NEWS OF THE DAY:
New Analysis Shows Challenges to Shifting Oil and Natural Gas Workers to Other Sectors
Frank Macchiarola, API Energy Blog, December 20, 2021
Since President Biden came into office, he and his administration have talked about moving oil and natural gas industry workers into “good-paying jobs” or “well-paying union jobs” in wind, solar and other renewable energies as part of a plan to tackle climate change by phasing out natural gas and oil – by far America’s leading energy sources.
Yet, the reality is that transferring workers to the renewable energy sector from careers in oil and natural gas – where non-retail, direct industry jobs pay 80% more than the average job in the U.S., according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data – is fraught with challenges. These make the notion of job transferability more aspirational than feasible and economically untenable for millions of American families – underscored in a new analysis by Cicero in coordination with North America’s Building Trades Unions (NABTU) and API.
The analysis found that only two of the 18 most prevalent oil and natural gas industry jobs are reasonably transferable to the 18 most in-demand renewable energy jobs. Key details from the study:
- Quality and Pay: A number of renewable energy jobs, such as those in wind and solar, are more likely to use less-skilled workers, or those from a narrower selection of trades, compared to oil and natural gas construction and maintenance projects. Currently, many readily available renewable energy jobs typically do not have comparable pay with oil and natural gas jobs – meaning that many transitioned workers likely would face pay cuts.
- Requirements: Many oil and natural gas workers would face significant challenges in transitioning to a number of renewable energy jobs that have lower skillset and education requirements.
- Availability: The most prevalent oil and natural gas jobs employ 10 times as many workers as there are average annual job postings for the most in-demand renewable energy occupations. Even when skills and quality are aligned, there may not be sufficient concentrations of renewable energy jobs in the top regions where natural gas and oil jobs are located.
The analysis underscores how the long-term careers and high pay and benefits associated with our industry are simply not comparable to other industries. It’s a reminder to policymakers that we should be focused on growing the entire energy workforce, because global energy demand is projected to increase nearly 50% by 2050 over 2020 demand – and natural gas and oil are expected to supply about half of that 2050 demand.
We should increase American oil and natural gas jobs, not transfer them to other sectors. Doing so could force workers, who’ve made good oil and natural gas industry careers for themselves and their families, to walk away from education and specialized skillsets for work elsewhere that doesn’t necessarily align with their experiences or preferences.
The millions of skilled workers who produce and deliver American energy are essential to the U.S. economy, helping American families keep their lights on and heat their homes while driving innovation to advance a lower-carbon future.
Uncertainty To Dominate Oil Markets In 2022
Tsvetana Paraskova, OilPrice.Com, Dec 21, 2021
Following the rebound in oil and gas demand in 2021, the market is headed to 2022 with renewed uncertainties about prices, demand, and the industry’s longer-term prospects as Omicron COVID cases spike and investors continue to press companies toward decarbonization. Will oil and gas demand continue to recover and clean energy installations continue to surge next year? Or will risks lurking for some time materialize to hamper green energy rollouts and upend the rebound in global oil and gas demand?
The closer we get to the end of 2021, the more uncertain the 2022 outlook becomes, with Omicron spooking governments in Europe that have already started to tighten restrictions or re-impose strict lockdowns in the case of the Netherlands. The UK is not ruling out stricter measures, and many other European countries are tightening travel restrictions.
The Omicron impact on economies and fuel demand and the effect on oil demand recovery and prices will be a major theme throughout 2022, especially during the first few months of the year.
As difficult as it is to predict oil prices in “normal” circumstances, the uncertainties with the pandemic have made the task of forecasting even more difficult. Currently, outlooks range from oil averaging around $70 next year to hitting as high as above $100 per barrel at some point in 2022 or 2023.
OPEC sees a “mild and short-lived” Omicron impact on oil demand, while the International Energy Agency (IEA) expects a temporary slowdown in demand recovery due to the new variant, but not an entirely upended demand trend.
In the early days of the Omicron variant spreading, JP Morgan said that oil could soar to $125 per barrel next year and $150 in 2023 due to OPEC’s limited capacity to boost production.
OPEC left the door open to potential immediate adjustments in its oil production policy with the Omicron uncertainty, so the cartel’s actions would be an important driver of oil prices next year, along with the COVID developments.
