The Only Way to Stop Global Warming by Eric Zuesse!
(2021-07-27 at 20:01:18 )

The Only Way to Stop Global Warming by Eric Zuesse!

How was slavery ended in the United States?

It became illegal for anyone to own slaves - and the way that this was done is that it became illegal for anyone to buy a slave. The same needs to be done now in order to avoid runaway global heat-up.

One way exists to stop global warming, but the mutual feedback cycles that are now accelerating global warming might already have achieved enough speed of increasing temperature so as to prevent even that one way from working, and therefore the planet might already be doomed.

Since the only way to stop global warming has not yet even been proposed (much less tried), I shall now publicly propose it here, in accord with the adage "Better late than never."

The way to stop global warming (if it still can be stopped) is to ban purchases of stocks and of bonds - i.e., of all forms of investment securities (corporate shares and even loans being made to the corporation - of enterprises that extract from the ground (land or else underwater) fossil fuels: coal, oil, and-or gas.

For examples: in 2017, the worlds largest fossil-fuels extractors were, in order: 1. Saudi Aramco (Saudi Arabia billionaires); 2. Chevron (U.S. billionaires); 3. Gazprom (Russia billionaires); 4. ExxonMobil (U.S. billionaires); 5. National Iranian Oil Co. (Iran billionaires); 6. BP (United Kingdom billionaires); 7. Shell (Netherlands billionaires); 8. Coal India (India billionaires); 9. PEMEX (Mexico billionaires); 10. Petroleos de Venezuela (Venezuela billionaires); 11. PetroChina-CNPC (China billionaires); and 12. Peabody Energy (U.S. billionaires). (NOTE: U.S. billionaires, allied with Saudi, UK, Netherlands, and India, billionaires, are trying to absorb, into their team, Russia, Iran, Mexico, Venezuela, and China, each of which latter nations had actually nationalized their fossil fuels, so that those nations Government, instead of any billionaires, would own those assets, in the name of all of the given nations residents.

Though Russia ended its side of the Cold War in 1991, the U.S.-and-allied side of the Cold War secretly continued, and continues, today. Consequently, the United States-led team failed to achieve total conquest of the Russia-led team, and is now increasingly trying to do that: achieve total global hegemony, so that the entire world will be controlled only by United States-and-allied billionaires.

This explains a lot of todays international relations.) All fossil-fuels extractors compete ferociously, as producers of a basic global commodity, but the proposal that is being made here will affect all of them and all countries, even if it is done by only one country.

Why Investing in Fossil-Fuel Extractors Must Be Outlawed

It needs to be outlawed (in some major country, perhaps even just one) in order to save our planet. Here is how and why doing that in even just a single country might save the planet (this is a bit long and complicated, but avoiding global catastrophe is worth the trouble, so, you might find it worth your while to read this):

These companies exist in order to discover, extract, refine, and market, fossil fuels, in order for these fuels to be burned - but those activities are killing this planet. Buying stock in, and lending money to, these firms does not purchase their products, but it does incentivize all phases of these firms operations, including the discovery of yet more fields of oil, gas, and coal, to add yet more to their existing fossil-fuel reserves, all of which are discovered in order to be burned. Unless these companies stock-values are driven down to near zero and also no investor will be lending to them, all such operations will continue, and the Earth will therefore surely die from the resulting over-accumulation of global-warming gases, and increasing build-up of heat (the "greenhouse-effect"), from that burning.

To purchase stock in a fossil-fuel extractor - such as ExxonMobil or BP - or to buy their bonds or otherwise lend to them, is to invest in or fund that corporations employment of fossil-fuel explorers to discover new sources of oil, gas, or coal, to drill, and ultimately burn. Such newly discovered reserves are excess inventories that must never be burnt if this planet is to avoid becoming uninhabitable. But these firms nonetheless continue to employ people to find additional new places to drill, above and beyond the ones that they already own - which existing inventories are already so enormous as to vastly exceed what can be burnt without destroying the Earth many times over. To buy the stock in such corporations (or else lend to them) is consequently to fund the killing of our planet. It is to fund an enormous crime, and should be treated as such. To invest in these companies should be treated as a massive crime.

