0:05

Hello and welcome back to Drilled.

0:07

I'm Amy Westervelt. We

0:09

are running a new series right

0:11

now in both the podcast and

0:13

on our website at drilled.media focused

0:16

on what we've been calling

0:19

false solutions. These are really

0:21

new climate problems masquerading

0:23

as solutions, things that

0:25

the fossil fuel industry

0:27

has suggested as

0:30

ways to decarbonize, but

0:32

that actually just lock us into more

0:34

fossil fuel development for the

0:36

next several decades. I'm talking

0:39

about things like liquefied natural

0:41

gas, carbon capture, hydrogen, renewable

0:43

natural gas. There's a

0:46

whole host of these technologies

0:48

and new products that are

0:50

being sold to both US

0:52

and European and Asian consumers

0:55

as quote unquote green, when actually

0:57

they come with ever

1:00

more greenhouse gas emissions. We've

1:02

already put one story out

1:04

about a fossil fuel lobbying

1:06

group that's trying to rebrand

1:09

liquefied natural gas as a

1:12

clean low or even zero

1:14

carbon fuel. Go check

1:16

that out on our website. We'll have a corresponding

1:19

podcast episode about the LNG

1:21

boom in the next

1:23

week or so. In the meantime, today

1:25

we're talking about something that's really insidious

1:27

and that it's kind of hard to

1:29

cover because it gets into the weeds

1:31

a little bit. And that is the

1:33

role that management consultancies play in all of this.

1:36

They have mostly been flying

1:39

under the radar where disinformation

1:41

and false solutions is concerned,

1:44

but they play a really important

1:46

role in shaping information and data

1:48

and giving the industry sort of

1:50

a credible bent

1:53

to its proposed solutions and

1:57

they do that by providing data

1:59

and analysis. and technical

2:01

reports to industry groups

2:03

and companies. The

2:05

catch is that the data

2:08

is highly limited by parameters

2:10

that the companies and industry

2:12

groups set. So

2:14

while the consultancy is doing

2:16

a rigorous analysis, it's

2:18

also being asked to leave out

2:20

some pretty key components of that

2:23

analysis. This allows them

2:25

to sort of hold up their hands and say,

2:27

hey, we did the data and analysis they asked

2:29

us for. You know, that's

2:31

it. That's our contribution. We aren't the

2:33

ones that are saying that that justifies

2:35

this, that and the other. But

2:38

really that's kind of a cop out because

2:41

of course these reports are then

2:43

being used to lobby for particular

2:45

policies or to convince people

2:47

that, you know, energy transition is gonna

2:50

be too expensive, all those kinds of

2:52

things. A

2:54

UN group called Race to Zero is actually

2:56

starting to look at these kinds of things

2:58

in a more serious way. So

3:01

they're looking at professional services providers,

3:03

PSPs, and they're including management consultancies

3:05

in that as well as PR

3:07

and advertising firms, which of course

3:09

we've looked at a lot over

3:12

here at Drilled. Several months ago,

3:14

a former employee from a management

3:16

consultancy reached out to me with

3:18

some information about how that firm

3:21

was approaching its fossil fuel clients.

3:23

This happens to be a firm

3:25

that also does quite a bit

3:28

of work for the US government

3:30

on really robust climate analysis. And

3:32

there's a reason that the

3:35

industry also goes to them because

3:37

they know that the government trusts

3:39

their technical analysis. So again,

3:41

it's just not as

3:43

innocent as a lot of consultancies would

3:45

like to make it out as. I

3:47

asked reporter Maddie Stone to look into

3:49

those leads and she did and she

3:51

found a lot. So

3:54

she is here today to talk me

3:56

through what she found and

3:58

why it's important to look at. these things.

4:01

You can also find a

4:03

written version of that story

4:05

on our website at drilled.media.

4:08

After the break, Maddie

4:10

Stone on management consultancies.

4:24

If you are passionate about the

4:26

environment and you enjoy getting out

4:28

into nature, there's another podcast I

4:31

think you'll love. It's called Out

4:33

There and it's an award-winning show

4:35

that explores big questions through intimate

4:37

stories outdoors. For example, how

4:40

do you find the will to live

4:42

if you have crippling climate anxiety? Why

4:45

do people keep living in places

4:47

that are prone to natural disasters?

