Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Podcast

Should Climate Activists Keep Fighting Fossil Fuel Infrastructure?

Rob talks with Peter Erickson, an affiliated researcher at the Stockholm Environment Institute

•
Clean energy.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

No researcher has been more cited in lawsuits against fossil fuel infrastructure than Peter Erickson. As an affiliated researcher at the Stockholm Environment Institute, Peter studies how pipelines and other oil and gas supply expansions can increase global carbon emissions. His work has been critical to the activist fights against the Keystone XL pipeline, the Enbridge pipeline, and others.

But in recent years, he’s taken a more nuanced approach to fossil fuel supply — in part because, as he has shown, it can enrich the oil and gas industry in a surprising but direct way. On this episode of Shift Key, Peter joins Rob to discuss why blocking fossil fuel supply can lower emissions, why it can counterintuitively transfer wealth from energy consumers to fossil fuel firms, and what it all might mean for the future of climate policy.

Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap News.

Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.

You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.

Here is an excerpt from their conversation:

Robinson Meyer: So first of all, let's talk about this finding that you've already previewed, which is that when you restrain fossil fuel supply, you might be able to keep those barrels off the market. But what you are doing is engineering a massive shift of wealth to the existing fossil fuel industry. I know you've already described it a little, but just why is that?

Peter Erickson: Yeah, the reason for that is because when you constrain supply and constrain supply outlooks, you are causing an increase in price, and that is what is needed to bring on the other new projects. And that increase in price and price outlooks is what causes consumers and all of the institutions that surround consumers, the car industries, et cetera, to reduce their oil consumption.

But that increase in price applies to every single producer in the whole world, right? You've penalized one producer or one whole region of the world by saying, "You can't produce oil here," but the price increase applies globally, and all producers see that. And all consumers see that. And when those economics balance out, and a new equilibrium is found, the consumers are paying for that price increase and giving the money to the producers.

And you can do straight-ahead math on that to give a first-order estimate of what happens.

Robinson Meyer: And you cite a recent example that everyone just saw, that we've been talking about on this show, which is in early 2026, Iran, following the US-Israeli war starting, closed the Strait of Hormuz. The price for oil and refined products spiked everywhere around the world. That increased fuel costs for consumers, and it increased profits for producers. It was quite mechanical, and we all saw it happen. And effectively what you're saying is that when you constrain fossil fuel production in some subnational region, effectively what you're doing is like a mini version of that.

Peter Erickson: That's completely right. And the logic of that has been consistent through all of my papers. But I think Hormuz and other events mean that this dynamic needs to be considered upfront. It needs to be daylighted in climate policy and in the fossil-fuel-supply-limiting community to grapple with. Price is the mechanism that causes a decrease in supply to lead to a reduction in consumption and a reduction in emissions, and that price has other effects that need to be considered.

You can find a full transcript of the episode here.

Mentioned:

Peter’s papers:

"Assessing carbon lock-in”

"Impact of the Keystone XL pipeline on global oil markets and greenhouse gas emissions"

"Would constraining US fossil fuel production affect global CO2 emissions? A case study of US leasing policy"

"Limiting fossil fuel production as the next big step in climate policy"

"Rethinking the case against new oil and gas fields"

This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by ...

Every year Giving Green researches the top climate nonprofits and sends 100% of every dollar donated to its Giving Green Fund straight to them. Make your first gift before the new year, and it will be matched up to $500. Go to GivingGreen.earth/Shift.

Formed through a joint venture between Wärtsilä and RCT Solutions, Valo helps utilities, independent power producers, and developers navigate market and grid complexity without sacrificing system performance. Learn more at valoenergy.com.

RE+ 26 is the largest clean energy event in North America, happening November 16th through 19th at the Las Vegas Convention Center. Register at re-plus.com and use code SHIFTKEY20 to save 20% off a Full Conference pass.

Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.

Green

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe to access Heatmap's exclusive climate and energy polling, award-winning journalism, and subscriber-only events. Save $57 on an annual subscription, just $156 $99/year.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Daily Briefing

The Anti-Utility Election

Electricity companies look like one of the biggest losers of the 2026 midterms.

Adam Hamilton.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

This is Heatmap Daily, a weekday digest written by our executive editor. Subscribe here.

I’m still wrapping my head around the size and scale of the Democratic victory on Tuesday. I suspect Wall Street is, too. Yesterday, the S&P 500 gained about 1.6% as investors saw an upside in the Democratic blow-out. Today, they lost their nerve: The S&P fell almost 4.4%, and the tech-focused Nasdaq slid by more than 5%. That AI-loaded index is now down more than 10% from its all-time high in October, which means it’s technically entered a “correction.” (If it drops by 20%, it’ll be in a bear market.)

Keep reading...Show less
Blue
Gina Hinojosa and Texas.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

When it comes to energy and data centers, everyone loves Texas. Its pro-business political consensus, unusually deregulated electricity market, wide-open plains, sunny skies, and large natural gas and oil deposits have attracted data center developers, renewables developers, liquefied natural gas export terminals, and battery storage entrepreneurs alike.

But this all happened under decades of unified Republican control of Texas’ government. That’s ending on January 19, when Gina Hinojosa is sworn in as governor alongside every other holder of statewide elected office who won this year. In Austin, they will join a Democratic majority Texas House of Representatives, which has been under Republican control since 2003.

Keep reading...Show less
Politics

Renewables Super PAC Takes a Victory Lap

Invest in Tomorrow Coalition says it took out clean energy adversaries in the midterms. Now it’s setting its sights on 2028.

Victoria Spartz and Lauren Boebert.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

A pro-renewables Super PAC – Invest in Tomorrow Coalition – is taking a victory lap, claiming it played a key role in the blue wave and announcing plans to be involved in the 2028 presidential primaries.

When I first heard of the Invest in Tomorrow Coalition, it was clearly a revenge operation. Backed by renewables companies and crypto magnate Chris Larsen, the Super PAC waded into primary elections this year to take out Republicans who voted to repeal most of the Inflation Reduction Act. Tom Matzzie, a renewables executive leading the Super PAC, described the organization to me as “focused on accountability for elected officials who decide they want to attack the clean energy industry.” Shortly afterwards, Invest in Tomorrow announced an investment in seven races before ultimately expanding to 18 races.

Keep reading...Show less
Blue