Plans backed by the United States to dramatically expand oil production in Venezuela could consume more than 13 percent of the world’s remaining carbon budget needed to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, according to a new independent climate analysis.
The findings raise fresh alarms about the growing conflict between geopolitical energy strategies and international climate commitments, warning that renewed large scale exploitation of Venezuela’s oil reserves could push the planet closer to irreversible climate tipping points.
Vast Reserves, Global Consequences
Venezuela holds the largest proven oil reserves in the world, largely concentrated in the Orinoco Belt. Climate analysts warn that if those reserves were ever fully extracted and burned, they would single handedly exhaust the entire remaining carbon budget compatible with the 1.5 degree target set under the Paris Agreement.
While full exploitation remains unlikely due to years of underinvestment and degraded infrastructure, recent political developments have brought the scenario closer to reality. Following the forcible removal of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro by US special forces and his transfer to New York, former US president Donald Trump publicly urged oil companies to invest 100 billion dollars to revive the country’s oil sector.
“We’re going to be extracting numbers in terms of oil like few people have seen,” Trump told energy executives last week.
Carbon Cost of an Oil Revival
An analysis conducted by carbon accounting firm Climate Partner modelled a moderate expansion scenario in which Venezuelan oil production increases by 500,000 barrels per day by 2028, rising to 1.58 million barrels per day between 2035 and 2050. Even at these levels, well below the 3.5 million barrels per day produced during the 1990s oil boom, the emissions impact would be enormous.
According to the study, emissions from this expansion alone would consume 13 percent of the total remaining global carbon budget for keeping warming within 1.5 degrees.
“This is equivalent to nearly a decade of total emissions from the entire European Union,” said Hollie Parry, senior analyst at Climate Partner.
“Locking in production of one of the world’s most carbon intensive crude oils at this moment directly contradicts the science.”
The World’s Dirtiest Oil
Venezuelan crude is widely regarded as among the most carbon intensive oil in the world. Classified as heavy and sour, it has a thick, tar like consistency and high sulphur content, requiring energy intensive extraction and processing.
A study by S&P Global Platts Analytics found that oil from Venezuela’s Orinoco Belt has the highest carbon intensity of any major oil region globally. Emissions were estimated at 1,460 kilograms of CO₂ equivalent per barrel of oil, nearly 1,000 times higher than Norway’s Johan Sverdrup field, one of the cleanest oil operations worldwide.
The report concluded that Venezuelan crude would face severe challenges in a world constrained by tight carbon budgets.
Environmental and Political Backlash
Environmental groups have strongly condemned the push to seize and expand Venezuela’s oil production, describing it as reckless amid accelerating climate breakdown.
“This move is both dangerous and irresponsible,” said Mads Christensen, executive director of Greenpeace International.
“At a time of record heat, collapsing ecosystems, and worsening climate impacts, doubling down on fossil fuels, especially the dirtiest oil on Earth, is indefensible.”
Christensen added that the only viable path forward lies in a just transition away from fossil fuels, one that protects ecosystems, public health, and vulnerable communities rather than prioritising short term profits.
A Defining Climate Test
Climate experts warn that decisions made over Venezuela’s oil could shape not only the future of South America’s natural resources, but also the credibility of global climate leadership.
As the world rapidly approaches critical warming thresholds, the expansion of one of the most carbon intensive oil reserves on the planet risks undermining decades of climate diplomacy and narrowing the already shrinking window to avert the worst impacts of climate change.