Which Countries Are Suited To Oil Drill During A Climate Emergency?

When the BBC questioned Guyana’s president about his country’s desire to drill for offshore oil, the reporter got an earful. The United Kingdom has a voracious oil appetite, while Guyana is a poor country with pristine rainforests that soak up the carbon emissions created by richer ones.

Rainforest nations have low per capita incomes, and 29 are carbon-negative. They offer one step in the climate solution as we struggle to keep temperatures in check. Those countries would rather get fairly compensated for rainforest preservation, but they have been paid virtually nothing.

Some countries, like Guyana, Suriname, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, hold oil. Net zero means offsetting carbon emissions—not the total elimination of oil needed to fuel the global economy. However, should the developed world buy oil from a carbon-negative country or a more prosperous country primarily responsible for excessive emissions?

“Let me stop you right there. Did you know that Guyana has a forest that is the size of England and Scotland combined, a forest that stores 19.5 gigatons of carbon, a forest that we have kept alive?” President Mohamed Irfaan Ali told the BBC after it questioned its need to extract $150 billion worth of oil and gas.

The rainforest nations are parties to the Paris climate agreement, which requires them to count their carbon emissions and hit net zero by 2050. As such, they must tally the emissions tied to oil drilling—a number potentially offset by the amount of CO2 their rainforests absorb. However, the countries and industries that consume the oil own those emissions—not the exporter.

If we paid the Global South to keep its trees standing, those countries would make more money than exporting oil. Emerging nations rely on carbon financing to deploy more renewables, buy technologies, and maintain their rainforests. We released 55 billion tons of emissions last year. Nature-based solutions cut that figure by 9 billion tons. The poorest rainforest nations contribute less than 1% percent of all heat-trapping emissions.

I am the editor-at-large for the Coalition for Rainforest Nations, which represents roughly 65 countries globally that seek carbon financing to maintain their forests.

Between A Rock And A Hard Place

Consider the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC): Its rainforests absorb 4% of the world's annual CO2 emissions. The DRC wants to increase its oil production from 25,000 barrels a day to 1 million barrels, which would improve people's lives. Only 10% of its citizens have electricity.

“We are between a rock and a hard place,” says Tosi Mpanu-Mpanu, climate specialist for the DRC, in an earlier talk with me. “The Congo is part of the solution to the global climate crisis because of our standing forests. But we need to look at the levers that will generate jobs and income while allowing us to manage our forests and reduce poverty.”

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the United States is the largest oil developer, producing 21% of the globe's oil in 2023. Saudi Arabia and Russia, the two largest exporters, follow it.

The critical goal of COP28 in Dubai is to wean ourselves from oil. To do so, climate negotiators have created a national registry to calculate the quantity of carbon releases versus carbon reductions, meaning oil production is allowed as long as developers offset those emissions. The aim is climate stability.

Such promises are only meaningful if enforced. While consumers may know the names of the companies drilling for oil, they generally do not know which countries are supplying it. To that end, oil companies go where they get the greatest returns.

The American Petroleum Institute has endorsed a carbon tax to encourage fairness and fuel shifting. It would start with a price of $35 to $50 a ton of CO2 emissions—money that would reduce the energy cost for low-income households and go toward research and development of cutting-edge technologies.

It says this is “the most impactful and transparent way to achieve meaningful progress on the dual goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions while simultaneously ensuring continued economic growth.”

Exxon Mobil, Chevron CVX , and Hess want to drill offshore in Guyana, which taxes 2% of revenues—money used to fund education, health, and infrastructure. Guyana’s CO2 levels will undoubtedly rise. Is it fair that the developed world continues to benefit from oil production but not Suriname, the DRC, and Guyana, which are either carbon-negative or close to it?

They must count all the emissions from energy production—a number generally offset by their rainforests.

For the record, Suriname has 600,000 ethnically diverse people with a per capita income of $5,000 yearly. It runs its economy on hydropower and a small amount of diesel generation. Since independence from the Dutch in 1975, it has relied on natural resources to power its economy—a composition of gold, oil, and bauxite.

Forests cover 93% of the country. The annual deforestation rate is between 0.05% and 0.07%. As a result, Suriname will sell UN-authorized carbon credits.

“We are very vulnerable to climate change even though we have been pulling out carbon from the atmosphere,” says Marciano Dasai, Suriname's minister of spatial planning and environment, in an interview. “If you buy from us, the money goes to the environment and our people.”

Countries cannot fully transition to renewables across economic sectors. Some industries, such as long-haul trucking, shipping, and air transportation, will still need oil. Why not buy from an oil-producing country that is also carbon-negative and can offset fossil fuel emissions with carbon sinks like forests?

Ideally, we will shed our oil dependence. Until then, we must offset related emissions and give carbon-neutral countries the latitude to survive.