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
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
RSS