WEBVTT - Denial to Delay: How Management Consultancies Data-Wash False Solutions and the Great Gas Lock-In 0:00:05.000 --> 0:00:09.040 Hello, and welcome back to Drilled. I'm Amy Westervelt. We 0:00:09.280 --> 0:00:12.720 are running a new series right now in both the 0:00:12.720 --> 0:00:17.079 podcast and on our website at drilled dot Media, focused 0:00:17.280 --> 0:00:21.200 on what we've been calling false solutions. These are really 0:00:21.680 --> 0:00:26.800 new climate problems masquerading solutions, things that the fossil fuel 0:00:26.840 --> 0:00:33.080 industry has suggested as ways to decarbonize, but that actually 0:00:33.120 --> 0:00:36.559 just lock us into more fossil fuel development for the 0:00:36.600 --> 0:00:41.040 next several decades. I'm talking about things like liquefied natural gas, 0:00:41.200 --> 0:00:46.280 carbon capture, hydrogen, renewable natural gas. There's a whole host 0:00:46.440 --> 0:00:50.680 of these technologies and new products that are being sold 0:00:50.760 --> 0:00:56.200 to both US and European and Asian consumers as quote 0:00:56.280 --> 0:01:01.360 unquote green, when actually they come with ever more greenhouse 0:01:01.400 --> 0:01:05.319 gas emissions. We've already put one story out about a 0:01:05.800 --> 0:01:11.080 fossil fuel lobbying group that's trying to rebrand liquefied natural 0:01:11.120 --> 0:01:15.720 gas as a clean, low, or even zero carbon fuel. 0:01:16.040 --> 0:01:18.360 Go check that out on our website. We'll have a 0:01:18.720 --> 0:01:23.000 corresponding podcast episode about the LNG boom in the next 0:01:23.040 --> 0:01:25.919 week or so. In the meantime, today we're talking about 0:01:25.959 --> 0:01:29.080 something that's really insidious and that it's kind of hard 0:01:29.080 --> 0:01:31.800 to cover because it gets into the weeds a little bit. 0:01:32.200 --> 0:01:35.280 And that is the role that management consultancies play and 0:01:35.319 --> 0:01:39.800 all of this they have mostly been flying under the 0:01:39.920 --> 0:01:45.119 radar where disinformation and false solutions is concerned, but they 0:01:45.160 --> 0:01:48.880 play a really important role in shaping information and data 0:01:49.440 --> 0:01:53.800 and giving the industry sort of a credible bent to 0:01:53.960 --> 0:01:59.560 its proposed solutions. And they do that by providing data 0:01:59.600 --> 0:02:04.640 and a nonnalysis and technical reports to industry groups and companies. 0:02:05.520 --> 0:02:09.839 The catch is that the data is highly limited by 0:02:09.880 --> 0:02:14.280 parameters at the companies and industry groups set, so while 0:02:14.360 --> 0:02:19.040 the consultancy is doing a rigorous analysis, it's also being 0:02:19.080 --> 0:02:23.639 asked to leave out some pretty key components of that analysis. 0:02:24.600 --> 0:02:26.360 This allows them to sort of hold up their hands 0:02:26.400 --> 0:02:29.320 and say, hey, we did the data and analysis they 0:02:29.400 --> 0:02:33.280 asked us for. You know, that's that's our contribution. We 0:02:33.800 --> 0:02:36.400 aren't the ones that are saying that that justifies this, 0:02:36.520 --> 0:02:39.480 that and the other. But really that's kind of a 0:02:39.520 --> 0:02:42.679 cop out because of course these reports are then being 0:02:42.760 --> 0:02:48.280 used to lobby for particular policies or to convince people that, 0:02:48.400 --> 0:02:51.239 you know, energy transition is going to be too expensive, 0:02:51.400 --> 0:02:55.800 all those kinds of things. Un group called Reese to 0:02:55.919 --> 0:02:58.800 Zero is actually starting to look at these kinds of 0:02:58.840 --> 0:03:01.600 things in a more serious way. So they are looking 0:03:01.680 --> 0:03:07.280 at professional services providers PSPs, and they're including management consultancies 0:03:07.320 --> 0:03:10.639 in that, as well as PR and advertising firms, which 0:03:10.680 --> 0:03:13.280 of course we've looked at a lot over here at Drilled. 0:03:13.440 --> 0:03:17.040 Several months ago, a former employee from a management consultancy 0:03:17.200 --> 0:03:20.320 reached out to me with some information about how that 0:03:20.440 --> 0:03:24.400 firm was approaching its fossil fuel clients. This happens to 0:03:24.400 --> 0:03:27.400 be a firm that also does quite a bit of 0:03:27.480 --> 0:03:32.160 work for the US government on really robust climate analysis, 0:03:32.600 --> 0:03:36.080 and there's a reason that the industry also goes to 0:03:36.160 --> 0:03:40.360 them because they know that the government trusts their technical analysis. 0:03:40.840 --> 0:03:44.200 So again, it's just not as innocent as a lot 0:03:44.200 --> 0:03:46.960 of consultancies would like to make it out. As I 0:03:47.000 --> 0:03:50.440 asked reporter Matty Stone to look into those leads, and 0:03:50.480 --> 0:03:54.600 she did and she found a lot. So she is 0:03:54.640 --> 0:03:58.520 here today to talk me through what she found and 0:03:58.640 --> 0:04:01.960 why it's important to look at these things. You can 0:04:02.080 --> 0:04:05.960 also find a written version of that story on our 0:04:06.000 --> 0:04:10.600 website at Drilled dot Media. After the break, Maddie Stone 0:04:11.000 --> 0:04:13.280 on management consultancies. 0:04:22.920 --> 0:04:27.440 Hi I'm Maddie Stone. I'm a freelance journalist covering climate change, 0:04:27.680 --> 0:04:32.120 energy transition, and lots of related topics. Okay, Maddie, we 0:04:32.160 --> 0:04:32.560 asked you. 0:04:32.560 --> 0:04:38.200 To look into this particular management consultant for this story. 0:04:38.320 --> 0:04:40.200 Can you tell us a little bit about who they 0:04:40.240 --> 0:04:42.599 are and what they do? 0:04:43.720 --> 0:04:47.080 Yes? So, the management consultant I've been looking into is 0:04:47.120 --> 0:04:52.960 called ICF. They are a multinational consulting firm that works 0:04:53.000 --> 0:04:57.600 in a variety of different sectors, providing data and analysis 0:04:57.640 --> 0:05:03.080 to government regulators and private industry clients. But one of 0:05:03.080 --> 0:05:07.360 their biggest practices is climate and energy, and so they 0:05:07.440 --> 0:05:11.640 have more than two thousand people employed across their climate practice, 0:05:11.880 --> 0:05:15.880 which does a lot of work with the US federal 0:05:15.920 --> 0:05:19.119 government as well as state governments and local governments around 0:05:19.160 --> 0:05:24.279 the country, including a lot of really legitimate and sort 0:05:24.320 --> 0:05:30.640 of respected work studying decarbonization pathways that cities, states and 0:05:30.800 --> 0:05:37.040 governments can use, helping to implement energy efficiency programs for 0:05:37.279 --> 0:05:42.200 municipalities as well as utilities, and even helping to do 0:05:42.360 --> 0:05:47.720 the analysis underpinning some really high level and influential climate documents. 0:05:48.080 --> 0:05:53.680 ICF contractors have helped to author and coordinate several recent 0:05:53.800 --> 0:05:57.560 installments of the National Climate Assessment, which is this very 0:05:57.600 --> 0:06:00.800 authoritative federal government report that comes out every few years 0:06:00.800 --> 0:06:04.400 on how climate change is impacting the US. So that 0:06:04.720 --> 0:06:09.240 is sort of the climate and energy work that ICF 0:06:09.480 --> 0:06:13.160 likes to present to the world. However, what my investigation 0:06:13.320 --> 0:06:17.760 found is that the firm is also hired by industry 0:06:17.839 --> 0:06:22.280 groups like the American Petroleum Institute and the American Gas Association. 0:06:22.400 --> 0:06:25.880 These are fossil fuel lobby groups that want to maintain 0:06:25.960 --> 0:06:29.880 the fossil fuel centric status quo, and they hire this 0:06:30.080 --> 0:06:35.240 respected so called objective energy and climate consultancy to produce 0:06:35.320 --> 0:06:40.600 reports for them that they have a hand in shaping. 