Vanguard Retreats from ESG, Running Free from Pricey Gas—EVs, A Vision of a Wind-Powered Venezuela and more.

From PRX, this is Living On Earth.

I'm Ian Sionil, and I'm Jenny During.

The war in Iran highlights the perils of reminds on fossil fuels.

The President made a very insensitive statement on his social media accounts.

When he said, look, it's great that oil and gas prices are high

because U.S. produces more oil and gas than any other country

and so we're making lots of money.

But oil companies are making a lot more money.

But we are all paying the price.

And those high gas prices might drive some folks to go electric.

I think it's exactly the right time to buy an EV,

specifically because demand is down.

Prices are lower than they have been.

And oil prices are very volatile.

It's not likely conflicts are going to go away.

And it's not like the climate is decided to take a pause.

We'll have that end more this week on Living On Earth.

Stick around.

From PRX and the Jennifer and Ted Stanley Studios

at the University of Massachusetts, Boston,

this is Living On Earth.

I'm Jenny During.

And I'm Ian Sionil.

The investment giant Vanguard is retreating from its climate initiatives

as part of a settlement deal for an antitrust lawsuit

brought by Red State Attorney General

led by Texas AG Ken Paxton.

The lawsuit alleged that Vanguard

and fellow asset managers BlackRock and State Street,

which are still fighting the suit,

conspired to kill the coal industry

by being involved in climate initiatives

that hurt coal companies.

Vanguard, which manages more than $12 trillion

in global assets, did not admit to wrongdoing,

but agreed to pay Texas, Missouri, Indiana,

and 10 other Republican-led states about $30 million.

Vanguard also agreed to withdraw

from the principles for responsible investment network.

And not participate in any organization

that advocates for specific emissions targets

or requires climate-focused investment commitments.

That means it's barred from participating

in the group's net zero asset managers,

climate action 100 plus, and series.

Michael Bodette, General Counsel at Series,

told our executive producer Steve Kerwood

the lawsuit was never really about antitrust law

or financing the coal industry.

Many politicians feel that there are points to be scored

and votes to be won

by attacking targets they see as woke capitalism.

And in my view, that political backdrop

has as much to do with this lawsuit as anything else.

So what was agreed to in this settlement?

Well, the settlement had a lot of terms,

some of which are very concerning for those of us

in the sustainability movement.

One is the large amount of money.

I should say possibly not large in the eyes of Vanguard,

which is very, very large,

but large to a Red State Attorney General.

But the other terms are,

if anything, more concerning,

some of them restrict Vanguard

to being purely a passive investor,

contrary to its approach in recent years.

And some of them restrict what kinds of organizations

Vanguard is allowed to join,

and restrict what kinds of shareholder proposals

Vanguard can bring.

Some say that this settlement,

that Vanguard has given to these Red State Attorney General,

underscores that for the states that sued,

their primary objective is not antitrust,

but it appears to be dismantling participation

in climate-focused organizations

more than altering day-to-day investment practices.

What does that look like, and why is that a concern?

Well, it's a concern for many reasons, Steve,

and I think that's an accurate observation.

It hurts the efficacy of our movement over the long term.

You know, the economy follows big money to a degree,

and losing influence with large market players

is not a good thing for the sustainability movement.

The other concern, speaking more as a lawyer,

is the First Amendment.

I believe that even if this Red State Attorney General

wins this case, they could not get a judge to order a company.

You cannot belong to this association or that association.

That is basic First Amendment freedom of association principles and play.

But Vanguard here voluntarily agreed to do that in a settlement

in order to get rid of a case.

So that's very concerning from a constitutional point of view as well.

And, you know, again, we do hope that at least one of these companies

continues to fight this case and test it in court.

So a company like Vanguard has trillions of dollars

of assets under management.

So while a $29 million payment to have

what they see as an annoying lawsuit go away

is small and there's scale of doing things for people

who invest with them, people at home perhaps

who have purchased bonds through Vanguard.

That's a piece of change.

In your view, what is the public and what are consumers

and investors losing with this type of settlement?

Well, they're losing the full benefit

of having an asset manager that looks out for their interests.

And in our view, part of that role should be talking to companies

about their game plan for sustainability

and their game plan for climate-related scenario planning

and climate-related transition.

So you and I, if we own a couple shares in a mutual fund

that Vanguard runs, we're not going to go meet

with a company, be a caterpillar or Amazon or whoever.

We're not, as individuals, going to go meet

with that company and say, hey, what's your strategy?

We couldn't even get in the door.

Vanguard and BlackRock and State Street

have the ability to say, hey, collectively,

we manage millions of your shares.

How about a meeting?

And they'll get that meeting.

And they can have a constructive dialogue

with the board of directors

or the sustainability department of that corporation

and have meaningful back and forth.

