National

Ominous forecasts about the impact of climate change serve as the backdrop for the world — led by U.S. lawmakers and companies — to debate big action on the problem, which could upend energy systems and our way of life.

Energy & Environment

Generate

Axios Generate

 Reproduced from: International Energy Agency, "Net Zero by 2050"; Chart: Axios Visuals 

A big reason electric vehicles matter is because they're among the many tools experts see playing an important role in limiting global warming.

The big picture: That chart's part of the International Energy Agency's analysis this month of sweeping changes to global energy systems that would be needed to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

The role of EVs in the climate fight

Sweeping changes to global energy systems are needed to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

Electric vehicles

Lucid Motors CEO Peter Rawlinson is about to start producing a high-performance luxury electric sedan that costs far north of $100,000, yet claims Lucid can help EVs become an affordable mass-market — and wants federal help.

The big picture: "My passion, and the vision and the mission for the company, is to truly mass industrialize the electric car, the electric powertrain in a way that no one has done," Rawlinson said in an interview in Washington, D.C.

What they're saying: The former senior Tesla engineer says Lucid's tech can help spur widespread EV deployment from the industry as a whole at much lower costs.

Part of the argument centers on what he calls Lucid's efficiency advantage — the amount of range enabled per unit of power. The Lucid Air achieves 4.5 miles per kilowatt-hour, he said.

That, in turn, creates the possibility of smaller, cheaper, lighter, less space-consuming battery packs. "It's that which will make the future EVs, the $25,000 EV possible. It's the efficiency because it means that we can go a certain distance with a smaller pack, which will cost less," said Rawlinson.

He sees opportunities to license the tech to other manufacturers to help bring new low-cost EVs to market at scale.

Why it matters: Lucid is among the buzziest startups in the EV world. In February it announced plans to go public via merger with the special purpose acquisition company Churchill Capital Corp. at a $24 billion valuation.

Catch up fast: Lucid plans to start modest amounts of deliveries later this year of the Lucid Air built at their Arizona factory and ramp up from there. 

The "Dream Edition" is $169,000 before federal incentives, while the "Grand Touring" version starts at $139,000 and also has 500 miles of range.

Two versions that begin under $100,000 are slated to launch in 2022. Lucid plans to debut an SUV in 2023 and a less expensive sedan later in the decade.

The intrigue: Lucid is seeking a loan — Rawlinson didn't say how large — through the Energy Department's Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing program, which also helped Tesla a decade ago.

He said it would help "accelerate" the expansion of its business, creating jobs in Arizona and Lucid's Silicon Valley HQ.

"We're talking not about survival of the company, but expansion and the opportunity to really cement our place, and secure so many more good jobs in the U.S."

Reality check: A bunch of EV startups have struggled after going public via SPAC deals.

And Lucid's entering an increasingly competitive market with new offerings from upstarts and legacy automakers. But Rawlinson said Lucid is better positioned.

"There's a whole phalanx of new EV startups. I don't know where they come from. It's like I'm reading about new ones all the time...Where's the technology? Who are these people?"

Rawlinson said Lucid's advantages include his "brilliant" team that includes other Tesla vets, its proprietary tech (he touted hundreds of patents), in-house manufacturing and more.

Storage: Lucid is eyeing stationary battery storage products for home, commercial and utility-scale markets.

"Right now it's probably, in terms of effort...one-half of 1% of our endeavor," Rawlinson said.

"But I wouldn't be surprised if in five years from now it was bigger than our automotive business. I wouldn't be surprised if ESS [Energy Storage Systems] didn't generate more revenue than our cars."

Profitability: Rawlinson declined to offer a target year for when Lucid would be profitable. "I'm a long-term thinker. I'm a chess player," Rawlinson said. 

"Right now, we need to mass industrialize electric cars for the benefit of all mankind. And that may be at odds with short-term profitability, but it's certainly not at odds with long-term shareholder value."

Charging: He argues there's too much focus on the accessibility of public fast-charging stations.

More crucial, he said, is providing more home charging availability for people living in multi-unit buildings, i.e., people without garages.

Lucid Motors CEO says its tech could push EVs mainstream

Lucid's CEO, a former senior Tesla engineer, sat down with Axios.

