These are things I'd like to study, as they also open the door on the production of disinformation, which has received far too little attention... Anyways, I'm glad they raise this, as its a worry I've had about the framework for a while
But there may be other ways to think about this, like considering actor histories (have they propagated climate denial in the past?), organisational networks (are they connected to climate obstruction think tanks?), or conflicting stances (e.g. on climate and social policy)
I've been reading a lot into delay studies recently and very few explicitly refer to intent. Often intent is implicit or simply assumed (e.g. oil exec -> presumed intent to delay).
Pflieger and De Pryck make an important point in this short piece on climate delay: intentionality matters. Highlighting the social perils of climate policy can be obstruction in one context (e.g. coming from oil execs), but legitimate deliberation in another (e.g. those actually exposed)
I swear the PR and speech-writing staff at Exxon have a competition on the office whiteboard on who can get the most number of Discourses of Climate Delay into a CEO speech in one go climate.leeds.ac.uk/news/discour...
Of course, those jostling over the COP28 language to insert these caveats probably know this, so the plan is to provide cover and delay for doing little. All the more reason to increase our scrutiny over CCS and CDR pledges
This easily brings fossil power production energy returns (EROI) within the range of poorly performing renewable systems (with storage!) So good luck with that....
Under reasonable assumptions, net power output with CCS would decline by: ~15% for natural gas combined cycle plants ~21% for coal gasification combined cycle plants ~28% for pulverised coal plants www.nature.com/articles/s41... /2
With all the talk of unabated emissions, its worth revisiting the enormous penalties that carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies will inflict upon fossil fuel power generation /1