And importantly, Steve, I want to make clear,

that meeting centers around profitability

as well as sustainability.

In other words, if you're a big pension fund

or a university endowment or what have you,

you want that company to be profitable this quarter,

next year and 20 years from now.

So you're not telling them, you know,

stop doing business because you're harming the planet,

other organizations do that.

The kinds of meetings we're talking about

are more around what can you do consistent

with long-term profitability to be more sustainable

and reduce your own risk.

So a good asset manager would be having those conversations.

Vanguard has just promised not to be

that kind of asset manager.

Why does Vanguard feel vulnerable on this?

Well, there are a lot of levers that have been used

to influence the big asset managers.

They were sent requests for information

that were very burdensome from the House Judiciary Committee.

Another one is that some states passed laws

saying that any asset manager

that considered climate-related issues

therefore was de facto boycotting the oil and gas industry.

So they would go on a boycotter list

and be ineligible for handling business in that state,

which means important things like being able to manage

state pension money in a red state

or bidding for state and local municipal bonds

in that state, which is a huge market.

So some of them were in fact banned by these laws

and very much wanted that business back

and that's another lever that's been used against them.

Michael, at the same time that Vanguard

has agreed to settle this case,

there's a former employee at Pushman and Wakefield

who's suing that commercial real estate firm

for failing to protect its employees

for a 1K plans from climate-related risks.

Can you contrast that case to this settlement, please?

Yeah, it's really interesting that case

against Pushman Wakefield, that's in Seattle,

out in Washington state,

and we'll be watching it.

Yes, the employee there makes the argument

that you, my employer, failed to look out for me

because you put on your 401K options menu

and many of us have seen these menus

where you allocate your retirement contributions.

You put on there a fund that did not consider climate risk

and therefore put my money

and my retirement security at risk

of not considering a whole category of risk.

So, yes, that makes the argument

that an asset manager should,

as part of its fiduciary duty,

consider all risks,

including climate-related risks and environmental risks,

which is contrary to some of the arguments being made in Texas.

It's even more directly contrary.

There was a, you know, exactly converse case

brought down against American Airlines by a pilot.

In the pilot argued,

you're putting my retirement at risk

because you are considering what's called ESG factors,

environmental social governance factors,

the E being the most important one,

asset series.

And that's wrong,

and so you've put me at risk,

and there was a trial in that case that that pilot won.

And there's a district court opinion

that later got amended,

but it has some, some interesting language.

So, this case in Washington state argues the opposite

and we'll be watching it closely.

It'll be interesting to see as the case plays out.

What that fund says about whether it really

did consider any climate-related risk.

Why should our listeners care about this issue?

Broadly, most of us hope that our 401k money

and the few of us who have investments beyond that

will be there for us down the road when it's time to retire.

And we expect that it will be managed in a way

that accounts for risk and minimizes risk.

And if companies and asset managers

are promising red state attorneys general

or other actors out there,

we will not think about climate risk.

Think about PG&E going bankrupt

because of the wildfires in California.

I could list many more examples.

I won't go on.

It's obviously financial.

And if you own shares in PG&E

and you lost them in that bankruptcy,

you would care a lot.

So that's one answer.

Then a much more specific answer, Steve,

is that people are going to start getting

more paperwork coming their way

because it used to be that your asset manager

would take care of all the many, many votes

that happen at shareholder meetings,

whether it be re-election of the company directors

or whether it be voting on a sustainability-related

shareholder proposal.

We didn't have to think about that

because someone else was handling it

and we trusted them to make smart decisions.

Now Vanguard has promised

they're not going to play a role in that anymore

and they're going to try and pass through

all the voting to individual investors

who will now have to deal with all these decisions.

They're going to give you a form.

And one of the options in that form

is going to say,

check this box if you just want to agree

with management all the time.

We hope that many of your listeners

choose not to check that box.

Management is not always right.

Another box will say,

check here,

if you would like your shares voted

consistent with environmental,

social, and governance principles.

And we hope that many of your listeners

will choose to check that box,

consistent with their values

and consistent with smart management of money.

That's Series General Council,

Michael Bodette,

speaking with Living on Earth Executive Producer,

Steve Kerwin.

On February 26th,

Vanguard released a statement that reads in part.

We made the decision to settle the litigation

filed by the Texas Attorney General

and other states

with our investor's best interest in mind,

as it allows us to put this distraction behind us

and focus on what matters,

giving our investors the best chance

for investment success.

And in announcing the settlement,

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton

vowed to quote,

continue to uproot and destroy

any attempt by investment giants

to push a woke agenda

that puts American energy at risk.

To read the full Vanguard

and Texas AG statements,

visit our website,

L-O-E-D-O-R-G.

Music

Coming up, what to know

if these high gasoline prices

have you looking into an electric vehicle?

