The Debate Over Big Oil's Role in Climate Change
Some believe that 'Big Oil' should be held financially accountable for climate-related disasters, such as California's wildfires. Their rationale? Major oil and gas companies are profitable and have contributed significantly to atmospheric carbon emissions.
A recent press release—'Chevron & Exxon could easily cover LA wildfire damages'—claimed that 'mega-rich oil firms like Chevron and Exxon are knowingly driving and profiting from the climate crisis.'
Two California lawmakers have even introduced legislation to enable lawsuits against these companies. But do these claims hold up under scrutiny?
'Big Oil' typically refers to the five largest integrated supermajor oil companies: ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP, and TotalEnergies. Their combined production in 2023 was:
ExxonMobil: 2.4 million barrels of oil/day, 7.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas/day
Chevron: 1.5 million barrels of oil/day, 7.1 billion cubic feet of natural gas/day
TotalEnergies: 1.55 million barrels of oil/day, 6.8 billion cubic feet of natural gas/day
Shell: 1.39 million barrels of oil/day, 9.73 billion cubic feet of natural gas/day
BP: 1 million barrels of oil/day, 6.9 billion cubic feet of natural gas/day
Using standard emissions factors (0.43 metric tons of CO? per barrel of oil and 0.0547 metric tons per thousand cubic feet of natural gas), the total annual CO? emissions from their products amounted to 1.99 billion metric tons in 2023.
Total global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels and industry in 2023 were approximately 37 billion metric tons. That means Big Oil accounted for just 5.4% of global CO? emissions.
Moreover, fossil fuel combustion as a whole contributed 87% of global emissions, with oil and natural gas responsible for about 60% of those emissions. The remaining 40% came from coal—a fuel that oil companies do not generally produce.
To argue that Big Oil should be held primarily responsible for climate-related disasters, one must accept three questionable premises:
Companies responsible for just 5.4% of total emissions should bear the bulk of the blame, while ignoring other major contributors, including coal producers and nationalized oil companies.
Producers, not consumers, are responsible for emissions. Oil companies extract and refine fossil fuels, but consumers—individuals, businesses, and governments—burn them (while deriving benefit from doing so).
A handful of Western corporations should be punished despite accounting for only a fraction of global fossil fuel production. The vast majority of oil and gas production comes from national oil companies, such as those in Saudi Arabia, Russia, and China.
According to the Statistical Review of World Energy, the U.S. was responsible for 13.2% of global fossil fuel emissions in 2023. When accounting for all the carbon dioxide emissions of the past 60 years—before Asia-Pacific's rapid industrialization—the U.S. share rises to 24.5%. Even if one were to irrationally blame oil companies alone, their share of total emissions is a small fraction of that number.
Blaming oil companies for climate change ignores an inconvenient truth: we are all responsible. Every country, company, and individual who uses fossil fuels contributes to carbon emissions. A transition to cleaner energy will require coordinated global efforts, not selective punishment of a handful of Western firms.
Even if you believe Big Oil misled the public, the broader scientific and policy communities were never dependent on oil executives for climate science. The potential consequences of rising CO? levels were well-documented in scientific literature long before climate lawsuits became a political tool.
If lawsuits against oil companies are justified, then logically, every consumer, airline, shipping company, and government that relied on fossil fuels for economic growth should be held accountable. The state of California profited enormously over the past 100 years from fossil fuel extraction. But such an approach would be impractical and economically disastrous.
Suing oil companies won't slow carbon emissions. It may score political points, but it does nothing to address the underlying issue. Instead of lawsuits, we need practical solutions that recognize the shared responsibility of producers, consumers, and policymakers alike.
By Robert Rapier
More Top Reads From Oilprice.comRead this article on OilPrice.com
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Pledge of Quick China Magnet Flows Has Yet to Materialize
(Bloomberg) -- Almost 10 days since President Donald Trump declared a 'done' trade deal with Beijing, US companies remain largely in the dark on when they'll receive crucial magnets from China — and whether Washington, in turn, will allow a host of other exports to resume. Security Concerns Hit Some of the World's 'Most Livable Cities' One Architect's Quest to Save Mumbai's Heritage From Disappearing JFK AirTrain Cuts Fares 50% This Summer to Lure Riders Off Roads NYC Congestion Toll Cuts Manhattan Gridlock by 25%, RPA Reports Taser-Maker Axon Triggers a NIMBY Backlash in its Hometown While there has been a trickle of required permits, many American firms that need Chinese minerals are still waiting on Beijing's approval for shipments, according to people familiar with the process. China's system is improving but remains cumbersome, they said, contrary to Trump's assurances rare earths would flow 'up front' after a June 11 accord struck in London. The delays are holding an array of American industries hostage to the rocky US-China relationship, as some firms wait for magnets and others face restrictions selling to China. That friction risks derailing a fragile tariff truce clinched by Washington and Beijing in Geneva last month, and triggering fresh rounds of retaliation. Interviews with multiple Western buyers, industry insiders and officials familiar with discussions revealed frustration over vague policies in both countries and lingering confusion about what level of magnet approvals from China would trigger Trump to abandon his tit-for-tat export curbs. 'Even if export approvals accelerate, there are so many unknowns about the licensing regime that it's impossible for companies to have a strong sense of certainty about future supply,' said Christopher Beddor, deputy China research director at Gavekal Research. 'At a minimum, they need to factor in a real possibility that talks could break down again, and exports will be halted.' In response to China's sluggishness on magnets, Trump last month restricted US firms from exporting chip software, jet engines and a key ingredient to make plastic to China until President Xi Jinping restores rare-earth exports. Companies subject to Washington's curbs have halted billions of dollars in planned shipments as they wait for players in unrelated sectors to secure permits from Beijing, which could take weeks or even months to process, given the current pace. Corporate chiefs affected by the export-control spat have sought clarity from the administration on its strategy, according to people familiar with the matter. The Commerce Department — which administers the rules — has offered few details, they added. Oil industry executives have tried to convince Trump officials that blocking exports of ethane — a gas used to make plastics — is contrary to US national security interests, according to people familiar with the deliberations. Business leaders have asked for export restrictions to be removed but that's been unsuccessful so far, the people said. Energy and chemical giant INEOS Group Holdings SA has one tanker full of ethane waiting to go, while Enterprise Products Partners has three to four cargo ships stuck in limbo, according to a person familiar with the matter. That's particularly galling because China has adequate ethane supplies in reserve and can switch to using naphtha from the Middle East and other regions for much of their production, the people said. Representatives from the companies did not respond to requests for comment. Industry figures have consistently told the Trump administration the ethane export restrictions are inflicting more pain on US interests than on China, according to the people. China's Ministry of Commerce, which administers export licenses, hasn't responded to Bloomberg's questions on how many for rare earths have been granted since the London talks. At a regular briefing in Beijing on Thursday, spokesperson He Yadong said Beijing was 'accelerating' its process and had given the go-ahead to a 'certain number of compliant applications.' Access to rare earths is an issue 'that is going to continue to metastasize until there is resolution,' said Adam Johnson, chief executive officer of Principal Mineral, which invests in US mineral supply chains for industrial defense. 'This is just a spigot that can be turned on and off by China.' China only agreed to grant licenses — if at all — for six months, before companies need to reapply for approvals. Firms doing business in the US and China could see recurring interruptions, unless the Commerce Ministry significantly increases its pace of process applications. Adding an extra layer of jeopardy for US companies, Chinese suppliers to America's military-industrial base are unlikely to get any magnet permits. After Trump imposed sky-high tariffs in April, Beijing put samarium — a metal essential for weapons such as guided missiles, smart bombs and fighter jets — on a dual-use list that specifically prohibits its shipment for military use. Denying such permits could cause ties to further spiral if Trump believes those actions violate the agreement, the terms of which were never publicized in writing by either side. That sticking point went unresolved during roughly 20 hours of negotiations last week in the UK capital, people familiar with the details said. Complicating the issue, companies often buy magnets from third-party suppliers, which serve both defense and auto firms, according to a person familiar with the matter. That creates a high burden to prove to Chinese authorities a shipment's final destination is a motor not a missile, the person added. Beijing still hasn't officially spelled out the deal's requirements, nor has Xi publicly signaled his endorsement of it — a step Trump said was necessary. 'The Geneva and London talks made solid progress towards negotiating an eventual comprehensive trade deal with China,' White House spokesman Kush Desai said. 'The administration continues to monitor China's compliance with the agreement reached at Geneva.' China's Commerce Ministry is working to facilitate more approvals even as it asks for reams of information on how the materials will be used, according to people familiar with the process. In some cases, companies have been asked to supply data including detailed product designs, one of the people said. Morris Hammer, who leads the US rare-earth magnet business for South Korean steelmaker Posco Holdings Inc., said Chinese officials have expedited shipments for some major US and European automakers since Trump announced the agreement. China's Advanced Technology & Materials said Wednesday it had obtained permits for some magnet orders, without specifying for which destinations. The company's customers include European aerospace giant Airbus SE, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Around half of US suppliers to Toyota Motor Corp., for example, have had export licenses granted, the company said – but they're still waiting for those materials to actually be delivered. It's likely some of the delays are transport-related, one of the people said. Even with permits coming online, rare-earth materials are still scarce because overseas shipments were halted for two months starting in April, depleting inventories. Trump's agreement 'will allow for rare earths to flow out of the country for a short period of time, but it's not helping the auto industry because they're still talking shutdowns,' Hammer said. 'Nobody trusts that this thaw is going to last.' For many automakers, the situation remains unpredictable – forcing some to hunt for alternatives to Chinese supplies. Two days after Trump touted a finalized trade accord in London, Ford Motor Co. Chief Executive Officer Jim Farley described a 'day-to-day' dynamic around rare-earths licenses – which have already forced the company to temporarily shutter one plant. General Motors Co. has emphasized it's on firmer footing in the longer term, because it invested in domestic magnet making back in 2021. The automaker has an exclusive deal to get the products from MP Materials Corp. in Texas, with production starting later in the year. It has another deal with eVAC of Germany to get magnets from a South Carolina plant starting in 2026. In the meantime, GM and its suppliers have applied for permits to get magnets from China, a person familiar with the matter said. Scott Keogh, the CEO of Scout Motors — the upstart EV brand of Volkswagen AG — told Bloomberg Television his company is re—engineering brakes and drive units to reduce the need for rare earths. Scout is building a plant in South Carolina to make fully electric and hybrid SUVs as well as trucks starting in 2027. Until the rare-earth supply line is re-opened to Washington's satisfaction, Trump has indicated that the US is likely to keep in place its own export restrictions. Senior US officials have suggested the curbs are about building and using leverage, rather than their official justification: national security. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said the measures were used to 'annoy' China into complying with a deal US negotiators thought they'd already reached. Restrictions on sales to China of electronic design automation software for chipmaking are emblematic of the standoff. Those EDA tools are used to design everything, from the highest-end processors for the likes of Nvidia Corp. and Apple Inc. to simple parts, such as power-regulation components. Fully limiting China's access to the best software, made by a trio of Western firms, has been a longtime priority in some Washington national security circles — and would build on years of US measures targeting China's semiconductor prowess. While some senior Trump officials specifically indicated the administration would relax some semiconductor-related curbs if Beijing relents on rare earths, EDA companies still lack details on when, and whether, their China access will be restored, said industry officials who requested anonymity to speak candidly. Even if that happens, there's worry that heightened geopolitical risks will push Chinese customers to hunt for other suppliers or further develop domestic capabilities. 'The risk is there for the London deal to fall apart,' said Alicia Garcia Herrero, chief economist for Asia Pacific at Natixis. 'Because rare earths is a very granular issue and mistakes can be made.' --With assistance from Jennifer A. Dlouhy, David Welch, Lucille Liu, James Mayger, Jing Li, Joe Ryan and Nicholas Lua. Luxury Counterfeiters Keep Outsmarting the Makers of $10,000 Handbags Ken Griffin on Trump, Harvard and Why Novice Investors Won't Beat the Pros Is Mark Cuban the Loudmouth Billionaire that Democrats Need for 2028? The US Has More Copper Than China But No Way to Refine All of It Can 'MAMUWT' Be to Musk What 'TACO' Is to Trump? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Oil and gas lawsuits are threatening Trump's energy agenda