4:49

And how could we use national

4:51

parks to right historical wrongs? Each

4:55

episode of Out There is a

4:57

deeply personal narrative about regular people

4:59

whose lives have changed out in

5:01

nature. The current season of Out There

5:03

is all about silence. They have stories

5:05

that take us around the globe, exploring

5:07

how we might find stillness amidst

5:10

the noise of life, whether it's

5:12

through photographing the stars, hiking the

5:14

Grand Canyon, or visiting a national

5:16

park in Korea. Follow Out

5:19

There wherever you get your podcasts

5:21

or at outtherepodcast.com Hi,

5:32

I'm Maddie Stone. I'm

5:34

a freelance journalist covering climate change,

5:36

energy transition, and lots of related

5:39

topics. Okay, Maddie, we

5:41

asked you to look into this

5:43

particular management consultant for this story.

5:45

Can you tell us a little

5:47

bit about who they are and

5:51

what they do? Yes,

5:53

so the management consultant I've

5:55

been looking into is called

5:57

ICF. They are a multinational

5:59

consulting firm. that

6:01

works in a variety of

6:03

different sectors providing data and

6:06

analysis to government

6:08

regulators and private industry clients,

6:10

but one of their biggest

6:12

practices is climate and energy.

6:15

And so they have more than 2,000 people

6:18

employed across their climate practice, which

6:20

does a lot of work with

6:23

the US federal government as well as

6:26

state governments and local governments around the

6:28

country, including a lot

6:30

of really legitimate and sort

6:33

of respected work, studying

6:36

decarbonization pathways that cities,

6:38

states, and governments can

6:40

use, helping

6:42

to implement energy efficiency

6:44

programs for municipalities

6:46

as well as utilities, and

6:48

even helping to do

6:51

the analysis underpinning some really

6:53

high level and influential climate

6:56

documents. ICF contractors have

6:58

helped to author and

7:00

coordinate several recent

7:02

installments of the National Climate

7:04

Assessment, which is this very

7:07

authoritative federal government report that comes

7:09

out every few years on how

7:11

climate change is impacting the US.

7:13

So that is sort

7:15

of the climate and energy work that

7:17

ICF likes to present to the world.

7:20

However, what my investigation found is

7:22

that the firm is

7:24

also hired by industry groups like

7:27

the American Petroleum Institute and the

7:29

American Gas Association. These are fossil

7:31

fuel lobby groups that want to

7:34

maintain the fossil fuel centric status

7:36

quo. And they

7:38

hire this respected so-called

7:41

objective energy and climate

7:43

consultancy to produce reports

7:45

for them that they have

7:47

a hand in shaping. They can

7:49

tell the consultancy, we want you

7:51

to model this and that and

7:53

don't model this and that. And

7:56

the end result is these

7:58

very technical official looking reports. produced

8:00

by this credible

8:03

consultancy, that the

8:06

industry ultimately uses

8:08

to promote itself

8:11

and its positions, namely

8:13

that we should continue using gas

8:16

and other fossil fuels, and

8:18

that decarbonization strategies should

8:22

embrace the potential for things

8:24

like fossil gas

8:26

and industry preferred solutions. And

8:31

it's a really sort of

8:33

tricky issue that

8:35

you have this very highly

8:39

regarded climate consultancy best

8:41

known for work on

8:44

decarbonization and actually tackling

8:46

climate change that has

8:48

an albeit seemingly

8:51

fairly small part of its

8:53

business devoted to

8:55

producing reports that are

8:58

then used by fossil fuel

9:00

industry interests, lobby groups. Yeah.

9:02

And you spoke with Julie McNamara

9:04

at the Union of Concerned Scientists,

9:06

right, about this. I thought

9:09

what she had to say was really interesting because

9:11

I think people tend to think

9:13

of anything that's modeled as

9:16

being objective in some way. Like if it

9:18

has a chart, then it's objective. Yeah,

9:21

exactly. And Julie McNamara

9:23

is someone who has

9:25

a lot of technical

9:27

expertise on climate and energy modeling.