Keep listening to Living on Earth.

Here at Living on Earth,

we work hard each and every week

to bring you the most relevant

and compelling environmental news.

As a nonprofit organization,

we count on you to help.

Listener Support is key

to sustaining the environmental news gathering

and reporting that you rely on.

Please consider doing your part

to support Living on Earth.

A monthly donation is the very best way

to ensure L-O-E's work continues

week after week.

To make your pledge of support,

go to L-O-E.org and click Donate.

And thank you for helping

to keep L-O-E's nonprofit

environmental media going strong.

It's Living on Earth.

I'm Ainsley O'Neal.

And I'm Jenny During.

The U.S. and Israel's war

with Iran that began in late February

has slowed and at times stopped

ships from passing through

the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf,

a vital shipping corridor,

especially for fossil fuels.

Around 20% of both the world's oil

and liquefied natural gas,

and about a third of the world's

fertilizer all travel through the

Strait, and they've all been

disrupted amid the war,

leading to global oil and gas price

spikes.

Joining us now to discuss how the

U.S. Israel war against Iran is

impacting global energy security

is Lauren Stockman, the research

co-director for oil change

international.

Welcome back to Living on Earth,

Lauren.

Great.

Thank you.

It was great to be here.

So although most of the oil that passes

through the Strait of Hormuz is meant

for Asia, we've seen oil and gas prices

so are quite a bit here in the U.S.

How are people across the U.S.

being impacted by these high prices?

Right.

Yeah.

As many people may have seen it,

only really took a few days

for us to see price rises

at gas stations around the country,

and of course, as time has gone on,

that's become more dramatic.

That, of course, is impacting

people who are simply trying to get

to work, trying to get their kids to

school, and over time,

that is adding to what was really

already an energy affordability

crisis going on in the U.S.,

which was actually more related

to gas and electricity,

but gasoline prices have been relatively low

for the last couple of years.

This is now sort of adding

another layer on top of an ongoing

energy affordability crisis for many

people in the U.S.

Now, Lauren, in 2022,

the Russia-Ukraine conflict also

triggered a cost of living crisis.

What happened then,

and how does the chaos caused by this

U.S. and Israel military action

against Iran compare?

Yeah. It's an interesting comparison,

actually, so prior to the invasion

of Ukraine by Russia in February 2022,

there was already a lot of pressure

on oil and gas supplies globally.

That was partly because

the world was coming out of the

lockdowns from the COVID pandemic,

and so by sort of late 2021,

the demand for oil and gas was surging

ahead of supply.

So we were already seeing

some level of supply crunch

before Russia invaded Ukraine.

And that's why we saw sort of

much more dramatic spikes

in the oil price than we're actually

seeing today.

Prior to the U.S.

starting to bomb Iran,

the oil market was seen as over-supplied.

The growth in demand for oil

has actually been slowing

in the last year.

Supply has been coming on very fast

outside of the Persian Gulf,

mostly in the Americas,

in Canada and the U.S.

and Brazil and Guyana have been

increasing production quite fast.

And so the market was seen as over-supplied.

Now, but some people are saying

this is the biggest shock.

But the impact depends on how

long this goes on.

The U.S. produces a lot of oil and gas,

exports a lot of that on the global market.

Despite that dominance,

how vulnerable are we to the pressures

on supply caused by this conflict?

I think the U.S.

is still very vulnerable.

It is one of largest producers

and it is exporting into global markets.

But that connection to global markets

means when prices rise

in the markets

that the U.S. is exporting into,

the U.S. consumer is now

competing with those global markets

for that oil and gas.

So we saw in 2022

we saw significant increases

in the price that U.S.

consumers played for gas to

heat their homes and the winter.

And for electricity because

so much of the U.S. electricity

around 40% actually comes

from gas-fired power plants.

So despite being the biggest producer

we're now connected to global markets.

And U.S. consumers are in competition

with those global markets

for the same product.

I also think there's an extent

to which we have to question

whether we'd even be in this situation

if the U.S.

wasn't a major oil and gas producer.

I think there was a certain amount of

full security that the Trump administration

may have felt in going into

this war,

which has always been

closing the straight-off on moose

has always been the nightmare scenario

for the oil and gas industry.

The oil and gas markets.

It's always been the one thing

that should be avoided.

And in fact, the U.S.

has spent billions of dollars

over the years protecting the straight-off on moose

and trying to avoid this situation.

Now I think to some extent

this administration felt emboldened

by the fact that the U.S.

produces more oil and gas

than any other country in the world.

It had some level of security

if it did cause a disruption in the straight.

And I think what we're learning is

that was a full sense of security

and we're going to see these impacts

despite the fact that the U.S.

produces all this oil and gas.

You know, how does the fossil fuel industry benefit

from this volatility and conflict?