0:06:40.960 --> 0:06:43.920 They can tell the consultancy, we want you to model 0:06:44.040 --> 0:06:47.040 this and that, and don't model this and that, and 0:06:47.560 --> 0:06:51.360 the end result is these very technical, official looking reports 0:06:51.440 --> 0:06:59.560 produced by this credible consultancy that the industry ultimately uses 0:07:00.080 --> 0:07:05.600 to promote itself and its positions, namely that we should 0:07:05.680 --> 0:07:10.240 continue using gas and other fossil fuels, and that decarbonization 0:07:10.400 --> 0:07:17.400 strategies should embrace the potential for things like fossil gas 0:07:17.480 --> 0:07:23.720 and industry preferred solutions. And it's a really sort of 0:07:24.040 --> 0:07:31.120 tricky issue that you have this very highly regarded climate 0:07:31.200 --> 0:07:38.120 consultancy best known for work on decarbonization and actually tackling 0:07:38.120 --> 0:07:43.760 climate change, that has an albeit seemingly fairly small part 0:07:43.760 --> 0:07:49.200 of its business devoted to producing reports that are then 0:07:49.600 --> 0:07:53.560 used by fossil fuel industry interests, lobby groups. 0:07:53.720 --> 0:07:57.480 Yeah, and you spoke with Julie McNamara at the Union 0:07:57.560 --> 0:07:59.800 of Concerned Scientists right about this. 0:08:00.200 --> 0:08:01.240 I thought what she had. 0:08:01.160 --> 0:08:04.160 To say was really interesting because I think people tend 0:08:04.200 --> 0:08:08.080 to think of anything that's modeled as being objective in 0:08:08.160 --> 0:08:12.880 some way, like if it has a chart, then it's objective, exactly. 0:08:13.160 --> 0:08:17.960 And Julie McNamara is someone who has a lot of 0:08:18.000 --> 0:08:22.800 technical expertise on climate and energy modeling. She herself has 0:08:22.880 --> 0:08:27.800 worked for a organization that did government contracted analysis work 0:08:27.880 --> 0:08:31.119 not too dissimilar from ICF, is familiar with their work, 0:08:31.720 --> 0:08:36.360 And Yeah, she was kind of able to help me 0:08:36.720 --> 0:08:42.440 understand what exactly it is that makes this so sort 0:08:42.480 --> 0:08:46.280 of tricky and nefarious, what consultancies like ICF are doing 0:08:46.320 --> 0:08:48.840 when they work with fossil fuel industry groups. 0:08:48.640 --> 0:08:52.720 Or in an era where it's clear that climate change 0:08:52.760 --> 0:08:56.839 is happening and that fossil fuel is the cause, right, 0:08:57.160 --> 0:09:01.160 that we need to transition away from our current practices, 0:09:01.800 --> 0:09:04.960 processes that are all reliant on the fossil fuel industry. 0:09:05.000 --> 0:09:09.360 The fossil fuel industry has responded with every single possible 0:09:09.400 --> 0:09:12.720 way to delay and distract action, and these types of 0:09:12.760 --> 0:09:17.120 technical analysis allow the fossil fuel industry to hold up 0:09:17.120 --> 0:09:19.679 the report in one hand and say no, look, we're 0:09:19.800 --> 0:09:24.760 working on it, we have answers while continuing to solidify 0:09:24.920 --> 0:09:28.800 policy outcomes that perpetuate investments in fossil fuel infrastructure today. 0:09:29.240 --> 0:09:33.000 So those technical reports, they just by time, they are 0:09:33.120 --> 0:09:37.080 absolutely a greenwashing mechanism to say we're not ignoring the problem, 0:09:37.200 --> 0:09:39.520 we're not saying it's not here, we have a plan, 0:09:39.720 --> 0:09:43.959 and at the same time doing absolutely nothing to prove 0:09:44.000 --> 0:09:47.840 out whether that plan would ever be viable, would ever 0:09:47.920 --> 0:09:50.800 be in the public interest, and is even something they 0:09:50.800 --> 0:09:55.320 would ever be actually working towards. The question becomes who 0:09:55.400 --> 0:09:59.080 is running those models, how are they being shaped, what 0:09:59.200 --> 0:10:02.040 are the questions being asked, and what are the assumptions 0:10:02.200 --> 0:10:07.439 being entered. Because it is absolutely the case that analyzes 0:10:07.480 --> 0:10:09.640 are only as good as the questions being asked and 0:10:09.679 --> 0:10:13.959 the assumptions being employed. Models can be so readily co 0:10:14.040 --> 0:10:17.520 opted to justify favored results. They can also be readily 0:10:17.559 --> 0:10:24.040 deployed for rigorous, right extremely helpful, and insightful analyses. The 0:10:24.160 --> 0:10:27.800 difference comes in who is doing the work and who 0:10:27.840 --> 0:10:32.040 is overseeing that selection process. And to me, that's one 0:10:32.040 --> 0:10:35.880 of the