A recent report on the Democratic presidential primary highlights candidates attempting to burnish their climate credentials by blaming fossil fuel companies for not only the rise in atmospheric CO2 but for willfully ignoring or even concealing the risks associated with their products.  Bernie Sanders has branded this “criminal activity”, a position endorsed by other candidates who are calling for legal retribution (1). While amplified by the presidential race, establishing who is responsible for climate change itself and for holding back progress on decarbonisation are regular topics in the broader climate debate. Is the notion of identifying those culpable a justifiable and valuable exercise or just a climate based example of portraying opponents as not just wrong but morally culpable and even criminal?

There is no doubt that oil and gas companies and coal miners are responsible for the geological extraction of fossil fuels. Advocates for the industry will, however, point out that oil, gas and coal extraction is almost always and everywhere a perfectly legal activity requiring approval, if not support, from all levels of government.  In addition they will argue that the industry is simply responding to an ever increasing demand for fuel created by all those who consume fossil fuels to produce electricity, heat their homes and rely on the internal combustion engine for transportation. This line of argument many resonate with some who even if they regard the core business of fossil fuel extraction as somewhat repugnant can acknowledge there are many others complicit in the generation of anthropogenic CO2

One obvious response to the attacks from Democrat candidates and other progressive politicians is that blaming the majority of voting public for their role in both creating the climate emergency and holding back an urgent response is an unlikely recipe for electoral success.  Major corporations such as oil and gas companies together with the automobile producers and power utilities make much better villains. The role of the general public is typically downplayed using the argument that they have no control over energy generation technology and hence have been forced to use fossil fuel based energy. This is no longer a totally compelling argument as low carbon alternatives are becoming increasingly available. How eagerly the populus will adopt these alternatives and how the uptake will grow, particularly in the absence of financial incentives, will be interesting to monitor.  

The more substantive part of  the attacks on fossil fuel producers and their surrogates is the accusation that they knew about the risks of climate change decades ago but withheld this information from shareholders and even worse sought to hide the facts by funding climate denying advocacy programs (2).  This plays into a narrative that emphasises the power of major corporations and by association the heroism of politicians standing up to this destructive and malevolent force. 

While it is easy to be cynical about this and other political positions, there is no doubt that over the past 30 years significant corporate funding has been directed at questioning the link between CO2 and significant changes to the global heat balance.  This advocacy has also sought to highlight and often exaggerate the high cost and unreliability of alternate energy sources, the choice between climate change mitigation and adaptation and the value of traditional energy industries to many national economies.  Is this messaging, often paid for by those with the most to gain from increasing global fossil fuels use, acceptable as the product of free speech and the right to express self serving opinions, or is it rightly called out as deceitful, duplicitous and ultimately criminal?   

The motives and actions of those who actively sought to delay and derail the climate debate over the past thirty years will undoubtedly continue to be examined and analysed.  Those who have expressed views at odds with the perceived consensus will have their views challenged and their motives examined. Over time this will include an examination of environmental groups who have campaigned strongly against the use of nuclear power and technologies such as carbon capture and storage.  If these technologies ultimately become key elements in the final decarbonisation package how should those who argued against deployment be treated?  

In parallel with a retrospective analysis, the decarbonisation debate will more forward – I suspect a successful Democrat candidate won’t waste too much political capital seeking to actually arrest the CEO of Exxon Mobil.  They are, however, seeking to discredit those they believe are slowing progress toward decarbonisation. If the the major fossil fuel producers are as influential as some suggest then the current attacks along with initiatives like the divestment movement will lead the way to a more rapid reduction in CO2 production.  My bet is that fossil fuel companies, even those who invest in manipulating public opinion, will prove to be less important in the decarbonisation journey than the multiple levels of self interest embedded in the vast majority of us who will be unwilling to accept anything more than a minor reduction in our standard of living.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/12/democratic-candidates-climate-change-fossil-fuels-1646702?cid=apn

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/oct/24/lawsuit-alleges-exxonmobil-deceived-shareholders-on-climate-change-rules