The only people who will suffer from outlawing the purchase of stock in, and lending to, fossil-fuel extractors, are individuals who are already invested in those corporations. Since we have already got vastly excessive known reserves of fossil fuels, discovering yet more such reserves is nothing else than the biggest imaginable crime against all future-existing people, who can not defend themselves against these activities that are being done today. Only our government, today, can possibly protect future people, and it will be to blame if it fails to do so. The single most effective way it can do this, its supreme obligation, is to criminalize the purchase of stock in fossil-fuels extractors, and to bar loans to them. Here is why (and please follow this closely now):

The IMF says that "To limit the increase in global temperature to 2 degrees Celsius - the more conservative of the goals agreed to by governments at the 2015 climate change talks in Paris - more than two-thirds of current known reserves, let alone those yet to be discovered (see Table 1), must remain in the ground (IEA 2012)." Obviously, then, what the oil and gas and coal companies are doing by continuing exploration is utterly idiotic from an economic standpoint - it is adding yet more to what already are called "unburnable reserves." Thus, waiting yet longer for a technological breakthrough, such as fossil-fuels corporations have always promised will happen but nobody has ever actually delivered (and such as is exemplified here), is doomed, because if and when such a real breakthrough would occur, we would already be too late, and the uncontrollably spiralling and accelerating feedback-loops would already be out of control even if they were not uncontrollable back then. We would simply be racing, then, to catch up with - and to get ahead of - an even faster rise in global temperatures than existed at that previous time. Things get exponentialy worse with each and every year of delay. Consequently, something sudden, sharp, and decisive, must happen immediately, and it can happen only by a fundamental change becoming instituted in our laws, not in our technology. The solution, if it comes, will come from government, and not even possibly come from industry (technological breakthroughs). For governments to instead wait, and to hope for a "technological breakthrough," is simply for our planet to die. It is to doom this planet. It is to abandon the governments obligation to the future (its supreme obligation). The reason why is that what is difficult to achieve now (preventing the murder of our planet), will soon be impossible to achieve.

On 13 November 2019, the International Energy Agency reported that "the momentum behind clean energy is insufficient to offset the effects of an expanding global economy and growing population," and "The world urgently needs to put a laser-like focus on bringing down global emissions. This calls for a grand coalition encompassing governments, investors, companies and everyone else who is committed to tackling climate change." Obviously, we are all heading the world straight to catastrophe. Drastic action is needed, and it must happen now - not in some indefinite future. But the IEA was wrong to endorse "calls for a grand coalition encompassing governments, investors, companies and everyone else," which is the gradual approach, which is doomed to fail. And it also requires agreement, which might not come, and compromises, which might make the result ineffective.

I have reached out to Carbon Tracker, the organization that encourages investors to disinvest from fossil fuels. Their leader, Mark Campanale, declined my request for them to endorse my proposal. He endorses instead "a new fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty supported by movements calling to leave fossil fuels in the ground." When I responded that it is vastly more difficult, for states (individual governments) to mutually pass, into their respective nations laws, a treaty amongst themselves (since it requires unanimity amongst all of them instituting into each one of their legal systems exactly that same law), than it is for any state ON ITS OWN to institute a law (such as I propose), he still was not interested. I asked him why he was not. He said "I have chosen a different strategy for my organization." I answered: "All that I am seeking from you is an ENDORSEMENT. I am not asking you to change your "strategy" (even if you really ought to ADD this new strategy to your existing one)." He replied simply by terminating communication with me and saying, without explanation, "We do not always agree."

