When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Enjoy unlimited access to quality journalism.

Limited time offer

Get your 30-day free trial!
CLARIN

Time To Choose Between Oil Wealth And Saving The Planet

Countries and industries around the globe must make the painful choice between lucrative fossil fuel exploitation and efforts to prevent climate change.

Oil rig worker
Oil rig worker
Alieto Aldo Guadagni

BUENOS AIRES — We are still living in the era of fossil fuels, yet we have begun the transition out of a period in human history that began with the Industrial Revolution of the late 18th century. With technological changes lowering the price of clean energies, renewable sources are gradually displacing fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas. But will it happen fast enough to save our planet?

The many speeches and good intentions on display at last December's Paris climate summit have not yet managed to slow the fossil fuels' carbon dioxide emissions from continuing to heat up the planet. The development of alternative energy sources is simply not happening fast enough. The U.S. Energy Department's latest global projections, released after the Paris agreement, are especially worrying: They estimate that greenhouse gas emissions will not drop, but will instead rise, by 34% between now and 2040.To achieve the Paris agreement's lofty goals — a global temperature rise of no more than 2 degrees Celsius — the world should be emitting 33% less greenhouse gases than it does today.

Contrary to earlier predictions, we have as much fossil fuel reserves today as we have ever had in the past. Global oil reserves in 1980 were said to cover 30 years' consumption while today, in spite of increased consumption, reserves are expected to meet demand for at least another 53 years. Using all those reserves — already factored into company balance sheets — is incompatible with the goal of avoiding the two-degrees rise in temperatures set at the Paris summit.

Slow shifts

A recent report by British Petroleum (BP) reveals that using all existing fossil fuel reserves in the coming years would result in emissions of 2.8 trillion tons of CO2, far above the maximum one trillion tons needed to achieve the temperature limit. The measure of these reserves is clearly creating a conflict of financial interests, as any decisive shift away from fossil fuels would cause major monetary losses for the owners of the oil stock — companies that currently make up around two-thirds of the world's GDP.

In other words, it is simply impossible to enjoy projected oil revenues while curbing emissions.

Still, a more responsible attitude is emerging among some top European oil firms, such as Shell, Total, BP, ENI, and Statoil. They promote tax payments to fossil fuel producers, a policy that would encourage a change in energy models and generate resources for technological changes required for a transition to renewables. Not all firms think this way, especially in the United States, where many agree with presidential candidate Donald Trump's rejection of both the Paris accords and the very existence of climate change itself.

What we do know, however, is that the world's progress on safeguarding the planet continues to move at a glacial pace.

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

Ideas

How U.S. Airlines Are Doing Cuba's Dirty Work On American Soil

American and Southwest Airlines have been refusing to allow Cubans on board flights if they've been blacklisted by the government in Havana.

How U.S. Airlines Are Doing Cuba's Dirty Work On American Soil

Boarding a plane in Camaguey, Cuba

Santiago Villa

On Sunday, American Airlines refused to let Cuban writer Carlos Manuel Álvarez board a Miami flight bound for Havana. It was at least the third time this year that a U.S. airline refused to let Cubans on board to return to their homeland after Havana circulated a government "blacklist" of critics of the regime. Clearly undemocratic and possibly illegal under U.S. law, the airlines want to make sure to cash in on a lucrative travel route, writes Colombian journalist Santiago Villa:

-OpEd-

Imagine for a moment that you left your home country years ago because you couldn't properly pursue your chosen career there. It wasn't easy, of course: Your profession is not just singularly demanding, but even at the top of the game you might not be assured a stable or sufficient income, and you've had to take on second jobs, working in bars and restaurants.

This chosen vocation is that of a writer or journalist, or perhaps an artist, which has kept you tied to your homeland, often the subject of your work, even if you don't live there anymore.

Since leaving, you've been back home several times, though not so much for work. Because if you did, you would be followed in cars and receive phone calls to let you know you are being watched.

Keep reading...Show less

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

The latest