So the president made a very insensitive statement

on his social media accounts just recently

when he said,

look, it's great that oil and gas prices are high

because the U.S.

produces more oil and gas than any other country.

And so we're making lots of money.

But when we look at who is making the money

and who is paying,

oil companies are making

a lot more money.

But we are all paying for that

with the source of those extra revenues.

We're paying the price.

We saw in 2022

that with the oil prices staying high

for much of the year,

oil companies got a massive win for

had record profits.

The organization all changed international.

We actually did an analysis

just of the top American companies

and they received a win-full in 2022

of around $200 billion.

In the current crisis,

it's a little bit early to say

a lot depends on how long it goes on for

and how high prices go.

But just recently,

the Department of Energy reassessed the oil price

for 2026

and they raised their expectation

for average oil prices from 53 to 73 dollars per barrel.

That's a 20 dollar difference.

Wow, that's huge.

Yeah, they also said, you know,

we might have to reassess this

depending on how long this goes on, right?

So it could be a lot worse

and just based on that 20 dollar difference,

US crude oil producers

are in line to make an additional $100 billion

over 2026 just on that

average 20 dollar difference.

That also doesn't include

the gas and the natural gas liquids,

the other things that they produce

are gas wells.

So that's just based on the crude oil price.

So they're in line to make a massive win-full

in Europe and in the UK

in 2022.

Those governments imposed a win-full tax

on the oil and gas industry

because they saw that their citizens

were struggling with a cost of living crisis

that was mainly based in the price of energy,

the price of oil and gas.

The US hasn't done that.

So how do we break this cycle

of vulnerability to oil and gas prices

rising, falling, rising again?

How do we get out of this?

Well, we reduce our use of oil and gas.

And that's been happening.

We got this shock in 2022

and certainly in Europe

and in some other parts of the world

we have seen significant progress

in an acceleration

in installations of wind and solar and storage.

In Europe, the generation of renewable energy

shot up 35% from 2022 to 2024

where we have the latest data

and believe in 2025,

it's increased even more.

So we're actually seeing, you know,

particularly the countries that were hit hard

in 2022.

I'm actually just that little bit less reliant already.

And I think this will reinforce that

even more.

Unfortunately, the country that is not going

in that direction is turned around

and going in the opposite direction

this administration is all out on fossil fuels.

Where gas contributes about 40% of electricity generation.

It's really become the sort of price setter

in the electricity market in the US.

This administration has attacked renewable energy projects.

You know, I'm thinking specifically of, you know,

the big offshore wind projects that were being built

off the East Coast,

making sort of illegal attacks

as slowing those projects down,

adding to their costs.

And it seems to be intent on doing everything it can

to slow down affordable renewable energy

and promote fossil fuels.

But the rest of the world took that signal pretty seriously

in 2022.

And I believe this situation is only going to reinforce

that momentum away from oil and gas

and towards cleaner and cheaper and more secure energy.

And to what extent is an economy powered by

renewables less vulnerable to this volatility?

And why would that be?

Well, if you're not reliant on importing fossil fuels then

when these situations come up in the prices spike,

you're going to benefit.

I mean, actually it's been quite interesting to look at Spain.

You know, we've seen just in the last couple of weeks

electricity prices spiking in some of the European economies.

But Spain, which actually has the highest renewable energy

penetration on its grid,

its electricity prices have been much more stable in the last week or so

with much less volatility and much lower spikes.

And that's been noted by some of the other European countries

that Spain has managed to kind of disconnect itself

to some extent from these crises that we're seeing.

So, you know, there's a very clear connection

between lowering the amount of gas that's

flowing into the electricity system

and, you know, experiencing lower volatility

when these kind of crises take hold.

Lauren Stockman is the research co-director

for OilChained International.

Thank you so much for joining us today.

Thank you.

Pain at the pump might have you dreaming

about filling up with electrons instead of gas.

U.S. drivers looking to buy an electric vehicle

now have more choices than ever

and they no longer have to cost you an arm and a leg.

But with the $7,500 federal tax credit for new electric vehicles

now gone, you may be wondering whether EVs

are the smart buy here in 2026.

Jim Motivalli, who writes about green transportation

for auto-week, barons, and the New York Times,

is here with some advice.

Welcome back to living on Earth, Jim.

Great to be on.

Well, so Jim, in 2026,

if there is a prospective car owner

who has a gas car

but is thinking that their next purchase might be an EV,

what should they keep in mind?

Well, I think there's a lot of reasons

to consider an EV right now

and the offerings are probably more attractive than ever before.

If you look at the main reasons

consumers have had qualms about buying an EV,

that has to do with range

and just about every respectable EV is now hovering

at or beyond 300 miles of range.

And all the EVs have switched

to being able to access the Tesla charging network

and Tesla has the best

national network of charging stations.

