Oil wealth vs human need: Oxfam flags energy profits amid global poverty

By Vikas Meshram* 

A new report by Oxfam presents an extremely disturbing picture of the global energy system. On one hand, billions of families across the world are being crushed under the burden of rising electricity bills, while on the other, fuel companies’ profits climb to new heights every passing second. This is not merely an economic contradiction—it is the greatest moral irony of our times, where crisis and prosperity walk hand in hand, yet both experiences fall to entirely different sets of people.

The report reveals that in 2026, the world’s six largest fuel companies—Chevron, Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and TotalEnergies—are set to earn a staggering $2,967 every single second, amounting to approximately two and a half lakh rupees. This figure is not just astounding; it speaks to a deeper, pervasive inequality. Compared to 2025, these companies’ profits are growing by approximately 350 crore rupees per day, with combined annual profits projected to reach 8.9 lakh crore rupees, or $94 billion. These may seem like mere numbers on paper, but one comparison makes the true scale apparent: such profits could provide solar energy access to as many as five crore people across Africa. Countries that today live in darkness—where children cannot study at night, where hospitals lack money for generators—could be brought light. Yet they are not. Instead, this money continues to swell the wealth of a handful of individuals. Voices from every corner of the world bear witness to this truth. A survey conducted by Oxfam across seven countries found that three times as many people believe governments should invest in renewable energy rather than increase fossil fuel production. Ordinary people are clear—they know the way forward. Furthermore, more than two-thirds (68 percent) believe higher taxes should be levied on the profits of large oil and gas companies, with the resulting revenue channelled toward clean energy. Despite clear public opinion, policy appears to be moving in the opposite direction—a serious question mark for democracy itself.

In today’s global context, the energy crisis is no longer merely an economic problem. Geopolitical instability has made fuel prices unpredictable. Persistent conflicts in the Middle East, the far-reaching consequences of the Russia-Ukraine war, and power struggles in various countries have together created an environment where the burden of energy costs on ordinary families has become unbearable. In many European countries, electricity and gas bills have shaken household budgets in recent years. In Asia and Africa, the situation is even more dire, where energy poverty has become a permanent companion. Energy poverty cannot be understood without being lived. It is not simply the absence of electricity. It means going to bed hungry because one cannot afford gas for the stove; being unable to keep the house warm in winter; being unable to sit a child under a lamp for evening study. It means facing the cruel question every single day: pay the bill or buy medicine. In a world where one company earns lakhs of rupees every second, a mother in that same world endures her child’s illness by the light of a candle—both happening simultaneously, on the same earth.

Oxfam’s report firmly records that fossil fuel profits flow primarily to the world’s wealthiest one percent. These people mostly live in developed nations. They are large shareholders in companies, serve on boards of directors, and have proximity to policymakers. Their political and economic power is used to keep the world dependent on fossil fuels because as long as demand persists, the flow of their wealth will not stop. The irony is that these wealthy individuals also profit from the climate crisis itself—through the insurance industry, climate technology, and private energy projects. For them, crisis becomes opportunity, because they possess the capacity to convert crisis into commerce. On the other side, the countries and communities bearing the greatest brunt of climate change have contributed the least to creating it. Sub-Saharan Africa, parts of South Asia, the Pacific Islands—people in these regions endure droughts, floods, rising sea levels, and storms. Their governments lack adequate resources to fight this crisis, because national income is already consumed by debt repayments. Governments in these countries spend more on servicing debt than on education and health—a picture not merely heartbreaking, but a reflection of a deeply distorted global system.

Oxfam’s climate policy head, Mariana Paoli, offers critically important commentary in this context. She argues that the transition away from fossil fuels must be just, so that poorer countries receive support. These countries bear the greatest toll of climate disasters, while their governments are forced to their knees under the weight of debt. In such a situation, simply trusting the market is not enough—governments must make deliberate policy interventions. Paoli further clarifies that taxing wealthy polluters unwilling to invest in a cleaner future is the very foundation of a just transition. Against this backdrop, one development deserves special attention: some major companies are walking back their commitments to clean energy investment. This is not merely a business decision—it is an escape from global responsibility. ExxonMobil announced just last month a one-third cut in its planned investment in clean energy projects. At a time when the world needs ever more renewable energy, this company is retreating. TotalEnergies has outright refused to adopt a “net-zero” framework aligned with limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. These decisions speak more plainly than any climate agreement about where these companies’ priorities lie—in profit, not in the future.

Oxfam also emphasises that governments and companies must accept responsibility for environmental damage and the harmful impact on people’s livelihoods. Without ensuring the rights of affected communities and their participation in decision-making, no solution can truly be considered just. Moreover, a just roadmap must be developed for the phased elimination of fossil fuels—one that takes into account each country’s responsibility, economic capacity, and current dependence. Every country cannot be measured with the same stick—imposing identical obligations on the United States and Zambia is not justice, it is injustice. Placing all these questions together, one great truth emerges: we are simultaneously facing three crises. First, the energy crisis, which has punched a gaping hole in the ordinary person’s pocket. Second, the climate crisis, which manifests through rising temperatures, unpredictable rainfall, and extreme weather events. And third, the crisis of inequality, which determines who bears how much of the brunt of the other two. The root of all three lies in the same place—an economic system that places short-term profit above long-term sustainability, and corporate wealth above the public good.

Energy is not merely electricity or gas. Energy is opportunity—the opportunity for education, health, income, dignity. When energy is affordable only for the wealthy, the doors to all other opportunities close as well. For a child to read at night, for a farmer to run a water pump, for a woman to start a small enterprise—for these minimum aspirations to be fulfilled, affordable and clean energy must be accessible to all. Today, that is not the case, and that is precisely why this question is not merely environmental—it is one of fundamental human justice, and of what kind of world we are going to build. A world where the light of energy reaches every home; where poverty does not exclude countries from climate justice; where profit is measured not merely on the stock exchange but in the quality of human lives. Building such a world is within our hands. But for that, the will to make concrete, bold, and justice-rooted decisions must exist today. Companies and governments must decide which side of history they choose to stand on—on the side of a system that fills the coffers of a handful of the wealthy, or on the side of a safe and just future for all humanity and for this earth. That is the fundamental question.

---

*Independent writer