most insidious things about an organization that simultaneously 0:10:36.000 --> 0:10:39.640 use even the exact same model, but to use it 0:10:39.760 --> 0:10:42.520 for fossil fuel lotty groups on the one hand and 0:10:43.000 --> 0:10:46.640 state policy implementation on the other, because it muddies the 0:10:46.760 --> 0:10:50.600 water of what's real and what's not, what's rigorous and 0:10:50.640 --> 0:10:55.160 what's not because the model doesn't change the assumptions that 0:10:55.200 --> 0:11:00.440 are used due but suddenly write this organization that can 0:11:00.480 --> 0:11:04.679 be seen as doing very rigorous work, puts its analytical 0:11:04.760 --> 0:11:07.280 stamp on a set of questions and a set of 0:11:07.320 --> 0:11:11.319 assumptions put forward by the fossil fuel lobby, and that 0:11:11.440 --> 0:11:17.040 is a fundamentally different outcome than something being informed through 0:11:17.040 --> 0:11:20.560 a rigorous public stakeholder process like one might see at 0:11:20.600 --> 0:11:21.319 the state level. 0:11:21.600 --> 0:11:25.840 What they're doing is they're supplying a model, and in 0:11:25.880 --> 0:11:29.480 many cases it's a perfectly legitimate model that might also 0:11:29.640 --> 0:11:32.560 be used by the Department of Energy or the EPA 0:11:33.200 --> 0:11:38.600 to do perfectly legitimate climate and energy modeling. But when 0:11:38.640 --> 0:11:41.000 they go to an industry client like the American Gas 0:11:41.040 --> 0:11:46.560 Association for example, that client might tell them, okay, only 0:11:47.200 --> 0:11:53.200 use this model to study XYZ and ignore xyz other scenarios, right, 0:11:53.320 --> 0:11:57.920 And so, for example, ICF provided the analysis. Is how 0:11:58.000 --> 0:12:01.720 they put it behind it twenty twenty one American Gas 0:12:01.800 --> 0:12:08.959 Association report looking at various decarbonization pathways that the gas 0:12:09.000 --> 0:12:12.760 industry could follow. And so this was a report specifically 0:12:12.880 --> 0:12:17.280 set up by the gas industry to demonstrate how it 0:12:17.360 --> 0:12:22.720 could zero out its carbon emissions. So the underlying assumption 0:12:22.880 --> 0:12:27.719 there that the client came to ICF with was we 0:12:27.760 --> 0:12:30.600 can be part of the climate solution and a big 0:12:30.640 --> 0:12:33.240 part of the climate solution. And here are all these 0:12:33.440 --> 0:12:39.480 very technical, rigorous, you know, science backed data points showing 0:12:39.520 --> 0:12:42.120 how we can eliminate our carbon emissions. 0:12:41.640 --> 0:12:44.640 By the same consultancy that you know, you guys and 0:12:44.720 --> 0:12:47.480 the government use exactly exactly. 0:12:48.040 --> 0:12:51.800 But you know what's left unsaid There is everything that 0:12:51.920 --> 0:12:55.240 is excluded from the model. So, for example, an economic 0:12:55.280 --> 0:12:59.600 comparison of what it's going to cost to implement all 0:12:59.600 --> 0:13:04.600 these gas industry preferred solutions versus simply switching to renewable 0:13:04.679 --> 0:13:09.360 energy and electrifying buildings. And you know, there are other 0:13:09.440 --> 0:13:13.559 things that might go into that model that the gas 0:13:13.600 --> 0:13:17.440 industry wants to put in. For example, not saying this 0:13:17.520 --> 0:13:20.760 went into this specific case, but maybe a gas industry 0:13:20.760 --> 0:13:24.240 client would come to a consultancy with some numbers around 0:13:24.320 --> 0:13:28.960 the cost of electrification, right, And maybe those numbers are 0:13:29.280 --> 0:13:34.319 considered unrealistic today, but those are the numbers that the 0:13:34.400 --> 0:13:37.840 industry wanted to use to run its models. And then 0:13:38.400 --> 0:13:41.520 as a result you get a report that has some 0:13:41.640 --> 0:13:46.120 conclusions that appear to favor gas over electrification. 0:13:45.640 --> 0:13:48.920 Right, right, and so and the consultancies kind of go, oh, well, 0:13:48.920 --> 0:13:50.720 we just provided the data thing. 0:13:50.559 --> 0:13:54.280 Exactly exactly, so the consultancy can say, you know, we 0:13:54.400 --> 0:13:57.400 just did this objective, science based analysis. We don't take 0:13:57.440 --> 0:14:01.360 any policy or advocacy positions based on it. But what 0:14:01.559 --> 0:14:07.480 makes that so problematic in a way is that it's 0:14:07.720 --> 0:14:14.520 allowing industry groups to take this white paper and say 0:14:14.520 --> 0:14:18.960 this is a completely objective, third party analysis. You know, 0:14:19.040 --> 0:14:23.640 that supports all of our preferred policy positions. And that's 0:14:24.720 --> 0:14:28.600 only true on this very you know, surface level, where 0:14:28.600 --> 0:14:31.640 you're not considering all the ways that the industry might 0:14:31.720 --> 0:14:36.400 have informed or shaped or restricted how that analysis was done. 0:14:36.640 --> 0:14:41.800 Yeah, yeah, that's it's super interesting. We interviewed Ben Fronta 0:14:41.880 --> 0:14:43.640 a couple of years ago when he had this paper 0:14:43.680 --> 0:14:46.280 out that was called weaponizing Economics. I don't know if 0:14:46.360 --> 0:14:49.880 you if you read that paper, but he he talked 0:14:49.920 --> 0:14:52.880 to an economist who worked for a firm called Charles 0:14:53.000 --> 0:14:57.040 River Associates, and they were contracted by the API, like 0:14:57.640 --> 0:15:00.160 I want to say, in the nineties early nineties to 0:15:00.280 --> 0:15:05.240 run economic models that would show that the cost of 0:15:05.360 --> 0:15:09.120 acting on climate change was like just way too expensive 0:15:09.440 --> 0:15:12.560 and not realistic, and they left out the cost of 0:15:12.640 --> 0:15:17.360 not acting on change. And so like Ben found this 0:15:17.440 --> 0:15:20.000 economist who'd been part of that work who said, you know, 0:15:20.320 --> 0:15:23.400 we did rigorous analysis of the stuff that we were 0:15:23.480 --> 0:15:27.720 like told to look at, but I regret that, you know, 0:15:27.760 --> 0:15:30.680 we went along with this thing of like not including 0:15:31.160 --> 0:15:36.040 this other scenario, which is clearly important for policymakers to understand, 0:15:36.120 --> 0:15:39.920 and that model got used for years to justify no, no, no, 0:15:39.960 --> 0:15:43.240 we shouldn't be doing anything. Look at how expensive it 0:15:43.320 --> 0:15:46.680 is and all of that stuff. So, I know, ICF 0:15:46.880 --> 0:15:48.240 kind of came back to you and said, look, this 0:15:48.280 --> 0:15:51.200 is a very small part of our business. And that's 0:15:51.440 --> 0:15:55.480 quite a common response I think in these kinds of cases. 0:15:56.080 --> 0:16:00.160 But I know you also talk to some people who 0:16:00.200 --> 0:16:04.360 have seen this ICF report for the AGA, for example, 0:16:04.480 --> 0:16:08.560 or the API be cited kind of every time policy 0:16:08.600 --> 0:16:12.240 debates come up about this. So yeah, I'd love to 0:16:12.280 --> 0:16:13.840 have you to kind of talk about that, like how 0:16:13.960 --> 0:16:16.880 much I guess, like how much this stuff gets leaned 0:16:16.960 --> 0:16:18.840 on in these policy conversations. 0:16:19.120 --> 0:16:22.920 The sense I have is that certain reports ICF has 0:16:23.000 --> 0:16:27.120 authored for certain fossil fuel interest groups have been leaned 0:16:27.120 --> 0:16:29.680 on a lot in recent years, that twenty twenty one 0:16:29.680 --> 0:16:33.440 American Gas Association reports sort of being a very prominent 0:16:33.560 --> 0:16:36.840 example of that. I spoke with some folks at the 0:16:37.360 --> 0:16:42.480 climate change think tank Influence Map who have been closely 0:16:42.640 --> 0:16:48.320 tracking the gas industri's influence in policy debates over things 0:16:48.440 --> 0:16:54.560 like building decarbonization and electrification and even gas stove debates 0:16:54.560 --> 0:16:57.840 in recent years, and they told me they've seen this 0:16:57.960 --> 0:17:02.240 AGA slash ICF report come up over and over again 0:17:02.800 --> 0:17:07.679 in formal comments submitted on rulemakings to various agencies, in 0:17:07.800 --> 0:17:12.280 letters to business leaders and politicians, and basically every context 0:17:12.320 --> 0:17:16.520 you can imagine where the American Gas Association wants to 