And they're pretty much across the country now.

You could easily drive an EV

across America or you drive it north or south.

It doesn't really matter.

There's Tesla stations everywhere.

And fear of not being able to find charging

has been a major drag on EV sales.

Right now, EV sales are really down.

They've really sort of cratered.

Whether that will continue or not,

I'm not sure.

And I think we will see a spike in interest

because of what people are paying at the pump right now.

To what extent do you think this drop in EV interest

comes from the removal of federal tax credits for EVs?

How much did that have an impact on people going,

well, I'm not sure the money makes sense anymore?

Well, I think unfortunately we saw a drop off

even before that happened.

Before Trump took off,

it's one of the first things he did was

remove that $7,500 federal income tax credit.

But we were seeing a drop off in interest even before that.

I also think the federal income tax credit

is not as important as it was

because EV prices have come down.

If you look at some of the newest options

that are in some of the cars that are on the market,

now they're actually priced lower than the average

price Americans pay for cars.

I mean, keep in mind that that price is around $50,000.

That's the average price of a vehicle today.

And there are a whole lot of EVs

that even without federal subsidies are well below that.

So I think we could actually say we're either close to

or at price parity, maybe not all EVs,

but there's certainly a lot of available EVs

that are below the average of what Americans pay

for a car anyway.

So I don't think it's critical that federal income tax credit.

It was nice.

And I'm sure some people decided not to buy because of that.

But in many cases, automakers lowered their prices

to compensate for the loss of the federal income tax credit.

I think if consumers were to really look at EVs now,

they'd see that they're pretty fairly priced

and they could buy a really competent one at prices,

not exorbitantly more or even more at all than a gas car.

Well, let's talk a little bit more about the charging network as well.

So not only has there been limited charging access

that's been a challenge for EV adoption,

but also long charging times.

Where does that stand at this moment?

Well, I think the charging companies are doing their best

to reduce the amount of time it takes to charge.

And BYD, which is now the biggest EV producer in the world,

Chinese company, took over from Tesla as the biggest producer,

they said they can charge an EV,

I think it's maybe 10 to 80% in five minutes.

And if you could do that in five minutes,

then you're not taking appreciably longer

than if you were filling up your gas car.

Sometimes you need a, what's called a DC fast charger.

You can't have that kind of charger in your house.

You're not going to be able to produce five minute charges

in your home garage, but you don't really need to.

Once the car is in the garage and you plug it in,

you don't have to stand there waiting for it.

At public charging, five minute charges would be really great.

Well, and so Jim, if somebody's looking right now

and they are considering an EV,

what would you say are particular standouts

in terms of manufacturers or particular models, even?

Well, I'm a big fan of the Hyundai Ionic 5 and 6,

which are reasonably priced EVs that will go 300 miles on a charge.

And I just happened to borrow one,

my brother owns one, using his Ionic 5.

And I think it's a terrific car.

Another one to consider is the new Chevy Bolt,

which has just come out, which is priced under $30,000,

has almost 300 mile range.

And brother strangely will only be offered for one year

as things stand now.

But Chevrolet also produces the Equinox,

which is a larger EV that has many of the same specs.

The new Nissan Leaf is another one that has finally enough range

to be worthy of consideration.

So those are some EVs I like on the lower end of the spectrum.

The problem has been there's too many luxury EVs

priced at $100,000 or more.

And companies like Lucid, for instance,

it's just announced that they're going to be producing sub $50,000 EVs

when everything they've had so far has been $80,000 to over $100,000.

And Rivian also is producing cheaper EVs.

That's their next phase after producing high priced ones

they're trying to get in on the Tesla Model 3 market.

Everybody's aiming at that.

Yeah.

And we talked about the Chinese manufacturer BYD.

As far as I understand it, they're not available in the United States, correct?

Well, it's because of the tariffs that are put on Chinese-made vehicles

that would be pretty cost prohibitive to bring them in.

It's interesting to point out that the Chinese automakers

seem to be making a deal with Canada.

And I think we'll see widespread Chinese EV adoption in Canada.

We've already seen it in Europe, all over Asia, Central America,

Mexico.

I mean, Chinese EVs are everywhere in the world,

but in the United States right now.

I want to take a moment to talk about the used car market.

How great of an option is a used EV for somebody?

That is really something to consider buying a used EV

because they're very inexpensive right now.

It has to do with the fall-off in demand for new EVs

has also affected the used EV market.

So you can get a very good deal on a two-year-old or a three-year-old EV

with low mileage on it, maybe 30,000 miles,

and loaded with options.

A car that would have sold for 50,000 you could buy for 25.

And I don't see any reason not to do that.

I think that would be a very good idea.

Of course, there was a subsidy on used EVs.

It's another thing that Trump killed,

but you won't be able to get that.

But still, you can get a very good deal.

