{"id":42559,"date":"2018-02-21T11:42:44","date_gmt":"2018-02-21T19:42:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/world.edu\/?p=42559"},"modified":"2018-02-21T11:42:44","modified_gmt":"2018-02-21T19:42:44","slug":"seven-climate-change-myths-big-oil-continues-perpetuate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/world.edu\/seven-climate-change-myths-big-oil-continues-perpetuate\/","title":{"rendered":"Seven climate change myths that big oil continues to perpetuate"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"
\nIn the last month alone, major players within the fossil fuel industry \u2013 \u201cbig oil\u201d \u2013 have made some big announcements regarding climate change. BP\u00a0revealed plans<\/a>\u00a0to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by acquiring additional renewable energy companies. Royal Dutch Shell\u00a0defended its US$1-US$2 billion green energy annual budget<\/a>. Even ExxonMobil, until recently relatively\u00a0dismissive<\/a>\u00a0of the basic science behind climate change, included a section dedicated to reducing emissions in its yearly\u00a0outlook for energy report<\/a>.<\/p>\n

But this idea of a \u201cgreen\u201d oil company producing \u201cclean\u201d fossil fuels is one that I would call\u00a0a dangerous myth<\/a>. Such myths obscure the irreconcilability between burning fossil fuels and environmental protection \u2013 yet they continue to be perpetuated to the detriment of our planet.<\/p>\n

Myth 1: Climate change can be solved with the same thinking that created it<\/strong><\/p>\n

Measures put in place now to address climate change must be sustainable in the long run. A hasty, sticking plaster approach based on quick fixes and repurposed ideas will not suffice. Yet this is precisely what some fossil fuel companies intend to do. To address climate change,\u00a0major oil and gas companies<\/a>\u00a0are mostly doing what they have historically excelled at \u2013 more technology, more efficiency, and producing more fossil fuels.<\/p>\n

But like the irresponsible gambler that cannot stop doubling down during a losing streak, the industry\u2019s bet on more, more, more only means more ecological destruction. Irrespective of how efficient fossil fuel production becomes, that the industry\u2019s core product can be 100% environmentally sustainable is an illusion.<\/p>\n

A potential glimmer of hope is carbon capture and storage (CCS), a process\u00a0that sucks carbon out of the air and sends it back underground<\/a>. But despite being praised by big oil as a silver bullet solution for climate change, CCS is yet another sticking plaster approach. Even\u00a0CCS advocates suggest<\/a>\u00a0that it cannot currently be employed on a global, mass scale.<\/p>\n

Myth 2: Climate change won\u2019t spell the end of the fossil fuel industry<\/strong><\/p>\n

According to a\u00a0recent report<\/a>, climate change is one factor among several that has resulted in the end of big oil\u2019s golden years \u2013 a time when oil was plenty, money quick, and the men at the top celebrated as cowboy capitalists.<\/p>\n

Now, to ensure we do not surpass the\u00a0dangerous 2\u00b0C threshold<\/a>, we must realise that there is simply no place for \u201cproducers\u201d of fossil fuels. After all, as\u00a0scientists<\/a>,\u00a0financial experts<\/a>, and\u00a0activists<\/a>\u00a0have warned, if we want to avoid dangerous climate change, the proven reserves of the world\u2019s biggest fossil fuel companies cannot be consumed.<\/p>\n

Myth 3: Renewables investment means oil companies are seriously tackling climate change<\/strong><\/p>\n

Compared to overall capital expenditures, oil companies renewables\u2019 investment is a\u00a0miniscule drop in the barrel<\/a>. Even then, as companies such as\u00a0BP have demonstrated before<\/a>, they will divest from renewables as soon as market conditions change.<\/p>\n

Big oil companies\u2019 green investments only produce tiny reductions in their overall greenhouse gas emissions. BP calls these effects \u201creal sustainable reductions<\/a>\u201d \u2013 but they\u00a0accounted for<\/a>\u00a0only 0.3% of their total emissions reductions in 2016, 0.1% in 2015, 0.1% in 2014, and so on.<\/p>\n

Myth 4: Hard climate regulation is not an option<\/strong><\/p>\n

One of the oil industry\u2019s biggest fears regarding climate change is regulation. It is of such importance that BP\u00a0recently hinted at big oil\u2019s exodus<\/a>\u00a0from the EU if climate regulation took effect. Let\u2019s be clear, we are talking about \u201ccommand-and-control\u201d regulation here, such as pollution limits, and not business-friendly tools such as carbon pricing or market-based quota systems.<\/p>\n

There are many commercial reasons why the fossil fuel industry would prefer the latter over the former. Notably, regulation may result in a direct impact on the bottom line of fossil fuel companies given incurred costs. But climate regulation is \u2013 in combination with market-based mechanisms \u2013 required to address climate change. This is a widely accepted proposition advocated by mainstream\u00a0economists<\/a>,\u00a0NGOs<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0most governments<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Myth 5: Without cheap fossil fuels, the developing world will stop<\/strong><\/p>\n

Total\u2019s ex-CEO, the late Christoph de Margerie,\u00a0once remarked<\/a>: \u201cWithout access to energy, there is no development.\u201d Although this is probably true, that this energy must come from fossil fuels is not. Consider, for example, how for 300 days last year\u00a0Costa Rica<\/a>\u00a0relied entirely on renewable energy for its electricity needs. Even China, the world\u2019s\u00a0biggest polluter<\/a>, is simultaneously the\u00a0biggest investor<\/a>\u00a0in domestic renewables projects.<\/p>\n

As the\u00a0World Bank<\/a>\u00a0has highlighted, in contrast to big oil\u2019s claims about producing more fossil fuels to end poverty, the sad truth is that by burning even the current fossil fuel stockpile, climate change will place millions of people back into poverty. The\u00a0UN concurs<\/a>, signalling that climate change will result in reduced crop yields, more waterborne diseases, higher food prices and greater civil unrest in developing parts of the world.<\/p>\n