{"id":48769,"date":"2014-10-20T12:00:17","date_gmt":"2014-10-20T11:00:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=48769"},"modified":"2015-05-05T21:29:38","modified_gmt":"2015-05-05T20:29:38","slug":"climate-change-how-to-make-the-big-polluters-really-pay","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2014\/10\/climate-change-how-to-make-the-big-polluters-really-pay\/","title":{"rendered":"Climate Change: How to Make the Big Polluters Really Pay"},"content":{"rendered":"

By dropping Shell, Lego shows new ways to target the astronomical profits of the fossil fuel industries.<\/em><\/p>\n

\"Lego<\/a>

Lego has said it won\u2019t be renewing its relationship with Shell Oil. Photograph: Jiri Rezac\/Greenpeace\/PA<\/p><\/div>\n

When the call came in that the University of Glasgow had voted to divest its \u00a3128m endowment from fossil fuel companies<\/a>, I happened to be in a room filled with climate activists in Oxford. They immediately broke into cheers. There were lots of hugs and a few tears. This was big \u2013 the first university in Europe to make such a move.<\/p>\n

The next day there were more celebrations in climate circles: Lego announced it would not be renewing a\u00a0relationship with Shell Oil<\/a>, a longtime co-branding deal that saw toddlers filling up their plastic vehicles at toy Shell petrol stations. \u201cShell is polluting our kids\u2019 imaginations,\u201d a Greenpeace video that went viral<\/a> declared, attracting more than 6m views. Pressure is building, meanwhile, on the Tate to sever the museum\u2019s longtime relationship with BP<\/a>.<\/p>\n

What is happening? Are fossil fuel companies \u2013 long toxic to our natural environment \u2013 becoming toxic in the public relations environment as well? It seems so. Galvanised by the \u201ccarbon tracker\u201d research showing that these firms have several times more carbon in their reserves than our atmosphere can safely absorb, Oxford city council has voted to divest<\/a>; so has the British Medical Association<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Internationally, there are hundreds of active fossil fuel divestment campaigns on university and college campuses, as\u00a0well as ones targeting local city governments, non-profit foundations and religious organisations. And the victories keep getting bigger.<\/p>\n

In May, for instance, California\u2019s Stanford University announced it would divest its $18.7bn endowment from coal<\/a>. And on the eve of September\u2019s UN climate summit in New York, a portion of the Rockefeller family \u2013 a name synonymous with oil \u2013 announced that it would be divesting its foundation\u2019s holdings from fossil fuels<\/a> and expanding its investments in renewable energy.<\/p>\n

Some are sceptical. They point out that none of this will hurt oil or coal companies \u2013 different investors will snap up their stocks and most of us will keep buying their products. Our economies, after all, remain hooked on fossil fuels, and affordable renewable options are too often out of reach. So\u00a0are\u00a0these battles over fossil fuel investments and sponsorships just a charade? A way to clean our consciences but not the atmosphere?<\/p>\n

The criticism overlooks the deeper power and potential of these campaigns. At their core, all are taking aim at the moral legitimacy of fossil fuel companies and the profits that flow from them. This movement is saying that it is unethical to be associated with an industry whose business model is based on knowingly destabilising the planet\u2019s life support systems.<\/p>\n

Every time a new institution or brand decides to cut its ties, every time the divestment argument is publicly made, it reinforces the idea that fossil fuel profits are illegitimate \u2013 that \u201cthese are now rogue industries\u201d, in the words of author Bill McKibben<\/a>. And it is\u00a0this illegitimacy that has the potential to break the stalemate in meaningful climate action. Because if those profits are illegitimate, and this industry is rogue, it brings us a step closer to the principle that has been sorely missing from the collective climate response so far: the polluter pays.<\/p>\n

Take the Rockefellers. When Valerie Rockefeller Wayne explained her decision to divest, she said that it was precisely because her family\u2019s wealth was made through oil that they were \u201cunder greater moral obligation\u201d to use that wealth to stop climate change.<\/p>\n

That, in a nutshell, is the rationale behind polluter pays. It holds that when commercial activity creates hefty public health and environmental damage, the polluters must shoulder a significant share of the costs of repair. But it can\u2019t stop with individuals and foundations, nor can the principle be enforced voluntarily.<\/p>\n

As I explore in my book This Changes Everything<\/a>, fossil fuel-based companies have been pledging for more than a decade to use their profits to transition us away from dirty energy. BP has rebranded itself as \u201cBeyond Petroleum\u201d \u2013 only to back off renewables and double down on the dirtiest fossil fuels. Richard Branson pledged to spend $3bn of Virgin\u2019s profits finding a miracle green fuel and fighting global warming<\/a> \u2013 only to systematically lower expectations while sharply increasing his fleet of aeroplanes. Clearly, polluters aren\u2019t going to pay for this transition unless they are forced to\u00a0do so by law.<\/p>\n

Up until the early 1980s, that was still a guiding principle of environmental law-making in North America. And the principle hasn\u2019t totally disappeared \u2013 it\u2019s the reason why Exxon and BP were forced to pick up large portions of the bills after the Valdez<\/a> and Deepwater Horizon<\/a> disasters.<\/p>\n

But since the era of market fundamentalism took hold in the 1990s, direct regulations and penalties on polluters have been superseded by the drive to create complex market mechanisms and voluntary initiatives designed to minimise the impact of environmental action on corporations. When it comes to climate change, the result of these so-called win-win solutions has been a double loss: greenhouse emissions are up and support for many forms of climate action is down, in large part because policies are perceived \u2013 quite rightly \u2013 as passing costs on to already overburdened consumers while letting big corporate polluters off the hook.<\/p>\n

It is this culture of lopsided sacrifice that has to stop \u2013 and the Rockefellers, oddly, are showing the way. Large parts of the Standard Oil trust, the\u00a0empire John D Rockefeller co-founded in 1870, evolved into Exxon Mobil. In 2008 and 2012, Exxon earned about $45bn in profits, which remains the highest yearly profit ever reported in the US by a single company. Other Standard Oil spin-offs include Chevron and Amoco, which would later merge with BP.<\/p>\n

The astronomical profits these companies and their cohorts continue to earn from digging up and burning fossil fuels cannot continue to haemorrhage into private coffers. They must, instead, be harnessed to help roll out the clean technologies and infrastructure that will allow us to move beyond these dangerous energy sources, as well as to help us adapt to the heavy weather we have already locked in. A minimal carbon tax whose price tag can be passed on to consumers is no substitute for a real polluter-pays framework \u2013 not after decades of inaction has made the problem immeasurably worse (inaction secured, in part, by a climate denial movement funded by some of these same corporations).<\/p>\n

And that\u2019s where these seemingly symbolic victories come in, from Glasgow to Lego. The profits of the fossil fuel sector, made by knowingly treating our atmosphere like a sewage dump, should not just be seen as toxic \u2013 something from which publicly minded institutions will naturally distance themselves. If we accept that those profits are morally illegitimate, they should also be seen as odious \u2013 something to which the public itself can make a claim, in order to clean up the mess these companies have left, and continue to leave, behind.<\/p>\n

When that happens, the pervasive sense of hopelessness in the face of a crisis as vast and costly as climate change will finally begin to lift.<\/p>\n

________________________<\/p>\n

Naomi Klein<\/a> is the author of <\/em>This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs the Climate<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

Go to Original \u2013 theguardian.com<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By dropping Shell, Lego shows new ways to target the astronomical profits of the fossil fuel industries.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[61],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-48769","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-environment"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48769","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=48769"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48769\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=48769"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=48769"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=48769"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}