Looking ahead, given the instability of gas prices

from this war in Iran, as well as other future global conflicts,

to what extent do you think people should be factoring in this volatility

when deciding whether to stick with a gas car or switch to an EV?

I think they should definitely factor it in,

because oil prices are very volatile.

They go up and down.

And it's not likely conflicts are going to go away.

I don't know how long the one with Iran is going to last,

but there's going to be conflicts over oil,

as well as the climate imperatives that are still there.

It's not like the climate is decided to take a plus.

It's not going on hold for this.

And I think that will be a major reason.

I think EVs are very worth considering right now,

even if you're not as worried about the price of the pumps.

I think it's exactly the right time to buy an EV.

Specifically, because demand is down,

prices are lower than they have been.

The EVs are also way more competent than they were in the past.

And some of the early bugs we've seen in EVs have been ironed out.

They're likely to be way more reliable than before.

I think you'll find your dealership very anxious to make a deal with you on EV.

Give you the best possible price.

And I don't think you'd feel a whole lot of pain owning an EV now.

With the extensive charging network,

we have the public charging network,

and way greater adoption of EVs.

So there's network of support for them,

and parts availability, all that kind of stuff.

Jim Motivoli writes,

Forbearance, Auto Week, and The New York Times.

Jim, thank you so much for taking the time with me today.

I'm always glad to talk to you, Winsley.

Just ahead, a vision for Venezuela,

powered by its abundant offshore wind, instead of oil.

Stay tuned to Living on Earth.

If you're one of Living on Earth's listener supporters,

or if you've been considering a donation to Eloy,

this message is for you.

As a non-profit news organization,

listener support is vital to Eloy's weekly effort

to bring you up-to-date environmental news and information.

Your gift to Eloy makes a difference,

and makes our work possible.

So thank you.

It's Living on Earth. I'm Jenny Doring.

And I'm Ainsley O'Neal.

In a moment, we'll look at how electricity from the sun and wind

could provide an alternate power source

for the oil-rich nation of Venezuela.

But first, this note on emerging science

from Living on Earth's Don Lyman,

about how electricity from the sky

helps power the ecology of the rainforest.

Last spring,

scientists who were studying the effects

of lightning strikes on tropical forests

at the barricolor out of nature monument in Panama

reported an unexpected finding.

One especially tall species of rainforest tree,

Diptorix Olifera, also known as El Menro,

actually benefited from lightning strikes,

which killed off parasitic woody vines known as Lyonas,

as well as competing trees of other species.

The scientists documented one case in 2019

where Lyonac-covered de Olifera

suffered a powerful lightning strike,

which damaged 115 surrounding trees,

half of which died within two years.

The Lyonas that covered the El Menro tree all died.

It looked like a bomb went off,

said forest ecologist Evan Goura,

of the Carey Institute of Ecosystem Studies in Melbourne, New York.

The de Olifera tree, however, was still standing and healthy.

The research team studied 93 trees struck by lightning

including 9 de Olifera.

Goura reported that after two years,

all the El Menro trees were thriving,

in stark contrast of 56% mortality among the other tree species.

One reason for this resilience is that,

aside from some ruffled leaves,

de Olifera trees somehow aren't significantly damaged by lightning.

The researchers posit that the tree's wood

might have low electrical resistance

to allow the tree to safely conduct electrical current to the ground.

The electric shock, however,

eliminates most of the parasitic Lyonas that grow on them.

These abundant vines can rob trees of light and nutrients,

vines that are connected from the El Menro trees

to branches on neighboring trees,

spread electrical current from the lightning strikes to the adjacent trees,

causing them damage.

An average of about 9 adjacent trees were killed for lightning strike,

which frees up space, light, and nutrients for the de Olifera trees.

That's this week's note on Emerging Science.

I'm Don Lyman.

Since the U.S. capture of President Nicolas Maduro in early January,

there has been a lot of discussion about Venezuela's massive oil reserves.

But when it comes to the energy sector,

it turns out that Venezuela is ideally positioned to harness abundant, clean,

renewable energy, particularly from wind.

Joining us to map out this blue sky vision for a green Venezuela is Dr. Pasha Madavi.

He's an associate professor of political science at UC Santa Barbara

and consultant for the Natural Resources Governance Institute.

Welcome to Living on Earth, professor.

Well, thanks for having me. It's a pleasure to be on.

We're so glad to have you.

So Venezuela is famously rich in oil,

but we wanted to talk to you because we understand that it also has incredible

renewable energy resources.

What is it about Venezuela's geographic situation that makes it well positioned

to harness renewable energy?

Absolutely. It's quite fascinating that Venezuela is indeed so well known

for its oil industry. It is now being touted as having the largest reserves in the world,

but it also has incredible offshore wind potential in particular,

in addition to solar potential as well as some more advanced kind of geothermal,

which is the heat underneath the earth.