Oil prices rising to $100 a barrel is unlikely, at least for any sustained period next year, Simon Flowers, Chairman, and Chief Analyst at Wood Mackenzie, wrote in a recent post discussing the key themes in oil and gas in 2022.
Some analysts expect a harsh colder-than-usual winter in the northern hemisphere to exacerbate the energy crisis in Europe and deplete its stockpiles of natural gas in storage which are already at a decade low for this time of the year. This could prop up demand for heating with fuels other than natural gas, including oil products, potentially driving up oil demand even if lockdowns limit gasoline consumption.
When Will The Energy Crisis End?
“A bad winter will push gas and power prices—already near record levels—higher still,” says WoodMac’s Flowers.
A cold snap this weekend already sent Europe’s power prices surging to new records, as gas storage levels are low and electricity availability is low too after France shut down four nuclear reactors.
Natural gas prices are highly volatile and sensitive to (the lack of) extra supply from Russia, but they are set to fall in the spring with warmer weather.
However, even at the end of the winter season in the spring of 2022, gas prices in Asia and Europe will remain higher than pre-crisis levels, with a structurally tighter gas market than before COVID, WoodMac’s analysts say.
“We expect LNG prices in Europe and Asia to settle at more than double the average for prevailing prices between 2015 and 2020 until new supply comes onstream in 2026,” they noted.
A major risk to the gas market outlook next year and beyond would be whether gas will still be perceived as a reliable, cleaner-than-coal fuel to help a coal-to-gas switch and backup for renewables or as just another fossil fuel that shouldn’t be considered the “bridge fuel” to clean energy sources anymore.
Will Rising Costs Hold Back The Energy Transition?
While Big Oil directs more investments to low-carbon energy, the pace of the capacity additions of the already mature solar and wind technology could slow because of higher costs, according to one risk Wood Mackenzie sees for a potential supercycle in metals and a continued surge in clean energy installations.
Despite the high commodity and transport prices, renewables are on track for record growth in 2021, the IEA’s Executive Director Fatih Birol said earlier this month, noting however that “if commodity prices stay high until the end of 2022, it would wipe out 5 years of cost reductions for wind power – and 3 years of reductions for solar PV.”
The world will still need double new annual capacity over the next five years to achieve the net-zero by 2050 scenario, the IEA said in its annual Renewables 2021 Market Report with a forecast to 2026.
According to WoodMac, rising input costs and wages, supply chain challenges, and logistics could “hamper the roll-out and development of a raft of low-carbon technologies.”
The booming U.S. solar industry is set to be torn between huge opportunities and major stumbling blocks in the coming months and years, and it will likely see a wild “solar coaster” ride in the next few years, Wood Mackenzie earlier this month.
The U.S. solar market installed 5.4 GWdc of solar capacity in the third quarter, up by 33 percent from the same period of 2020 and the largest Q3 on record. However, costs continued to rise.
“Installed costs increased across all market segments for the second quarter in a row, reflecting supply chain challenges. In every segment besides residential, year-over-year price increases were the highest they’ve been since 2014 when Wood Mackenzie began tracking pricing data,” last week’s Solar Market Insight Report 2021 Q4 by the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) and Wood Mackenzie showed.
The outlook of U.S. renewable markets and economic growth became even more uncertain when Democratic Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, a crucial vote in a divided Senate, said on Sunday that he would not support President Joe Biden’s proposed Build Back Better Act.
It looks like uncertainty will be the single biggest theme in oil and gas markets in 2022.
LNG cargoes diverted toward Europe from Asia as gas prices soar
Marwad Rashad, Reuters, December 22, 2021
At least ten cargoes of liquefied natural gas (LNG) have recently been diverted from Asia to head west drawn by Europe’s record high prices amid supply concerns ahead of peak winter demand, industry sources said.
European and British benchmark wholesale gas prices soared to record highs on Tuesday as Russian gas shipments to Germany through a major transit pipeline reversed direction and colder weather boosted demand.
Prices fell on Wednesday but remain elevated partially on profit taking and also as market players realise more LNG is coming to Europe, calming supply concerns.
