Big Oil Puts New Shade of Lipstick on Climate Denial Pig
By Andy Rowell
"You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig."
From the Global Climate Coalition, the Climate Council, the Global Climate Science Team to the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, the industry has repeatedly tried to create an illusion that it's taking climate change seriously while undermining any meaningful action.
Take the Climate Change Coalition, which was active in the nineties. It was no coalition of concerned citizens, but was made up of BP, Shell, Exxon and Texaco, and its aim was to derail climate action.
The newest manifestation is the Oil & Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI) which will announce its latest plans to solve climate change on Nov. 4, the day the Paris agreement comes into effect.
According to a press release, "The OGCI will announce details of the next phase in their collective action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."
So what is the OGCI?
Formed in 2014, the initiative says it is "a CEO-led organization designed to catalyze practical action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is currently made up of ten oil and gas companies that aim to lead the industry response to climate change."
Those companies include BP, BG Group, Saudi Aramco, Shell and Statoil, among others.
The initial discussions were held at the World Economic Forum in Davos. "It carries the vision of Oil and Gas companies working together collaboratively and sharing best practices and technical solutions to address climate change and sustainable energy."
The website for the OGCI was set up by Daniela Barat Head of Legal, at the World Economic Forum. She is an ex-tobacco lawyer.
The PR company handling the account is Edelman, one of the world's largest PR companies. Although last year Edelman publicly stated that it will no longer work with coal producers and climate change deniers. This was in response to the company being caught "flat-footed" in 2014 when other major PR firms had taken a stance against climate denial. Edelman had also been caught setting up front groups in support of the proposed Energy East tar sands pipeline.
Meanwhile in the UK, the company has been criticized for providing services to the UK Task Force on Shale Gas, which has been panned by its critics for being pro-fracking.
The only good news from a climate perspective is that the OGCI does not include the biggest climate dinosaur of the lot: Exxon. I have written twice in the last week about Exxon's climate denial campaign and its humiliating reserve write down.
Big Oil Is in Big Trouble https://t.co/fXKluJLklX @GreenpeaceUK @Green_Europe— EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)1478000718.0
But that is where the good news runs out.
It is not hard to find a fundamental flaw in the OGCI's position. Oil companies must maximize shareholder return by drilling for oil and gas, which in turn causes climate change. So their core business is fundamentally at odds with climate change action.
OGCI members produce more than one-fifth of global oil and gas production, and have a vested interest in making sure they carry on producing.
One of the companies is Saudi Aramco, the Saudi oil company, which states on its website, for example: "Our oil fields are some of the largest on the planet—and the world relies on us to manage them responsibly … Today, the production of this essential energy resource remains at the core of our business, and we supply more crude oil to the global economy than any other oil producer, producing nearly 1 in every 8 barrels of world oil production."
While oil production remains at the "core" of its business, Aramco is unlikely to lobby for any meaningful action on climate.
Take another company, Statoil. There is a global push to kick Big Oil out of the Arctic, a region where there are huge risks exploring for oil and where the effects of climate change are being very keenly felt.
Statoil talks about the need for climate change action but is heading further into the Arctic. In September this year, the Wall Street Journal reported that Statoil "was pushing deeper into the Arctic, shopping for Barents Sea drilling licenses in a bid to add resources and maintain output over the coming decades."
Moreover BP and Shell, which often try and promote their progressive climate credentials, have both been found to be lobbying against climate action too.
In April last year, the Guardian reported how Shell had "successfully lobbied to undermine European renewable energy targets." As far back as October 2011, the oil giant was lobbying the European Commission "to scrap the bloc's existing formula for linking carbon-cutting goals with binding renewable energy laws."
Nor is BP any better. In 2013, BP basically threatened the commission that if it went ahead and regulated the importation of dirty tar sands crude from Canada or clamped down on dirty power plants and accelerated the introduction of renewable energy, then "energy-intensive industries, such as refining and petrochemicals" would "relocate outside the EU with a correspondingly detrimental impact on security of supply, jobs [and] growth." The commission later abandoned or weakened the key proposals.
