fbpx

This time of year climate and energy advocates turn their attention toward COP, the yearly gathering of the signatories to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. This year’s gathering, COP29, will be held in Baku, Azerbaijan in November.

Last year’s negotiations, COP28, was held in Dubai, UAE. COP28 focused on the Stocktake, the process in which signatory nations assessed their progress toward their climate adaptation and mitigation goals since the signing of the Paris Agreement. The Global Stocktake is an analysis of all of those individual reports, giving us a picture of the progress we have made as a global community in climate change mitigation and adaptation.

The final Global Stocktake document affirmed the need to transition away from fossil fuels.

In keeping with that goal, the European Union has adopted new standards that will require reporting of upstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with imported fossil fuels, including liquified natural gas or LNG. That means that United States LNG exporters will have to comply with stricter EU regulations on greenhouse gas emissions if they want to stay competitive in the global market. 

Curbing methane emissions is crucial to meeting the goal of the Paris Agreement, keeping global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. This is the goal scientists have set for us to avoid the most dangerous impacts of global warming. Recent awareness of the stakes of reducing methane emissions has been behind two big environmental announcements, namely the EPA’s new methane rule last fall and the Biden Administration’s pause on LNG exports in January of this year.

Cutting methane emissions from all parts of the lifecycle of petroleum products is the goal of the EPA’s methane rule which was finalized last December and announced at COP28. The rule would require oil and gas operators to stop methane leaks from their equipment and to stop flaring methane as a routine part of operations. Cutting methane emissions from natural gas operations is in line with the global effort to reduce the carbon footprint of fossil fuel products. If applied uniformly, the rule would help keep US LNG exports competitive in that market.

The pause in LNG exports was announced after new information that methane leaks in all parts of the natural gas lifecycle made natural gas just as bad for the climate as coal. The Administration directed the Department of Energy to pause new permits for LNG exports while guidelines about whether exporting natural gas is in the public interest could be developed to include the new information about climate change.

That brings us back to Texas, where state leadership has been openly critical of both the methane rule and the LNG pause. The Texas House established a Select Committee on Protecting Texas LNG Exports. Lt. Governor Dan Patrick listed “Overcoming Federal Incompetence” in the Interim Charges. The charge listed LNG exports and regulations on air emissions specifically.

The Texas Railroad Commission, which oversees the operations of oil and gas drilling, recovery, and transportation through equipment like pipelines, has been vocal in their opposition to the EPA’s new methane rule as well as the LNG export pause. In January of this year the three commissioners voted to ask Attorney General Ken Paxton to sue the EPA to stop implementation of the methane rule (The lawsuit is ongoing, but the US Supreme Court recently declined to stop implementation of the rule while the case is being heard).

Texas is the sixth largest economy in the world and the top oil and gas producing state in the US. That means that the leadership Texans choose, the state energy policy that we advocate for, and the way we engage in the political process has a direct impact on the way the United States can engage in international climate negotiations.

This great influence we have comes with a serious responsibility.

The decisions Texans make at the ballot box affect climate impacts like crippling drought in Africa and South America, a major driver of human migration that brings immigrants and refugees to our borders.

The decisions Texans make at the ballot box affect the temperature of the Gulf of Mexico, which determines whether tropical cyclones can explode from tropical storms to Category 5 monsters as they approach our coastline.

The decisions Texans make at the ballot box affect precipitation patterns in the Great Plains, and droughts that threaten to devastate the state’s ranching and cotton industries, not to mention the potable water supply for huge portions of the state.

The decisions Texans make at the ballot box affect the frequency of extreme heat, which is deadly for vulnerable Texans and threatens the stability of our electrical grid.

Climate change is a serious scientific problem that requires serious leadership. Knee-jerk lawsuits against the federal government and “overcoming federal incompetence” hearings are not a serious policy response to the very real problem of climate change. Climate change is here. The impacts to Texas are significant.

Beyond climate-harming emissions, the consequences of protecting the oil and gas industry from accountability have been on full display this year, with pipeline accidents, deadly hydrogen sulfide releases, and produced water geysers all causing loss of life, injuries, and property damage. It is clear that the oil and gas industry is operating without sufficient oversight to ensure public safety.

What happens in Midland matters just as much as what happens in Baku. Those charged with ensuring the safety and future prosperity of Texas must push back against the oil and gas industry, for the good of the state, both in the short and the long term. It is up to us to demand accountability.