This has been a year of extreme weather events, from the “Beast from the East” that froze much of the UK in March to Hurricane Florence on the US east coast and Typhoon Mangkhut in the Philippines.
Scientists generally hesitate to say that any particular natural disaster is the result of climate change, but the overall intensity of storms certainly appears to be linked to the accumulation of human-generated greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere.
However, in the minds of many, assigning blame need not wait for full scientific certainty. There are tens of millions of people whose lives have been severely affected by natural disasters and perhaps billions who have noticed changing weather patterns in recent years.
Like a growing share of politicians and most of the media, many of these people are becoming convinced that reliance on fossil fuels is one of the underlying causes.
The fossil-fuel industry is a legitimate target for criticism, given that its products account for the bulk of annual GHG emissions. “Big Oil” firms, in particular, have been hit by a number of actions relating to their role in climate change.
In addition to protests at their sites, they have faced shareholder resolutions demanding a shift toward renewable energy sources, divestment campaigns and a growing number of climate-related lawsuits, particularly in the US.
If anything, the political siege of the fossil-fuel industry has only just begun. Even if extreme weather events do not turn out to be as frightening as climate scientists predict, the public will most likely increasingly direct its ire at the industry whenever there is a major hurricane, flood, typhoon, heatwave or freezing spell.
Moreover, as awareness of climate change spreads, politicians and the public will need a simple and easy target to blame.
To be sure, fingers could be pointed at the billions of consumers who drive gasoline-powered cars and rely on fossil fuels to heat and light their homes, but any politician hoping to win an election would be foolish to blame the voters.
In practice, this means that fossil-fuel firms — particularly those headquartered in Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries — will have to navigate an intensely contested operating environment in the coming years.
In terms of shareholder value, managing social and political challenges will be no less important than finding and producing hydrocarbons.
Nowadays, much of the shareholder activism against the industry focuses on the extent to which firms’ hydrocarbon reserves ultimately might prove commercially nonviable as the world shifts away from fossil fuels, but in the near term, the political backlash against the industry will pose a bigger threat to valuations than will “stranded assets.”
That backlash could come in a variety of forms. Divestment campaigns are likely to gain steam and attract larger shareholders.
Climate-related lawsuits could begin to extend further beyond the US, ultimately leading to multibillion-dollar damage awards, as in the cases against Big Tobacco.
Protest movements to disrupt onshore operations could become routine, and governments could decide to impose moratoriums on new hydrocarbon development or to levy punitive taxes on fossil-fuel firms.
In fact, the government of New Zealand banned all future offshore oil and gas exploration — a move that other nations might follow.
Why should anyone shed tears for Big Oil and its investors? After all, many of the political pressures described here are helpful for tackling climate change, which requires reducing reliance on fossil fuels and accelerating the shift to renewable energies.
Still, an unthinking backlash against fossil-fuel firms could also have some perverse effects. Politicians might use it to deflect attention from the slow pace of national energy policy reform.
In most countries, such reform is urgently needed to meet climate targets. Also, even in a scenario in which the average global temperature increase is kept within 2°C of preindustrial levels (the upper limit under the 2015 Paris climate agreement), fossil fuels will still need to be produced.
Like a giant supertanker, the global energy system cannot be turned around on a dime. The shift away from fossil fuels will take many years, during which oil, gas and coal will remain in demand.
In light of these realities, one risk of the intensified political backlash against fossil-fuel firms is that the industry could be pushed into the shadows. Instead of shrinking in size or focusing on a transition to renewables, it might shift production to private rather than publicly listed firms, or production could migrate to less transparent firms in non-OECD countries.
In either case, the corporate entities will be less susceptible to pressure from progressive activists and socially focused investors.
Less scrupulous producers will be happy to keep exploring and extracting with abandon, because they will feel even less obliged than the distrusted bosses of Big Oil and Big Coal to demonstrate that they are helping to reduce GHG emissions.
As the movement to tackle climate change continues to shape its strategy for the years ahead, this is one risk that it must keep in mind.
Daniel Litvin is managing director of Critical Resource, a consultancy that advises resource firms on sustainability and “license to operate” risk.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers