Renewable Revolution

 A common refrain of those advocating against climate action has been that the economic benefits of the fossil fuel industry outweigh the costs of switching to clean energy.

A new working paper out of Cambridge provides some numbers to show that this is not an even remotely legitimate claim. Researchers compared how much the top 20 fossil fuel companies profited between 2008 and 2012 with the social cost of the carbon emissions in their reserves. (At Vox, Dave Roberts goes into a little detail on the paper and explaining the social cost of carbon, for those who’d like a refresher.)

The results of the analysis show that: "For all companies and all years, the economic cost to society of their CO2 emissions was greater than their after-tax profit, with the single exception of Exxon Mobil in 2008.” So if companies had to pay to clean up their carbon emissions, instead of foisting that expense on the public, none of them would be making any money.

For coal companies, every dollar of revenue translated to somewhere between $2 and $9 in climate costs borne by society. This means that if the world ever gets around to putting a price on carbon that accurately reflects the social costs, it’s doubtful that any fossil fuel company could stay in business without making some major changes.

Despite their current earnings, this tells us that fossil fuel companies aren’t a net positive economic force on the planet, undercutting the popular denier excuse for inaction.

Unfortunately, that doesn’t make them any less of a source of income      for those with "vested interest in carbon dioxide emissions” who are eager to tell us all about how “Fossil Fuels Will Save The World (Really).”