Guest essay by Vijay Jayaraj
British multinational BP has announced its largest oil and gas discovery in 25 years in Brazil’s Santos Basin. By 2030, daily production is expected to be 2.3 to 2.5 million barrels of oil equivalent, which leaves little doubt that the company is solidly committed to hydrocarbons after a brief flirtation with alternatives like wind and solar energy.
BP’s clever but ill-conceived “green” marketing of “Beyond Petroleum” has shifted to “Petroleum Now and for the Foreseeable Future.”
Similarly chastened by reality, Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva – once anointed to reverse his predecessor’s policies of developing the nation’s natural resources – has vetoed legislation to tighten environmental licensing. The move greenlights development of energy projects previously stalled by a climate obsession and reflects pressures of having to tend to the welfare of more than 200 million people with pragmatic choices.
Despite promises of net-zero emissions and green energy transitions, the global appetite for fossil fuels remains insatiable. Countries like China and India have mastered the art of paying lip service to climate goals while doubling down on oil, natural gas and coal, and now others are following their lead.
This Brazilian reality check is a powerful note in a global chorus of nations that are shedding the shackles of the net-zero agenda. Governments chasing economic growth may be tempted by the trappings of “low-carbon” credentials, but they want the economic power of fossil fuels.
The policymakers who absurdly treat wind and solar as moral imperatives regard, quite rightly, fossil fuels as indispensable backups to technologies that are available only when the sun and breeze allow it. Moreover, leaders of emerging economies know hydrocarbons underpin growth – as they did in the creation of Western wealth – and so they present climate goals as aspirational ideals rather than binding commitments.
The LaLa Land of the green climate industrial complex is nice to contemplate over a glass of chardonnay, but nobody wants to live there.
Brazil’s neighbor Guyana has become the world’s fastest-growing economy, a transformation fueled almost entirely by massive offshore oil discoveries managed by ExxonMobil. Across the globe, countries are planning and constructing dozens of new coal-fired power plants.
China and India have perfected the art of climate doublespeak. They regularly announce record-breaking installations of solar and wind capacity and set distant deadlines for “carbon neutrality.”
Yet, they relentlessly pursue development of fossil fuels. In 2024, China opened more than 40 coal-fired power plants – something no country has ever done. It is also financing and building such plants across Asia and Africa through its Belt and Road Initiative.
Ignoring this, the climate lobby pretends that the “energy transition” is a simple matter of swapping an internal combustion engine for an electric vehicle or a coal plant for a field of solar panels. This is a profound and deliberate misrepresentation of reality.
Europe is no less hypocritical. Norway, often held up as a model of “green” virtue, is the continent’s largest oil and gas producer. It continues to grant new licenses for exploration in the North and Barents seas. Built on hydrocarbon profits, Norway’s sovereign wealth fund is a testament to the enduring value of fossil fuels.
This is the same hypocrisy that has political leaders fly private jets to climate summits – creating the lifetime carbon footprint of entire communities in Africa – and then propose to police the thermostats and driving habits of working people.
The next time you hear a speech about ending the use of hydrocarbons, remember BP’s Brazilian oil, the coal plants under construction in Asia and Africa and Norwegian wealth created by offshore wells. And remember that behind the public declarations of achieving a “green” nirvana, real-world actions to sustain life and raise billions out of poverty are keeping oil, natural gas and coal at the center of the global economy – right where they belong.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I remember when I interviewed for a job at Amoco, which is now part of BP, all the desks had ashtrays on them.
Good Times!
It’s so good to see BP get beyond ‘Beyond Petroleum’ (aka ‘Beyond Propaganda’).
Missing the good old days of nicotine-enhanced performance, tho I never inhaled.
I interviewed in late ’84 at the corporate-research labs of an evil company, with dos-equis (XX) or (SS) in its name. It was the best workplace I ever experienced … wish it could’ve lasted forever.
The crash of ’86 brought the company back to earth, back to its core mission of supporting upstream exploration and production. Then, as now, they moved beyond ‘Beyond Petroleum’, to great effect.
I disagree that those were good times.
If people wish to smoke, that’s their business, but for those of us who didn’t smoke, it was pretty crappy that we had no choice but to sit through it.
Exxon Labs actually invented the Lithium battery back in the days of the Arab Oil embargo.
Sanyo invented the Lithium primary cell in 1970.
Exxon invented the Lithium secondary (rechargeable) cell in 1973.
“And remember that behind the public declarations of achieving a “green” nirvana, real-world actions to sustain life and raise billions out of poverty are keeping oil, natural gas and coal at the center of the global economy – right where they belong.”
That’s absolutely right. However, if we consider the broader picture of development, which includes raising the living standards of half the world’s population to what’s considered an acceptable level in developed countries, plus the continuing increase in the development of currently wealthy nations, and the vast amounts of fossil fuels required to protect citizens from natural disasters by building dams to control flooding, strengthening houses to resist hurricanes, clearing forests of debris to reduce fire risk, and so on, than I can foresee a potentially disastrous, world-wide, economic collapse in the future if we rely exclusively on fossil fuels for our economic prosperity.
After searching on the internet for statistics relating to world poverty and average incomes, I came across the following figures which I’ve used to make the following points.
1. 50% of the world population live on less than US$6.85 per day.
2. The average income in developed countries is around US$60,000 per year, which is US$164 per day.
3. Dividing $164 by $6.58 equals approximately 24.
4. Assuming a direct link between monetary value and energy, half the world’s population will have to increase its use of fossil fuels by 24 times the current level, in order to reach the current living standards of developed countries.
5. During this time, the currently developed countries will not remain static. Economic development is a continuing goal in all countries, which requires increases in energy usage.
6. It is reasonable to estimate that we have enough fossil fuel reserves to last more than 100 years, at the current rate of usage.
7. The major question we should address, if we are concerned about our grandchildren and the general well-being of the world population, is what the increase in the use of fossil fuel will be, as we progress towards a satisfactory income for everyone.
Half the world’s population will have to increase their fossil fuel consumption at least 24 times, and developed countries perhaps double, or even 3 times considering the development of AI.
8. It is reasonable to start developing alternatives to fossil fuels right now, rather than wait till there’s an impending economic collapse with skyrocketing fossil fuel prices as they become scarce and very expensive to mine.
Wasting trillions of dollars worth of fossil fuels on windmills and solar farms is an experiment we can currently afford, because we have an abundance of fossil fuels.
There are lots of things on which we waste money (energy), from my perspective, such as silly football games, hitting little white balls into a hole (golf), ridiculously expensive fashion clothes, and so on.
“There are lots of things on which we waste money (energy), from my perspective,”
lol.. I’m sure there are things you “waste” your money on… from other people’s perspective 🙂
(meant in a nice jovial sort-of way)
Econ fallacy: Should be quadruple (4X), rather than 24-fold (24X), to bring all humanity up to the power-production level of the USA-Canada.
Thin-Earth fallacy: Best estimate is that mineral-hydrocarbons total ~ 1.5 x 10^19 kg.
Divided by 10^10 (ten billion) persons, gives ~ 1.5 x 10^9 kg per capita.
That’s One+ Billion Kilograms (roughly $1-billion per person).
In Fuller’s memorable formulation, we have 10-billion billionaires on this spaceship-earth, if only we learned to realize that wealth.
Even if we all (10-billion strong) increased our per-capita production by your 24-fold, we couldn’t use this in a Thousand Years (millennium).
[But that’s no reason not to get cracking.]
“Econ fallacy: Should be quadruple (4X), rather than 24-fold (24X), to bring all humanity up to the power-production level of the USA-Canada.”
Read my post again. I didn’t write that fossil fuel use world wide would need to increase 24X in order to bring all humanity up to the power-production level of the USA-Canada.”
I wrote: “half the world’s population will have to increase its use of fossil fuels by 24 times the current level.”
By “current level” I meant the current level of the undeveloped nations, which is, of course, much less than the average current usage world-wide.
In your #6, you bold “at the current rate of usage.”
This suggests you realize things change. Until a few years ago, I recall that telephone usage relied on copper wire. Now phone calls rely on something moving but I’m not sure what. Perhaps in 100 years there will be transporters to move people and goods. Kirk, Spock, & McCoy didn’t go naked up or down.
“Wasting trillions of dollars worth of fossil fuels on windmills and solar farms is an experiment we can currently afford, because we have an abundance of fossil fuels.”
That’s certainly debatable! But I don’t agree. Let the marketplace solve the problem. Alternatives already exist but they’re not economically competitive. By the time ff actually run low fusion will arrive. Yuh, I know the joke about fusion, that it’s always 30 years in the future, but it’ll happen- and happen faster than running out of ff.
Assuming your actual goal is just an “experiment”, that can be done with a dozen or fewer wind towers and solar fields. No need to plant vast swaths of the stuff. Sounds to me like you are desperately trying to come up with an excuse to build what you wanted in the first place.
By “you” I presume you don’t mean me. I hate the dam things; especially after the renewable lovers decided it was important to stop all forestry.
As time goes by, it takes less energy to create a unit of economic wealth.
For example, modern computers are smaller and use much less power than did computers of past decades. All the while being much more powerful and capable.
Funny how you spend so much time demonstrating how little fossil fuels are available compared to foreseeable need, then you proclaim that despite this near future shortage, you encourage us to waste water on something that has no chance of succeeding, just because we currently have more than we need.
True for computers, but unfortunately, not many other things like homes and cars.
“The LaLa Land of the green climate industrial complex is nice to contemplate over a glass of chardonnay,”
No… a total waste of a good chardonnay..
There are many better things you could be contemplating. 🙂
eg yesterday afternoon on the back veranda, with a glass of rosé, I was contemplating the movement of the clouds, with the occasional glimpse of blue.. and the effect the approaching rain had on the visibility of the hills.
I’d like it if writers did away with the word like in the following situations:
“Countries like China and India”. Such usage throws me into a quest for countries like China and India. Still thinking. Now, what is this post about?
The LaLa Land of the green climate industrial complex is nice to contemplate over a glass of chardonnay as long as it’s chilled by fossil fuels
I joined a sign manufacturing company in 1988, corporate identity specialists in London, so was visiting all the ultra trendy graphic design houses in the city.
Bizarrely, these companies were employed by corporations to design their logo’s etc. but were awarded the job of project managing the rapid manufacture and rollouts of national and international signage projects with no credentials whatsoever.
Deviating from the point, sorry. The big splash was the very hush, hush corporate identity for BP, which everyone knew about and every sign manufacturer was chasing.
I can’t recall who the Chairman of the company was then but always remember the ambition he expressed, “We will own the colour green around the world” (paraphrasing). Thirty six years and one giant, destructive bandwagon later, BP is finally coming to its senses.
“Petroleum Now and for the Foreseeable Future.”
PNAFTFF
new company name? 🙂