Photo illustration: Annelise Capossela/Axios. Photos: Lucid Motors

Elon Musk

The dust is still settling after Wednesday brought new legal and investor pressure on some of the world's biggest oil companies to get more aggressive on climate.

What we're watching: Via Bloomberg, the group that won a major Netherlands court ruling against Royal Dutch Shell is now laying the groundwork for cases against more fossil fuel companies.

 What they're saying: "We are already supporting other organizations to set up similar cases in their countries," Friends of the Earth Netherlands director Donald Pols tells Bloomberg.

Catch up fast: A Dutch district court in The Hague ordered Shell to cut its carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 relative to 2019 levels. Shell is defending its current plans and says it will appeal.

How it works: A new Reuters piece notes that the court ruled Shell "violated its duty of care under Dutch law because its policies and emissions contributed to dangerous climate change."

"Michael Burger, a litigation specialist who represents local U.S. governments in climate cases including against Shell, said while Wednesday’s decision was based on Dutch law, the concept of a duty to care exists in legal systems in Europe and around the globe," it reports.

Turning to ExxonMobil, the Financial Times reports: "The activist investors who invoked the perils of climate change to win a stunning proxy battle against ExxonMobil this week said the supermajor would need to cut oil production, indicating they would keep pressing management to shift strategy in response to the shareholder vote."

The intrigue: The piece explores how the hedge fund Engine No. 1, which successfully won support for at least two new board members, views the landscape.

Engine No. 1 founder Chris James tells the FT they're a "capitalist group, definitely not a non-profit" and that "Our idea was that this was going to have a positive impact on the share price."

Go deeper: A day's worth of climate news brings earthquake for Big Oil

What's next after this week's escalation of climate pressure on Big Oil

A major ruling against Shell is laying the groundwork for cases against other fossil fuel companies.

Oil pumpjacks operating in Long Beach, California, in April 2020.

Oil pumpjacks operating in Long Beach, California, in April 2020. Photo: Apu Gomes/AFP via Getty Images

Big Oil

Oil companies

A rat-tat-tat burst of events Wednesday could mark a turning point in pressure against Big Oil to act more aggressively on global warming.

Catch up fast: In a span of hours, ExxonMobil shareholders voted to add at least two new board members nominated by activist investors (a third nominee's vote is outstanding).

Chevron shareholders backed a resolution urging emissions cuts from use of its products in the economy, called Scope 3.

Royal Dutch Shell was ordered by a Dutch court to slash emissions well beyond current plans.

Why it matters: The investor votes, especially after Exxon's intense fight against the activist slate, make crystal clear that mainstream finance wants stronger steps on climate. 

In one sign of this trend, asset management giant BlackRock voted for three of the four insurgent directors nominated by the investment group Engine No. 1.

Meanwhile, the Dutch court decision is the first to order a major oil company to make its emissions plans more consistent with the Paris Climate agreement targets.

It could spur legal action against other oil and gas firms, but also other industrial giants too.

“This case does open the door for challenges to other energy-intensive sectors,” Liz Hypes, an analyst with the consultancy Verisk Maplecroft, tells the Wall Street Journal.

What they're saying: Energy experts tell Axios the court ruling and Exxon votes illustrate what could be a significant shift.

They "reflect the growing societal expectations that oil firms be able to demonstrate their business strategies are aligned with our long-term climate goals and resilient to climate risk," says Jason Bordoff, who heads a Columbia University energy think tank.

"The era of 'always be drilling' oil major capex has clearly come to an end with today's events. Investors are betting there are profitable ways for legacy energy companies to transform themselves in alignment with the net zero [emissions] imperative," says climate finance expert Daniel Firger, managing director at Great Circle Capital Advisors.

Yes, but: The substantive effects of Wednesday's action won't be known for a long time.

It's impossible to say, for now, how much influence Exxon's small share of new board members will have on the company's direction.

Shell said it would appeal the decision in a statement that also touted its existing near-term targets and its plan to become a "net-zero" emitter by 2050.

