Overshoot Day: What Does It Imply?
8 min
Level
Earth overshoot day is becoming more worrisome as each year passes. What is overshoot day about? Find out more about this term and what it implies.
The media that guides impact managers
ESG / CSR
Industries
Ecology
Greenly solutions
US
US
What is the proposal for an oil state tax?
Level
Ahead of the UN climate summit, Cop28, which took place in Dubai in December 2023, a coalition of former world leaders and economists - led by former UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown - advocated for a new financial approach to tackle the climate crisis. In a letter, endorsed by 70 international figures including 25 ex-prime ministers and presidents, they proposed an oil state tax that would target the substantial revenues of oil-producing states. This tax would help to support climate action in the world's poorest and most vulnerable populations, who are disproportionately affected by climate disasters.
This proposal, set against the backdrop of soaring petroleum revenues - which leapt from $1.5 trillion pre-Covid to a record $4 trillion in 2022 - highlights the growing divide between the huge profits of oil states and the meagre funds allocated to address climate change. The signatories of the letter - including notable figures like former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark - argue that by leveraging these profits we can help those nations hardest hit by climate change.
👉In this article, we explore the proposal for a climate tax on rich oil states as a solution to fund global climate efforts.
The climate tax proposal
As the climate crisis worsens, there’s growing concern over the failure of countries to meet their climate funding commitments. The headline-grabbing pledge to provide annual funding of $100 billion by 2020 in support of climate action in developing countries was only recently achieved - two years later than promised. Even more concerning is that this figure is just a fraction of what is actually required to tackle the effects of climate change. It’s estimated that by 2030 developing countries will need $2 trillion a year to decarbonise their economies, adapt to the impacts of climate change, and deal with the fallout of climate crises.
This funding gap is concerning which is why there are growing calls for new financial strategies to deal with the situation. One such idea is the proposed climate tax on rich oil states, often called an 'oil state tax' or ‘windfall tax’. This plan goes beyond typical financial measures, urging those who profit from fossil fuels to play a bigger role in addressing climate change.
The concept behind the climate tax is pretty straightforward. Rich oil states - due to their substantial oil and gas revenues - are seen as principal contributors to climate change. The idea is that these states should pay a tax based on their fossil fuel production, effectively turning a portion of their huge oil and gas revenues into a fund for climate change initiatives. This 'oil state tax' would be calculated as a percentage of the oil and gas export revenues of these countries, ensuring that the tax burden is proportional to the level of production and profits.
👉 To learn more about climate funding and the issues surrounding this check out our article.
“ The effectiveness of this tax proposal lies in its dual purpose. Firstly, it serves as a financial mechanism to support global efforts in combating climate change. The funds raised could be directed towards renewable energy projects, adaptation strategies in vulnerable regions, and other essential climate initiatives. Secondly, it acts as a deterrent against unabated fossil fuel production, encouraging these rich oil states to transition to more sustainable energy alternatives. ”
Why target rich oil states?
Why is it proposed that the tax would target rich oil states - also referred to as petrostates? Well, these states, often characterised by their massive oil reserves and production of fossil fuels, play a significant role in the global energy landscape. They have historically reaped enormous economic benefits from oil and gas, while also contributing significantly to the global greenhouse gas emissions that drive climate change.
Rich oil states like Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Russia, and Norway (to name just a few) have seen their profit margins soar, especially during periods of high oil prices. For example, the recent spikes in oil prices have led to windfall profits for these countries. Globally, oil and gas revenues rose from $1.5 trillion before the COVID-19 pandemic to over $4 trillion in 2022. To put these massive revenues into context, $4 trillion is twenty times greater than the global aid budget. It also dwarfs the GDP of many countries - including the UK!
However, this financial windfall comes with a substantial environmental cost. The extraction and burning of fossil fuels from these regions are major sources of carbon emissions, exacerbating the climate crisis. 💡 Around 32% of global emissions can be traced back to the combustion of oil.
What’s more, is that the environmental impact of fossil fuel extraction goes beyond carbon emissions. It’s also linked to ecological degradation, water contamination, and air pollution, affecting both local and global environments. Therefore, the rationale for targeting these states with a climate tax is twofold: to hold them financially accountable for their environmental impact and to use their significant profits to benefit the greater good.
👉 Discover the challenges faced by petrostates in transitioning away from fossil fuels in our article.
“ The climate tax proposal for rich oil states is based on the principle of fairness and responsibility. It acknowledges that those who have profited the most from activities contributing to climate change should play a pivotal role in financing the path to a more sustainable future. This 'oil state tax' is not just a financial tool but also a step towards global environmental justice and a more balanced, sustainable world. ”
Global context
The idea of imposing a tax on rich oil states, particularly for climate-related purposes, is not entirely new. Several countries have already experimented with various forms of taxation on natural resources, aimed at capturing a fair share of the profits for wider societal benefits.