Energy has been a highlight of the Trump 2.0 presidency. But the administration needs more cooperation from Lansing and Baton Rouge to bring its ambitious goals to fruition. Michigan and Louisiana may not have a lot in common, but there are few places in the U.S. more critical to the Trump administration's energy agenda. Michigan, an industrial powerhouse, needs abundant affordable energy to fuel the 'manufacturing boom' that the White House is promising. Louisiana, a leading liquid natural gas exporter, is key to Team Trump's goal to make the U.S. the signature supplier of energy to domestic industries and foreign allies. Yet politicized lawsuits against oil and gas companies are proliferating in both states, backed by rivals and fair weather friends whose lawfare crusades are undercutting President Trump's energy dominance agenda. For Michigan's Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Louisiana's Republican Gov. Jeff Landry, it's time to decide whether to get behind America First energy policies or side with powerful forces within their states that are pushing in the opposite direction. Whitmer, widely viewed as a 2028 Democratic presidential hopeful, nonetheless quotes Trump's call for a 'golden age of American manufacturing.' During her tenure as governor, Michigan has leaned into aspirational net-zero timelines, discouraged in-state gas production and created roadblocks to energy infrastructure. But there's also the legal offensive. Michigan's Attorney General Dana Nessel (D) continues to defend her six year-old lawsuit to shut down Enbridge's Line 5 pipeline, which supplies more than half of Michigan propane use, while she taps contingency lawyers to sue oil and gas companies for far-flung climate-related damages. That's not the posture of a state preparing to power an industrial renaissance. Meanwhile, Landry touts Trump's energy dominance agenda, yet at the same time supports dubious claims against oil and gas companies in his state. As state attorney general, Landry entered a joint prosecution agreement with trial lawyers seeking to hold the oil and gas industry liable for 2,000 square miles of Louisiana wetlands and barrier islands lost to coastal erosion since the 1930s. As governor, he has taken in more campaign contributions from trial lawyers than his Democratic predecessor. The support has paid dividends. A lawyer from the Landry administration backed up the trial lawyers who recently won a $744.6 million verdict against Chevron in a coastal erosion case. Although research shows that leveeing of the Mississippi is the main culprit, oil and gas companies are now defending 43 lawsuits in Louisiana blaming them for coastal land loss. Despite the obvious federal issues at play, the trial lawyers behind the cases are trying to keep the litigation in friendly state courts — precisely the kind of jurisdictional charade that Trump's order against state interference with American energy dominance was designed to prevent. Just this week, the United States Supreme Court agreed to review whether these cases belong in federal court where the oil and gas companies can get a fair hearing. If Landry and the trial lawyers dodge federal jurisdiction, it will be 'pay, baby, pay,' not 'drill baby drill' for oil and gas companies — much to the chagrin of the Trump administration and the detriment of the nation's energy consumers. Unless Team Trump follows through on its promise to defend domestic energy producers from state overreach, U.S. energy dominance will remain elusive. Taking on deep blue states over their climate lawfare is a solid first step, but it's not enough. The next time that Whitmer visits the Oval Office, Trump should remind her that Michigan consumes almost five times more energy than it produces. If the manufacturing golden age returns to Michigan, the demand side of that equation will only rise. The state's leadership needs to bury its green utopianism, drop its anti-pipeline crusade, and start producing more reliable and affordable energy needed to power autonomous vehicles, chip fabs, AI data centers and other industries that Whitmer is trying to attract. Likewise, Team Trump needs to tell Landry to put the energy dominance agenda ahead of his alliance with powerful trial lawyers. If Landry is unwilling to pull out of the retroactive cases against oil and gas companies, the Trump Department of Justice should intervene and defend federal energy policy interests against Louisiana's egregious overreach. For Louisiana's liquefied natural gas sector to propel U.S. energy dominance in the future, the state needs a predictable legal system, not one where industry is at the mercy of politically-connected trial lawyers. The key to the Trump administration's early energy successes has been the rollback of federal rules like the Biden administration ban on liquefied natural gas exports. Unleashing American energy over the long term, however, requires the states to push in the same direction. For states like Michigan and Louisiana, that doesn't require a new vision. It means having the political courage to make it real. Michael Toth is a practicing lawyer and a research fellow at the Civitas Institute at the University of Texas at Austin.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Roy Rogers Restaurants Long-Anticipated Return to Cherry Hill Set for June 25
