Climate paradox: How American oil suddenly became "green" The West’s selective standards

Recently, Azerbaijan has faced a new wave of unfounded criticism from Western media and certain non-governmental organizations. The country is being accused of ramping up natural gas production, with claims of potential environmental risks and an alleged departure from the Paris Agreement's commitments. However, it’s essential to view this in a broader context and recognize that these criticisms exemplify the West's double standards. This isn’t just rhetoric — while Azerbaijan faces scrutiny, the United States justifies its own increased oil production under the guise of supporting the... "energy transition."

In an interview with Bloomberg TV at the COP29 climate summit in Azerbaijan, Ali Zaidi, US the White House national climate adviser, stated that the increase in US oil and gas production is not a "black mark" on the country's path to decarbonization. On the contrary, he argued, it actually supports the transition. As Zaidi explained, the administration's approach to this transition was to ensure "energy availability for the demand that exists on the market today — no shocks, no upward price pressure." He added, "That is a facilitator of decarbonization, not something that slows it down."

Let’s focus on the obvious contradiction: natural gas is listed as a "transitional fuel" in the Paris Agreement, and its use is considered an integral part of the strategy to shift from carbon-intensive energy sources to cleaner alternatives. In this context, Azerbaijan, which is increasing natural gas production to ensure stability and energy security in the region, is in line with international norms and commitments. Natural gas is seen as an optimal resource for the gradual phase-out of coal and other polluting energy sources, and it plays a key role in ensuring energy stability in Europe and other countries.

According to Bloomberg TV, oil and gas production in the US has surged to record levels, surpassing Saudi Arabia and other resource-rich countries, making the US the global leader in oil production. Yet, here, the international community suddenly loses its critical tone. Explanations such as "this is necessary to support the energy transition" or "to avoid a market shock" are seen as sufficient justifications for ramping up production of one of the most environmentally harmful types of fuel. Paradoxically, when the US openly supports increasing oil production to prevent potential price spikes in energy resources, it is presented as part of the positive process of global decarbonization.

Political interests masked as ecology

This duality in approaches reflects not only economic but also political interests of Western countries. The US seeks to control the oil and gas market, which allows it to maintain influence on the global stage and ensure domestic stability amid current geopolitical challenges. The increase in oil production is justified by noble goals: decarbonization, protection from market shocks, and price stability. Yet, international organizations conveniently overlook the fact that such actions contribute to the rise in global carbon emissions, which are frequently highlighted at climate summits.

At the same time, countries like Azerbaijan, which follow the logic of sustainable and gradual growth in the gas industry, face accusations and criticism. This is nothing more than an attempt to use the environmental agenda as a political tool to pressure countries whose energy policies do not align with Western interests.

True cost of energy transition

The reality is that the energy transition cannot happen painlessly or overnight. It requires both stable energy sources and the support of national economies. In this context, natural gas serves as a cleaner alternative to coal and helps minimize emissions until renewable energy technologies are able to meet global demand. Azerbaijan is actively participating in this process, developing both gas infrastructure and renewable energy projects.

Dividing countries into "right" and "wrong" based on their energy policies does not contribute to collective progress in the fight against climate change. Instead, it only deepens divisions and distrust between nations.

Conclusion

The policy of double standards in energy and decarbonization raises doubts about the sincerity of Western countries in achieving the goals of the climate agreement. While the U.S. openly increases oil production under the guise of supporting the energy transition, the criticism directed at other countries, such as Azerbaijan, appears hypocritical.