Here is that "treaty supported by movements calling to leave fossil fuels in the ground". As you can see there, it was posted in 2012, and as of now (nine years later) it has been signed by 8 individuals, no nations (and not even by any organizations). Mark Campanale is not among these 8.

Carbon Tracker is secretive of the identities, and size of donations, of its donors, but its website does make clear that it is a United Kingdom organization that has designed itself so as to be as beneficial for tax-write-offs to United States billionaire donors as possible, and "Our United Kingdom organisation has an Equivalency Determination ("ED") which allows it to be recognised by the Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)3 United States Public Charity. We have held the ED since February 2016 and is maintained annually by NGO Source on behalf of our major United States donors." In short: it is part of the United States-led team of billionaires.

Perhaps this organizations actual function is that (since the nations that have nationalized their fossil fuels have not yet been able to be taken over as outright colonies or vassal-states controlled by the United States-led group) the residents inside those outside countries will be paying the price (in reduced Government-services, etc.) from a gradual transition to a "reduced carbon" world. (Everybody but those billionaires will be paying the price.) This mythical aim, of a "reduced-carbon" "transition", would then be a veiled means of gradually impoverishing the residents in those nations, until, ultimately, those people there will support a coup, which will place United States-and-allied billionaires in charge of their Government (such as happened in Ukraine in 2014). This appears to be their policy regarding Venezuela, Iran, and several other countries. If it is additionally influencing the "transition to a low-carbon economy", then it is actually blocking the needed change in this case (which is not, at all, change that is of the gradual type, but is, instead, necessarily decisive, and sudden, if it is to happen at all).

However, Carbon Tracker is hardly unique in being controlled by United States-and-allied billionaires, and there are, also, many other ways to employ the gradual approach - an approach which is doomed to fail on this matter. A few other of these delaying-tactics will also be discussed here.

Some environmental organizations recommend instead improving labelling laws and informing consumers on how they can cut their energy-usages (such as here), but even if that works, such changes, in consumers behaviors, are no more effective against climate-change than would be their using buckets to lower the ocean-level in order to prevent it from overflowing and flooding the land. What is actually needed is a huge jolt to the system itself, immediately. Only systemic thinking can solve such a problem.

Making such a change - outlawing the purchase of stock in, and prohibiting loans to, fossil-fuel extractors - would impact enormously the stock-prices of all fossil fuels corporations throughout the world, even if it is done only in this country. It would quickly force all of the fossil-fuel extractors to eliminate their exploration teams and to increase their dividend payouts, just in order to be able to be "the last man standing" when they do all go out of business - which then would occur fairly soon. Also: it would cause non-fossil-energy stock-prices to soar, and this influx of cash into renewable-energy investing would cause their R&D also to soar, which would increasingly reduce costs of the energy they supply. It would transform the world, fairly quickly, and very systematically. And all of this would happen without taxpayers needing to pay tens or hundreds of trillions of dollars, or for governments to sign onto any new treaties. And if additional nations copy that first one, then the crash in market-values of all fossil-fuels corporations will be even faster, and even steeper.

As regards existing bonds and other debt-obligations from fossil-fuels extractors, each such corporation would need to establish its own policies regarding whether or not, and if so then how, to honor those obligations, since there would no longer be a market for them. Ending the market would not be equivalent to ending the obligations. The law would nullify the obligations, but the corporations opting to fulfill those obligations would not be illegal - it would merely be optional.

This would be a taking from individuals who have been investing in what the overwhelming majority of experts on global warming say are investments in a massive crime against future generations, and we are now in an emergency situation, which is more than merely a national emergency, a global one, so that such governmental action would not be merely advisable but urgently necessary and 100% in accord with the public welfare and also in accord with improving distributive justice.

The only way possible in order to avoid getting into the uncontrollable feedback-cycles (feedback-loops) that would set this planet racing toward becoming another Mars is to quickly bring a virtual end to the burning of fossil fuels. That can happen only if fossil fuels become uneconomic.