But it's the wind that really catches energy analysts's eyes

because it is tremendously advantageously positioned.

In other words, it's really windy in shallower waters,

and that matters because when it's shallower,

it's easier to build wind turbines.

It has this incredible windiness that a number of other places have as well,

the Great Plains in the US, for example.

So it's exciting for that reason.

And there's lots of other elements of this that are pretty fascinating

and why some in Venezuela themselves are excited as well.

So what kind of scale are we talking about here?

I mean, what kind of capacity for wind energy could Venezuela in theory harness?

So the World Bank does these great analyses across the world,

and Venezuela's potential for offshore wind puts that number at 381 gigawatts of capacity

and to put that in perspective, that's 10 times the country's current electricity capacity

as it stands of 38 gigawatts.

All of the electricity that's produced in Venezuela is one-tenth of the amount that exists offshore.

So it's a huge number in terms of its potential,

but getting there is a different question.

And by the way, how much renewable energy does Venezuela already use?

Almost zero.

The catch is hydro power, but we think about hydro differently

because of the way that Venezuela's hydro was constructed

and some of the damages that are done especially

when trying to capture hydro power in sensitive areas,

like the oriental river basin or the Amazon, places like that.

But when it comes to solar wind geothermal effectively, effectively zero.

So how might the extracting and refining oil workforce in Venezuela translate to offshore wind

from a labor perspective?

I'm glad you asked that because this is the trillion dollar question

when it comes to how we transition away from oil,

which is how do we ensure a just transition for workers that are impacted?

One of the answers comes down to what are the skill sets that are easily transferable

through either minimal training or retraining,

or through kind of altering kind of the existing training pathways

when we think about kind of the younger generation.

So those who would have trained to be petroleum engineers can be trained to do something else.

The kind of areas that have the greatest skills transferability

when it comes to the renewable energy sector

and any kind of decarbonized solution for oil are offshore wind and geothermal.

So that's one area where you've got rig hands, engineers, even seismic,

and a whole number of different elements along the oil worker supply chain

that are transferable to the offshore wind supply chain.

The other part of it is what offshore wind does

and the whole idea behind creating these offshore wind hubs.

Venezuela, let's say, developed 381 gigawatts of wind.

That's crazy, but that's 10 times what it currently needs, right?

And so what would it do with that?

Well, typically the model is that you create adjacent manufacturing hubs

that are effectively getting subsidized electricity.

And that's a huge attraction for whether it's heavy manufacturing,

medium manufacturing, whatever the case may be, port capacity

and Venezuela's well positioned for both of those things.

And that's where workers that are on the more manufacturing side

of the oil and gas industry can transfer into.

And by that, I mean, you know, thinking about refining and processing

and things like that.

So that's another part of it, which is not in the actual turbines themselves,

but the electrons that are generated that can go to power industries

that can rehire oil workers that are transitioning away from oil and gas.

So coming back to this amazing potential for wind energy that Venezuela has,

what are the main barriers preventing Venezuela from pursuing this transition

to this form of energy?

So there are effectively, I would say, two big barriers to it.

But the biggest roadblock is the government.

That in many cases, these national oil companies, yes, they're oil companies,

but they march to one drummer.

And that drummer is the government and what the government wants to prioritize.

And in Venezuela's case, Maduro and Chavez before him and many before Chavez,

prioritized oil and gas over anything else.

And so what you get there is a roadblock that's erected by the government's decisions

as to what to pursue.

And the other barrier is the institutional capacity.

And what we mean by that is not just the political will to do this

and the government's decision to do it, but its capability of doing so,

of having the kind of filled out bureaucracy and having the clear rule of law

and the expectations that exist for companies to come invest,

for others to do business in Venezuela to assist the national companies

when it comes to offshore wind in Venezuela, you just haven't had that technical capability

when it comes from a bureaucratic standpoint of getting this off the ground.

Professor, we have to acknowledge that building out a ton of wind energy in Venezuela

would not by itself provide the same kind of exportable energy

that its oil resources allow.

You can't exactly load electricity into a tanker to ship around the world,

at least not at this point.

But walk us through how that wind energy might help power economic activity

or be turned into other resources that could be exported.

You're exactly right.

You can't necessarily export electricity as easily.

And I say that because there are opportunities for Venezuela to provide cheap

and clean electricity via undersea cable around the Caribbean.

But to think about what you do with this,

you convert that cheap electricity and reliable electricity.

Yes, the wind doesn't always blow, but it blows predictably.

And you can pair it with all kinds of new technologies, not just batteries.

There's other ways to draw out the potential from generating electricity from wind.

You put that to use in something that is going to be exportable.

And it's interesting, that's the entire story of the industrial revolution

because electricity is an energy.

