develop ment’ (Lipietz, 2013, p127) seem premature, even if we might have
sympathy with the claim that ‘there will be no exit to this great crisis without a
change in the whole model and in particular without a strong shift in the climateenergy nexus’ (Lipietz, 2013, p134).
The examples of positive change above should not detract from the issue of
what to do about the intransigence and resistance of what is referred to in the
transitions literature as the ‘incumbent regime’: those actors that benefit from the
status quo and are thus likely to resist change. In many ways, it is business as usual
for the world’s most powerful companies that continue to operate as if climate
change is not a serious constraint on their activities. The Greenpeace report Point
of No Return (2013) looks at how a group of 14 giant ‘carbon bomb’ projects that
are currently in planning and development is on track to single-handedly increase
global greenhouse emissions 20 per cent by 2020, making it near impossible for
the world to avoid runaway climate change. This includes proposals for giant
open-cast coal mines in China and Australia, plans to increase offshore oil and gas
extraction in the Arctic and off the coast of Brazil, and plans to expand development
of Canada’s tar sands. We have seen far less discussion of putting limits on these
plans. The actors behind them are not threatened by the green economy debate.
They will invest in a ‘green economy’ too and hedge their bets, as with BP’s
commitment to go ‘Beyond Petroleum’ in which renewable energy amounts to
1 per cent of their portfolio. It is worth sharing a quote from former Shell chair -
man director, Lord Oxburgh, where he stated:
If you look at it from oil companies’ point of view, effectively what they’re
doing at the moment is continuing business as usual, and sticking toes in
water in a number of areas which might become important in future. But
at present there is a relatively poor business case for making significantly greater
investment in these new areas . . . so when I agree that they may not be
investing enough, that is if you like the point of view of a citizen of the
world rather than a shareholder in one of the companies.
(Strahan, 2009)
This is a far more difficult political economy. Neither the climate change regime,
which is still seeking to develop a post-Kyoto legally binding agreement, nor carbon
markets (where prices of carbon are at record lows), nor governments are sending
powerful signals to the worlds of finance and industry that the future lies in
sustainable low-carbon energy. This will be key. While it continues to be profitable
and legitimate to increase exploitation of new reserves of fossil fuels – even in the
most extreme ways and with the most devastating consequences (tar sands, fracking,
drilling in fragile arctic environments, etc.) – finance will not shift with the speed
or at the scale required for more radical lower carbon transformations. As noted
above, we need loud, long, legal signals about the direction of change, the like of
which have not yet been forthcoming – in fact, quite the opposite. The dash to
Green transformations in capitalism 81
sympathy with the claim that ‘there will be no exit to this great crisis without a
change in the whole model and in particular without a strong shift in the climateenergy nexus’ (Lipietz, 2013, p134).
The examples of positive change above should not detract from the issue of
what to do about the intransigence and resistance of what is referred to in the
transitions literature as the ‘incumbent regime’: those actors that benefit from the
status quo and are thus likely to resist change. In many ways, it is business as usual
for the world’s most powerful companies that continue to operate as if climate
change is not a serious constraint on their activities. The Greenpeace report Point
of No Return (2013) looks at how a group of 14 giant ‘carbon bomb’ projects that
are currently in planning and development is on track to single-handedly increase
global greenhouse emissions 20 per cent by 2020, making it near impossible for
the world to avoid runaway climate change. This includes proposals for giant
open-cast coal mines in China and Australia, plans to increase offshore oil and gas
extraction in the Arctic and off the coast of Brazil, and plans to expand development
of Canada’s tar sands. We have seen far less discussion of putting limits on these
plans. The actors behind them are not threatened by the green economy debate.
They will invest in a ‘green economy’ too and hedge their bets, as with BP’s
commitment to go ‘Beyond Petroleum’ in which renewable energy amounts to
1 per cent of their portfolio. It is worth sharing a quote from former Shell chair -
man director, Lord Oxburgh, where he stated:
If you look at it from oil companies’ point of view, effectively what they’re
doing at the moment is continuing business as usual, and sticking toes in
water in a number of areas which might become important in future. But
at present there is a relatively poor business case for making significantly greater
investment in these new areas . . . so when I agree that they may not be
investing enough, that is if you like the point of view of a citizen of the
world rather than a shareholder in one of the companies.
(Strahan, 2009)
This is a far more difficult political economy. Neither the climate change regime,
which is still seeking to develop a post-Kyoto legally binding agreement, nor carbon
markets (where prices of carbon are at record lows), nor governments are sending
powerful signals to the worlds of finance and industry that the future lies in
sustainable low-carbon energy. This will be key. While it continues to be profitable
and legitimate to increase exploitation of new reserves of fossil fuels – even in the
most extreme ways and with the most devastating consequences (tar sands, fracking,
drilling in fragile arctic environments, etc.) – finance will not shift with the speed
or at the scale required for more radical lower carbon transformations. As noted
above, we need loud, long, legal signals about the direction of change, the like of
which have not yet been forthcoming – in fact, quite the opposite. The dash to
Green transformations in capitalism 81