A popular English proverb states: You can’t have your cake and eat it too. At this time it looks like most of the worlds people are trying to prove the proverb to be false. I stick by the proverb, I am certain we can’t keep the cake and eat it – but by the time the majority of the earths population figures this out, it may be too late.

Take the case of Washington State in the US. A staunchly “blue” progressive state with a strong environmental movement. And yet, when asked to put their money where their mouth is and approve a carbon dioxide tax – these same environmentally motivated voters balked. The tax revenue was expected to reach $1 billion by 2023. Revenue from the tax was to benefit renewable energy projects and workers negatively affected by the tax. Sounds good? And yet, voters in the state have now voted two times, in 2016 and 2018, to reject the initiative to tax carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions.

To understand why voters rejected the measures, look at who opposed it and how. The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) spent almost $32 million to defeat the measure, while the coalition supporting it were only able to raise $16 million. Most of the $32 million came from BP and Phillips 66 – both of which have major refinery operations in the State. So the ability to vastly outspend environmental groups and inundate media with scare-mongering about the loss of jobs and how the tax revenues would be paid out won, over common sense.

With these carbon tax initiatives, where it was the people of Washington State who cast the votes, it comes down to us deciding that we would rather sacrifice the earth and its environment than have to pay a few cents extra for some products. One of the biggest red herrings, used very effectively by energy companies fighting progressive taxes to reduce carbon emissions, is to question how the tax dollars will be spent, and in doing so introduce a separate and contentious argument into the mix. It inflames our passions and confuses the issue of the tax itself to one of how will the money be spent. And, these are the same people who claim to value a clean and healthy environment.

The cap and trade (carbon credit) option that O&G companies tout has many problems (more on that below), and for those very reasons is preferred by the big emitters. It is interesting that those opposing carbon taxes don’t show the same concern for the known weaknesses of the carbon credit system as they do for the unknown weakness (if any) of the carbon tax.

In 2021 the Washington Legislature did pass a “Cap-and-Trade” bill to cut GHG emissions to zero by 2050 – while better than nothing the weaknesses of cap and trade may dilute the true value of GHG reduction. In Oregon, similar legislation failed because Republican Senators fled the Capitol to pre-empt a vote.

By 2020 at least one of the two companies above has now committed to becoming carbon neutral (net zero) by 2050. Sounds wonderful doesn’t it. Problem is, a company-centric net zero commitment is nonsense – a smoke-and-mirrors shell game where most carbon emissions are moved around to hide or remove them from the company reporting portfolio. I guess the appearance of not adding carbon into the atmosphere is as good as, for some, actually stopping carbon emissions. I wish a reporter would ask oil company leadership if net-zero means they are going to stop releasing carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere. The answer will surely leave you scratching your head saying “what did s/he just say?”

Net zero could work from the perspective of the company itself – but has very little impact in terms of an overall reduction in global carbon emissions. Consider how an oil company can achieve net zero.

• Reduce carbon footprint by buying carbon credits. Carbon credits are the love-child of energy companies, but they are not particularly legitimate – at least, not yet. While the principle of carbon credits appears to be sound, it has many flaws in its current form. For example, some companies were already doing projects that extracted CO₂ from the air. These have now been monetized so that the CO₂ extracted also generates a credit that can be sold to a net CO₂ generator. Although the net extractor company makes more money from its activity no additional CO₂ is extracted for the carbon credit above and beyond what was already being done. In principle the money earned from credits will be plowed back into removing more CO₂ from the air. In practice the money earned will largely go toward profit margins. Meanwhile, the company buying the credits gets to add more CO₂ to the atmosphere without penalty. And then there are the more blatantly fake examples – such as coal burning companies generating credits by claiming they were more efficient than they could have been.
• Develop new sources of energy. “Green hydrogen” is one concept being touted but the hydrogen will only be “green” if it is produced using renewable energy – and if that energy takes away renewable energy already being used for other purposes (which may be replaced by hydrocarbon fuels) it again does nothing for global CO₂e reduction.

For an interesting read on why carbon credits for forest preservation may be worse than nothing, read this article by Lisa Song.

Reading this article up to now you may think I’m saying oil & gas companies are The Devil, and bear all the blame for global climate change. They do bear some of the blame, but the majority of the blame is ours. Yes, you and I. Oil & gas companies are like drug dealers – they supply the drug (hydrocarbons) but only because you and I want it. If we can wean ourselves off the drug (oil, gas, coal) we could finally make real progress toward reversing or at least slowing catastrophic climate change. If we really care about the future of this tiny blue planet we must set aside our narrow, selfish, short-term thinking and change our gluttonous consumption (combustion) of hydrocarbons now, before it is too late.

On to bigger issues, O&G companies should do more to improve how efficiently they produce hydrocarbons. But that is only a small part of the overall carbon emission scenario. Consider for example overall greenhouse gas emissions in the US. In 2019 this amounted to 6,558 million metric tons (mmte) of CO₂ equivalents (CO₂e).

Carbon dioxide equivalents (CO₂e) are calculated so we can compare all greenhouse gases on a single metric. For example, 1 ton of methane (CH₄) is equivalent to 25 tons of CO₂, and 1 ton of nitrous oxide is equivalent to 298 tons of CO₂.