Refinitiv Eikon data showed one Nigerian and at least two U.S. LNG cargoes have been diverted toward Europe while sailing through the Indian Ocean.
Two cargoes onboard Minerva Chios and Maran Gas Vergina were redirected towards the Suez Canal, while the Nigerian LNG cargo onboard LNG Finima II was redirected to France, Refinitiv data showed.
“With European gas storage remaining significantly below recent years, the underlying picture continues to be driven by fears over where the gas will come from if demand for gas in Q1 22 is very high,” said Robert Songer, LNG analyst at data intelligence firm ICIS.
“In contrast, demand has recently been easing somewhat in Asia – for example, Japanese storage remains at high levels – which has pushed LNG spot prices there below the European TTF benchmark. European gas trader attention remains laser-focused on flows from Russia,” Songer said.
In addition to the above cargoes, a U.S. cargo onboard Marvel Crane had headed toward Panama bound for Asia before being diverted northeast and now signaled it was bound for the UK’s South Hook terminal, according to ICIS LNG Edge.
Data Intelligence firm Kpler said it has listed more tankers diverting towards Europe form Asia and Other destinations like Brazil including British Contributor, Tembek, LNGShips Manhattan, LNG Alliance and are eying two more for possible route change.
Furthermore, West African cargo onboard Maran Gas Sparta, a vessel chartered by Shell, has been called back to Europe after it was on the cusp of passing the Cape of Good Hope, said Felix Booth, head of LNG at energy intelligence firm Vortexa.
“In many cases cargoes are turning around in the middle of a voyage and heading to the highest price markets in Europe, as the market differentials have extended beyond $4/mmBtu,” said Felix Booth, head of LNG at energy intelligence firm Vortexa.
He added that this reversed the typical winter LNG market structure, with Europe being the most attractive market for flexible cargos, after Asia has typically held this title during the coldest months.
The Yamal-Europe pipeline, a key route for piped Russian supply to Europe via Germany, reversed flow to head east. The Kremlin said there was no political backdrop to the change and two large German customers said Russian gas producer Gazprom was meeting its supply obligations.
The average LNG price for February delivery into Northeast Asia rose on Friday to $43.35 per metric million British thermal units (mmBtu), up $7.55, or 21.1%, from the previous week, industry sources said, tracking strong gains in Europe.
Last week French power giant EDF shut down some nuclear plants following the discovery of faults and Germany’s energy regulator said certification of the new Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline from Russia would not be completed in the first half of 2022, fueling concerns over winter supply.
Sweden could take global lead in green steel production – report
Mining.Com, December 22, 2021
A new report by Wood Mackenzie states that Sweden could become a pioneer in green steel production as at least two initiatives by HYBRIT and H2 Green Steel, separately, have been launched with a target to manufacture 10 Mt of fossil fuel-free crude steel annually by 2030.
HYBRIT is a joint venture between Swedish steelmaker SSAB, iron-ore miner LKAB and utility Vattenfall, while H2 Green Steel is a company backed by Vargas Holding – the same investment firm that co-founded Northvolt.
According to the market researcher, the nordic country could take the lead when it comes to the environmentally friendlier version of the alloy, despite the fact that its current production is not particularly large. Sweden’s steel industry manufactured 4.4 million tonnes (Mt) of crude steel (3.4 Mt of finished steel) in 2020, representing 3.2% of crude steel production (2.5% of total finished steel production) across EU-27 and the UK.
“Sweden’s decarbonization drive in the steel industry signals substantial cost reduction potential for green steel over the coming decades, due primarily to the declining cost of renewables and green hydrogen and increasing carbon prices,” Wood Mackenzie’s principal analyst, Sohaib Malik, wrote in the report. “The country boasts Europe’s largest iron ore reserves and excellent renewable energy resources – two primary prerequisites for the production of green hydrogen and decarbonized crude steel.”
According to Malik, at a levelled cost of electricity at $30 per megawatt-hour, wind power is a highly economical source of power generation in Sweden today. Meanwhile, further cost reductions are expected with better financing structures for onshore wind, lower capex for onshore and offshore installations, technological optimization for asset management and state support for offshore grid infrastructure.