And that's our lifeblood when it comes to creating economic products.

And so that's the way to do it.

And that's kind of how a number of other countries have done so

when you're not directly exporting the electricity.

Norway, for example, does directly export some of that electricity.

But you look at then the opportunities that exist if you think about exporting

the clean energy products themselves.

So if you start to get into EVs and start to get innovations

in how you build wind turbines, look no further than China.

And China now is a larger energy exporter by revenue than Saudi Arabia,

which is a wild number.

Wow.

Because it exports, you have to count up a lot of things.

It's not just one product, right?

You kind of check.

EVs, it's solar panels, it's wind turbines.

All of those made more money last year in terms of export revenue than Saudi Arabia's oil and gas sector.

And that's a long way away.

It takes a long time to get there.

But it does to show you that there is a lot of money to be made for governments,

economies, in the clean energy space.

And it's not just the electricity itself, but so many other things that it opens the door to.

And it goes back to my point that Venezuela has the human know-how to do that.

And that's because it's been an energy producer for a century or more.

And that matters.

And that's kind of what many are hoping to tap into.

Now, what examples do we have of nearby countries in South America

that have been working to address the climate crisis while also growing their economies?

So the best example is Venezuela's neighbor to the West, which is Colombia.

Colombia is an oiling-ass producer.

It has a national oil company, eco-petrol, but it's like Venezuela has a national oil company, Petevesa.

But these are two countries that are taking two very different paths, very much a tale of two cities,

kind of situation, because Colombia has a president that is seeking to decarbonize

and move beyond oil and gas.

Part of it is because of the profitability in the long term of Colombia's oil and gas.

But the other part of it is a deep belief in solving the climate crisis.

But it looks quite different than Venezuela where the national oil company has been told to just focus on oil and gas.

And it has been doing so well before the latest actions in early January of taking out Maduro.

And that's because that was Chavez's vision, that was Maduro's vision, is to keep the golden goose laying eggs.

This question of which path Venezuela chooses, it feels like so much bigger than just Venezuela,

which of course is what we're focusing on here.

But this choice that the world faces right now, in terms of the stakes for the planet, for human civilization,

how important is it for us all to get this right?

It is the most important thing in the world.

At least to me, I have two little kids. A lot of people have kids.

We think about kids as kind of the next generation.

We are already experiencing climate change, so it's not just a future thing.

But we have to get it right.

And we have these opportunities, these political windows that open up anytime there are new leaders in power to make that change.

One of the founding members of OPEC could become one of the global leaders of clean energy if it chooses to.

Because it has the ability to do it, it has the human capital to do it, it has the resources to do it, it's a choice.

So it's tremendously important not just for all of us around the planet, but for other countries to be able to point to, hey look, Venezuela did it.

We can do it too.

Pasha Madavi is an associate professor of political science at UC Santa Barbara,

where his research focuses on the impact of oil and gas resources on governance and environmental politics.

Thank you so much, Professor Madavi.

Thanks so much for having me. I really enjoyed the conversation.

By the way, the total offshore wind capacity in the United States is 4,300 gigawatts, nearly four times the amount of all the electricity currently generated in the US.

Don't miss our next living on Earth Book Club event.

On Thursday, March 26th at 5 p.m. Eastern, data scientist Hannah Richie will join us live on Zoom to discuss her new book, Clearing the Air, a hopeful guide to solving climate change in 50 questions and answers.

So, rekindle your spark of hope and don't miss this online event. On March 26th at 5 p.m. EDT, co-sponsored by our media partner in Cyclimate News.

It's free to tune in, but you will need to sign up, and you can do that at loe.org slash events. That's loe.org slash events.

Living on Earth is produced by the World Media Foundation.

Our crew includes Naomi Aronberg, Paloma Beltran, Sophie Boker, Swaimgogneja, Mark Kausch, Mark Seth Lander, Don Lyman, Ashanti McLean, Nana Muhammad, Sophia Pendelidas, Jake Rico, Andrew Scarrett, Bella Smith, Julia Vaz, Elle Wilson, and Eddie Yang.

Tom Tiger and Jean Eardar Show, Alison Learstein composed our themes. You can hear us anytime at loe.org, Apple Podcasts, and YouTube Music.

And like us, please, on our Facebook page, Living on Earth. Find us on Instagram, Threads, and Blue Sky at Living on Earth Radio.

And we always welcome your feedback at comments at loe.org. Steve Kuroid is our executive producer. I'm Jenny Doring.

And I'm Ainslie O'Neal. Thanks for listening.

Funding for Living on Earth comes from you, our listeners, and from the University of Massachusetts, Boston, in association with its school for the environment, developing the next generation of environmental leaders, and from the Grantham Foundation for the protection of the environment, supporting strategic communications and collaboration in solving the world's most pressing environmental problems.