The old mind set was visibly at work. Branding the OPEC as the black sheep — the villain of the world — painting the producers in black — has been a favorite pastime. Indeed gone may be the era of the 70s, when OPEC was the whipping boy all around, yet indeed old habits rarely die fast.

Some of the recent headlines in the mainstream media were disturbing — OPEC in the bad boy role. One said: UN climate talks threaten our survival, another said: Action on climate to harm Gulf economies: Saudi official, another emphasized: OPEC members split with developing nations on UN carbon cuts.

Reports from the recently held climate conference said the members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries split (with the rest) over stringent cuts in the burning of fossil fuels, fearing their economies will suffer from shrinking demand for oil.

Negotiations are on for UN sponsored climate-change treaty, cutting fossil-fuel emissions and slowing global warming by improving the energy efficiency of vehicles and buildings, installing solar panels and adding wind farms. United Nations scientists say the developed countries need emissions cuts of 25 percent to 40 percent by 2020 to avert the worst effects of climate change. Now developing countries want more. Indeed the objectives seem very prudent and worthy enough to carry the day. Yet there was another side of the story too.

Under the hammer was the statement of Mohammad Al-Sabban, the adviser at the Saudi Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral. “Whatever policies will be adopted will add to the uncertainties for the demand for oil,” he is reported to have underlined. “We share the concern for climate change but at the same time we don’t want to be a victim.”

And the debate continued. “The OPEC members are yet to agree with numbers because they want to know the potential economic consequences on their economies and how it would affect oil exports,” Pa Ousman Jarju, a Gambian delegate said. “For us it’s a survival issue, it’s not an economic issue. We see a definite bias against the oil-producers,” he said.

Saudi Arabia, however, wanted access to the existing adaptation fund. “Adaptation is not only to the impact of climate change but also the impact of climate policies,” said Al-Sabban.

Other Saudi demands included re-vamping of fossil fuel taxes in industrialized countries — to focus on carbon rather than energy — which may benefit oil because it emits less of the greenhouse gas compared to coal. It also wants an elimination of subsidies for rival biofuels which it says harm the environment and hike food availability.

However, rather than looking at the Saudi view point objectively, many jumped on the bandwagon, criticizing the producers, as irresponsible and the ones always looking after their own interests. Indeed there is nothing to be apologetic, if one is endeavoring to safeguard genuine national interests. “We are used to these allegations,” Al-Sabban said. “We are faithfully engaging in these negotiations. Everybody here is coming to protect their interests, we are doing the same, and the EU is doing the same, so is the United States.”

Given the demands for energy over the next few decades, oil remains a key part of the energy mix. Eminent columnist, Fareed Zakaria says, “the math is pretty simple. Today there are about 6.7 billion people on earth. By 2050 there will be more than 9 billion. To sustain these extra 2.3 billion people while still raising standards of living everywhere, we will need to consume about twice as much energy as we do today. So the debate about oil vs. natural gas vs. biofuels vs. alternative energy is wholly unrealistic. If we are going to sustain and support this kind of population and economic growth, we’ll need everything.”

Indeed if there is no crude available to meet the future needs, shouldn’t it be a point of concern for every one — and not just Saudi Arabia . Before endeavoring to floor Al-Sabban, one needed to understand the philosophy behind the rhetoric.

There was pure logic behind the Saudi logic. It was not just about losing the petrodollars. That would definitely be an outcome and a disturbing one from the producers’ viewpoint — yet the prime consequence would be — the world could lose its primary source of energy. Investments in the sector would go down. And mind it investments are psyche driven. Even now we see investments in the sector dwindling. And when alternatives would be around — enjoying political backing too, people would stop investing in the sector. Would that be good for the overall benefit to the world? That’s a big question, we all and not just Al-Sabban needs to understand it.

And in his discourse all that Al-Sabban was endeavoring to do was to get home this very message. By singling out crude, one is doing no service. The world needs fossil fuel in still greater numbers in the years and decades to come. And to achieve this very objective the world needs to support the oil producers and not lynch them.

The mind set needs reversal — and an immediate one — so as sustain this crude driven civilization. And Al-Sabban had a point!