0:17:17.720 --> 0:17:23.960 point out to influential politicians or regulators or folks in 0:17:24.000 --> 0:17:26.840 the business world that hey, look, there's a way for 0:17:26.880 --> 0:17:29.680 the gas industry to be part of the future, even 0:17:29.680 --> 0:17:32.680 a decarbonized future, and we don't actually have to do 0:17:33.080 --> 0:17:39.119 all of this complicated and in their view, costly switching 0:17:39.280 --> 0:17:45.080 to electrification because we have this analysis showing all the 0:17:45.119 --> 0:17:48.800 ways that we can decarbonize gas. So it's really become 0:17:48.840 --> 0:17:52.959 a powerful tool for them in helping to bolster their 0:17:52.960 --> 0:17:57.320 own credibility and influence and shape policy conversations. The really 0:17:57.359 --> 0:18:02.280 tricky part about that is how then do you quantify 0:18:03.000 --> 0:18:03.760 that impact? 0:18:04.000 --> 0:18:04.200 Right? 0:18:04.520 --> 0:18:08.080 You know, it's like it's a hard thing to put 0:18:08.119 --> 0:18:12.639 a carbon amount on ICF. One of their specialties as 0:18:12.680 --> 0:18:15.399 a consultancy is carbon accounting, and they love to point 0:18:15.400 --> 0:18:19.520 out all of the emissions reductions associated with the work 0:18:19.560 --> 0:18:22.959 they do with the EPA for its energy efficiency programs 0:18:23.000 --> 0:18:27.040 and with utilities to implement energy efficiency programs, all the 0:18:27.080 --> 0:18:29.879 millions of tons of carbon they're saving per year. But 0:18:30.600 --> 0:18:35.600 what is the climate impact associated with producing a report 0:18:35.720 --> 0:18:38.960 that an influential gas industry trade group can then use 0:18:39.040 --> 0:18:41.879 to block decarbonization policies. 0:18:42.040 --> 0:18:44.600 Yeah, that's a great question. Yeah, that would be really 0:18:44.680 --> 0:18:45.560 interesting to study. 0:18:45.600 --> 0:18:48.760 Actually, it's a hard thing to study, and it's allowed 0:18:49.359 --> 0:18:54.040 consultancies like ICF to sort of exist in this gray 0:18:54.400 --> 0:19:00.800 space of you know, we are just these objective information providers, 0:19:00.840 --> 0:19:04.400 these data analysts who can crunch numbers and will provide 0:19:04.400 --> 0:19:06.960 that service to anybody. But we're not going to take 0:19:07.560 --> 0:19:13.800 action positions. We're not going to you know, say, policymakers 0:19:13.800 --> 0:19:15.719 should do X, Y and z based on the results 0:19:15.720 --> 0:19:16.359 of this work. 0:19:16.560 --> 0:19:19.959 Yeah, but they will say, you know, like we're a 0:19:20.000 --> 0:19:25.200 climate leader exactly, you know, helping to decarbonize and those 0:19:25.280 --> 0:19:25.680 kinds of. 0:19:25.640 --> 0:19:29.280 So the positive you know, the aspects of the work 0:19:29.320 --> 0:19:33.200 that are positive for climate, of which I should emphasize again, 0:19:33.359 --> 0:19:36.000 this firm does a lot of good climate work. Are 0:19:36.080 --> 0:19:39.680 things that ICF really likes to tout. Yeah, and as 0:19:39.720 --> 0:19:42.600 you pointed out a moment ago, they emphasized to me 0:19:42.920 --> 0:19:45.719 that the work for fossil fuel trade organizations is a 0:19:45.760 --> 0:19:48.440 small part of their practice in terms of in terms 0:19:48.480 --> 0:19:51.840 of their revenue. But again, I think it's an open 0:19:51.960 --> 0:19:56.280 question as to what the overall climate impact of that 0:19:56.359 --> 0:20:00.240 work is, even if it's just a few reports every 0:20:00.240 --> 0:20:03.480 couple of years, If those reports can be used to 0:20:04.119 --> 0:20:10.399 delay or block important electrification measures in cities or states 0:20:10.400 --> 0:20:12.840 across the country. Like that could have a big ripple effect. 0:20:12.960 --> 0:20:16.399 Yeah, and to lend credibility to you know, kind of 0:20:16.400 --> 0:20:19.720 industry preferred solutions and all of that kind of stuff too. 0:20:20.080 --> 0:20:24.440 And you know, I always whenever companies or agencies or 0:20:24.480 --> 0:20:27.160 consultancies are like, it's only a small part of our work, 0:20:27.320 --> 0:20:31.040 my immediate thought is like, then why do it at all, 0:20:31.160 --> 0:20:35.399 especially if, like you know, you spend a significant amount 0:20:35.480 --> 0:20:39.760 of your marketing space and I would imagine budget like 0:20:39.880 --> 0:20:43.800 talking about decarbonization and climate and all these other things. 0:20:43.960 --> 0:20:47.359 You know, it is an interesting question, you know, why 0:20:47.640 --> 0:20:50.159 why do that? Why not just decide you're going to 0:20:50.240 --> 0:20:52.040 draw a line in the sand with certain types of 0:20:52.040 --> 0:20:53.840 projects or certain types of clients. 0:20:53.880 --> 0:20:56.520 And yeah, yeah, I want to on that note, I 0:20:56.560 --> 0:20:58.760 want to ask you about that. There was one thing 0:20:58.840 --> 0:21:01.520 that they that they worked on that made me laugh 0:21:01.520 --> 0:21:04.919 out loud, and that was the idea that you know, 0:21:05.720 --> 0:21:08.119 a gallon of oil from the Gulf of Mexico is 0:21:08.200 --> 0:21:10.040 like lower carbon than you know. 0:21:10.200 --> 0:21:14.760 Other price. So yeah, that was a really interesting finding 0:21:15.040 --> 0:21:18.840 and report. So ICF was hired by the National Ocean 0:21:18.880 --> 0:21:23.359 Industries Association several years back. This is a trade organization 0:21:23.560 --> 0:21:29.080 that largely represents oil and gas producers and affiliated industries 0:21:29.119 --> 0:21:34.119 and interests of offshore producers. Correct, so a lot of 0:21:34.640 --> 0:21:37.240 oil and gas producers who have assets in the Gulf 0:21:37.280 --> 0:21:39.800 of Mexico and who want to you know, build more 0:21:39.840 --> 0:21:41.840 oils and drill more oil in the Gulf of Mexico. 0:21:42.280 --> 0:21:46.879 So this organization hired ICF to produce a report that 0:21:47.040 --> 0:21:51.360 looked at a very narrow technical question of what are 0:21:51.840 --> 0:21:57.480 effectively the emissions associated with producing a barrel of oil 0:21:57.720 --> 0:22:00.919 in the Gulf of Mexico. They also, i should add, 0:22:00.920 --> 0:22:03.720 looked at the United States as a whole, So they 0:22:03.720 --> 0:22:07.320 looked at you know, land based oil and gas production, 0:22:07.480 --> 0:22:10.000 and they also looked specifically at the Gulf. And then 0:22:10.040 --> 0:22:15.000 they created this huge database of data points for addressing 0:22:15.000 --> 0:22:17.879 the same question elsewhere around the world. So what are 0:22:17.920 --> 0:22:21.359 the emissions associated with producing a barrel of oil in 0:22:21.960 --> 0:22:24.760 this part of the Middle East or you know, offshore 0:22:24.840 --> 0:22:26.840 in the Baltic Sea. So they looked at all these 0:22:26.840 --> 0:22:33.040 different regions around the world and ultimately concluded that the 0:22:33.359 --> 0:22:37.119 emissions associated with producing a barrel of oil in the 0:22:37.200 --> 0:22:42.159 Gulf are relatively low compared with most other parts of 0:22:42.200 --> 0:22:46.000 the world. I keep emphasizing the word producing because the 0:22:46.040 --> 0:22:49.880 emissions that they looked at are the emissions that come 0:22:49.920 --> 0:22:53.240 along with literally pulling the oil out of the ground 0:22:53.240 --> 0:22:54.359 and packaging it up. 0:22:54.560 --> 0:22:59.080 Yeah, so not distribution, not burning, right, So we're talking 0:22:59.200 --> 0:23:01.800 like maximum eight to ten. 0:23:01.760 --> 0:23:05.159 Percent a small Yeah. These are what would be called 0:23:05.280 --> 0:23:10.440 in greenhouse gas reporting lingo, the Scope one and Scope 0:23:10.480 --> 0:23:12.120 two emissions, yeah so. 0:23:12.320 --> 0:23:14.240 And not even all of Scope two, not even. 0:23:14.080 --> 0:23:17.520 All of scope too. So the downstream Scope three emissions, 0:23:17.560 --> 0:23:22.080 aka the vast majority of emissions associated with fossil fuel products, 0:23:22.119 --> 0:23:25.480 the actual burning of that oil and gas are not 0:23:25.720 --> 0:23:31.720 something that we're considered here. So again ICF was contracted 0:23:31.720 --> 0:23:35.840 to do was probably a totally solid technical analysis looking 0:23:35.920 --> 0:23:39.880 at this narrow technical question. And then with this report 0:23:40.000 --> 0:23:44.520 in hand, this oil and Gas Industry trade association put 0:23:44.520 --> 0:23:48.240 out press releases and blog posts saying, look, how much 0:23:48.560 --> 0:23:52.280 climate friendlier oil production in the Gulf of Mexico is 0:23:52.400 --> 0:23:54.800 compared with all over the world, And wouldn't it be 0:23:54.840 --> 0:23:58.160 great if America produced more oil in the Gulf of Mexico. 