Fossil Fuels: Modern Asbestos?

Time Magazine published an opinion piece today supporting the protestors of TransCanada's (NYSE: TRP  ) Keystone XL pipeline in no uncertain terms. Given that the protestors are generally considered radical, this endorsement from such an influential, mainstream publication is significant. It is yet another riff in the crescendo of drum beats hearkening the eventual demise of conventional fossil fuels. Some readers will be old enough to remember a time when popular wisdom held asbestos to be safe. Don't make the same mistake now.

Time marches on
The Keystone XL pipeline controversy is huge and contentious. Like any such issue, it has been the rope in a hyperbolic and often symbolic tug of war. I won't bog myself down in the nitty gritty here -- a simple Google search will give you hours of fodder -- but it's worth a quick summation.

Keystone XL is TransCanada's proposed $7 billion pipeline that would connect Canada's oil sands to refineries around Houston and the Gulf of Mexico. Because it would cross an international border, its construction requires the President's approval. With the oil and gas industry facing significant transmission and distribution choke points, the energy security crowd sees the pipeline's construction as vitally important.

On the other hand, we have the environmentalists. Their concern is that Keystone XL enables further development of carbon-intensive tar sands in an era when climate change is a growing threat. Greenpeace, in its "Point of No Return" report, explained that "in 2020, the emissions from the 14 projects showcased in this report -- if they were all to go ahead -- would raise global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels by 20% and keep the world on a path toward 5°C to 6°C of warming." Keystone XL is one of those projects.

Many are starting to talk in terms of a "carbon bubble." If global governments seek to meet their already articulated goals of minimizing global warming to a certain target, many carbon-intensive projects may be at risk. Under this scenario, projects like Keystone XL could become stranded assets, in that they are no longer economically viable to develop under what would be a new regulatory framework. That would be a material business risk.

Activists like Bill McKibben are taking the campaign further. Not only are they vocally and visibly protesting Keystone XL, but they are pushing for total divestment from the fossil fuel sector through their 350.org campaign. The campaign almost certainly won't be enough to undermine the sector in any real way, but with a growing number of university endowments signing on, it is certainly another sign of a turning tide.

There are more signs. Shell (NYSE: RDS-A  ) announced that it would suspend drilling in the Arctic, to the delight of the environmental groups who believe their pressure may have contributed to the company's decision. Meanwhile, China announced last week that it would be introducing a carbon tax, just as similar mechanisms are under debate in the U.S.

Corporate leadership and the way forward
The latest "Energy Infrastructure Update" (link opens PDF) report from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) Office of Energy Projects shows that 100% of new electrical generating capacity that came online in the U.S. in January 2013 was derived from renewable sources, for the first time ever.

The report highlighted Exelon's (NYSE: EXC  ) 82 Megawatt (MW) Beebe Community Wind Farm, which just came online in Gratiot County, Michigan. Exelon plans to bring another 82 MW by the end of 2013. FERC's report also called out Duke Energy's (NYSE: DUK  ) 10 MW Black Mountain Solar Power Project near Kingman, AZ, and its 402 MW Los Vientos I and II in Willacy County, TX, both of which came online in January under the company's renewables business unit. With so many companies lagging behind in renewables development, it's good to see this type of progress.

At the 2013 Climate Leadership Conference, taking place today in Washington, D.C. under the auspices of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, Entergy's (NYSE: ETR  ) Director of Climate Consulting, Jeff Williams, said, "Katrina was a galvanizing moment in realizing the risks of climate change. ... You can never mitigate a risk you deny exists." At the same event, Entergy's Executive Vice President was a little more blunt: "I couldn't give a rat's cheek whether you're a true climate believer. As business people, you need to pay attention to risk management."

That's the kind of leadership I want to see from a potential investment. Companies can no longer afford to keep their heads in the sand when it comes to climate change risks. It makes no more sense than it did to deny the health risks of asbestos, once upon a time. The world is changing, and resilient companies will be the ones that can change along with it.

As the nation moves increasingly toward clean energy, Exelon is perfectly positioned to capitalize on having the largest nuclear fleet in North America. Combine this strength with an increased focus on renewable energy, and EXC's recent merger with Constellation places Exelon and its best-in-class dividend on a short list of top utilities. To determine if Exelon is a good long-term fit for your portfolio, you're invited to check out The Motley Fool's premium research report on the company. Simply click here now for instant access.


Read/Post Comments (4) | Recommend This Article (4)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On March 01, 2013, at 8:17 PM, tombright wrote:

    Agreed, of course. Avoid, by all means, companies willing to play along with megalos, charlatans and propagandists.

    As I recall, only certain kinds of asbestos caused lung problems, only among smokers, and only under certain work conditions involving paints, heat and confined spaces. Lawyers extorted hundreds of millions representing people who were never sick and never would be sick thanks to gullible juries and dense judges.

    Similarly, Exxon surrendered $170m to a certain demagogue over a tape that contained exactly zero evidence of criminal activity. Same gentleman likewise extorted a beer franchise and an auto dealership, didn't he?

    We should believe climate change if the recommended pathway to solutions is LESS regulation, LOWER taxes and NO payments to foreign dictators. Since we are to be forced the opposite direction, it has revealed itself to be just another extortion scheme.

  • Report this Comment On March 01, 2013, at 11:42 PM, jamesdan567 wrote:

    And so you think the polar ice cap is getting smaller because its not getting warmer?

  • Report this Comment On March 02, 2013, at 12:07 AM, luckyagain wrote:

    Carbon based energy sources will be used for the foreseeable future. That said the US should attempt to move away from them just for national security reasons. The US government spends billions of dollars defending Saudi Arabia so that Asia and Europe can receive oil. Very little of the oil goes to the US because transportation costs are too high. If this defense cost was included in the cost of oil, it would be add at least $2.00/gallon of gasoline. This huge indirect subsidy of oil is never mentioned but should be considered. Once the government acknowledges the cost of defending Saudi Arabia in oil prices, it will be easily seen that oil is nowhere as cheap as many people believe.

  • Report this Comment On March 02, 2013, at 10:55 PM, jmailboxus wrote:

    There is always going to be a problem with almost any kind of energy source. Water dams cause an amount of harm to the local environment, and alters the wildlife habit as well.

    I would like to see more developement of compressed air cards in the USA, there is a factory in France that make these cars that run on nothing but compressed air at about 200KM or 160 Miles on a tank full of air. There is no combustion so there is now exhaust so to speak, just air coming out. Which also means the fuel, compress air, is 100% recyclable

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 2289059, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 12/19/2014 4:40:37 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement