There has rarely been a better time to be a seller of fossil fuels — nor a worse time to be exposed to their effects.
Thanks to resilient crude prices and lackluster investment activity, shareholders in oil and gas companies are enjoying a bonanza. Of the US$569 billion in dividends paid by businesses with at least US$10 billion in net income over the past 12 months, more than one third — US$206 billion — has come from fossil energy. Almost half of that has come from just one firm, Saudi Arabian Oil Co.
The US is producing more oil and more gas than any nation in history. The S&P 500’s index of energy companies hit a record high in April.
Even as sums are rising on the credit side of fossil fuel’s ledger, they are climbing on the debit side, too.
Losses from natural disasters hit US$280 billion last year, reinsurer Swiss Re said, a sum that more than offsets the payouts to oil company shareholders.
Not all of that amount can be laid at the door of a warming planet — but even counting only costs directly attributable to climate change, global losses over the first two decades of this century averaged about US$143 billion a year, a study last year found.
Parts of Texas are bracing for more than one foot of rain from Monday, as Tropical Storm Beryl gathers strength toward hurricane force over the unnaturally warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico. In Jamaica, the early-season storm left two-thirds of the population with power outages and almost all of the banana crop destroyed. In Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and the northern islands of Grenada, more than 90 percent of houses and infrastructure suffered damage as Beryl rolled through.
That is just a microcosm of what has happened so far this year. Each of the 12 months through May saw the world’s temperatures at their highest levels since at least 1850, with the mercury rising above 50°C in India. Flooding in Brazil has killed more than 170 people while three consecutive waves of inundation in Bangladesh affected 2 million people. More than one dozen were killed in Nepal after heavy rain triggered landslides and more flooding.
All these events are connected by one vast global transfer of wealth. Climate damage is paid for in nickels and dimes, by individuals in rich countries and poor ones.
Homeowners unable to pay for their home coverage, or quitting their suburbs altogether because of increased risk of flood or wildfire, are bearing the cost in the form of insurance premiums and reduced property values. In less affluent corners of the world, the expenditure is even more devastating, as money that should be invested in growth is spent instead on repairing the effects of natural disasters.
Of about US$687 billion in annual damages that one influential study estimates would be caused in a 2030 world under 2.7°C of warming, US$426 billion would be incurred in developing countries.
However, the profits from this despoliation accrue to companies, whether privately or state-owned.
It is dispiriting that the improving economics of clean power and the rising devastation caused by atmospheric carbon have not prompted a more dramatic shift in the politics of this question.
Instead, the opposite has happened in recent years. Direct subsidies paid by governments to make fossil fuels cheaper almost doubled from US$500 billion in 2020 to US$1.3 trillion in 2022, although they are likely to have been reduced a bit since then, thanks to cheaper oil and gas prices. Combine that with the tariffs increasingly imposed on electric vehicles, batteries and solar panels, and governments are deploying their fiscal powers to raise the cost of clean energy, while reducing the cost of carbon pollution — a desperately counterproductive state of affairs.
Signs of a turning point in humanity’s fossil fuel addiction are everywhere, from evidence that China’s emissions are peaking this year, to the ongoing failure of crude oil output to climb above levels it hit in 2018.
Still, emissions need to not just plateau, but fall dramatically over the coming decade and then the decade after that. At this point, politics and profit are making it harder for us to hit that target.
David Fickling is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering climate change and energy. Previously, he worked for Bloomberg News, the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times.
The return of US president-elect Donald Trump to the White House has injected a new wave of anxiety across the Taiwan Strait. For Taiwan, an island whose very survival depends on the delicate and strategic support from the US, Trump’s election victory raises a cascade of questions and fears about what lies ahead. His approach to international relations — grounded in transactional and unpredictable policies — poses unique risks to Taiwan’s stability, economic prosperity and geopolitical standing. Trump’s first term left a complicated legacy in the region. On the one hand, his administration ramped up arms sales to Taiwan and sanctioned
The Taiwanese have proven to be resilient in the face of disasters and they have resisted continuing attempts to subordinate Taiwan to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Nonetheless, the Taiwanese can and should do more to become even more resilient and to be better prepared for resistance should the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) try to annex Taiwan. President William Lai (賴清德) argues that the Taiwanese should determine their own fate. This position continues the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) tradition of opposing the CCP’s annexation of Taiwan. Lai challenges the CCP’s narrative by stating that Taiwan is not subordinate to the
US president-elect Donald Trump is to return to the White House in January, but his second term would surely be different from the first. His Cabinet would not include former US secretary of state Mike Pompeo and former US national security adviser John Bolton, both outspoken supporters of Taiwan. Trump is expected to implement a transactionalist approach to Taiwan, including measures such as demanding that Taiwan pay a high “protection fee” or requiring that Taiwan’s military spending amount to at least 10 percent of its GDP. However, if the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) invades Taiwan, it is doubtful that Trump would dispatch
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) has been dubbed Taiwan’s “sacred mountain.” In the past few years, it has invested in the construction of fabs in the US, Japan and Europe, and has long been a world-leading super enterprise — a source of pride for Taiwanese. However, many erroneous news reports, some part of cognitive warfare campaigns, have appeared online, intentionally spreading the false idea that TSMC is not really a Taiwanese company. It is true that TSMC depositary receipts can be purchased on the US securities market, and the proportion of foreign investment in the company is high. However, this reflects the