9:30

She herself has worked for a

9:33

organization that did government contracted analysis

9:35

work, not too dissimilar from ICF,

9:38

is familiar with their work. And

9:42

yeah, she was kind of

9:44

able to help me understand

9:46

what exactly it is

9:49

that makes this so sort of tricky

9:51

and nefarious what consultancies like ICF are

9:53

doing when they work with fossil fuel

9:55

industry groups. We're in an era where...

10:00

it's clear that climate change is

10:02

happening and that fossil fuel is

10:05

the cause, right? That we need

10:07

to transition away from our current

10:09

practices, processes that are all

10:12

reliant on the fossil fuel industry. The

10:14

fossil fuel industry has responded with

10:16

every single possible way to

10:18

delay and distract action. And

10:21

these types of technical analyses allow

10:24

the fossil fuel industry to hold up

10:26

the report in one hand and say,

10:28

no, look, we're working on it. We

10:30

have answers while continuing to

10:33

solidify policy outcomes that

10:35

perpetuate investments in fossil fuel restructure

10:37

today. So those technical

10:39

reports, they just buy time, right?

10:41

They are absolutely a greenwashing mechanism to

10:44

say, we're not ignoring the problem. We're

10:46

not saying it's not here. We have

10:48

a plan. And at the same time,

10:50

doing absolutely nothing to prove

10:53

out whether that plan would ever be

10:55

viable, would ever be in the public

10:57

interest and is even something they would

10:59

ever be actually working towards. The

11:02

question becomes, who

11:04

is running those models? How

11:06

are they being shaped? What are

11:08

the questions being asked? And what are

11:10

the assumptions being entered? Because

11:12

it is absolutely the case that

11:16

analyses are only as good as the questions

11:18

being asked and the assumptions being employed. Models

11:20

can be so readily co-opted

11:23

to justify favorite results. They

11:25

can also be readily deployed

11:27

for rigorous, extremely

11:29

helpful and insightful analyses.

11:32

The difference comes in who is doing

11:35

the work and who is overseeing

11:37

that selection process. And

11:40

to me, that's one of the most

11:42

insidious things about an organization that simultaneously

11:44

uses even the exact same model, but

11:48

to use it for fossil fuel lobby groups on the

11:50

one hand and state policy

11:52

implementation on the other. Because

11:54

it muddies the water of

11:57

what's real and what's not, what's rigorous and

11:59

what's not. not because the model

12:01

doesn't change the

12:03

assumptions that are used to. But

12:06

suddenly, right, this organization that can

12:08

be seen as doing very rigorous

12:10

work puts its

12:13

analytical stamp on a

12:15

set of questions and a set of assumptions

12:17

put forward by the fossil fuel lobby. And

12:20

that is a fundamentally different outcome

12:23

than something being informed through a

12:26

rigorous public stakeholder process, like one

12:28

might see at the state level.

12:30

What they're doing is they're supplying a

12:33

model, and in many cases, it's

12:35

a perfectly legitimate model that might

12:37

also be used by the Department

12:39

of Energy or the EPA to

12:42

do perfectly legitimate climate and

12:44

energy modeling. But

12:47

when they go to an industry client

12:49

like the American Gas Association, for example,

12:51

that client might tell them, okay, only

12:56

use this model to

12:58

study XYZ and ignore

13:00

XYZ other scenarios. And

13:02

so, for example, ICF provided

13:05

the analysis is how they

13:07

put it behind a 2021

13:10

American Gas Association report, looking

13:13

at various decarbonization pathways

13:15

that the gas industry could

13:17

follow. And so this was

13:20

a report specifically set up

13:22

by the gas industry to

13:25

demonstrate how it could zero

13:27

out its carbon emissions. So

13:30

the underlying assumption there that

13:32

the client came to ICF

13:34

with was, we

13:36

can be part of the climate solution

13:38

and a big part of the climate

13:40

solution. And here are all these very

13:42

technical, rigorous, you

13:45

know, science backed data

13:47

points showing how we can eliminate our

13:49

carbon emissions. By the same consultancy that

13:51

you know, you guys in the government

13:54

use. Exactly. Exactly. Yeah.

