Good morning. I'm trying to not overdo it on the tea in my new working-from-home routine (last week I had 10 cups in one day). What are the lessons you've learned from WFH?
I'll share a glimpse of my column, and then Ben Geman will you get up to speed on other news. Today's Smart Brevity count: 1,285 words, 5 minutes.
Illustration: Aïda Amer/Axios
The novel coronavirus, upending our world as we know it, is also changing how we consume energy and address climate change.
Driving the news: The various impacts are occurring both now and into the future. Most changes don’t bode well for acting on climate change and transitioning to cleaner energy.
Where it stands: Here is the abbreviated list of 10 changes. Click here to read the whole column.
Five changes happening now:
Five changes poised to occur over time:
Senate Republicans' version of the "phase 3" coronavirus stimulus, which stalled in a procedural vote last night, would provide $3 billion dollars for the White House plan to buy 77 million barrels of oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
What we're watching: Whether Capitol Hill negotiations on this or subsequent bills will address the renewable power sectors' push — backed by some Democrats — to modify and extend availability of tax incentives.
Why it matters: Solar and wind industry groups are starting to provide early projections of the economic fallout as the frozen economy hits development and COVID-19 forces workers home.
Solar: The Solar Energy Industries Association, in a memo that accompanied this letter to Congress, cites analysts' estimates of "losses between 16% and 30% of volume this year and some sectors could see as much as 50% reduction."
Wind: The American Wind Energy Association says roughly 25 gigawatts worth of planned project are at risk, representing $35 billion worth of investment.
Royal Dutch Shell and Total this morning announced plans to sharply cut spending and freeze share buyback plans.
Why it matters: The moves signal how cratering demand from COVID-19 and the collapse in prices are upending the outlooks for companies large and small.
Driving the news: Shell is cutting planned capital spending this year to $20 billion or lower, compared to the pre-crisis estimate of $25 billion.
Meanwhile, Total said oil at $30 per barrel means a roughly $3 billion hit to capital spending, which means a new target of under $15 billion this year.
* * *
Speaking of oil companies, the Wall Street Journal reports on the potential resolution of tumult at a huge U.S.-based producer.
"Occidental Petroleum Corp. is nearing a truce with Carl Icahn that would conclude one of the highest-profile corporate clashes of the past year and usher the activist investor into the embattled oil producer’s board room as it seeks to recover from a series of setbacks."
Consulting firm Wood Mackenzie has tried to put some numbers around how much global production no longer makes economic sense now.
What they found: Their analysis explores the economics of currently producing assets worldwide.
Why it matters: "If prices do not rebound quickly, we’ll see a significant impact on currently producing fields and future supply," they note.
The big picture: Regardless of the exact price movements, there's lots of uncertainties ahead, which means...
One wild thing since our last edition was Friday's call between a member of the commission that oversees Texas' oil production and OPEC Secretary-General Mohammed Barkindo.
Why it matters: The unusual discussion is a sign of Texas' footprint on the global stage and the dire moment for the sector as prices and demand crater.
The big picture: The chart above shows how Texas output in relation to total U.S. production, which is now the world's largest.
Catch up fast: Sitton wants his commission to impose production quotas for the first time in a half-century — if Saudi Arabia and Russia revive output-trimming commitments.
A new study suggests solar geoengineering could work most effectively by trying to blunt half of expected global warming, rather than all of it, Axios' Bryan Walsh reports.
Why it matters: Government policies to cut carbon emissions aren't on target to keep warming below dangerous levels, so geoengineering may eventually be necessary.
How it works: Solar geoengineering involves trying to directly cool the climate by injecting aerosols into the atmosphere, which would reflect incoming sunlight.
Details: The study, published in Environmental Research Letters, used computer models to conclude that putting enough aerosols into the stratosphere to cut expected warming in half appeared to hit the sweet spot of slowing climate change without inadvertently making it worse in some regions.
"When used at the right dose and alongside reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, stratospheric aerosol geoengineering could be useful for managing the impacts of climate change."— Peter Irvine, lead author, University College London
Go deeper: Climate change’s surprise twist