What Big Oil Knew-

The global climate crisis has been the subject of much popular attention and some policy concern. International summits have continued to raise the issue, and the UN Secretary General’s most pressing concern is, by account, the devastation that is to be wrought to human societies by climate change, not least in the developing world. There are, however, many holdouts to progress on climate change, among whom the rightwing parties in the United States and Australia are the most egregious deniers. Yet civil society and policymakers are but two elements in the larger equation, albeit a crucial one. It is also important to gauge the role of energy companies, not just in how they react today, but also in how they have led us to the present juncture.

A recent study by Supran et al. provides damning findings about the extent to which major energy companies (or “Big Oil” as they are colloquially known) were aware of the impact of their operations on climate change. For decades, Big Oil sought to suppress what its own climate models were showing, that non-renewable energy extraction was accelerating climate change, and the consequences for human society would be severe. Like Big Tobacco before it, the strategy of Big Oil lay in stressing that things were “inconclusive,” and therefore harsh penalties based on “unproven” hypotheses would be unfair to them, especially since they were such large job creators, significant taxpayers, and they provided something in very high demand.

In the public sphere, they constantly contested the emergent findings of independent scientists, and rested their claims on the need for further data. The twist was, as Supran et al.’s findings show, that even their internal models were warning of dire consequences, which “overwhelmingly acknowledged that climate change is real and human-caused.” Not just that, their models were surprisingly accurate when one measures the pattern that climate change has followed ex-post. Yet despite knowing this, Big Oil withheld the relevant climate findings because they would harm their profits. Today, the destruction to lives and livelihoods due to accelerating climate change is simply reinforcing what they knew but hid.

There are many countries, particularly the more climate-vulnerable ones in the Global South, which are raising a common voice for climate justice. A resolution that is to be tabled by Vanuatu is but one in a series of such appeals to the world’s conscience to act before it is too late (although in some ways it already is). Vanuatu’s resolution is backed by more than 100 countries, and seeks to involve the International Court of Justice in ruling on the nature of the responsibility that countries have on climate change. Vanuatu has been hit by two cyclones on two straight days, and their insistence on this matter of climate justice is both laudable and necessary.

The economic damage that is already occurring, and which shall occur in years to come, far outstrips the profits that Big Oil made. To what degree will Big Oil be made accountable for what it knew? It is easy to expect that very little will be done: Big Oil doesn’t just have big pockets, it has a loud voice. In the Trump Administration, former ExxonMobil executive Rex Tillerson served as Secretary of State, and it was his company whose internal models were pointing to the dangers most accurately, but which suppressed the truth most vociferously.

In the post-Covid era, what had been an emergent consensus on dealing with climate change has been dampened (or at least slowed) to a degree. This is because, in light of the Russo-Ukrainian war’s impact on global energy supplies, many countries which were otherwise proactively turning towards renewables have instead veered towards coal, including China and European countries. In Vanuatu’s resolution, support has not come from serious coal junkies such as the United States, India, China, or Indonesia. In sum, we could have known long ago, we do know now, and yet there isn’t enough being done.

Dr. Usman W. Chohan is Advisor (Economic Affairs and National Development) at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS), Islamabad. He can be reached at [email protected].


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

How the Nature of Warfare Affects the AI Optimism

Since the advent of Artificial Intelligence (AI), a pressing question is being asked: Is Clausewitz still relevant? The game-changing potential of AI and the idea of human-machine teaming (centaur systems) have led many to doubt the seemingly unchanged nature of war. Apparently, it has given rise to the belief that AI-powered systems will replace humans (generals) in the command loop. However, this view is detached from the complex nature of warfare, which remains fundamentally a human endeavour guided by violence, chance and friction.

Just like other social institutions, war is generally an interpretivist paradigm rooted in complex human nature. It is a non-linear phenomenon whose conduct and outcomes cannot be determined by analytical predictions or algorithmic patterns. In other words, war usually does not proceed on pre-determined rules of engagement, prescriptive manuals, established patterns and predictive modelling. Instead, it is fought on judgment, adaptation to changing realities, commander’s intuition and paying attention to the unfolding of the unknown. 

Read More »

Two Faces of the Atom: India’s Nuclear Exceptionalism

ew examples capture the inconsistencies of the nuclear world order more starkly than the events of 2 March 2026: as Prime Ministers’ Mark Carney and Narendra Modi signed a landmark 1.9 billion USD uranium supply deal for India’s civil nuclear sector, Iran was subjected to the third day of indiscriminate airstrikes by the US and Israel under the banner of nuclear non-proliferation, despite Iran agreeing to zero stockpiling of enriched uranium just days prior. This event, unfortunately, was not an isolated one, rather it reflects a pattern of nuclear exceptionalism where certain states such as India, continue to be rewarded for non-compliance with international regulations, while others such as Iran, are censured and even subjected to military action based on hypothetical realities.

The latest deal would see Canada sell close to 22 million pounds of uranium concentrate to India over 8 years, starting in 2027, a sale more than ten times the last Canada-India uranium agreement of 2015, which supplied 7 million pounds of concentrate over 5 years.

Read More »

Data Centres as the New Military Targets in Modern Conflicts

The character of warfare has evolved in tandem with the changing nature of military targets. In early March 2026, Iran bypassed traditional military targets and struck the physical part of the digital infrastructure at Amazon Web Services (AWS) data centres in the UAE and Bahrain. Until now data centres had been considered an unassuming target, as they did not house any military equipment or hardware. However, the US-Israel war on Iran, has transformed these billion dollar sites into high-value targets because of their ability to act as server farms on which adversaries’ websites, apps, AI systems and the entire digital infrastructure run.

Data centres are digital ecosystems where the delivery of cloud services depends on the integrity of physical infrastructure. Disruption in any one part of the shared infrastructure does not remain isolated and risks triggering widespread systemic failure. In the case at hand, Amazon operated multiple availability zones within each region in the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. Iran struck two of the three availability zones in the UAE, while in Bahrain, a zone was damaged by drone debris causing an extended power outage and connectivity problems that further disrupted service across the Gulf.

Read More »