Direct GHG emissions from the oil and gas industry for 2008 – 2019 are shown in the table below (data also from the US EPA): In the US, the total direct CO₂e emissions by the oil and gas sector are just over 5% of total CO₂e emissions. And 2019 was not an unusual year – the table below shows how US O&G emissions have been increasing over time.

GHG (mmte)	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016*	2017	2018	2019
Carbon dioxide (CO2)	138.4	145.5	150.7	162.4	164.6	186.8	199.4	228.0	248.9
Methane (CH4)	83.7	80.1	77.1	73.2	70.7	95.7	89.4	90.6	91.5
Nitrous oxide (N2O)	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1	<1
Total emissions (CO2e)	222.3	225.7	228.0	235.7	235.5	282.6	289.0	318.7	340.5

The data in the pie chart clearly puts the blame for CO₂ emissions on us. Its we who use electricity. Its we who use transportation – either for ourselves or for the goods we buy. Its we who need agriculture for food. And its we who need electricity and gas for our homes, shops and offices. O&G companies simply give us what we want. – for a profit.

Based on the most recently available data, for 2018, from statista.com, the largest single corporate emitter of CO₂e is Vistra Energy – a Texas-based power producer who operates some of the most polluting power plants in the US, many of them powered by coal. This company alone accounted for 118.5 mmte of CO₂e emissions – 1.8% of the US total. Interestingly, if you visit the Vistra Energy website (and believe what it says) you would be convinced they are an angelic corporation leading the world in clean energy production. It’s a good laugh. Until you realize how sad it is – because a lot of us will believe the fantasy presented in the website. Check it out. In fact most of the top CO₂e emitters are energy production corporations. Guess who uses that energy? You and I. I’m using it right now, sitting in an air conditioned room, working on my computer. Both use the electricity that companies like Vistra produce.

Worldwide, a comparison of electricity consumption by country shows that China consumes 7,500,000 GW.hr/yr, almost two times as much energy as the US does at 3,989,56 GW.hr/yr. However, on the basis of population countries with a smaller population have the higher consumption per person. Iceland leads the way with 51,699 kWh per person per year, followed by Norway, Bahrain, Qatar, and Finland making up the top five. The US comes in at #10 and China drops down the list to #64.

Of the renewable electricity generated, China leads the way with the most energy generated with 1,739,400 GWh followed by the US with 637,076 GWh – 24.35 and 14.7% of total energy produced. However, countries with the highest percentage of renewable energy are Paraguay, Iceland, DR Congo, and Albania – all with 100% renewable energy. With the exception of Iceland, that also produces geothermal energy (27.3%), the others rely entirely on hydroelectric power.

When looking at data on energy production and consumption it is important to keep in mind the context of the data – otherwise you will arrive at invalid conclusions. If you were to just look at energy consumption it appears Iceland is wasteful – but because Iceland uses entirely renewable energy its electricity generation actually contributes very little to atmospheric CO₂.

As a rule however, global climate change is driven by GHGs in the atmosphere, it does not matter whether the GHGs are produced by a country with a large population or a small population. Population considerations only come into play when nations negotiate on who should be contributing what to GHG reduction. Unfortunately, some nations still view reducing GHG emissions as a disadvantage to national development goals because we are conditioned to view cheap hydrocarbon-based energy as a vital component of the development formula.

Consider this: In 1979 the administration of President Jimmy Carter installed 32 solar panels on the roof of the White House.

“In the year 2000 this solar water heater behind me, which is being dedicated today, will still be here supplying cheap, efficient energy…. A generation from now, this solar heater can either be a curiosity, a museum piece, an example of a road not taken or it can be just a small part of one of the greatest and most exciting adventures ever undertaken by the American people.”

President Jimmy Carter

The Reagan administration gutted the research and development budgets for renewable energy at the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) and eliminated tax breaks for the deployment of wind turbines and solar technologies. By 1986 the US was out of the renewable energy field – a field in which it led the world during the Carter administration. Although we can point the finger at Reagan’s shortsightedness, there is no doubt that behind the scenes, the decision was driven by the O&G industry. In fact, Reagan, in a presidential debate with Carter stated of Carter’s energy policy:

“It hasn’t produced a quart of oil or a lump of coal or anything else in the line of energy.”

Pres. Candidate Ronald Reagan

Really, “A quart of oil or a lump of coal?” I wonder who wrote that line?

China now controls about 80% of the solar panel manufacturing industry. In fact one of the original solar panels from on top of the White House recently ended up in a Science Museum in China.

The careful and cynical media spin orchestrated by unethical and corrupt politicians, and companies with a vested interest in selling and using hydrocarbons kept us from moving forward with developing non-polluting alternative energy sources. Worse, their actions directly led to the demise of the fledgling alternative energy industry in the US.

In the few years remaining for us to rein in GHG emissions and avert climate disaster, we will be faced with many difficult decisions. Do we vote for the longevity of our planet for the sake of our children, or for short-term personal gain. Future global leadership will be in the hands nations (and companies) that quickly adopt and develop renewable energy and technology.