13:56

But you know, what's left

13:58

unsaid there is is everything that

14:00

is excluded from the model. So

14:03

for example, an economic comparison of

14:06

what it's going to cost

14:08

to implement all these gas

14:10

industry preferred solutions versus simply

14:12

switching to renewable energy and

14:14

electrifying buildings. And

14:17

there are other things that might go into

14:19

that model that the

14:21

gas industry wants to put

14:23

in. For example, not saying

14:26

this went into this specific case, but

14:28

maybe a gas industry client would come

14:30

to a consultancy with some numbers around

14:33

the cost of electrification.

14:36

And maybe those numbers are

14:38

considered unrealistic today, but

14:40

those are the numbers that the industry

14:43

wanted to use to run its

14:45

models. And then as a

14:47

result, you get a report

14:50

that has some conclusions that appear to

14:52

favor gas over electrification. Right. Right. And

14:54

so. And the consultancies kind of go,

14:56

well, we just provided the data that

14:59

they asked for. Exactly. Exactly. So the

15:01

consultancy can say, you know, we just

15:03

did this objective science-based analysis. We don't

15:06

take any policy or advocacy positions based

15:08

on it. But what

15:10

makes that so problematic

15:13

in a way is

15:15

that it's allowing industry

15:18

groups to take

15:21

this white paper and say,

15:23

this is a completely objective

15:25

third party analysis that

15:28

supports all of our preferred policy

15:30

positions. And that's only

15:34

true on this very surface

15:36

level, where you're not considering all the

15:39

ways that the industry might have informed

15:41

or shaped or restricted how that

15:44

analysis was done. Yeah. Yeah.

15:47

It's super interesting. We interviewed Ben Franta

15:49

a couple of years ago when he

15:52

had this paper out that was called

15:54

Weaponizing Economics. I don't know if you

15:56

read that paper. But he talked to

15:58

an economist who were. for

16:00

a firm called Charles River Associates

16:03

and they were contracted by the

16:05

API, like I wanna say in the

16:07

90s, early 90s, to run

16:10

economic models that would show

16:13

that the cost of acting on

16:15

climate change was like just way

16:17

too expensive and not realistic and

16:19

they left out the cost of

16:22

not acting on climate change. And

16:24

so like Ben found this economist who'd been

16:27

part of that work who said, we

16:29

did rigorous analysis of the stuff that

16:31

we were like told to

16:33

look at, but I regret

16:36

that we went along with this

16:38

thing of like not including this

16:40

other scenario, which is clearly important

16:42

for policymakers to understand. And that

16:44

model got used for years to

16:47

justify, no, no, no, we shouldn't

16:49

be doing anything. Look at how

16:51

expensive it is and all of that stuff.

16:53

So I know ICF kind of came back

16:55

to you and said, look, this is a

16:57

very small part of our business and that's

17:00

quite a common response, I think,

17:02

in these kinds of cases. But

17:07

I know you also talked to some

17:09

people who have seen this ICF report

17:11

for the AGA, for example, or the

17:13

API, be cited kind of

17:15

every time policy debates come up about

17:18

this. So yeah, I'd love to have

17:20

you kind of talk about that, like

17:22

how much, I guess like

17:24

how much this stuff gets leaned

17:26

on in these policy conversations. The

17:28

sense I have is that certain

17:30

reports ICF has authored for certain

17:32

fossil fuel interest groups have been

17:34

leaned on a lot in recent

17:36

years, that 2021 American

17:38

Gas Association report sort of being a

17:41

very prominent example of that. I

17:44

spoke with some folks at

17:46

the climate change think tank

17:48

influence map who have been

17:51

closely tracking the

17:53

gas industry's influence in

17:55

policy debates over things

17:57

like building decarbonization and

17:59

electrification. and even

18:02

gas stove debates in recent years.