One of the earliest examples of such a resource-based tax is the concept of a severance tax, as applied in the United States. These taxes are levied on the extraction of non-renewable resources like oil and natural gas. States like Texas and Alaska have long used severance taxes to fund public services, infrastructure, and in Alaska’s case, even direct payments to residents. However, these taxes have been primarily focused on state revenue rather than climate initiatives.
Norway also stands out in its approach to oil revenue taxation. The country famously established a sovereign wealth fund, financed by profits from its oil and gas sector. This fund converts oil and gas revenue into a financial portfolio, but its primary aim is long-term economic stability rather than addressing climate change.
More recently, the concept of taxing the fossil fuel industry for environmental purposes has gained traction. The European Union, for example, has adopted a carbon pricing mechanism (CBAM), which indirectly taxes fossil fuel production by charging for carbon emissions. They also introduced a temporary windfall tax to combat excessive and unexpected energy profits. This approach aligns more closely with the current proposal for a climate tax on rich oil states, as it ties the tax directly to environmental impact.
👉 Find out more about the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism in our article.
Close
Growing demand for an oil state tax?
The argument in favour of a climate tax on rich oil states is gaining support due to a mix of both economic and environmental considerations.
Economically, the world is not only still recovering from the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic - which caused significant disruptions in global energy markets - but global markets have also been shaken by geopolitical events such as the war in Ukraine and the ongoing crisis in Gaza. The volatility that these events introduced highlights the risks associated with over-reliance on fossil fuels, both for energy security and economic stability.
Environmentally, the effects of climate change are becoming increasingly severe. Record-breaking temperatures, devastating wildfires, frequent and intense hurricanes, and rising sea levels are just a few impacts of global warming. These events have not only heightened awareness of climate change but have also brought a sense of urgency to the call for climate action.
Furthermore, the international community is more aligned than ever before on the need for substantial climate action, particularly when it comes to addressing the impacts of fossil fuels. Just recently, at COP28, member states took the historic step of specifically calling out the need to transition away from fossil fuels, acknowledging the role that oil and gas play in driving up carbon emissions.
However, financing climate actions remains a significant challenge, especially for developing countries - which are often the most affected by climate change yet the least responsible for it.
This is where an oil state tax comes in. It offers a pragmatic approach to address the financial needs of global climate efforts, leveraging the substantial profits of oil-rich countries. Such a tax aligns with the principles of equity and responsibility, asking those who have profited most from the climate-altering fossil fuel industry to contribute to the solution.
👉 Find out what happened at COP28 in our article covering the key developments.
Close
Benefits and challenges of an oil state tax
The proposed climate tax on rich oil states carries significant potential benefits, both economically and environmentally. Let’s take a closer look at these:
Economic benefits
The most immediate economic benefit of this tax is the generation of substantial revenue. This revenue could be channelled into global climate funds, providing much-needed financial support for climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts, especially in developing countries that lack the resources for such initiatives.
The tax could also stimulate investment in renewable energy and green technologies, fostering new industries and job opportunities. By redirecting funds from fossil fuel profits into sustainable development, the tax could help support a global transition to a low-carbon economy.
What's more, is that such a tax on oil states could contribute to a more equitable distribution of wealth generated from global resources. By taxing the windfall profits of oil-rich states, the international community can redirect these funds to regions and communities disproportionately affected by climate change but less responsible for carbon emissions.
Environmental benefits
Environmentally, the tax directly addresses the issue of carbon emissions. By imposing a cost on fossil fuel extraction, it provides a financial incentive for oil states to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels and invest in cleaner alternatives. This shift could potentially drive lower global carbon emissions, helping to slow the pace of climate change.
Additionally, the tax would help to drive global action on climate change by providing a funding mechanism for climate initiatives. This could lead to more significant and rapid advancements in climate technology, conservation efforts, and sustainable practices.
Challenges and criticisms
Despite its potential benefits, the proposal for a climate tax on rich oil states faces several challenges and criticisms:
Political obstacles
Politically, the biggest challenge is achieving international consensus. Oil-rich states would likely resist such a tax, viewing it as an infringement on their sovereignty or economic interests. Convincing these nations to agree to a tax on their primary revenue source would require diplomatic negotiation and potentially compensatory mechanisms.
There's also the challenge of global governance - deciding which international body would administer and distribute the tax revenues fairly and effectively. Ensuring transparency and equitable distribution of funds would be critical for the tax's legitimacy and effectiveness.
Economic challenges
Economically, there's a risk that the tax could lead to higher global oil prices as producers may pass on the cost to consumers. This could have a ripple effect on the global economy, especially in countries heavily dependent on oil imports.
