumption.
This week, the Senate Committee on the Budget met to discuss claims that the energy sector has been downplaying the effects on the climate of oil and natural gas consumption.
Transcript
This week, the Senate Committee on the Budget met to discuss claims that the energy sector has been downplaying the effects on the climate of oil and natural gas consumption.
An expert on misinformation and propaganda testified the petroleum industry has misled the public for 65 years.
Geoffrey Supran, University of Miami: “The joint investigations new documents show that this sort of public affairs approach to the climate crisis of putting spin before science continues, that oil companies to this day, from late 1980s onwards, oil companies and their trade associations abetted by front groups as well as PR consulting and law firms, have waged a multi-decade multibillion dollar campaign of disinformation, lobbying, propaganda and the colonization of academia to sabotage science, scare and confuse the public and politicians and undermine climate and clean energy policies.”
Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa suggested the costs of reducing the production of oil and gas were too high.
Sen. Charles Grassley, R - Iowa “What would it mean for the U.S. gasoline and international gas prices if all new and expanded oil and gas exploration immediately ceased, as and as advocated by some of my colleagues, as well as the staff report?
Michael Ratner, Congressional Research Service: “I think the initial announcement would send certain shockwaves and uncertainty to the market that that basically was saying the U.S. is going to be pulling out of the global fossil fuel industry, whether it's oil or gas and petroleum products. And eventually, as that happened, you would see upward pressure on prices globally for those prices.”
In related news, the U.S. Treasury and Internal Revenue Service issued updated guidance on tax credits for Sustainable Aviation Fuel, or SAF. The tax credits are intended to provide incentives for the alternative fuel based on its reduction of greenhouse gas emissions compared to petroleum-based aviation fuels.
The SAF tax credit provides a base of $1.25 per gallon if at least a 50 percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions can be tracked when compared to traditional jet fuels.
The tax credits were calculated for the first time utilizing the Department of Energy’s Greenhouse Gasses, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Technologies model, or GREET,. The program compares the amount of greenhouse gasses released utilizing various tillage practices common in agriculture. Techniques like no-till farming and the integration of cover crops are believed to lower the emissions of greenhouse gasses.
For Market to Market, I’m Peter Tubbs.
Watch More
Agriculture gets sorted to the side during high-stakes negotiations with China. The yeas have it - E15 is approved in the House but not without some pushback. Revving up fans, drivers, and rural communities on the dirt track. And, commodity market analysis with Naomi Blohm.
President Trump met with Chinese President Xi this week in a highly anticipated two-day summit.
Oil, fertilizer, and protein join the discussion for our Market Plus with Naomi Blohm along with corn, soybeans and weather.
One wet blanket hangs over the corn market in our Market Analysis with Naomi Blohm. We also cover cheese and soybean demand as part of the commodity story.
The U.S. House approved the sale of year-round E15. The bill now goes to the U.S. Senate.
Underneath the fun and excitement surrounding the rituals of dirt track racing at local speedways are the spinning wheels of economic good that smalltown race tracks bring to their communities.