18:04

And they told me they've seen

18:06

this AGA slash ICF

18:08

report come up over and over

18:10

again in formal comments

18:13

submitted on rule makings to

18:15

various agencies in letters to

18:17

business leaders and politicians. And

18:19

basically every context you can

18:21

imagine where the American Gas

18:23

Association wants to point out

18:27

to influential politicians

18:30

or regulators or folks in the

18:32

business world that, hey, look, there's

18:34

a way for the gas industry

18:36

to be part of the future,

18:38

even a decarbonized future. And we

18:40

don't actually have to do all

18:42

of this complicated and in

18:45

their view costly switching to

18:47

electrification because

18:50

we have this analysis showing

18:52

all the ways that we

18:54

can decarbonize gas. So

18:57

it's really become a powerful tool for

18:59

them in helping to bolster

19:01

their own credibility and influence and

19:03

shape policy conversations. The really tricky

19:06

part about that is how

19:09

then do you quantify

19:11

that impact? Right. It's

19:14

like, it's a hard thing

19:16

to put a carbon amount on.

19:18

ICF, one of their specialties as

19:20

a consultancy is carbon accounting. They

19:23

love to point out all

19:25

of the emissions reductions associated with

19:27

the work they do with the

19:30

EPA for its energy efficiency programs

19:32

and with utilities to implement energy

19:34

efficiency programs, all the millions of

19:36

tons of carbon they're saving per year. But

19:39

what is the climate impact

19:41

associated with producing a report

19:43

that an influential gas industry

19:45

trade group can then use

19:47

to block decarbonization policies?

19:50

Yeah, that's a great question. Yeah,

19:52

that would be really interesting to

19:54

study actually. It's a hard thing

19:56

to study and it's allowed consultancies

19:58

like ICF to. sort of exist

20:02

in this gray space of,

20:05

you know, we are just these

20:07

objective information providers, these data analysts

20:09

who can crunch numbers and will

20:11

provide that service to anybody, but

20:13

we're not going to take a

20:16

position positions. We're not going

20:18

to, you know, say

20:22

policymakers should do X, Y, and Z based on the

20:24

results of this work. Yeah, but they

20:26

will say, you know, like

20:28

we're a climate leader, or, Exactly.

20:30

We're, you know, helping to decarbonize

20:32

and those kinds of things. So

20:34

the positive, you know, the aspects

20:36

of the work that are positive

20:38

for climate, of which I should

20:40

emphasize, again, this firm does a

20:42

lot of good climate work, are

20:45

things that ICF really likes to tout. Yeah.

20:48

And as you pointed out a moment

20:50

ago, they emphasize to me that the

20:52

work for fossil fuel trade organizations is

20:54

a small part of their practice in

20:56

terms of their revenue. But

20:59

again, I think it's an open

21:01

question as to what the overall

21:03

climate impact of that work is,

21:06

even if it's just a few reports every

21:09

couple of years, if those

21:11

reports can be used to delay or block

21:15

important electrification measures

21:18

in cities or states across the country,

21:20

like that could have a big ripple

21:22

effect. Yeah. And to lend credibility to,

21:24

you know, kind of industry preferred solutions

21:27

and all of that kind of stuff

21:29

too. And, you know, I always whenever

21:31

companies or agencies or

21:33

consultancies are like, it's only a small

21:35

part of our work. My immediate thought

21:37

is like, then why do it at

21:39

all? Especially if like, you know,

21:41

you spend a significant amount

21:44

of your marketing space.

21:46

And I would imagine budget, like

21:48

talking about decarbonization and climate and

21:50

all these other things. It is

21:52

an interesting question, you know, why

21:54

do that? Why not just decide

21:56

you're going to draw a line

21:59

in the same way? and with certain types of projects

22:01

or certain types of clients. And yeah.

22:03

Yeah. I want to, on that

22:05

note, I want to ask you about that there

22:07

was one thing that they worked on that made

22:10

me laugh out loud. And that was the idea

22:12

that a gallon of oil from

22:15

the Gulf of Mexico is like lower

22:18

carbon than other places. Right. Yeah.

22:20

That was a really interesting

22:23

finding and report. So ICF

22:25

was hired by the National

22:27

Ocean Industries Association several years

22:29

back. This is a

22:31

trade organization that largely represents

22:34

oil and gas producers

22:36

and affiliated industries and

22:38

interests offshore producers. Offshore

22:41

producers, correct. So a lot of oil

22:44

and gas producers who have assets in the Gulf

22:46

of Mexico and who want to build

22:48

more wells and drill more oil in the Gulf of

22:50

Mexico. So this organization hired

22:52

ICF to produce a report

22:55

that looked at a very narrow

22:57

technical question of

23:00

what are effectively the emissions

23:02

associated with producing a barrel of

23:04

oil in the Gulf of Mexico.