But common methods proposed for doing that, such as by imposing carbon taxes, would hit consumers directly (by adding a tax to what they buy), and thereby turn consumers into advocates for the fossil-fuel industries (advocates on the fossil-fuels-companies side, favoring elimination of that tax upon their products). In this key respect, such proposals are counterproductive, because they dis-incentivize the public to support opposition to fossil-fuel extraction. Such proposals are therefore politically unacceptable, especially in a democracy, where consumers have powerful political voice at the ballot-box. Any carbon tax would also anger the consuming public against environmentalists. Turning consumers into friends of the fossil-fuels extractors would be bad. What I am proposing is not like that, at all. Investors are a much smaller number of voters than are consumers. Everyone is a consumer, but only a relatively tiny number of people are specifically fossil-fuel investors. To terminate the freedom those investors have to sell their stock, by making illegal for anyone to buy that stock, is the most practicable way to prevent global burnout (if it still can be prevented). This needs to be done right now.

How was slavery ended in the United States? It became illegal for anyone to own slaves - and the way that this was done is that it became illegal for anyone to buy a slave. The same needs to be done now in order to (possibly) avoid runaway global heat-up.

Once it is done, those firms will go out of business. (First, these firms will increase their dividend-payouts to their stockholders while they lay off their explorers, but then they will cut their other costs, and then they will fold. But the objective is not that; it is to make their products uneconomic to produce, market, and sell; and this will do that, even before all of those firms have become eliminated.)

All of todays existing economies-of-scale in the fossil-fuels-producing-and-marketing industries will then be gone, and will become replaced by new economies-of-scale that will rise sharply in non-carbon energy, as R&D there will be soaring, while the fossil-fuels producers fade out and fade away.

This is the only realistically possible way to avoid global burnout. It must be done. And even some top executives in fossil-fuels extractors harbor personal hopes that it will be done. For example:

Shell CEO Says Governments, Not Firms, Are Failing on Climate Change

On Monday, 14 October 2019, Reuters headlined "Exclusive: No choice but to invest in oil, Shell CEO says" and reported:

Ben van Beurden expressed concern that some investors could ditch Shell, acknowledging that shares in the company were trading at a discount partly due to "societal risk".

"I am afraid of that, to be honest," he said.

"But I do not think they will flee for the justified concern of stranded assets - (It is) the continued pressure on our sector, in some cases to the point of demonisation, that scares asset managers."

"It is not at a scale that the alarm bells are ringing, but it is an unhealthy trend."

Van Beurden put the onus for achieving a transformation to low-carbon economies on governments.

He did not suggest any specific policies which governments should take, but he did say "that not enough progress had been made to reach the Paris climate goal of limiting global warming to "well below" 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century." Furthermore:

Delaying implementation of the right climate policies could result in "knee-jerk" political responses that might be very disruptive to society, he said. "Let the air out of the balloon as soon as you can before the balloon actually bursts," van Beurden said.

He is, in a sense, trapped, as the head of one of the worlds largest fossil-fuel extractors. He does not want to be "demonised," but he is professionally answering to - and obligated to serve - investors who are still profiting from destroying the world.

Though he acknowledges that consumers cannot initiate the necessary policy-change, and that investors are not yet; and though he does not want government to do anything which "might be very disruptive to society," he does want governments to "Let the air out of the balloon as soon as you can before the balloon actually bursts," and he is therefore contemplating - and is even advising - that governments must do the job now, and not wait around any longer to take the necessary decisive action.

Here is what that type of governmental action would be (and unlike the Paris Climate Agreement, it does not require an international consensus - which does not actually exist among the nations), and therefore I am asking readers here to give me an endorsement of it, so that I can publicly move forward with pushing for it. Please send the endorsement to the.eric.zuesse(at)gmail.com, with "ENDORSEMENT" in the Subject line; "Investing in fossil-fuel extractors must be outlawed" as the message; and indicate any appropriate identifiers of yourself that are especially relevant to the matter (so as to impress your Senators, etc.). In addition, after that, push, on your own, by urging your Senators and Representative to draft a law to ban purchases of investments in fossil-fuels extractors.

