Most Americans own cars. Most cars run on gasoline.
Can we be persuaded to think of the oil industry as the enemy? What about the coal industry, which supplies more than a third of the electricity we use?
“Movements need enemies,” declares Bill McKibben, the author, activist and leader of grassroots group 350.org. So earlier this month, with allies including the Sierra Club and Greenpeace, McKibben and 350.org began a 20-city, month-long coast-to-coast tour called Do the Math that targets the fossil fuel industry.
It’s designed to invigorate the climate movement by calling upon colleges, foundations and governments to sell their stock in coal, oil and natural gas companies.
The campaign is modeled after the 1980s South Africa divestment campaign, which helped pressure the government to enter negotiations that eventually led to the end of apartheid. To underscore that point, South African Bishop Desmond Tutu will make appearances, on video, during the tour.
It’s time to focus on the polluters, McKibben said last week by phone from Seattle, where the tour kicked off. “We’ve spent so much time focusing on our elected officials, and so little time focusing on the players behind them,” he said.
“The fossil fuel industry is now the tobacco industry,” he told me. “They are now a rogue force in our society.”
Not surprisingly, the oil companies aren’t happy about any of this. Rayola Dougher, a senior economic advisor at the American Petroleum Institute, told me that McKibben’s attacks on U.S. oil companies, if they lead to higher carbon taxes or caps, would raise energy prices and risk American jobs, while doing little or nothing to curb greenhouse gas emissions. “Demonizing an industry is not a good starting point for dealing with a big and complex issue like this one,” she said.
Photo of oil refinery provided by Paul Binet /Shutterstock
Next page: Grasping the climate crisis with some math
I attended McKibben's rally
I attended McKibben's rally in New York last Friday. He has the verve of a 19th century New England abolitionist. History tells us that a lot of people thought they were unreasonable and unrealistic too. Of course they were always right.
I started commuting by bike
I started commuting by bike in 2006 and am now a year round commuter (not just fair-weather rider). I disagree that we don't have options to live sustainably now. We just need to take off the institutional blinders and stop assuming we have to keep doing the same old way. If we do the same things, we get the same result. 27 consecutive warmer than average years, melting ice caps and big weather events. It's not just the economy, or the next quarter's results.
I don't want a petro-polluter job rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic or continuing business as usual on this collision course with greenhouse warming. I want to make a greener future now. To that end, I've also done energy audits and efficiency retrofits to my home, planted many native trees and shrubs locally, installed rain barrels and rain gardens at home and church, and practiced guerilla recycling of stuff that people keep tossing out as waste on a daily basis.
McKibben is coming to my city in a week and I just bought 3 tickets. It's time to put a price on carbon and stop pretending the global environment is unlimited, free and immune from humankind's assaults. While we're at it, let's do something to protect biodiversity. Otherwise, the future of our species as one of many which are interdependent on this planet looks pretty dim.
I like McKibben’s idea to
I like McKibben’s idea to target oil companies; the oil companies have been climate change obstructionists since day 1; I am however as addicted to oil as anyone and complete divestment of oil company stock seems too harsh, if done on a large scale. I would be happy if there were simply a half dozen indicators of progress that could be tracked and periodically the oil companies would be ranked from most evil to least evil. Perhaps the Carbon Disclosure Project might tackle this? Some indicators might be:
1. Percent of gross income devoted to research and implementation of alternative fuels
2. Percent of gross income devoted to searching for new oil resources
3. Percent of gross income devoted to transparently solving the carbon problem (a self-imposed carbon fee, so to speak)
I know nothing about oil companies and don’t know if the above indicators are useful, but I certainly would choose to buy gasoline from the least evil oil companies, if I knew who they were.
Let's move on to thinking
Let's move on to thinking something can and should be done to fix this destructive toxic mess that oil, gas, and chemical companies have made (as well as others). Can't drink the water, can't eat the food, can't live near toxic companies without cancer and diabetes. Lead by example and show others it can be done. Stop buying 'stuff'....there is enough stuff around here to share before it goes in the garbage. By not buying what China and others have it will reduce GHG. Moreover, it we educate poorer economies maybe population will go back down to help stabilize GHG. Stop tweaking policies and make a difference. We need big changes.
McKibben is completely out of
McKibben is completely out of touch and targeting the wrong entities. Until CONSUMERS reduce their usage of fossil fuels, particularly driving, there will be a negligible affect of targeting energy companies. Does he expect Exxon Mobile or Chevron to stop selling gasoline? Foolish and misdirected.
I agree with the earlier post
I agree with the earlier post on the overall reduction in US GHG production. Moreover, I think it's completely absurd to compare energy companies with big tobacco. As part of the boom that may see N. America acheive energy self-sufficiency by the conclusion of Obama's 2nd term, 1.7m jobs have been created and, over the next 25 years, there is the potential to create 3m more. The tobacco companies could never offer the amount of jobs - or tax revenues.
Perhaps McKibben should have taken to heart the advice of Bill Clinton before he started this campaign - it's the economy, stupid.
US GHG production is at
US GHG production is at lowest point in years and will continue to decline. The problem is China - they surpassed us in 2006 and now are nearly double our GHG production level in US. They add 1 gigawatt in coal produced electricity every week. Until things change in China, what we do in US will have an increasingly diminishing role in the big picture
The US has outsourced its
The US has outsourced its industrial GHG emissions to China and other locations. If you include imports in US GHG emissions, you will find a very different picture (i.e., growth, not decline). A large part of China's growth in emissions is due to exports to us in the West. Clearly their own domestic consumption and associated emissions are also growing. But on a per capita basis, their emissions are much lower than ours in North America.
Plus, annual emissions are just part of the story. If you look at cumulative emissions (which are what is driving climate change, since GHGs have a long life in the atmosphere), China's impact is much lower.
Let's get our own house in order before conveniently pointing the finger at others.
P.S. to GreenBiz: Could you please require folks to identify themselves before posting comments? Thanks.
We have been importing an
We have been importing an awful lot of stuff from China since before 2006 too, I dont have the figures but a lot of china emissions are also domestic related - look at their large increase in cars, roads, planes etc