Here's a little more from Bordoff, who was an energy aide in the Obama White House, on the rising climate pressure on oil majors:

"It is important to note that if the response is for companies to sell oil assets in order to reduce emissions from the oil they produce, global emissions will not decline if others just buy those assets and produce the oil, which is why it is urgent that policy and technology start to curb oil use that is still rising year after year."

Go deeper: Biden administration backs Trump-era Alaska oil drilling plans

Big Oil's climate earthquake

A burst of events could mark a turning point in pressure against Big Oil to act on global warming.

Over the past few weeks, how often have you discussed the need for action on global climate change?

Data: Pew Research Center; Chart: Will Chase/Axios

Americans are talking about the need for action on climate change.

Why it matters: Texas Tech climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe says simply talking about climate change is among the most powerful things individuals can do to address it.

Context: A new Pew survey released Wednesday finds that a majority of Americans — 56% — have talked about climate change at least sometimes in recent weeks. (Perhaps not surprisingly, younger Americans are more likely to discuss climate action.)

By the numbers: The poll found that during the past few weeks, 18% of U.S. adults said they’ve discussed the need for action on climate change at least a few times, and another 38% said they’ve discussed this once or twice. 

43% said they never discussed this topic. 

Interestingly, 26% of U.S. adults said a friend or family member has encouraged them to get more involved with efforts to combat climate change, while fewer said they'd been discouraged to take action. 

When it comes to age range, 24% of Gen Z adults (born after 1996) said they had talked about climate action at least a few times each week, compared with just 14% of baby boomer and older adults.

Democrats were also more likely than Republicans to be talking about this topic, which is in keeping with the partisan divide on the issue. 

Of note: The poll was taken from April 20-29 of this year. The margin of error is ±1.4%.

Americans are talking about climate action

Talking about climate change is a powerful step to tackling it.

Climate change

A new directive will require pipeline operators to report confirmed and potential cybersecurity incidents to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, the Department of Homeland Security announced Thursday.

Why it matters: It's the first set of new regulations for the pipeline industry since the Colonial hack, which hampered part of the East Coast's fuel supply. The new rules will help "to better identify, protect against, and respond to threats to critical companies in the pipeline sector," DHS said in a statement.

Details: Pipeline operators will be required to designate a cybersecurity coordinator to be available 24/7, DHS said.

They will also have to review their practices "to identify any gaps and related remediation measures to address cyber-related risks," and report the results to the Transportation Security Agency and CISA within 30 days. 

What to watch: DHS said it's considering implementing further measures to better protect pipelines and "strengthen the public-private partnership so critical to the cybersecurity of our homeland."

What they're saying: “The cybersecurity landscape is constantly evolving and we must adapt to address new and emerging threats,” said Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas.  

“The recent ransomware attack on a major petroleum pipeline demonstrates that the cybersecurity of pipeline systems is critical to our homeland security."

"DHS will continue to work closely with our private sector partners to support their operations and increase the resilience of our nation’s critical infrastructure.”

DHS issues new cyber requirements for pipelines following Colonial hack

The Biden administration issued a new set of regulations.

Colonial Pipeline

President Biden has made the COVID-19 crisis and a post-Trump return to national unity and traditional democratic ideals his top priorities. From vaccinations to stimulus to schools, Biden is seeking bipartisan compromise while showing a willingness to use executive authority and bare Democratic majorities in the U.S. House and Senate to implement his policies. Republican leaders are navigating deep party divisions over if and how to move beyond former President Trump.

Politics & Policy

The Biden administration on Wednesday defended in the U.S. District Court for Alaska a massive ConocoPhillips oil and gas project approved during the Trump-era, per the New York Times.

Why it matters: President Biden has pledged to move away from fossil fuels. But the project has the backing of officials including Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) — who's viewed as a potential ally for Biden in his attempts to push through policies in an evenly divided Senate, NYT notes.

Driving the news: Some tribal leaders and unions also back the project, but environmental groups say the Trump administration didn't consider the effects the Willow drilling project in part of the National Petroleum Reserve would have on wildlife and climate-change, according to Reuters. 

A judge temporarily blocked the project in May after the environmental groups filed a lawsuit.

