Fossil fuel companies impose more in climate costs than they make in profits #Auspol #ClimateChange

It is fairly well understood by now that releasing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere imposes an economic cost, in the form of climate change impacts. In most cases, however, those responsible for carbon emissions are not required to pay that cost. Instead, it’s borne mainly by the world’s poor and low-lying countries, and of course by future generations, as many of the worst impacts of climate change will emerge years after the emissions that drive them.
People sometimes refer to the unpaid cost of carbon pollution as a subsidy, or an “implicit subsidy,” to polluting businesses. The IMF recently issued a report saying that total worldwide subsidies to energy, mainly fossil fuel energy, amounted to $5.2 trillion a year. The reason that number is so high is that the IMF includes implicit subsidies — the social costs imposed by businesses (including climate damages) that they don’t have to pay for.
Vox’s Brad Plumer raised some questions about whether that’s a misleading use of the term “subsidy.” Whatever you call it, though, it makes for an unsustainable situation, literally. It can’t go on.
As climate change gets worse and the chance to avoid harsh impacts dwindles, governments are getting serious about putting some sort of price on carbon emissions, whether explicit (a tax) or implicit (regulations). By next year, a quarter of the world’s carbon emissions will be priced in some way. Businesses that now emit carbon pollution for free (or cheap) will soon see their costs rise.
In other words, carbon pollution is a business risk. It’s a bubble that’s going to pop, probably soon. The Carbon Tracker Initiative has popularized a term for this looming liability: “unburnable carbon.”
With proper accounting, the fossil fuel business doesn’t look like such a moneymaker
There’s been a lot of work recently trying to quantify carbon risk. A new contribution to that conversation was just released by Chris Hope and colleagues at the University of Cambridge Judge Business School: “Quantifying the implicit climate subsidy received by leading fossil fuel companies.” It attempts to put a number on the carbon risk facing the world’s top 20 fossil fuel companies, the ones most directly vulnerable to a price on carbon. The results suggest that those companies are in a perilous situation.

Hope took a fairly simple approach: He multiplied the carbon emissions embedded in the companies’ products by the “social cost of carbon,” i.e., the net economic, health, and environmental cost of a ton of carbon dioxide. He ran the calculation for data from 2008 to 2012 and took the results as a rough proxy for the level of carbon risk facing each company. (See the technical addendum below for more details on this calculation.)
The results are pretty startling. To wit: “For all companies and all years, the economic cost to society of their CO2 emissions was greater than their after‐tax profit, with the single exception of Exxon Mobil in 2008” (my emphasis). In other words, if these fossil fuel companies had to pay the full cost of the carbon emissions produced by their products, none of them would be profitable.
It’s even worse for pure coal companies, for which “the economic cost to society exceeds total revenue in all years, with this cost varying between nearly $2 and nearly $9 per $1 of revenue.” Total revenue, Hope and colleagues note, represents “employment, taxes, supply purchases, and indirect employment” — everything that coal companies contribute to the economy. It turns out the costs they impose through carbon emissions are larger than all those contributions combined. (For oil and gas companies, carbon costs generally range from 10 to 50 percent of total revenue.)
This is a somewhat idealized exercise, obviously. Fossil fuel companies are unlikely to bear the entire cost of carbon, if and when it is imposed. The cost of carbon itself is highly uncertain (see technical addendum) and theoretically varies based on geography and income.
Nonetheless, this kind of calculation is helpful in indicating the comparative level of risk among fossil fuel companies (see the paper for a ranking) and the materiality of that risk. It shows that the carbon bubble is very large indeed.
It’s also a good reminder that we are, in carbon terms, eating the seed corn, using up resources that only appear cheap because we’re shifting the costs to poor and future people, who don’t have the political power to stop us. It is grossly irresponsible.

Press link for more: David Roberts |



  1. I do not believe to 3 meters / 10 feet! Think, our globe is big and adding to it more 3 meters water around the world. Some wise man could make calculation to me how many liters it is! Please!

    My late father-in-law had two greenhouses where he cultivated cut flowers and which he ended about 15 years ago. So he must have been the first one who stopped concretely greenhouse gases! 🙂 Did the world reward him? No! Ingratitude is the world’s wage! 🙂


      1. Yes Sir. I have nothing against to the science and to the wise men they represent. I live on the Arctic area and we are used to see nature phenomenas. Every spring when ice starts to melt in the lakes, there is the simple phenomena. Ice is cold and when melting it cools lakes’ water. The cold water-cools the air. This means that warm weather is not coming as quickly as on those areas where are not lakes, it can last from days to weeks. This phenomena is even noticeable in Helsinki, which is on the Southern coastline of Finland.

        So, when noticing this phenomenon every spring, I do not believe to that claim within “few decades”, I could believe within few centuries and only few centimeters.

        This climate warming can be observed otherwise.

        There has been Ice Age – yes.
        Climate started to change while there was Ice Change – yes.
        Nowadays it is said that cars and industry cause climate change – yes.

        I just wonder which kind of cars there were during Ice age and which kind of factories they had causing climate warming? This is big question to understand really our present climate warming.

        Maybe some wise men give answer to my question.

        Have a great start of new week!


  2. Hi John.

    Thank you answering and giving the link; I will read it carefully. I appreciate very Your answer. My question concerning the Ice age is due to, that the remains of the Ice Age are still visible here and I have been wondering years why climate started to warm. Maybe I will find the answer to my question from the link You gave. I once made a post showing that the” Ice Age ended here”, on the area where we lived.

    Did You know that the rising of the land continues today? I give two links to better understand:

    Land uplift.

    Rising of land.

    All the best to You.

    Liked by 1 person

Appreciate your comments John

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s