By Simon Pirani
The Carbon Majors Report 2017, published last month, showed that 71% of all greenhouse gas emissions
since 1988 can be traced back to just 100 fossil fuel producing companies.
It’s a useful way of looking
at the production half of the fossil fuels picture – and needs putting together
with the other half: the companies that consume the fuels.
Last month’s report, by Paul
Griffin of the Climate Disclosure Project, was
based on years of research by the Climate
Accountability Institute, which
attributes greenhouse gas emissions not to the companies or people that burn
coal, oil or gas, but to the companies that got the fuels out of the ground in
the first place.
The report focused on the
period since 1988, on the grounds that the global warming effect of fossil fuel
consumption was “officially recognised” in that year, through the formation of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
■ More than half the fossil fuel industry’s emissions
since 1988 are attributed to just 25 companies. Saudi Aramco, Gazprom of
Russia, the National Iranian Oil company, ExxonMobil, Pemex of Mexico, Royal
Dutch Shell, China National Petroleum Corp, BP and Chevron are high on the
list. The Chinese and Russian coal industries, treated as single entities
because of the difficulties of getting detailed company information, are in the
top ten; so is Coal India.
■ The emissions that originated with fossil fuel
production in 28 years since 1988 were greater than in the 237 years before
that.
■ The 100 companies to which 71% of post-1988 emissions
can be traced were the source of more than half of all greenhouse gases since
1751.
The Carbon Majors
Database on which the report was
based, was put together by a team of analysts, led by Richard Heede, who combed
through company reports and oil and coal industry statistics and extrapolated
production numbers going back to 1751. Then they used recent emissions research
to marry up companies’ output with the greenhouse gases that go into the air
once the fuels are burned, or used in cement manufacture and other industrial
processes.
For both analysis and campaigning,
this research on fossil fuels production gives us half of the pieces of the
jigsaw. They need to be put together with the other pieces, about
consumption.
For analysis, no-one has tried to compile a database of the corporates
that consume fossil fuels. It would be much more complicated than the list of
producers, but the concentration of wealth and power would still be clear.
To get an idea, you could
start with the International Energy Agency’s energy balances,
which provide the best worldwide sector-by-sector breakdown. (Basically,
electricity production, industry, transport, and household consumption each use
about one fifth of primary energy, with the final fifth going to other users.
About four-fifths of the primary energy comes from fossil fuels.)
The IEA data show that 20.8%
of primary energy goes into producing electricity and heat. By far the largest
consumer of that electricity is industry – in a deeply unequal world in which 1.2
billion people have no electricity access at all, and a larger number have only
partial or irregular access to electricity.
Other large users include the
iron and steel industry (5.3% of all primary energy) and other industries
(15.7% of all primary energy). Much of the energy use in industry is
concentrated in the largest corporations, just as industrial production is. The
share of developing countries, especially China, has rocketed in recent years –
but that doesn’t mean inequality has fallen. The stuff produced by the Chinese
industrial boom is largely for rich-country consumers elsewhere.
The sectoral statistics don’t
tell the whole story, of course. To give just one example, the IEA’s category
“other energy industry own use and losses” – which doubtless represents
corporate reluctance to tell government statisticians what is going on – accounts
for a whopping 7.6% of the IEA’s total primary energy figure, about four times
as much as the entire aviation industry. Another mystery is the level of the
military’s fossil fuel use, which many countries don’t include in statistics. Historians’
guesstimates are around the 5% mark.
Global consumption of commercially-traded energy, 1965-2010. This does not include biofuels on which hundreds of millions of rural people in the developing world rely. Source: BP Statistical Review.
Global fossil fuel
consumption has more than tripled since the mid 1960s. Since the international
climate talks began in the late 1980s it rose by more than half.
International agencies and would-be experts commonly claim
that rising population is the main cause. But, firstly, the consumption
increases are concentrated in rich countries and urban areas elsewhere.
Secondly, while individuals are often the final consumers of fossil fuels, and
of products made with the help of fossil fuels, consumption takes place through
social, economic and technological systems. Studying these gives a better guide
to where the fuel goes.
The most important processes
that have raised global fossil fuel consumption since 1950, I have found in a recent research project, are: electrification, industrialisation, the
transformation of the labour process, urbanisation, motorisation and the growth
of material consumption and consumerism.
Take road transport, which
accounts for 14% of primary energy supply, with the lion’s share going into
private cars. In 1950, there were about 55 million cars, of which three
quarters were in one country, the USA. Today it’s pushing 800 million, mostly
in rich countries. The manufacture, as well as use, of cars gulps down huge
amounts of fossil fuels.
This is about how capitalism
works as a whole system – the mighty motor-producing corporations, the planned
obsolescence central to their business model, the road-building projects they
lobbied for and governments agreed to, the car-based city planning that has
spread out from the rich countries – and not simply driver behaviour.
These dynamics probably can
not be captured in a database. But it doesn’t make them less important.
For campaigning, a broader view embracing both production and
consumption is essential, if social movements and labour movements are to
evolve coherent strategies to challenge the domination of energy systems by
fossil fuels.
The Climate Disclosure
Project, which co-published last month’s research, focuses on
trying to persuade shareholders in oil, gas and coal companies to get those
companies to “set ambitious emission reduction targets”.
Pedro Faria of CDP said after
the report’s release that “critical shifts in policy, innovation and financial
capital” are putting “the tipping point for a low carbon transition” in
companies’ reach, and urged companies to get in line with the targets set by
the Paris agreement on climate change. (The companies could “hold the key to
tackling climate change”, the Guardian claimed. Really?!)
The central argument here is
that government support for the move away from fossil fuels will make coal, oil
and gas reserves into “stranded assets”. But this depends on governments taking
action – which a quarter of a century of the talks process has shown they are
determined to avoid.
That’s why the Paris targets
are insufficient to limit global warming to 2deg C above pre-industrial
temperatures, let alone the 1.5deg C that supporting governments say is
preferable.
Social and labour movements
need to develop strategies for the future outside
of the talks process, rather than tie themselves to the talks’ false
narratives. While every initiative to move the energy sector away from fossil
fuels is welcome, best of all are strategies that envisage economic, social and
technological change as a whole, transforming both production and consumption.
■ Simon Pirani is author of a history of global fossil fuel consumption since 1950, to be published by Pluto Press in 2018. He will give
a public seminar at the LSE in London on Tuesday 19 September (details here),
to which all are welcome.
So all those knife manufacturers are responsible for all the people stabbed in the world...damn I never thought of passing the buck back to the very originator and ignoring the actual person who uses the product.
ReplyDeleteit is not the same thing at all.
ReplyDelete