Antonio Guterres photographed in New York lastSeptember On Tuesday, he stated nonrenewable fuel source companies and their “enablers” required to be held to account.
John Minchillo|Pool|Getty Images News|Getty Images
The U.N. secretary general stated Tuesday that established economies ought to enforce an additional tax on the revenues of nonrenewable fuel source companies, with the funds diverted to nations impacted by environment modification and homes having problem with the cost-of-living crisis.
In an extensive address to the U.N. General Assembly in New York, Antonio Guterres explained the nonrenewable fuel source market as “feasting on hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies and windfall profits while households’ budgets shrink and our planet burns.”
Fossil fuel companies and their “enablers” required to be held to account, he went on to state. “That includes the banks, private equity, asset managers and other financial institutions that continue to invest and underwrite carbon pollution.”
It likewise included what he called “the massive public relations machine raking in billions to shield the fossil fuel industry from scrutiny.”
Despite the remarks, Guterres appeared to acknowledge the truth of the existing scenario, in which coal, oil and gas continue to play an important function in the contemporary world, in both established and emerging economies.
“Of course, fossil fuels cannot be shut down overnight,” he stated. “A just transition means leaving no person or country behind. But it’s high time to put fossil fuel producers, investors and enablers on notice.”
“Polluters must pay. And today, I am calling on all developed economies to tax the windfall profits of fossil fuel companies.”
Guterres stated that these funds ought to be re-directed to “countries suffering loss and damage caused by the climate crisis; and to people struggling with rising food and energy prices.”
Guterres’ speech on Tuesday enhanced remarks he made back in August, when he stated it was “immoral for oil and gas companies to be making record profits from this energy crisis on the back of the poorest people and communities and at a massive cost to the climate.”
“The combined profits of the largest energy companies in the first quarter of this year are close to 100 billion U.S. dollars,” he included. “I urge all governments to tax these excessive profits and use the funds to support the most vulnerable people through these difficult times.”
The idea of enforcing a windfall, or one-off, tax on energy business has actually acquired traction in some quarters over the previous couple of months, with the sector recording big revenues amidst a spike in product rates, while numerous houses and organizations battle with increasing energy expenses and a broader cost-of-living crisis.
Back in May, for instance, the U.K.’s previous financing minister, Rishi Sunak, revealed information of what he called a “temporary, targeted energy profits levy” on oil and gas companies.
Last week, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stated it was proposing “a cap on the revenues of companies that produce electricity at low costs.” These organizations, she argued, were “making revenues they never accounted for, they never even dreamt of.”
“And don’t get me wrong: In our social market economy, profits are OK, they are good,” von der Leyen included. “But in these times, it is wrong to receive extraordinary, record revenues and profits benefitting from war and on the back of our consumers.”
“In these times, profits must be shared and channeled to those who need it most. And therefore, our proposal also includes the fossil fuel electricity producers, who have to give a crisis contribution.”
Overall, von der Leyen stated the proposition would raise over 140 billion euros, or around $1401 billion.
While such actions and efforts have backers, there is likewise opposition. After Sunak revealed his strategies, for instance, Offshore Energies UK stated the levy would “discourage UK offshore energy investments, meaning declines in oil and gas exploration and production, and so force an increase in imports.”
The dispute and conversation about the function nonrenewable fuel sources play in the world’s energy mix is a live one, and looks set to continue over the coming years.
Earlier this year, Standard Chartered CEO Bill Winters acknowledged the majority of people would sign up for what he called a “just transition.”
“Those are two really important words … just means fair, it also means implementable,” Winters, who was talking to CNBC’s Geoff Cutmore at the City Week online forum in London, stated. “And transition means transition — it means it takes some time.”
“The idea that we can turn off the taps and end fossil fuels tomorrow, it’s obviously ridiculous and naive,” Winters stated. “Well, first of all, it’s not going to happen and secondly, it would be very disruptive.”
It would benefit environment modification, Winters went on to state, however “bad for wars, revolutions and human life because you’d have … havoc.” The “ultimate divestment option” required to be removed the table, he argued.