23:07

They also, I should add, looked

23:09

at the United States as a

23:11

whole. So they looked at land-based

23:13

oil and gas production. And they

23:15

also looked specifically at the Gulf.

23:18

And then they created

23:20

this huge database of data points

23:22

for addressing the same question elsewhere

23:24

around the world. So what

23:26

are the emissions associated with producing a

23:29

barrel of oil in this

23:31

part of the Middle East or offshore

23:33

in the Baltic Sea? So they looked at

23:35

all these different regions around the world and

23:38

ultimately concluded that

23:41

the emissions associated with producing a

23:44

barrel of oil in the Gulf

23:46

are relatively low

23:48

compared with most other parts of

23:50

the world. I keep emphasizing the

23:53

word producing because the emissions that

23:55

they looked at are the emissions

23:57

that come along with.

23:59

literally pulling the oil out of the

24:02

ground and packaging it up. Yeah, so

24:04

not distribution, not burning

24:06

it. So we're talking like maximum

24:09

8% to 10% of

24:11

a company's emissions. Like a small percent. Yeah, these

24:13

are what would be called in greenhouse gas reporting

24:17

lingo, the scope one and scope two

24:20

emissions. And not even all of

24:22

scope two. Not even all of scope two. So

24:24

the downstream scope three emissions, aka

24:26

the vast majority of emissions associated

24:28

with fossil fuel products, the actual

24:31

burning of that oil and gas

24:33

are not something that we're considered

24:35

here. So again,

24:38

ICF was contracted to

24:40

do what was probably a totally

24:43

solid technical analysis looking at this

24:45

narrow technical question. And

24:47

then with this report in hand,

24:50

this oil and gas industry

24:52

trade association put out press releases and

24:54

blog posts saying, look

24:56

how much climate friendlier oil production in

24:58

the Gulf of Mexico is compared with

25:01

all over the world. And wouldn't it

25:03

be great if America produced more oil

25:05

in the Gulf of Mexico? Isn't

25:07

that a great idea both for our

25:10

economy and the climate? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah,

25:12

that's so interesting because we've been

25:15

looking at LNG producers in

25:17

the US too. And one

25:19

of them, EQT, commissioned a

25:21

very similar type of report

25:23

from McKinsey that shows that

25:27

US LNG in particular is

25:29

a climate solution because

25:31

these production emissions are lower.

25:34

And then I don't

25:37

know, the location and the way we get it and

25:39

all of this kind of stuff. And because they all

25:41

love to say that US companies

25:43

operate within stricter environmental regulations and

25:45

that that helps as well and

25:47

all of that stuff. And

25:50

there again, McKinsey was sort of like,

25:52

we just supply the data and the

25:55

technical analysis. We didn't come

25:57

to any conclusions or write this report.

26:00

you know. Exactly, exactly. Yeah, and

26:02

that's that's exactly what happened here.

26:04

And this report in particular was

26:06

like pounced on by Republican Congress

26:08

people who are advocating for, you

26:10

know, more oil and gas production

26:13

in the Gulf. I think I

26:15

saw the American Petroleum Institute cite

26:17

it in a

26:19

press release on a lawsuit.

26:22

It was launching against the

26:25

Biden administration for essentially

26:28

not not permitting more oil

26:30

and gas drilling to occur in

26:32

the Gulf of Mexico. Yeah. So

26:34

it's it's worked its way into

26:36

the into the conversation. Yeah, yeah,

26:39

that's I didn't even think about the litigation piece.

26:41

But yeah, that kind of stuff absolutely

26:43

gets pointed to as sort of

26:45

evidence in those kinds of situations

26:48

to. Yeah, interesting. Okay,

26:50

tell me about the race to zero

26:53

and how they're looking at these kinds

26:55

of firms. Yeah, race

26:57

to zero is a UN

27:00

associated initiative. It's sort

27:02

of a coalition of

27:05

businesses and university

27:08

leaders and members of

27:10

civil society who are trying to

27:13

come up with decarbonization

27:15

strategies for various sectors

27:18

of society that align with the

27:20

Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees.

