The environmental case for extracting 65 billion barrels of Venezuelan heavy crude
BY: @op_ed_environment3 DAYS AGO
The $100 billion U.S. investment in South American crude has drawn predictable outrage from the environmental left. But if we are going to boil the oceans, we should at least have the courage to do it with American infrastructure.
The ink is barely dry on Washington’s historic agreement to unlock 65 billion barrels of proven crude reserves in Venezuela, and already my inbox is flooded with the same tiresome petitions from the environmental left. The United States has committed up to $100 billion to blanket the country in new oil infrastructure, a move the administration rightly celebrates as a lock on absolute energy dominance. Predictably, the professional complainers are demanding we halt the project over minor details like biodiversity collapse and widespread human rights violations. I have spent three decades fighting for this planet, and I am here to tell you: it is time to grow up.
Last month, over an off-the-record branzino at a private COP summit side-event in Geneva, a senior energy executive looked me in the eye and said something that changed my entire framework. He explained that if Washington does not pump those 65 billion barrels, someone else will, and they will not even have the decency to feel bad about it while doing so. He is absolutely right. We are living in a complex geopolitical reality. The purity tests demanded by frontline communities living in the Orinoco Belt are not just naive; they are actively hindering our ability to maintain the global economic hegemony required to eventually fund a theoretical green transition in the mid-22nd century.
Consider the sheer scale of 65 billion barrels. Do you have any idea how much administrative overhead it takes to manage a reserve that size? The endless zoning meetings, the stakeholder alignment sessions, the catering for the stakeholder alignment sessions. The activists marching outside the Capitol have never had to manage a Zoom call with twelve different interagency deputies across three time zones just to secure a dredging permit for a deepwater port. They get to simply hold a cardboard sign and feel morally superior. I, on the other hand, have to live in the real world, where securing American energy dominance requires adults in the room willing to sign off on a manageable amount of localized extinction.
Let us examine the $100 billion in infrastructure. The critics see pipelines tearing through pristine ecosystems and displacing vulnerable populations. I see a massive injection of foreign capital that will finally standardize the region's extraction metrics. For decades, the Venezuelan oil sector has operated in a state of chaotic inefficiency. By allowing American conglomerates to move in and systematically drain the reserves using state-of-the-art, high-yield drilling technology, we are bringing order to the wilderness. There is a profound sustainability in doing the wrong thing highly efficiently.
The environmental lobby fails to grasp the subtle elegance of the deal’s structure. We cannot reach our climate targets without corporate cooperation, and we cannot get corporate cooperation if we insist on leaving their core products in the ground.
Our commitment to a net-zero future remains absolute, which is precisely why we must aggressively expand fossil fuel extraction in South America to stabilize the balance sheets that will one day pay for the solar panels.
We also need to talk about the sheer arrogance of the global south demanding a say in how the global north secures its energy independence. During a panel I moderated last spring in Davos—which, I might add, served exclusively plant-based appetizers—the consensus was clear: the transition to a sustainable future requires sacrifice. It just so happens that the sacrifice must be made by the people currently sitting on top of the Orinoco heavy crude belt. It is incredibly selfish of these communities to cling to their clean water and breathable air when the American middle class is facing a potential twelve-cent increase in summer gas prices.
Furthermore, from a purely administrative perspective, this deal is a triumph of modern accounting. I recently reviewed a draft ESG report from one of the primary contractors involved in the Orinoco expansion. Because the extraction is happening outside the United States, the localized ecological devastation simply does not register on our domestic carbon ledger. By offshoring the absolute worst of our environmental degradation to Venezuela, we are keeping the American carbon footprint mathematically pristine. Let that sink in.
The reality is that the era of idealistic, feel-good environmentalism is over. We do not have the luxury of standing on principle when there is $100 billion on the table. Achieving true energy dominance means accepting that the path to a livable future is paved with 65 billion barrels of heavily subsidized, ecosystem-destroying heavy crude. If you cannot see the profound, necessary wisdom in letting the fossil fuel industry do exactly what it wants, whenever it wants, to whoever happens to be standing in the way, then you are not serious about saving this planet.