I was born in 1949. A year later the world’s population topped 2.5 billion. This week the United Nations announced that humans on Earth had just surpassed the 8 billion mark. That means in my lifetime, humans have increased by 320%.
When listening to a satellite radio station yesterday, the announcer did a drum roll and celebrated the 8-billion milestone. My immediate thought was, is this a good thing, a statement about human resilience? Or is it a sign that human population growth is out of control?
In some respects, the number is a positive. It reflects the improvements humanity has made in the fields of medicine and agriculture. If this growth were evenly distributed over the Global North and South, humanity could handle it. But that is not the case.
The largest growth is happening in places least able to feed the population, where freshwater scarcity is the greatest, and where climate change and extreme weather events are unleashing an enormous toll. We are talking about Sub-Saharan Africa and other parts of the Global South which are relying on food imports to meet the 2,000 calorie-a-day measure that humans need to thrive.
What is the planet’s carrying capacity for our species? Some time ago I worked out the numbers and you can read what I wrote ten years ago on this subject. But here is a quick summary.
If we planted on every hectare of arable land on Earth enough food crops to produce 2,000 calories per day, the planet does have more than enough carrying capacity to handle 8 billion. In fact, the number is closer to 66 billion, give or take 10 billion. That’s well above the 8 we have today. So should we be worried when forecasters tell us we will hit 9 billion in the next 15 years, and 10 billion by mid-century?
Without climate change in the mix, we would probably be okay. But we don’t have a handle on global warming and based on what is happening at COP27, it is likely years before all the nations of the world will be sufficiently aligned to mitigate and adapt to climate change while dramatically reducing its human-produced causes.
What exactly have we been doing to our atmosphere? In 1950, atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels hit 310 parts per million (PPM). That was 60 PPM above the number in 1850. Today, we have surpassed 419 PPM. So in my lifetime, atmospheric CO2 has risen by 35%. And since the Industrial Revolution, CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by two-thirds.
The last time CO2 was this high was 2 to 20 million years ago before Homo sapiens had evolved from our hominid ancestors. And CO2 levels in Earth’s past history didn’t rise at the speed we are seeing today. Al Gore called it a hockey-stick curve with humans responsible for the shaft.
A third number to consider is the rise in representation by fossil-fuel companies at the current COP27 climate conference. At COP26, 536 fossil-fuel lobbyists showed up. This year like rising CO2, fossil fuel lobbyists have grown to 636. That’s 19% more coming to ensure that coal, oil, and natural gas continue to flow and produce greenhouse gas emissions into the foreseeable future.
These lobbyists and fossil-fuel company sponsors (18 of the 20 COP27 sponsors are associated with the energy sector) prominently on display at COP27 want the rest of us to know that the energy they produce that pollutes is necessary for the foreseeable future and part of the low-carbon energy transition process. Of course, it means they can continue to operate and profit from polluting the atmosphere and further adding to the conditions responsible for climate change. As one COP27 delegate put it, the talks in Egypt are turning into a rehabilitation exercise for fossil fuel companies.
This last number represents the total number of heads of state and countries in attendance at COP27. That’s a drop from the 197 who attended Glasgow’s COP26 and not a good sign. Considering that Glasgow was held when COVID-19 pandemic restrictions were being enforced globally, it drew over 30,000 attendees from across the planet. And although COP27 has 14,000 more registered attendees, where have all the countries gone?
]]>
The numbers say it all. The industry has no interest in combating climate change. It has no interest in altering its business model even in the face of growing shareholder demands for asset risk accountability.
London-based InfluenceMap, is a not-for-profit organization that brings together experts from around the world to track the current state of government and business responses to climate change and energy through policy and investment activity. It tracks the numbers and activities of companies related to climate change. States Dylan Tanner, its Executive Director, “As the pressure of climate change and the actual physical manifestations of it become accelerated, this account of what oil majors consider to be ‘on board with climate change’ becomes disconnected from reality.”
The InfluenceMap graphic appearing below positions the oil majors compared to other corporate entities in terms of corporate accountability when it comes to lobbying efforts to counter any action on climate change. Note all five oil majors sit within the upper left quadrant indicating their strategic opposition to any action on climate change.
Singling out ExxonMobil, it is among the most egregious of the five continuing its obfuscation activities related to climate change and actively promoting anti-climate change lobbying efforts and blocking actions to meet the objectives of the Paris Climate Agreement. The track record goes back many years.
Back in 1997, ExxonMobil’s CEO, Lee Raymond denied that human activity was influencing climate even though his own researchers had proven the case two decades. At the time he stated “the scientific evidence is inconclusive.”
When Rex Tillerson took the company’s helm, this former Secretary of State did his own song and dance stating on two occasions that human impact on climate “is very hard for anyone to predict,” and that the market should be the “best tool for emissions,” not government-mandated caps or carbon pricing.
In 2012 it funded and supported an anti-climate change report published by The Heartland Institute, an NGO not-for-profit backed by it and other fossil fuel companies.
Two years ago, the company’s CEO, Darren Woods stated, “the solution is not just to leave fossil fuels in the ground.” Finally, the ExxonMobil truth came out. The company had no intentions of transitioning in the near-term to a low-carbon business model but was doubling down on new investments in oil and gas projects globally, and in particular, in the United States, welcomed by the Trump administration and its anti-climate science rhetoric and actions.
Advertising deception has been a prime ExxonMobil strategy. Consider two ads which appeared in the New York Times, one in 2009 and the second in 2018. If you didn’t know better you would be inclined to believe that ExxonMobil’s future was in biofuels and alternate forms of zero-carbon energy. But with InfluenceMap’s reveal, you now know how ExxonMobil sees its future. It’s not biofuels. It’s putting more carbon into the atmosphere without regard to consequences.
A few more facts to ponder. The big five oil companies spent in the last three years almost $600 million promoting their actions to address climate change. They spent in the same period close to $3 billion publicizing corporate sustainability initiatives. Leading the pack in this obfuscation was ExxonMobil. In terms of lobbying the government, the spend was $200 million per year with BP spending $53 million to ExxonMobil’s $41 million annually. Considering BP’s Deepwater Horizon exposure, it is no surprise that this oil giant is spending more to influence legislators regarding its long-term liability in The Gulf of Mexico.
]]>