The analyst also said that alkaline electrolysis technology is most likely to play a key role in green hydrogen production which – he emphasized – is crucial for Sweden’s green steel production.
The WoodMac expert also pointed out that compared to proton exchange membrane electrolysis, alkaline electrolysis has a lower capex of $925 per kilowatt today and it is expected to halve by 2030, enabling a levelled cost of $1 per kilogram of green hydrogen using onshore wind power.
For Malik and report co-author Mingming Zhang, alkaline electrolysis and renewable energy from onshore wind will produce the most cost-effective green crude steel in Sweden.
“Assuming a carbon price of $100/t, green steel producers could benefit from $85/t of carbon credits. Better financing models for onshore wind and 48% lower capex for alkaline technology in 2025 yield steel cost of $360-390/t in carbon price scenarios ranging between $50/t and US$150/t,” they estimated in the report.
In Zhang’s view, producing green steel with cost parity to conventional steel in the 2020s is quite possible if natural gas-based direct reduction iron and electric arc furnace steelmaking processes are used as a baseline.
“Global steel demand will reach 1,872 Mt a year by 2030, 6.4% higher than in 2020. The case for green steel will grow stronger as its cost reduces. In addition, the success of green hydrogen to produce green steel at a commercial scale will justify the enthusiasm around its ability to accelerate decarbonization,” the analysts concluded.
Hill climate hawks plot next steps after bill’s collapse
Nick Sobczyk, E & E Daily, December 21, 2 021
Democrats are hoping to revive their climate and social spending bill after Sen. Joe Manchin rejected it over the weekend, but hot tempers and uncertain politics have left legislation key to President Biden’s climate goals hanging in the balance.
The West Virginia Democrat, who chairs the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, blindsided his party by announcing his wholesale rejection of the $1.7 trillion “Build Back Better Act” over the weekend, leaving Democrats in a tricky situation that could take weeks, if not months, to wade through.
Democrats are already talking about revamping the bill to fit Manchin’s needs, which could lead to more drawn-out negotiations. Another possibility would be decoupling the $555 billion in climate spending from the broader social safety net package and passing it as a stand-alone bill.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has also vowed to bring the existing bill to the Senate floor after Congress returns from the holiday recess, potentially forcing Manchin to formally reject a bill he has been negotiating on for months.
“One way or another there will be a series of votes on the climate provisions, just as there will be a series of votes on other provisions in the bill,” Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.), a top congressional climate hawk, said in an interview yesterday. “And logistically how that looks … we have to wait and see, but I think that will be a good thing.”
Still, there are no easy answers. The most likely scenario, lawmakers and climate advocates said, is an attempted rewrite that leaves the climate provisions largely intact while addressing Manchin’s concerns about cost and duration of various social safety net policies.
At the same time, Manchin’s comments over the past two days left progressives feeling burned and distrustful, muddying the waters for further talks. It’s also not clear the party’s left flank would even be willing to discuss a trimmed-down package, given that their spending aspirations have been chopped in half twice — from $6 trillion to $3.5 trillion and, finally, to the $1.7 trillion bill that passed the House last month.
“No one should think that we are going to be satisfied with an even smaller package that leaves people behind or refuses to tackle critical issues like climate change,” Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) told reporters yesterday. “That is why it is now incumbent on President Biden to keep his promise to us and to the American people by using the ultimate tool in his toolbox: The tool of executive actions, in every arena, immediately.”
That’s exactly the path Democrats thought they might have to go down last year, after Biden had won the presidency but Senate control was still in flux (Greenwire, Nov. 6, 2020).
But addressing climate change solely via the executive branch narrows the scope of what’s possible. Without some input from Congress, lawmakers, environmentalists, and energy modelers broadly agree that it would be nearly impossible to halve U.S. emissions by 2030, the goal Biden set at United Nations climate talks.
“Congressional action is far better. It is more long-lasting, it sends a clear message of what the intent of Congress is, as we move the United States toward this clean energy transition,” Smith said. “I’m confident that the Biden administration will use the authorities that it has to make as much progress as possible. But my view of it is that congressional action in concert with the authorities that the president already has is the right and the best way to go.”
The situation has left most climate hawks hoping there’s still a chance to salvage something from the past six months of negotiations. The climate spending in the bill would be the single biggest investment in emissions reduction and climate resilience Congress has ever made.
