The problem: Global carbon dioxide emissions from the fossil fuels industry exceeded 37 billion metric tons in 2022 – their highest level ever. Since 1990, global C02 emissions have increased by more than 60 percent. Based on a business-as-usual trend, C02 emissions are forecast to increase to some 43 billion metric tons in 2050. Even if many of the agreements to decrease C02 emissions that came out of the COP28 conference were implemented, a recent study indicated that we would still be generating over 30 billion metric tons in 2050, and, some suggest, the number will actually begin to rise at that point due to global consumption of fossil fuels. It is very likely we will blow through the 1.5 degree artificial threshold on global warming within the next decade.
The cause: There is a great deal of money to be made in the fossil fuel industry.
The global fossil fuel industry generated a total of US$4.3 trillion in revenues in 2023, according to market research by IBISWorld. The market potential has been sized by the industry at more than $6 trillion. To get a sense of how large that number is, the U.S. total federal government expenses were 6.5 trillion in FY 2022 – almost $20,000 per person.
The background: The fossil fuel industry has long been aware of the detrimental effects of its products on the environment. Yet, instead of taking proactive steps to mitigate these harms, the industry has engaged in a pattern of deceptive practices, misleading the public and delaying the transition to cleaner energy sources in order to increase profits and executive compensation.
One of the most insidious tactics employed by the fossil fuel industry is the promotion of recycling as a solution to the plastic waste crisis. While recycling is undoubtedly an important part of waste management, it has been exaggerated as a panacea for the plastic problem, diverting attention from the root cause: excessive plastic production.
The fossil fuel industry, which is heavily invested in plastic production, has actively promoted recycling initiatives, often exaggerating their effectiveness and downplaying the limitations. For instance, the industry has funded studies that overstate recycling rates and underreport the environmental impacts of plastic production and disposal. It is now doing the same thing with the idea of carbon capture.
This focus on recycling has served to deflect responsibility from the fossil fuel industry and maintain the illusion that plastic consumption is sustainable. It has also created a false sense of security among consumers, who may believe that their recycling habits are sufficient to address the plastic crisis.
The percentage of different types of material that are actually recycled varies depending on the material and the location. However, here are some general estimates:
Plastics: 8.7%
Paper and Cardboard: 68.3%
Aluminum: 54.9%
Steel: 32.9%
Glass: 32.2%
Yard trimmings: 59.9%
These numbers are based on data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA estimates that the overall recycling rate in the United States is 35.2%.
According to the report, 98% of single-use plastics come from fossil fuel feedstocks. It is no coincidence that ExxonMobil, one of the biggest fossil fuel producers in the world, also ranks as the world’s top producer of single-use plastic.
In reality, recycling is only a partial solution to the plastic problem. While it can help to reduce the amount of plastic waste going to landfills, it does not address the root cause of the problem: the overproduction of plastic.
The fossil fuel industry has also attempted to obfuscate the transition to renewable energy by promoting false narratives about its feasibility and cost-effectiveness. For instance, the industry has exaggerated the cost of renewable energy technologies and downplayed their potential benefits.
The industry has also invested in misinformation campaigns, spreading fear and uncertainty about renewable energy. These campaigns have targeted policymakers, investors, and the general public, attempting to sow doubt about the viability of renewable energy solutions – not unlike the strategies of the tobacco industry to encourage smoking or Perdue Pharma to promote opioid use.
Despite these efforts by the fossil fuel industry, the transition to renewable energy is accelerating. The cost of renewable technologies is declining rapidly, and their performance is improving. Renewable energy is now the cheapest source of electricity in many parts of the world.
The fossil fuel industry’s attempts to delay the transition to renewable energy are not only environmentally irresponsible but also economically shortsighted. The renewable energy sector is a rapidly growing industry with the potential to create millions of jobs. By clinging to the past, the fossil fuel industry is jeopardizing its own future.
It is time for the fossil fuel industry to come clean and acknowledge the reality of the climate crisis and the urgent need for a transition to renewable energy. The industry’s deceptive practices have only served to delay this transition and exacerbate the environmental damage caused by fossil fuels.
Consumers have a critical role to play in holding the fossil fuel industry accountable. By educating themselves about the industry’s deceptive practices and demanding transparency from energy companies, consumers can help to accelerate the transition to a clean energy future.
The table below shows the estimated CO2 emissions from different sectors:
|
Sector |
Estimated CO2 Emissions (Metric Tons) |
Percentage of Total Emissions |
|
Transportation |
9.2 billion |
25% |
|
Manufacturing |
8.8 billion |
24% |
|
Power Generation |
4.2 billion |
11% |
|
Agriculture |
5.3 billion |
14% |
|
Land Use Change (including deforestation) |
4.6 billion |
12% |
|
Building Construction |
2.1 billion |
6% |
|
Industrial Processes |
1.9 billion |
5% |
|
Waste Management |
1.4 billion |
4% |
Overall, CO2 emissions have increased by 26.7% from 2010 to 2021. This is primarily due to the growth in emissions from the transportation and power generation sectors. Everyone needs to acknowledge their role in generating CO2 emissions and to take responsibility for their role in reducing our carbon footprint.
I’m sharing all of these facts related to fossil fuel foolery not only to provide substantive and compelling data on the realities of climate change but also to provide an example of how capitalism, in general, has run amok. It is just one more case study of how organizations in many different industries use the same model to achieve self-serving, short-term profit objectives: Deny – Detract – Delay – Defeat. Here is how the process typically works.
First, in the face of threatened changes, organizations tend to deny that the problem exists. In this case, that’s how the term climate-denial came into play. Denial is usually the first step in any change process: “This didn’t really happen.” “I don’t really need to make any changes.” It won’t matter if I continue doing what I’m doing for a few more years.” And on and on.
Second, resistance starts to build by distracting people from the real causes of the problem and by persuading people that superficial solutions (i.e. recycling) will lead to meaningful changes. When distraction strategies start to lose their power, organizations then turn to delay strategies. For example, in the Paris Agreement 195 countries made commitments to reduce CO2 to net zero by 2050, and at COP28 nearly 200 countries did the same, but there is no accountability for implementing and/or funding any of the agreements. Deadlines just keep getting pushed back and emissions keep rising.
Finally, change initiatives get defeated when people get distracted by another crisis or simply lose motivation to continue the efforts required for success. We may see that happen in Ukraine because the world is now distracted by the Middle East crisis. Commitment doesn’t translate easily into capability and action.
So what’s my point. There is a real pattern in how large organizations use their marketing and financial muscle to defeat change initiatives that might impact their bottom line in the near term by denying, distracting or delaying that changes are required. We are seeing it happen on all four of our major crises: climate change, war, pandemics and extremism. I’m sure you could construct parallel examples in the last three as I have done with climate change.
If we want to save our planet, we need to get honest and acknowledge the real problems and causes for the crises we are facing. Second, we need to demand a balanced perspective on what is working and what is not working. Third, we need to mobilize behind an inspiring vision for the future and hold people accountable for implementing it. May it be so.
Also published on Medium.
Depressing, just depressing…thank you Ricky