0:23:58.640 --> 0:24:01.280 Isn't that a great idea? Both for our economy and 0:24:01.359 --> 0:24:03.359 the climate. Yeah. 0:24:02.840 --> 0:24:07.680 Yeah, that's so interesting because we've been looking at LNG 0:24:07.840 --> 0:24:10.840 producers in the US too, and one of them, EQT, 0:24:11.640 --> 0:24:16.920 commissioned a very similar type of report from McKenzie that shows, 0:24:17.080 --> 0:24:21.520 you know that US LNG in particular is a you know, 0:24:21.600 --> 0:24:25.919 climate solution because yeah, these production emissions are lower, and 0:24:26.000 --> 0:24:29.119 then you know, I don't know the location and the 0:24:29.119 --> 0:24:30.800 way we get it and all this kind of stuff, 0:24:30.800 --> 0:24:33.040 and because you know, they all love to say that 0:24:33.800 --> 0:24:38.080 US companies operate within stricter environmental regulations and that that 0:24:38.359 --> 0:24:41.720 helps as well and all of that stuff. And there again, 0:24:41.840 --> 0:24:44.320 McKinsey was sort of like, we just supplied the data 0:24:44.600 --> 0:24:48.399 and the you know, technical analysis. We didn't come to 0:24:48.440 --> 0:24:51.359 any conclusions or write this report or you. 0:24:51.280 --> 0:24:55.680 Know, exactly exactly. Yeah, and that's that's exactly what happened here. 0:24:55.720 --> 0:24:58.600 And this report in particular was like pounced on by 0:24:59.119 --> 0:25:03.640 Republican Congress people who are advocating for you know, more 0:25:03.680 --> 0:25:06.520 oil and gas production in the Gulf. I think I 0:25:06.560 --> 0:25:10.800 saw the American Petroleum Institute cite it in a press 0:25:10.840 --> 0:25:16.080 release on a lawsuit it was launching against the Biden 0:25:16.119 --> 0:25:21.920 administration for essentially not not permitting more oil and gas 0:25:21.960 --> 0:25:25.400 drilling to occur in the Gulf of Mexico. So it's 0:25:25.520 --> 0:25:28.640 it's it's worked its way into the conversation. 0:25:29.119 --> 0:25:32.280 Yeah, yeah, that's I didn't even think about the litigation piece, 0:25:32.320 --> 0:25:35.879 but yeah, that kind of stuff absolutely gets pointed to 0:25:35.920 --> 0:25:39.320 as sort of evidence in those kinds of situations too. 0:25:39.680 --> 0:25:43.560 That it's interesting. Okay, tell me about the Race to 0:25:43.720 --> 0:25:47.320 Zero and how they're looking at these kinds of firms. 0:25:47.840 --> 0:25:53.520 Yeah. Race to Zero is a un associated initiative. It's 0:25:53.560 --> 0:26:00.240 sort of a coalition of businesses and university leaders and 0:26:00.760 --> 0:26:04.680 members of civil society who are trying to come up 0:26:04.720 --> 0:26:10.840 with decarbonization strategies for various sectors of society that align 0:26:10.960 --> 0:26:13.879 with the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to 0:26:14.000 --> 0:26:18.400 one point five degrees. And there is a new Race 0:26:18.440 --> 0:26:23.720 to Zero initiative to develop a set of effectively a 0:26:23.720 --> 0:26:28.200 set of best practice guidelines for professional service providers, including 0:26:28.280 --> 0:26:33.560 consultancies and ad agencies and law firms to adhere to. 0:26:34.359 --> 0:26:37.560 So the reason Race to Zero is now focusing on 0:26:38.080 --> 0:26:43.639 professional service providers like consultancies is exactly because they're in 0:26:43.720 --> 0:26:49.720 this unique position of having influence and of not necessarily 0:26:49.920 --> 0:26:54.000 having a large carbon footprint on their own. When you 0:26:54.040 --> 0:26:56.560 think about what is the carbon footprint of a consultancy 0:26:56.600 --> 0:26:59.280 like ICF, Well, they use energy to keep the lights 0:26:59.320 --> 0:27:02.200