Iconic Western-Themed Chain Brings Back Nostalgia with Famous Beef, Burgers and Chicken CHERRY HILL, N.J., June 20, 2025--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Roy Rogers Restaurants is officially opening its newest location in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, on June 25. This restaurant is the chain's first return to the Southern New Jersey and Philadelphia markets since the 1990s, marking an exciting new era for the brand. The location is 614 Haddonfield Rd, Cherry Hill, NJ 08002. Roy Rogers appeals to guests across generations with its emphasis on quality and variety, differentiating itself from a typical quick-service restaurant. Its menu caters to all three dayparts and late night, with a focus on the brand's core staples, also known as the Roy Rogers iconic Triple Threat: USDA choice top round roast beef, hand-breaded fresh-fried chicken and chicken tenders, and great-tasting burgers. Loyal fans will also recall the iconic Fixin's Bar®, offering fresh lettuce, sliced tomatoes, onions, pickles, and more. Whether dining in-store, using the drive-thru, ordering pickup, or delivery, customers can fully customize their sandwiches to their liking. "The feedback from the Cherry Hill community since we announced this new restaurant has been overwhelmingly positive, and we have been working hard to make this opening a grand success," says Jim Plamondon, co-president of Roy Rogers Restaurants. "We are excited to make this long-anticipated return, and Cherry Hill allows us to serve a growing, diverse community and introduce a new generation to the quality and variety that makes Roy Rogers a cut above." Situated in the heart of one of the region's top shopping destinations and just 10 minutes from Center City Philadelphia, the newly reconstructed Roy Rogers features several enhancements designed to elevate the guest experience, including a drive-thru and expanded indoor and outdoor seating. As the only burger drive-thru on bustling Haddonfield Road, the 3,300-square-foot restaurant is surrounded by three million square feet of premier retail space. It is ideally positioned to serve nearby neighborhoods, mixed-use developments, businesses, and schools. Grand Opening Details Roy Rogers Cherry Hill will officially open to serve guests during a formal Grand Opening ceremony event at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, June 25. The event will begin with remarks from co-owners Jim and Pete Plamondon and Cherry Hill Mayor David Fleisher, followed by raising the flag by JROTC Cadets from Cherry Hill High School West, the National Anthem sung by local vocalist Debra Janove and presentation of a donation to the Cherry Hill Public Library. There will be fun giveaways for the whole community to enjoy! The ceremony will conclude with a ribbon cutting, and the doors will open at 10:30 a.m. Media are encouraged to attend and RSVP to tkroys@ "This is a true celebration for our Roy Rogers family, and we look forward to continuing the excitement over the next few months as we meet our new and returning Royalists," adds Plamondon. "Connecting with other local businesses and organizations is very important to us, so that we may become a contributor to the culture and success of the Cherry Hill community." For more details on Roy Rogers Cherry Hill opening, current offers and promotions, or to explore the full Roy Rogers menu, visit About Roy Rogers® Restaurants: Based in Frederick, Md., Roy Rogers® is a chain of western-themed quick-service restaurants offering broad appeal across multiple dayparts and generations. The company is famous for serving up a "Triple Threat" – three popular main dishes including USDA choice top round roast beef, hand-breaded, fresh fried chicken and great-tasting burgers – and for its famous Fixin's Bar®, where guests can customize their orders with a variety of fresh produce, condiments and signature sauces. Information on the company, its menu and current promotions is available at and on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. Founded in 1968, Roy Rogers currently consists of 24 company-owned restaurants and 16 franchise restaurants in seven states. Qualified franchise investors are now being sought to develop the beloved brand. Franchise information can be found at or by contacting Joe Briglia, Director of Franchise Development at jbriglia@ or (240) 405-6205. View source version on Contacts Lauren SchmidlkoferTrevelino/KellerLschmidlkofer@ 678-977-5425 Sign in to access your portfolio