“This definitely broke the frustration meter,” said Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), a progressive and a member of the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis. “But if you believe we’re in a crisis, as I do, giving up is not an option, so we just have to regroup and find a way through.”
For now, most Democrats aren’t willing to give up on a broad package that includes climate and a variety of other social priorities, and the White House maintains that talks will continue into the new year.
“He’s going to work like hell to get it done,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters yesterday when asked what Biden’s message is to progressives. “That would be his message, and January is an opportunity to do exactly that.”
Manchin himself indicated yesterday in an interview on West Virginia’s MetroNews radio network that he is open to a reconciliation package that pares back the 2017 Republican tax cut bill.
That path, however, leaves the bill’s climate components largely dependent on negotiations over other issues, namely the expanded child tax credit, which has emerged as a sticking point in recent weeks.
The Washington Post reported yesterday that Manchin had given Biden a $1.8 trillion counteroffer on Saturday — the day before his appearance on Fox News announcing his opposition — that would keep billions in climate spending, Affordable Care Act fixes and universal prekindergarten but nix the expanded child tax credit.
Manchin has publicly taken issue with several of the energy policies contained in the House-passed bill, including the methane fee and a new supplemental tax credit for union-made electric vehicles. Lawmakers had been negotiating tweaks to the 45Q tax credit for carbon capture. And the day before his appearance on Fox News, Manchin’s committee, ENR, formally released bill text for its slice of the package, proposing to toss out an offshore drilling ban for the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf coasts (E&E Daily, Dec. 16).
By most accounts, though, climate is not what made Manchin drop his support for the full package, despite his interests in a coal company (Climatewire, Nov. 17). Manchin also already negotiated out his most hated climate provision, the Clean Electricity Payment Program.
“The climate pieces weren’t the sticking point in the negotiations,” said Collin O’Mara, president, and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation. “There was a couple of technical things, like 45Q and the EV credit and methane, but most of those were kind of technical fixes, where there were significant questions on some of the other provisions, especially around duration.”
The core of the bill’s climate spending, some $300 billion in expanded clean energy and EV tax credits, was broadly seen as uncontroversial.
Senate Finance Chair Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) reiterated that he believes Manchin could support much of the clean energy tax title.
“I’m focused on the fact that there’s a lot of common ground here,” Wyden told E&E News yesterday.
The United Mine Workers of America, meanwhile, made a direct pitch to Manchin yesterday to keep “Build Back Better” alive. Manchin has long been an advocate for mining and mine workers.
“We urge Senator Manchin to revisit his opposition to this legislation and work with his colleagues to pass something that will help keep coal miners working, and have a meaningful impact on our members, their families and their communities,” UMWA International President Cecil Roberts said in a statement.
Still, it’s not lost on some advocates trying to pick up the pieces of the “Build Back Better Act” that incentives for wind and solar have historically enjoyed bipartisan support.
“I certainly think that’s going to be resurrected in another legislative vehicle,” said Paul Bledsoe, a former Democratic Senate staffer who is now a strategic adviser for the Progressive Policy Institute. “It may be that we’re looking at breaking out the component parts of ‘Build Back Better.'”
‘Hang better together’
Indeed, Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) has suggested that Democrats break out the climate provisions and pass them as a stand-alone.
“Major climate and clean energy provisions of the Build Back Better Act have largely been negotiated, scored for ten years, and financed,” Markey said in a statement Sunday. “Let’s pass these provisions now.”
Democrats are likely to have at least one additional shot at budget reconciliation — the process they’re using to skirt the Senate filibuster — next year, meaning they could theoretically pass multiple party line bills before a midterm election where they are poised to lose congressional seats.
And as the bill moved through the House, moderates who were skeptical of the price tag and pay-fors said they were willing to accept robust climate spending, given the urgency of the issue (E&E Daily, Oct. 5) .
The $300 billion in clean energy incentives “is potentially a nucleus to move forward on climate action,” said Melinda Pierce, legislative director for the Sierra Club.
“In a world where some of this breaks apart, climate does pretty well because climate has not had any real action, significant action for decades,” Pierce said in an interview. “And even as we were facing challenges on the House side with the moderates, they all said, ‘We are with you on the climate pieces.'”