The tax could also potentially slow down economic growth in oil-producing countries, affecting their national economies and possibly leading to socio-economic unrest.
Counter-arguments and criticisms
Critics of the 'oil state tax' proposal argue that it could unfairly penalise countries that have legally exploited their natural resources. They also point out that such a tax might be seen as a punitive measure against certain nations, potentially leading to geopolitical tensions.
Some argue that the focus should instead be on global efforts to reduce demand for fossil fuels, rather than penalising suppliers. Others question the effectiveness of such a tax in actually reducing emissions, suggesting that direct investment in renewable energy and strict emission regulations would be more effective.
Concerns over historical responsibility and equity
Another key criticism of the proposed climate tax on rich oil states is its lack of consideration for historical emissions. Critics argue that it's unfair to focus solely on oil-producing nations, as industrialised countries have historically contributed a significant share of greenhouse gases. These nations, having prospered during an era of unregulated fossil fuel use, arguably bear more responsibility for the current climate crisis.
The concern is that the climate tax, by targeting only current oil production, overlooks the cumulative impact of these historical emissions. This could lead to perceptions of inequity, as the tax might seem to penalise some countries while ignoring the past environmental impacts of others.
Critics suggest a more balanced approach is appropriate, taking into account both historical and current emissions, to ensure a fair distribution of responsibility in global climate finance strategies.
How could an oil state tax become a reality?
For the proposal of a climate tax on rich oil states to become a reality, significant international cooperation and policy alignment would first need to be achieved. Let’s take a closer look at how this could be accomplished.
- Building a consensus - The first and perhaps most challenging step is to build a global consensus. This involves diplomatic negotiations with key stakeholders, including oil-rich states, affected countries, environmental groups, and international organisations. The goal is to create a common understanding of the tax's importance for climate action.
- Defining tax framework - A clear and fair framework for the tax would need to be established. This includes deciding on the tax rate, the calculation method, and the criteria for which countries are subject to the tax.
- Establishing governance structures - An international body or coalition would need to be formed to manage the collection and allocation of tax revenues. This body must be impartial, efficient, and transparent, with mechanisms to ensure that funds are used effectively for climate change mitigation and adaptation.
- Legal and regulatory foundations - Implementing a climate tax requires a solid legal foundation. This involves creating international agreements or treaties and integrating the tax into the legal frameworks of participating countries.
- Setting up monitoring and reporting systems - To ensure compliance and assess the impact of the tax, robust monitoring and reporting systems would need to be established. These systems should track the collection and use of funds, as well as the tax’s impact on emissions reduction and climate resilience.
Benefits of a climate tax on oil-rich countries
The long-term impacts of establishing a climate tax on rich oil states are far-reaching and could potentially reshape global climate policy:
- Accelerating the transition to clean energy - In the long term, the tax could significantly accelerate the transition to renewable energy sources. By reducing the profitability of fossil fuel extraction, the tax creates a financial incentive for oil states and global markets to invest in cleaner, more sustainable energy sources.
- Redefining global climate finance - The revenue generated from this tax could become a major source of funding for global climate finance. This could lead to more ambitious climate projects, especially in developing countries, and might reduce the current gap in climate finance.
- Setting a precedent for environmental accountability - The implementation of this tax would set a global precedent for environmental accountability. It would demonstrate that major polluters, regardless of their economic power, are responsible for contributing to the solution of a problem they helped create.
- Influencing future climate policies - The success of this tax could inspire similar initiatives, leading to more innovative financial mechanisms being developed and implemented to combat climate change. It could also encourage countries to adopt more aggressive internal policies on carbon pricing and emissions reduction.
- Enhancing international cooperation - The process of implementing the tax could strengthen international cooperation on climate issues, leading to more unified and effective global climate action.
What about Greenly?
At Greenly we can help you to assess your company’s carbon footprint, and then give you the tools you need to cut down on emissions. Why not request a free demo with one of our experts - no obligation or commitment required.
If reading this article has inspired you to consider your company’s own carbon footprint, Greenly can help. Learn more about Greenly’s carbon management platform here.
More Articles
View all
What is the Carbon Footprint of the iPhone?
1 min
Level
The iPhone 14 will be released on September 16. But do you know the exact carbon footprint of an iPhone?
United States: Why did the Supreme Court block the EPA?Why did the Supreme Court block the EPA?
8 min
Level
The Supreme Court has been exceptionally decisive in the United States as of late. Why did the supreme court in the U.S. block the EPA?
Socially Responsible Investing (SRI): All you Need to Know
12 min
Level
What are socially responsible investments, and why have they grown in popularity during the global cause for concern regarding climate change? Can socially responsible investments encourage companies to go green?
Share
Subscribe to the newsletter