27:22

And there is a new race to

27:27

zero initiative to develop a

27:30

set of effectively

27:32

a set of best practice

27:34

guidelines for professional service providers,

27:37

including consultancies and ad agencies

27:39

and law firms

27:41

to adhere to. So

27:43

the reason race to zero

27:45

is now focusing on professional

27:47

service providers like consultancies is

27:50

exactly because they're in this

27:52

unique position of having influence

27:55

and of not

27:57

necessarily having a large carbon

28:00

footprint on their own. When you

28:02

think about what is the carbon footprint of

28:04

a consultancy like ICF, well they use energy

28:06

to keep the lights on in their office

28:08

space, you know, maybe they're, you

28:11

know, driving to work. It's relatively,

28:14

you know, small

28:16

potatoes type things. They're not running huge

28:18

industrial facilities that are creating a lot

28:20

of pollution. Well what they are doing

28:23

is they're working with clients who run

28:25

huge industrial facilities to create a lot

28:27

of pollution and the advice that they

28:30

provide to those clients or the types

28:32

of technical analysis they do has these

28:34

downstream ripple effects on really

28:37

like the entire economy. And

28:41

Race to Zero's contention here is

28:43

that those ripple effects and the

28:45

emissions associated with them are

28:47

likely to be a lot greater

28:50

than the emissions that a firm

28:52

like ICF can kind of claim

28:55

as their own

28:57

emissions. So we're talking

29:00

emissions that are even

29:02

a little bit beyond the scope

29:04

one, two, three sort

29:06

of standard reporting framework. This

29:09

is indirect emissions associated

29:11

with giving advice. So if you

29:13

tell, you know, a utility

29:16

it's gonna cost you this amount of money to

29:18

decarbonize and the utility looks at that number and

29:20

goes, oh we're not gonna do that, you

29:23

know. Right, right. That has a

29:25

climate impact. Yeah. Or if a

29:27

report is used for lobbying. Exactly.

29:29

Successfully than that. That

29:32

has a climate impact too and these impacts

29:34

can be both positive and negative.

29:36

What Race to Zero is saying

29:38

is that PSPs need to account

29:40

for them when they're attempting

29:42

to account for their own climate

29:44

impact and here are some

29:46

best practices you can follow if you want

29:49

to drive down

29:51

emissions and climate

29:53

impact throughout your practice. Such as

29:55

maybe taking

29:57

a hard look at your entire client. and

30:00

what sorts of projects you're working

30:02

on for them and the climate

30:04

impact of those projects and making

30:06

some high level corporate decisions about

30:08

the types of work you will

30:10

continue to do if you want

30:13

to align your

30:15

practice with a decarbonized

30:17

future. Yeah, yeah. I

30:20

feel like another place that this shows up

30:22

a lot is in the sort of support

30:25

of false solutions kind of realm.

