Science tells us that to limit global warming to the 2°C target that was agreed upon by basically every nation on Earth last month in Paris, we must refrain from burning 80% of our coal, 50% of our gas, and 30% of our oil reserves. This concept has been called the “carbon bubble,” indicating the over-valuation of fossil fuel firms who account for those unburnable reserves in their value.
In order to meet that 2°C goal, it stands to reason that we must invest heavily in renewable energy.
Defying this logic, Wall Street Journal ran a piece suggesting that it’s not fossil fuels, but renewable energy that faces a bubble. This continues a long tradition of the Journal suggesting that the carbon bubble is a “myth” and that there’s a “carbon regulation bubble.”
Granted, the WSJ has occasionally made space (though buried online) for experts on their blog (including Al Gore, whom partisan readers tend to immediately ignore) to warn business-focused readers. However, this latest story suggests that the Journal's oft-derided editorial stance against renewables has started to bleed into its news reporting.
As far as the substance of the piece, which is an interview with financier Per Wimmer, there is actually little to justify the headline that “Renewable Energy Is a ‘Bubble.’” Wimmer suggests that the only things we should subsidize are those which will be profitable within seven to ten years. Judging by that reasoning, the trillions (or $10 million a minute) spent subsidizing fossil fuels globally should have ended a century ago.
Unsurprisingly, you don’t see the WSJ advocating for an end to fossil fuel subsidies. Instead they give space to Matt “King Coal” Ridley to talk about how “Fossil Fuels Will Save the World (Really).”
Oh, and a note about yesterday's story. Turns out Energy in Depth is only (marginally) transparent about its fossil-fuel sponsorship because it has already been exposed. EID used to describe itself as being a project of "small, independent oil and natural gas producers," until 2011. That's when DeSmog uncovered a memo in which EID credits their existence to such "small, independent" producers as BP, Shell, Chevron, Halliburton and others. Then, in 2012, Lisa Graves at PR Watch went in depth with a very detailed piece on their various connections.