Most notable as a major issue of concern is the nexus between climate change and the widespread prevalence of poverty in the world. The impacts of climate change will fall disproportionately upon developing countries and the poor persons within all countries, thereby exacerbating inequities in health status and access to adequate food, clean water and other resources.
- R. K. Pachauri, Ph.D, Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Oil provides 40–43% of all energy used by the world. Oil accounts for 40% of global and US carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuels. In comparison, coal currently accounts for 40% of global emissions, and 34% of US CO2 emissions.
Climate scientists have, for the past decade, foreseen the need for a 60-80% reduction in the global emissions of carbon dioxide, in order to stop global average temperatures from rising to dangerous levels.
Latest predictions are a need for 90% reductions by 2050 (344KB PDF)
While the vast majority of those emissions happen in the North, it will be the poorest countries, those can least afford to adapt to a changing climate, who will suffer first and worst.
Developing country economies are harmed when oil is extracted from them, or when they are dependent on volatile oil imports. And when the oil is finally burned, and the carbon contained in it released into the atmosphere, oil contributes heavily to decreased agricultural production, increased droughts, human health impacts, environmentally related refugees and other already observed and predicted impacts of climate change.
Background:
Global warming is the major global environmental threat of our time. Caused by the excessive build-up of heat trapping “greenhouse” gases in the Earth’s atmosphere – in particular carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of oil, gas and coal – climate change threatens virtually every segment of the biosphere and human society.
Polar ice and mountain glaciers are already melting, leading to rising sea levels, while at the same time climate fluctuations are bringing increasingly severe droughts, floods and storms around the world. Industrialised countries bear the historic responsibility for these greenhouse gases. But it is the developing world – particularly countries in the tropics and the small island states – that will likely bear the brunt of the consequences. However, the effects of climate change will be felt all over the planet as weather systems become less predictable and everything from agriculture and fisheries to the insurance industry is affected.
The United Nations aims to get countries to reduce their emissions of climate changing gases via the Kyoto Protocol. The target for CO2 reductions is currently set at 5.2 per cent below 1990 levels by 2012 for the industrialised countries.
If the world is going to prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system, we must agree to limit emissions so as to respect ecological limits. The world cannot afford to burn more than one quarter of the carbon contained in already identified fossil fuel reserves so why on earth is the oil and gas industry spending in excess of $150 billion each year looking for new reserves?
Current reserves of oil alone are more than enough to take us into full blown climate chaos. Natural gas, often touted for its supposed ecological benefits, is not much better. A glance at the total global coal reserves is enough to induce despair. Any strategy to address climate change must by definition involve the phase out of these fossil fuels, and ‘just transition’ strategies need to be negotiated for the labour forces and communities that currently produce them.
The oil companies with the highest profile on the climate change issue are BP, Shell and ExxonMobil. BP and Shell, in contrast to ExxonMobil, both publicly admit that climate change is a real threat. In a surprise move during the November 2001 climate talks, BP went further and spoke in favour of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol.
Yet these are oil companies. And BP and Shell are among the most ambitious companies in the world in their targets for increasing their rate of extraction of oil and gas, Shell by 5 per cent a year, and BP by between 5.5 and 7 per cent.
The conflict – some would say the greenwash – is well illustrated by BP’s solar-powered petrol stations, where the company attempts to put the emphasis on the contribution of the photovoltaic panels to the energy needs of the petrol station, thereby diverting attention from its responsibility for the climate change impacts resulting from the production and provision of the fossil fuels being sold there.
One Shell Renewables representative at a recent conference admitted that despite Shell’s perceived leadership role in renewables, the ratio of investment in renewables to oil & gas by his company is roughly 100 to 1 annually.