30:28

And I know we've been talking about doing a follow

30:30

on story because there's so

30:32

much around ICF and other

30:35

consultancies work supporting the idea

30:37

of renewable natural gas as

30:39

a climate solution. But just

30:41

give us a little tease

30:43

of what exactly are

30:45

the sorts of things that

30:47

they're doing to

30:50

just like, I don't

30:52

know, kind of provide the

30:55

evidence base for this being a good

30:57

idea. Yeah, so ICF

31:00

is contracted by both

31:02

utilities and

31:04

government agencies to look at

31:07

certain climate solutions quote

31:11

unquote, that the gas

31:13

industry is really heavily promoting

31:17

and pushing for. So

31:19

chief among those being this idea

31:21

of renewable natural gas or

31:24

RNG, which is essentially methane

31:27

gas that was produced

31:29

from a biological source. So maybe it's

31:32

gas escaping from landfills

31:34

during decomposition, or maybe

31:37

it's methane that is synthetically

31:39

manufactured by taking crop residues

31:42

and subjecting them to a

31:45

gas production process. It's

31:48

this umbrella term that can refer to

31:50

a lot of different things, but it's

31:52

effectively methane

31:54

gas that can be a drop in replacement

31:56

for fossil gas. And what

32:00

But there's

32:02

a lot of debate and controversy,

32:04

to put it mildly, around how

32:06

much of a climate solution this can actually

32:08

be. But to

32:10

the gas industry, it's like it's

32:14

this amazing thing that allows them

32:16

to effectively do

32:19

nothing to change their infrastructure or

32:21

their operations. They just need to

32:24

partner with companies that can supply

32:26

and produce a lot of this

32:28

RNG. And using

32:31

some tricky and, again, very controversial

32:33

math can claim that they've canceled

32:36

out most of their emissions on paper. Yeah.

32:40

Yeah. And yeah, so what is ICF done in

32:42

this realm? Yeah.

32:45

So ICF has, again, worked

32:47

with utilities and government agencies

32:50

to produce reports looking

32:52

at overall potential for RNG in

32:55

certain scenarios. So they were contracted

32:57

in 2019 by the American Gas

33:00

Foundation, another gas industry trade association,

33:02

not to be confused with the

33:04

HGA, to look

33:07

at RNG production potential

33:09

nationwide. So they looked

33:11

at all these different

33:13

possible sources of RNG,

33:15

from cow manure to

33:17

methane to synthetic production

33:20

of RNG from energy crops

33:22

and forest residues, and effectively

33:26

summing all those sources

33:29

up for every state in the

33:31

country, found that there's this huge

33:33

potential supply, potential supply of

33:35

RNG out there. This is, I

33:38

want to be very clear, it doesn't really exist today.

33:41

This is an industry that is largely

33:44

on paper at this point. But

33:46

effectively, I think the top

33:48

line conclusion of that report was that 95% of

33:50

residential natural

33:54

gas usage could be replaced with

33:56

RNG. Wow. Which is huge. That's

33:58

huge, but it's also like... like

34:00

a massive Lee more than what

34:02

I've seen is like actually realistic.

34:05

It's like actually more than what any

34:07

like reasonable independent scientists studying this will

34:09

say is realistic. And that was the

34:11

whole point I think of the report

34:14

was to show that there's

34:16

this great potential if we make

34:18

a lot of assumptions, you know,

34:20

and one of those assumptions is

34:22

that we actually want

34:24

to do this and that this is

34:27

a good climate solution, which a

34:29

lot of independent researchers who've studied RNG

34:32

have pushed back pretty strongly against

34:34

the idea that this is going to

34:37

significantly reduce the

34:39

gas industry's emissions. There's

34:43

a case to be made that if we're

34:45

capturing methane that would have escaped to the

34:47

atmosphere anyway, that is

34:49

preventing pollution and that's a

34:52

good thing. But this

34:54

report and subsequent reports that ICF has

34:57

worked on for states

34:59

and for individual utilities and

35:02

cities, don't

35:04

just look at that narrow,

35:06

that sort of narrow slice

35:09

of the RNG production that is the

35:11

methane that would have escaped as pollution

35:13

anyway. They look at how

35:15

could we make as much of

35:17

this as possible? And to make

35:19

as much RNG as possible, you

35:22

need to literally produce new methane.

35:24

So at that point, you're not

35:26

talking about capturing pollution, you're talking

35:28

about producing more greenhouse gases, some

35:30

of which are inevitably going to

35:33

leak to the atmosphere and compound

35:35

the climate problem. Right, right, yeah,

35:37

yeah, it's so interesting. Okay, awesome, well,

35:40

we'll have you back on to talk

35:42

more about RNG when that comes together.

35:44

Looking forward to it. Yes, thank you,

35:47

and you can read the story on

35:49

our website. Thanks, Maddie. Thanks,

35:52

Amy. That's

36:03

it for this week, thanks for listening. Keep

36:06

an eye out for that LNG episode

36:08

coming soon, as well as episodes on

36:11

lots of other faulty

36:13

problems masquerading as solutions from the

36:15

fossil fuel industry. Thanks for listening,

36:17

and we'll see you next time.

36:30

Ha!