Why is this the ONLY way? No other proposals can even possibly work:

The "Bridge Fuels" Concept Is a Deceit

The concept of "bridge fuels," such as methane as being a substitute for petroleum, is a propaganda device (another delaying-tactic) by the fossil-fuels industry and its agents, in order to slow the decline of those industries. For example, on 16 November 2019, Oil Price Dot Com headlined "Why Banning Fossil Fuel Investment Is A Huge Mistake", and Cyril Widdershoven, a long-time writer for and consultant to fossil-fuel corporations, argued against an effort by the European Investment Bank to "put more pressure on all parties to phase out gas, oil and coal projects." Widdershovens argument is that "experts seem to agree that the best way to target lower CO2 emissions in the EU is to substitute oil and coal power generation in Eastern Europe with natural gas." He says, "Even in the most optimistic projections, renewable energy options, such as wind or solar, are not going to be able to counter the need for power generation capacity. If the EIB blocks a soft energy transition via natural gas, the Paris Agreement will almost certainly fail."

The unstated "experts" that Widdershoven cited are, like himself, hirees of the fossil-fuels industries. Furthermore, this go-slow approach is already recognized by the IMF and IEA to be doomed to fail at avoiding global burnout.

Furthermore - and this is perhaps the most important fact of all - government-support has largely been responsible for the success of fossil-fuel corporations (especially now for natural gas), and, if fully replaced by government-support going instead to non-fossil-fuel corporations, there will then be a skyrocketing increase in R&D in those non-fossil-fuel technologies, which skyrocketing R&D, there, is desperately needed, if any realistic hope is to exist, at all, of avoiding global burn-out.

So, to each reader of this, I ask: If this is not what you propose, then what do you propose? Your endorsement is therefore requested. Please send the endorsement to the.eric.zuesse(at)gmail.com, with "ENDORSEMENT" in the Subject line; "Investing in fossil-fuel extractors must be outlawed" as the message; and indicate any appropriate identifiers of yourself. I shall then try, again, but this time with emails that will have all of those signatories, not merely myself, as the person who is requesting action (or at least requesting the persons reasons for continued inaction). And keep on pushing for this, on your own, in any way you can.

Sincerely,

Eric Zuesse

P.S. In January, I had sent this (the above emailed letter) to (and never received any answer from any of) the:

Dear EU Climate Commissioners:

Re:

He [Timmermans] said right wing countries like Canada, the USA and Brazil were preventing the EU from reiterating the Paris Agreement requirements in the COP conclusions.

What is needed is a method which (unlike international agreement on carbon-trading credits) will not require agreement among nations, which are too corrupt to take the necessary collective action to avert catastrophe. Here is the solution which could be implemented by, say, the EU, or even just by Germany, or just by India, or just by China, alone, if not by any of the far-right countries (such as United States and Brazil), which action, taken by any one of them, would create the necessary cascading-effect among all nations, that could transform the world and perhaps save the future (and please do follow closely the argument here, and click onto any link here wherever you might have any questions, because this is a truly new idea, and every part of it is fully documented here):

[That message was then followed by the letter that is printed above it here, and no one responded to it.]

"This relevant article, its pictures, and its links are here:"

Reprinted here from the "Strategic Culture Foundation" provides a platform for exclusive analysis, research and policy comment on Eurasian and global affairs. We are covering political, economic, social and security issues worldwide. Since 2005 our journal has published thousands of analytical briefs and commentaries with the unique perspective of independent contributors. SCF works to broaden and diversify expert discussion by focusing on hidden aspects of international politics and unconventional thinking. Benefiting from the expanding power of the Internet, we work to spread reliable information, critical thought and progressive ideas.