DV Journal

New York just passed a law to “fine” oil and gas companies $75 billion over the next 25 years for the damages caused by climate change. New York is joining two dozen cities and states in suing, claiming the oil and gas companies knew that climate change was occurring in the 1970s and did nothing about it.

There are several reasons New York’s law and these lawsuits have no basis and should be immediately thrown out.

First, how do you determine how much those cities and states are being damaged?  Because every storm, flood, fire or drought is blamed on climate change.

Obviously, that is false; such events have occurred since the beginning of time. Further, none of the plaintiffs acknowledge the benefits of fossil fuels — the underappreciated workhorse that brought us out of the dark ages. The fires in Los Angeles are a catastrophe, with billions in homes and infrastructure being destroyed. To the extent that carbon energy is to blame for the fires, you must acknowledge that the infrastructure would not have been there without carbon energy.  Further, carbon energy, which underpins our life as we know it, has not ruined the environment but has helped preserve it. The nastiest living conditions with the lowest life expectancy on the planet are where people have little, if any, access to energy.   

Second, since New York and most other plaintiffs produce virtually no oil or gas, which companies are responsible for their emissions?  New York’s emissions did not occur because Exxon produces oil and gas in Texas or elsewhere; those emissions came because their citizens continue consuming the fuels crucial to running their lives.  

To illustrate, New York banned fracking in 2015, even though it sits over the prolific gas reserves of the Marcellus Shale. It continues to consume 1.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas annually, the same as before the ban. Instead of producing its gas, New York imports the fuel from neighboring Pennsylvania, to whom it has exported the economic benefit of the capital, royalty and taxes. What it did not export was the emissions associated with consumption, which will not go away until there is a viable alternative.

This brings us to the most crucial point — there is not yet a viable alternative.

Had Exxon acknowledged in the 1970s that carbon-dioxide emissions were an issue, what was Exxon and the rest of the world supposed to do about it? Vice President Al Gore raised the alarm in 1993, and soon thereafter the world went into a panic to “transition” from fossil fuels. For the last 30 years, the United States has spent billions, and the world has spent trillions on the energy transition, yet in 2023, 82.5 percent of U.S. energy and 84 percent of the world’s energy still came from fossil fuels. 

New York is a perfect example.  In 2007, 69.6 percent of its energy came from oil and natural gas.  However, because of reductions in coal and nuclear energy production, in 2021, 72.5 percent of its energy came from oil and natural gas. 

How is the oil and gas industry responsible for its emissions? It is clear that had the supposed “energy transition” started in the 1970s vs. the 1990s, it would have made no difference. No matter how much money you pour into them, wind, solar and batteries do not replicate the convenient, abundant, affordable, and reliable energy from oil and natural gas.

New York’s law and these lawsuits are disingenuous efforts to place blame on energy producers versus energy consumers for the effects of fossil fuels.  Ironically, none of those cities or states are clamoring for more nuclear energy, which is the only honest answer to a carbon-free future.  

If New York believes it is being irreparably damaged by oil and natural gas, the state is welcome to quit using them whenever it wishes.   

Pennsylvanians are shaking their head at New York’s governor for supporting what would be the first statewide ban on natural gas connections for new buildings.

“The proposed ban on natural gas hook-ups for new buildings takes virtue signaling to new and even more absurd heights,” says Leo Knepper, political director of Citizens Alliance of Pennsylvania (CAP).

“It’s extremely shortsighted,” says Dan Weaver, president and executive director at Pennsylvania Independent Oil and Gas Association (PIOGA).

Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-N.Y.) views the ban as a way of helping the environment.

“To make real progress on climate change, it’s time to tackle major sources of pollution head-on, ensure greener housing is available to all New Yorkers, and pave the way toward a more sustainable future,” the governor said after her recent State of the State address. “This transformative investment in green infrastructure will cement New York’s status at the forefront of climate action and ensure equity in our transition to a cleaner, greener state.”

Hochul’s move follows New York City, which passed its own ban on gas-powered heaters, stoves, and boilers beginning in 2023. Her blueprint calls for the state to pass legislation requiring all new buildings to use zero-emissions sources of heat by 2027, which would end the use of natural gas.

Critics say that is short-sighted.

“If we look at the switch from coal to natural gas, look at the benefits that have occurred just in air quality from there,” Weaver told Delaware Valley Journal. “The fact of the matter is they want to electrify everything, but the majority of the production of electricity in the northeast comes from natural gas!”

Information from the federal government’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) confirms natural gas does generate a lot of electricity in New York state. Nuclear and hydropower also contribute.

“Natural gas fuels five of the state’s 10 largest power plants by capacity, and natural gas-fired power plants account for more than two-thirds of New York’s generating capacity,” says EIA.gov.

The state that could be providing that natural gas to New York is right next door in Pennsylvania, the second-largest natural gas-producing state in the nation. (Texas is number one.)

“If not for the advent of modern natural gas development, the United States could not claim much of the significant clean air and climate progress we have achieved,” said Marcellus Shale Coalition president David Callahan. “If New York is truly serious about addressing climate matters and ensuring around-the-clock affordable power, the state should pursue policies that preserve energy choice and encourage natural gas generation.”

Gregory Wrightstone, executive director of the CO2 Coalition, says the ban is a solution in search of a problem.

“New York’s plan to ban all new hookups of natural gas to buildings throughout the Empire State is a horribly misguided attempt to cure a non-existent crisis,” says Wrightstone. “This proposal would restrict New Yorkers’ options on heating homes and cooking meals to one imposed on them by government dictate (when) natural gas is an affordable, abundant and clean-burning fuel already used safely by millions of citizens across the state.”

Restricting citizens’ fuel choices to only heat and cook with electricity would significantly increase demands on an electric grid that Wrightstone says is already stressed by increased reliance on intermittent energy from wind and solar.

“Texas’ near-collapse of its entire electric grid last February should be a wake-up call to regulators across the country that renewable energy just cannot meet the demands of a growing economy,” says Wrightstone. “A ban on new natural gas hookups will increase costs and decrease grid reliability.”

New York is not alone in the push to ban natural gas from new construction. Deep-blue cities like Berkeley, Calif., and Seattle, Wash. have imposed similar measures. In response, 20 states have proposed or passed laws preventing municipalities from cutting willing customers, including Pennsylvania.

The Pennsylvania Senate passed such a bill, sponsored by Environmental Resources and Energy Committee chair Sen. Gene Yaw (R-Lycoming), with a vet0-proof majority.

“Banning specific fuel sources in pursuit of ‘clean energy’ makes zero sense in Philadelphia and beyond,” Yaw said in an editorial published last week. “Protecting energy choices for consumers means residents can pursue “cleaner” electricity sources if they want to or can afford to, while not punishing those who don’t have the option.”

Follow us on social media: Twitter: @DV_Journal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal