(en) Britain, Anarchist Federation ORGANISE! #85 - Carbon
Games: The fossil fuel divestment campaign
In order for the world to meet the IPCC's 2oC target for maximum warming, two-thirds of
global fossil fuel reserves must be left in the ground. Valuations of oil and gas
companies are based on burning all of these reserves so limiting this will burst the
carbon bubble of current stock market prices. The oil and gas industry accounts for around
5% of the global economy and anyone who pays into a workplace pension will indirectly own
shares in these companies. Nearly every industry is reliant on the artificially cheap
energy they provide. This is an important point as it is not just individual companies
that can be targeted by the divestment movement - the entire economy is dependent on cheap
energy. ---- Fossil fuels are cheap because carbon dioxide (CO2) is a negative
externality; that is, the cost of emitting it, namely
the threat of global environmental change, is not borne by
the companies responsible but by society at large. Private
companies, therefore, have little incentive to reduce CO2
emissions and the costs of their products are kept artificially
low by this societal subsidy. In this sense, the issue of carbon
emissions leading to climate change is one of the failures
of the capitalist system as these emissions have no market
value - they add nothing to the cost of a product and yet have
huge ramifications for the global climate.
The fossil fuel divestment campaign[1] seeks to put pressure
on companies and governments to act by making CO2
emissions the next item on the responsible capitalism agenda.
The movement can't raise the cost of capital for the oil and
gas industry or influence it in any direct way so is instead
hoping that a swell of divestment will demonstrate public
support for government legislation and global agreements
on CO2 reductions. Negotiations between states are an
interesting example of game theory - one where it is in the
interests of all parties to stop emitting CO2 but there will be
negative consequences for the first to act as they will be at
an economic disadvantage compared to those who remain
in a fossil fuel economy for longer. Although interesting as a
textbook example to theorise over, the outcome of this game
will affect the lives of billions and disproportionately hit those
in the developing world.
Governments have been slow to put a price on emitting
carbon that would significantly affect the fossil fuel industry.
This is due to a mixture of neo-liberal ideas of minimal state
intervention, a well-funded misinformation campaign and
lobbying effort by the main polluters, geopolitical concerns
whereby the main superpowers do not want to risk losing
economic strength relative to one another, and the fact that
many states themselves own vast fossil fuel reserves or large
parts of their economy are dependent on them. This last
point is particularly relevant given that 70% of oil reserves
are owned by states or nationalised state companies (e.g.
Saudi Arabia, Iran, Norway, Qatar) so that the main targets
of divestment, such as Shell and BP, are actually relatively
small players in the field.
In the current capitalist system where economic actors
compete against each other for limited resources there is no
place for environmental concerns. The owners of fossil fuel
reserves are incentivised to produce as much as possible
before any potential legislation curbs this activity and to try
their hardest to limit or delay any such legislation. No thought
is given to the system as a whole while individuals fight to
enrich themselves - the system in question can be economic,
as systemic risk was ignored in the run up to the 2007 financial
crisis, or ecological, as is currently happening with CO2,
over-fishing and depletion of groundwater resources. This is
where the divestment movement fails in its aims - it cannot
succeed in constraining fossil fuel use without addressing
both the huge reserves in state hands and the system which
allows a wealthy elite to control environmental and economic
policy for its own gain.
Calls for green capitalism are flawed; they would rely on the
same economic, political and social systems of power that
are currently in place and would therefore simply perpetuate
a series of further environmental crises. Changing the fuel
that capitalism is propelled by will do nothing to change the
system of environmental exploitation for private gain which
has led us to the current state of affairs. No more than one
third of fossil fuel reserves may be burnt if we are to meet the
IPCC target but the oil and gas industry still invests billions
every year in finding new resources. They know this is not
compatible with an outcome that provides a climate and
ecosystem that future generations can live sustainably from.
They know this but are choosing their fiduciary responsibility
to create a return on investment for shareholders over the
environment. Profit is triumphing over people at every
board meeting as plans are laid for further exploration. The
inherent stupidity of the system is laid bare when capitalists
are investing in their own planet's destruction and lobbying
governments to be allowed to compound the problem.
The divestment movement has had some success and
there are lessons to be learnt from its campaigns. It has
reinvigorated campus activism: thousands of people worldwide
have signed petitions, held sit-ins and chained themselves
to buildings for the cause. It has also made many people
aware of how interconnected the global capitalist system is:
the pension they pay into invests in oil, arms and child labour
and therefore escaping tacit endorsement of those industries
is difficult. Campaigners have done this by firstly having a
clearly defined goal which seems achievable when compared
to the complexity of the global climatic system. Secondly,
they have made it easy for affiliated campaigns to spring up
independent of any central organisation - this has been done
through a downloadable toolkit which provides information,
resources and suggested strategies for public engagement,
protest and actions. Finally, they have managed to create
guilt surrounding inaction. Often when campaigns encourage
supporters to join them they are met with indifference. This
campaign has been successful in changing the terms of
debate so that indifference becomes support of the status
quo, a continuation of university and pension funds supporting
the fossil fuel industry. This has been a significant factor in
gaining the support of the general student body rather than
just a few activists.
Despite these positives the divestment movement is itself
backing a system of exploitation and oppression of which one
of the outcomes has been anthropogenic climate change.
Without tackling the capitalist system the cause of ruthless
exploitation of people and the environment remains and
we are doomed to stumble from one ecological crisis to the
next. All the movement aims to achieve is to ensure that the
next ecological crisis will be powered by cleaner energy. In
this sense the divestment movement is distracting time and
effort from more effective and more radical forms of protest.
Action is desperately needed that tackles both the immediate
problem and the root causes of environmental exploitation.
[1] See: http://gofossilfree.org/
