(From “Assessing ExxonMobil's global warming projections” by G Supran and N. Oreskes of Harvard University, and S Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, published in Science, January 13, 2023)

President Truman, tired of economists constantly offering a prognosis on the one hand and then reversing it on the other hand, asked to “send in a one-armed economist.” Okay, economists are often guilty of waffling. We will tell you what will happen, or when something will happen, but not both. 

I’m going to tell you what will happen and when - soon.

The 196 nations who subscribed to the Conference of Parties to negotiate how to manage the damage of climate change just concluded their 29th meeting (CoP29) in Baku, Azerbaijan. The gathering is one of the least satisfying  meetings of nations yet, with prospects for meaningful action in the next four years likely much worse.

Now, if you believe the most rapid and unprecedented runup in global temperatures that is occurring right now is merely a natural fluctuation which requires no human mitigation, you might not want to read on. While not universal, the vast majority of environmental, atmospheric, oceanic, soils, and chemical scientists attribute the runup in global temperatures to the emission of greenhouse gasses. Indeed, an upstate New York amateur chemist Eunice Foote established the relationship between trapped infrared rays (heat) and carbon dioxide content way back in 1856. 

A century later, oil company scientists drew the same conclusion. By the 1950s, oil company scientists were letting their executives know about global warming. Today’s graph shows that, by the 1970s, Exxon had demonstrated with great prescience how carbon dioxide concentrations would continue to rise. Exxon predicted with uncanny accuracy to what we have observed over the last fifty years. 

Milton Friedman once stated that the only obligation of a corporation is to provide the best possible return to its shareholders within the boundaries of the law. If you believe that fossil fuels contribute to global warming, Friedman would argue their actions should not demonize oil companies. His theory states that oil companies are merely providing a legal product the market wants and lawmakers enable. Instead, it is up to our elected officials to decide whether they will protect the environment or oil industry shareholders and those who clamor for cheap gas. If oil companies choose wrong in a democracy, that’s our fault to a large degree. The citizens should be correcting such things at the ballot box, the argument goes. 

In any regard, we must still decide what we do now. First, we should understand that change is hard. The world produces about 100 million barrels of oil each day. Consumption continues to increase steadily since a drop to less than 85 million barrels post COVID, but shows no sign of abating real soon. This is despite a pledge by the US and other nations to cut consumption by half by 2030 (over 2005-2008 levels) and be net zero by 2050. There is not a chance of meeting the first goal, and the second goal is incredibly unlikely. 

Meanwhile, at current prices, the average barrel of oil is earning a pure profit of about $30. That’s $3 billion of profits every day. As the world’s largest oil producer, much of these profits come to the U.S. To put those profits in perspective, there are about 400 Americans who have a wealth of over $3 billion. Oil profits are the equivalent of adding one more megabillionaire to that list - every single day. 

It’s hard for the industry to contemplate such a dramatic drop in profits that would occur if nations stuck to their promises. These profits would fall essentially to zero should global fossil fuel consumption truly drop by half in just 6 short years. So, from a political perspective, here is my spectacular prediction. It is highly unlikely that the U.S. and other major oil producing nations will turn down their oil spigots by the end of the decade or stop them by the middle of the century. I know - really going off on a limb. 

If you don’t believe the combustion of fossil fuels is to blame for global warming, but continued reading anyway, please note that this is not a moral statement. We all have our own beliefs. I’ve written a lot on the subject of sustainability from a philosophical, scientific, and economic perspective, so I too have my views. The statement is a political one, though. For whatever reason, the US and other nations stated they’d slash fossil fuel consumption, but very few countries intend to fulfill their pledges. Perhaps changing one’s mind is a nation's prerogative. But, we should acknowledge such backtracking for what it is, regardless of what mental calculus was behind it. People strive to be true to one’s word, but not so much for nations. 

The COP nations also promised a “loss and damage” fund to help remediate the flooding, more severe storms, destroyed crops, and other damages suffered by developing countries  that arise from global warming. Two meetings ago, the world’s wealthiest nations pledged to fund on average $300 billion each year by 2035. That’s about three months’ profit from the oil companies that created the problem in the first place, with the endorsement and typically the subsidy of their host countries. And while it is a lot of money, the estimated costs of global warming is expected to be $1.3 trillion per year, which is equivalent to all profits big oil makes. 

Global economics have changed little since these pledges were made. Yes, COVID came and went, and caused some transient economic damage and inflation. Certainly the electorate the world over are in snarky moods, and we are witnessing carnage in Ukraine and Palestine. A past superpower and some superpower wannabes have reared their heads, and powers such as the U.S. and China seem either powerless or unwilling to use up political capital to save lives. And people feel poorer. When humankind is beleaguered, we seem to retrench. We become more concerned about our family finances rather than global poverty, regional wars, or poverty, violation of human rights, diversity, equity, and inclusion. When people feel threatened economically, these perceived luxuries quickly go by the wayside. 

And so goes our concerns for the environment, global warming, and the economic injustices we shall leave for nations increasingly underwater and for our grandchildren. Over the past few years, each year has broken the record as the globe’s hottest. I expect this trend to continue, with 2024 I predict to be warmer than 2023 as well. Daily, monthly, and annual temperature records are constantly broken and shall for the foreseeable future. I believe before the end of the decade we will well blow past the 1.5 degree Celsius temperature rise threshold scientists warn is the tipping point of no easy return. Things will really accelerate when we pass the 2 degree threshold because even more tipping points will be triggered then. 

Meanwhile, gas will be cheap, AI and bitcoin mining will continue to consume an accelerating share of electric supply and keep fossil fuel power plants on line far longer than anyone ever imagined a few years ago, and oil companies will continue to earn large profits, garner big subsidies, and continue to search for more oil. At this moment, it appears sustainability has been delayed at least a decade. It will take centuries to wind down or accommodate the damage that will ensue. 

Which reminds me - it’s been awhile since we have discussed that other legacy we are leaving our grandchildren - our nation’s debt. It has soared under the last two presidencies. While we are discussing our collective future, we’d best reflect on the crushing debt we are leaving future generations.