The Shell logo at a gas station in Buenos Aires, March 12, 2018. (Reuters)

Taxing the record profits of companies like Shell is a first step in righting this wrong and providing life-saving assistance to those in most need, argues Bishop of Oxford Steven Croft. Croft is also a member of the Lords Environment and Climate Change Select Committee.

In a piece for The Independent, Croft explains how Shell declared a profit of £7.6 billion pounds this week, the company's largest first-quarter profit ever, while simultaneously millions of people in East Africa are on the verge of hunger due to a drought that scientists said last month would not have occurred if not for climate change induced by the usage of fossil fuels.

Millions of animals and cattle have perished, and harvests have failed, leaving more than 20 million people under threat of famine, with some estimating the exact amount to be closer to 100 million. Human-caused climate change, according to scientists from World Weather Attribution, an organization that evaluates the influence of climate change on extreme weather events, has made the drought 100 times more likely.

The moral argument for holding fossil fuel businesses accountable for the harm they cause is now evident. And it appears that the British people agree. According to Savanta polling for Christian Aid, 78% of the people believe it is unethical for fossil fuel companies to profit without taking responsibility for the damage caused by their actions.

Croft details how the individuals enduring the most severe consequences of climate change have done essentially little to contribute to the disaster they are now facing. The UK emits 57 times more carbon per capita than Somalia, however, it is drought that is killing Somalians' lives and livelihoods.

COP reparations fund still an empty bucket

The Bishop believes the silver lining is that the world is becoming more aware of this injustice. Last year, at the COP27 climate summit, governments decided for the first time to establish a Loss and Damage Fund to compensate those who have suffered catastrophic losses as a result of climate change. That was a significant win for vulnerable nations, and it gives optimism that justice will be done he says.

However, the fund is still an empty bucket, and unless countries begin to finance it, no assistance or justice will be provided to people suffering as a result of the wealthy world's actions. Croft asks what better source of cash to assist climate-vulnerable people than earnings from the oil and gas that has produced their problem?

According to Croft, the obvious remedy is the "polluter pays" approach. The UK government should tax these fossil fuel companies' record profits and use the proceeds to fund the UK's share of the Loss and Damage Fund. Not only is this the proper thing to do, but the public supports it as well. In the same Christian Aid poll, 63% of UK respondents agreed that the government should tax fossil fuel revenues to support the fund.

This viewpoint was echoed by Gogglebox, another source for measuring the nation's pulse. When they were given a news package about COP27 last year, the Channel 4 show, in which viewers watch a selection of fellow Britons as they themselves watch TV, showed broad fury at the unfairness of climate change and support for the Loss and Damage Fund.

The Bishop elaborates on how climate change is an example of a market failure in which the negative repercussions of emissions are felt by those who have nothing to do with making, selling, or using them. Taxing these gains and directing the proceeds to the Loss and Damage Fund will help to correct this disastrous imbalance.

The Bishop of Oxford writes how climate change is something with a lasting impact on those who have done nothing to deserve it, and believes that taxing the enormous profits of companies like Shell is a first step in righting this wrong and providing life-saving assistance to people in need.

Fossil fuel is starving, killing millions