But several Democrats indicated yesterday that they have little appetite for a breakup.
“I have confidence that Sen. Manchin cares about our country and that, at some point very soon, we can take up the legislation,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said during an event in San Francisco yesterday. “I’m not deterred at all.”
House Democrats struggled for weeks to put together a coalition that could support the full suite of policies. With the midterms fast approaching in a highly partisan environment, breaking the bill up could force moderates to take a series of tough votes or mean that many of Democrats’ priorities never get a real chance at becoming law.
“I still think that several of the pieces hang better together, especially as you’re trying to move things through the House,” O’Mara said. “I haven’t heard anybody in leadership or the White House suggest it yet.”
The omicron variant of Covid-19 running rampant around the country also ups the urgency for the bill’s social safety net provisions, said Select Committee on the Climate Crisis Chair Kathy Castor (D-Fla.).
“There does appear there is common ground out there on universal pre-K and affordable health care and even on clean energy,” Castor said in an interview. “It is too important to give up now.”
‘So full of garbage’
A potential problem for any legislative approach, however, is that some Democrats simply do not trust Manchin to keep his word.
House progressives were especially angry yesterday, given that nearly all of them voted to pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill after an agreement on a framework for the social spending legislation. While Jayapal said she doesn’t regret that move, she told reporters “we should not rely on the senator’s word.”
“It is abundantly clear that we cannot trust what Sen. Manchin says,” Jayapal said. “The senator called me this morning. I took his call, and there is nothing I have said here that I didn’t say to him.”
Some Democrats were also frustrated with Manchin’s statement Sunday after his appearance on Fox News, which spelled out his objections to the bill’s climate policy on terms that closely mirror fossil fuel industry talking points.
“If enacted, the bill will also risk the reliability of our electric grid and increase our dependence on foreign supply chains,” Manchin said. “The energy transition my colleagues seek is already well underway in the United States of America.”
Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.), another member of the select committee, said “that whole statement was so full of garbage.”
The conversation Democrats are having now, Casten added, is not about giving up, but “what’s the stuff that we’re going to put in there?”
“Why should we trust him when he says, ‘I will be OK if you do X, Y and Z?'” Casten said.
Manchin, for his part, indicated yesterday that he had hard feelings of his own. “It’s not the president, it’s his staff,” Manchin said yesterday on MetroNews. “They put some things out that were absolutely inexcusable.”
If talks do eventually die for good, environmentalists maintain that there is plenty the Biden administration can do via executive action, including on oil and gas leasing reform and offshore drilling (see related story).
But for green groups, and most congressional Democrats, tackling climate solely in the executive branch would be a failure that hearkens back to the Obama years. The Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill failed in the Senate, and many of the Obama administration’s climate regulations were subsequently rolled back by former President Trump.
“We knew that we could achieve major gains through strong standards. But it takes congressional action — the power of the purse — to drive the kind of investments we need to incentivize clean energy,” said Pierce of the Sierra Club. “So, the regulatory agenda alone isn’t going to get us to where we want to be or where we need to be in terms of 50 percent by 2030. We’ve always said we need both.”
Castor put it even more bluntly: “We have to pass something.”
The upward march of sport utility vehicles
Ben Geman, Axios, December 22, 2021
SUVs’ share of the global auto market reached fresh records this year, growth that counters the climate benefits of the growing vehicle electrification, the International Energy Agency said.
The big picture: “In 2021, SUVs are on course to account for more than 45% of global car sales — setting a new record in terms of both volume and market share,” IEA analysts write in a new post.
Why it matters: SUVs are heavier than typical passenger cars and hence use more fuel, which generates more CO2.
IEA’s analysis has this wild stat: “If SUVs were an individual country, they would rank sixth in the world for absolute emissions in 2021, emitting over 900 million tonnes of CO2.”
Yes, but: The growth of electric vehicles — including electric SUV models — is offsetting more CO2 from internal-combustion SUVs than in the past.
“The good news is that skyrocketing electric car sales in 2021 are expected to be just about sufficient to cancel out the additional emissions stemming from the 35 million SUVs that were purchased instead of average-sized cars,” IEA notes.