What they're saying: The Biden administration didn't clarify how its stance fit with climate policies, but it said in the filing sufficient considerations had been made in regards to greenhouse gas emissions and the effects the project would have on "fish, caribou and polar bear habitat," the Times reports.

The filing noted that Conoco has "valid lease rights" and can "develop its leases 'subject to reasonable regulation,'" per the NYT.

An Interior Department spokesperson said in an emailed statement to Axios that the filing by the Justice Department "continues to defend a 2020 Record of Decision for the Willow Project in the National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska (NPR-A)." 

"The filing maintains that the decision complied with NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] standards in place at the time, and that the plaintiffs did not challenge the Record of Decision within the time limitations associated with environmental review for projects in the NPR-A."

Editor's note: This article has been updated with comment from the Interior Department.

Biden administration backs Trump-era Alaska oil drilling plans

Biden has pledged to move away from fossil fuels, but Sen. Lisa Murkowski is among those backing the project.

Aerial view of Nuiqsut, AK on May 28, 2019. 

An aerial view of Nuiqsut, Alaska, near the oil drilling project. Photo: Bonnie Jo Mount/The Washington Post via Getty Images

The world is increasingly likely to see a year in which global average surface temperatures meet or exceed the Paris Agreement's ambitious temperature target of 1.5°C (2.7°F) above preindustrial levels, a new report predicts. 

Why it matters: Limiting warming to 1.5°C is an existential matter for small island states, which could be swamped by rising sea levels if temperatures climb higher. While a single year would not indicate the treaty's 1.5-degree target has been exceeded permanently, it would be a significant milestone.    

The report serves as another indication that the world is running out of time to limit global warming to levels that society and natural systems can tolerate. 

Based on recent emissions trends, temperatures are on course to reach or possibly exceed 3°C (5.4°F) above preindustrial levels by 2100. 

Yes, but: When it comes to taking stock of global warming, what matters are  trends over decades, not individual years. 

Still, optics nonetheless matter with these climate thresholds, and even temporarily reaching or exceeding the 1.5-degree target would likely be seen as an indication of the urgency for action to slash emissions of planet-warming greenhouse gases.

The big picture: Studies have shown that limiting global warming to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels would have a much greater chance of avoiding potentially disastrous outcomes. These include the widespread loss of coral reefs and triggering runaway feedback loops, such as the collapse of large parts of the Antarctic Ice Sheet. 

Details: The report, led by the U.K. Met Office with the participation of scientists from the U.S. and other nations and distributed via the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization (WMO), says there is a 40% chance that the 1.5-degree target will be temporarily reached in at least one of the next five years.

By the numbers: The analysis pegs the likelihood at 90% that at least one year during the 2021-2025 period will be the warmest on record, knocking 2016 and 2020 out of the top spot (the two years were virtually tied). 

The chance of temporarily bumping up against the 1.5°C temperature anomaly "has roughly doubled" compared to last year's predictions, the report says — an indication that time is quickly running out to avoid hitting or exceeding the target over a longer time period.

However, it's unlikely 2021 will be the one to set the next warmest-year record, given the lingering influence of a waning La Niña episode in the tropical Pacific Ocean.

The report, known as the "Global Annual to Decadal Climate Update," finds that the annual global average temperature is likely to be at least 1°C (1.8°F) above preindustrial levels (defined as the 1850-1900 average) during each of the coming five years, ranging from 0.9°C to 1.8°C. 

Of note: For now, the report finds, it's "very unlikely" that the five-year period will have an overall average temperature departure from average of 1.5°C or higher. 

What they're saying: "This study shows, with a high level of scientific skill, that we are getting measurably and inexorably closer to the lower target of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change," said WMO secretary-general Petteri Taalas in a statement. 

"It is yet another wakeup call that the world needs to fast-track commitments to slash greenhouse gas emissions and achieve carbon neutrality," he said.

Report: Earth may temporarily hit Paris climate limit in next 5 years

The 1.5-degree guardrail is an existential issue for small island nations in particular.

Boat dock sitting on dry land says "No Fishing."

Boat slips on a dried lake bed at Folsom Lake Marina during a drought in El Dorado Hills, California, on May 25. Photo: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images.

Friday's energy & environment stories