The year in climate action: three steps forward, two steps back
By John Kazior
At a glance, 2022 saw several significant moves for global investment in climate action. In the United States, a historic climate bill put up hundreds of billions of dollars for climate programs and jobs. A major global insurance corporation determined that the climate crisis would shrink the world economy by $23 trillion by 2050, a hefty incentive to push decarbonization and climate action projects. On the industry side, a number of major executives have admitted climate programs are profitable.
But by the looks of it, they’re not profitable enough. Rather than stoking climate action, inflation, war, pandemic, and environmental disasters have instead provided the pretext for executives and policymakers to hedge their bets on sustainability and remain committed to fossil fuels.
The year started with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which provided a grim case study on the perils of fossil fuel dependency. As a result, much of Europe is entering a second year of an acute energy crisis. Throttling the flow of oil and gas to the European Union (EU), Russian energy suppliers have forced the EU’s largest greenhouse gas emitters like Germany to ratchet up coal operations and open up new fossil fuel markets.
The war has also seen global supply chains, which are still battered by the pandemic, obstructed even further, collapsing sustainable-sourcing efforts that have taken years to establish. One example is seen in palm oil, an ingredient in countless products from Oreos to Crest toothpaste that is a cause of extreme deforestation around the world. In recent years, sunflower oil has increasingly been used as a more sustainable alternative. But with 65% of the world’s supply of sunflower oil coming from Russia and Ukraine, disruption from the war has some multinational food companies returning to the destructive palm oil.
Meanwhile, in the U.S., the Inflation Reduction Act committed $370 billion toward decarbonization and climate projects. The act provides an unprecedented incentive for companies to transition to renewables and expand programs focused on climate crisis mitigation.
But many have pointed out that the new law is in many ways self-defeating, as it requires that more federal land and water be auctioned off for fossil fuel extraction and actually eases regulations on fossil fuel-emitting industries. Even with pipes bursting all over the place this year, even the most significant climate law in the country’s history ensures that fossil fuel infrastructure will continue to grow.
Also this year, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) finally started getting serious about enforcing all the “net-zero” promises companies are increasingly touting. It’s common that the claims corporations, brands, and projects make about their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are often misleading or just false. This is particularly laughable when a company like BP claims to be on the path to becoming net zero by 2050. Putting aside the paradox of a fossil fuel company being net zero, a year-long House Oversight Committee investigation into fossil fuel companies’ claims found internal documents from BP admitting they had “no obligation to minimize GHG emissions” and they intended only to “minimize GHG emissions where it makes commercial sense.”
In March, the SEC set new climate rules that would require all publicly-traded companies to disclose climate-related information on their GHG emissions. Showing proof of emissions might seem like a pretty obvious requirement of companies claiming to reduce their GHG emissions. Yet the idea that companies might be legally liable for not being transparent has investors suddenly backing off of their climate commitments. Vanguard, the second-largest asset manager in the U.S., has pulled out of a global net-zero initiative, with BlackRock—the largest asset manager—and several major banks also reportedly uneasy about the proposed requirements.
This comes after a wave of growing optimism about climate and sustainability projects. Even with the pandemic, recent years saw the rise of ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) efforts—a broad phrase used by investors and corporations about projects that address renewable energy transition, sustainable resource management, social inequality, circular economy and other environmental and social issues. Last year, an estimated $120 billion went into ESGs, up from $51 billion the year before. Climate startups saw a record $32 billion in investment, while energy transition infrastructure, one of the most significant issues under ESGs, saw an investment of $775 billion in 2021.
And there was good reason to believe that would continue—in fact, a recent survey from KPMG found that 70% of 1,300 CEOs surveyed said ESG programs improved their financial performance—twice as many as in last year’s survey.
But the looming recession has apparently throttled these plans. In the same survey, nearly 60% of CEOs said they intend to pause or reconsider environmental and social programs in the next six months. ESG cuts have seen retailers holding off on sustainable projects and packaging that require extra short-term costs. Meanwhile, some U.S. landlords are cutting sustainability improvement projects like installing solar panels and other energy efficiency measures.
In all these ways, it was a year of contradictions for climate action from both businesses and governments. Even this year’s COP27 was sponsored by Coca-Cola, a corporation that produces roughly 4,000 plastic bottles from oil every second. As we move into 2023, there are still signs of optimism, but only if leaders go all in on sustainability and stop trying to have it both ways.
(28)