Last year, a survey by the UK-based non-profit, Influence Map, concluded that BP was Europe's "strongest advocate of dirty energy, opposing even mild measures to raise carbon trading prices."
Thomas O'Neill, Influence Map's research director said at the time: "BP has been consistently opposed to all the main forms of climate change regulation. There is very little positivity coming out of them and they are a board member of several obstructionist trade associations, some of which give a very dubious account of climate science."
We are witnessing a new form of climate denial. As Seth Klein & Shannon Daub from the Corporate Mapping Project noted in September 2016. "Thankfully, the climate deniers have now mostly been exposed and repudiated … That's the good news. The bad news is we face a new form of climate denialism—more nuanced and insidious, but just as dangerous."
"In the new form of denialism, the fossil fuel industry and our political leaders assure us that they understand and accept the scientific warnings about climate change—but they are in denial about what this scientific reality means for policy and/or continue to block progress in less visible ways."
And that is what the OGCI and its member companies are doing. In the run up to the Paris climate talks, the Guardian reported that "The heads of 10 major oil and gas companies have denied they are paying lip service to climate change initiatives while conducting business as usual."
The oil industry is conducting business as usual but trying to tell you it is acting on climate change. With the OGCI, they are purely painting a new shade of lipstick on the industry's climate denial efforts that have been going on for decades.
By Jessica Corbett
Water protectors were arrested Thursday after halting construction at a Minnesota worksite for Enbridge's Line 3 project by locking themselves together inside a pipe segment.
- Indigenous-Led Water Protectors Take Direct Action Against ... ›
- Indigenous and Climate Leaders Outraged Over Minnesota Permits ... ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker vetoed a sweeping climate bill on Thursday that would have put the commonwealth on a path to eliminating carbon emissions by 2050.
By Ajit Niranjan
World leaders and businesses are not putting enough money into adapting to dangerous changes in the climate and must "urgently step up action," according to a report published Thursday by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP).
Adaptation Has a Long Way to Go<p>The Adaptation Gap Report, now in its 5th year, finds "huge gaps" between what world leaders agreed to do under the 2015 <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/5-years-paris-climate-agreement/a-55901139" target="_blank">Paris Agreement</a> and what they need to do to keep their citizens safe from climate change.</p><p>A review by the Global Adaptation Mapping Initiative of almost 1,700 examples of climate adaptation found that a third were in the early stages of implementation — and only 3% had reached the point of reducing risks.</p><p>Disasters like storms and droughts have grown stronger than they should be because people have warmed the planet by burning fossil fuels and chopping down rainforests. The world has heated by more than 1.1 degrees Celsius since the Industrial Revolution and is on track to warm by about 3°C by the end of the century.</p><p>If world leaders <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/climate-change-performance-index-how-far-have-we-come/a-55846406" target="_blank">deliver on recent pledges</a> to bring emissions to <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/joe-bidens-climate-pledges-are-they-realistic/a-56173821" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">net-zero</a> by the middle of the century, they could almost limit warming to 2°C. The target of the Paris Agreement, however, is to reach a target well below that — ideally 1.5°C. </p><p>There are two ways, scientists say, to lessen the pain that warming will bring: mitigating climate change by cutting carbon pollution and adapting to the hotter, less stable world it brings.</p>
The Cost of Climate Adaptation<p>About three-quarters of the world's countries have national plans to adapt to climate change, according to the report, but most lack the regulations, incentives and funding to make them work.</p><p>More than a decade ago, rich countries most responsible for climate change pledged to mobilize $100 billion a year by 2020 in climate finance for poorer countries. UNEP says it is "impossible to answer" whether that goal has been met, while an OECD study published in November found that between 2013 and 2018, the target sum had not once been achieved. Even in 2018, which recorded the highest level of contributions, rich countries were still $20 billion short.</p><p>The yearly adaptation costs for developing countries alone are estimated at $70 billion. This figure is expected to at least double by the end of the decade as temperatures rise, and will hit $280-500 billion by 2050, according to the report.</p><p>But failing to adapt is even more expensive.</p><p>When powerful storms like cyclones Fani and Bulbul struck South Asia, early-warning systems allowed governments to move millions of people out of danger at short notice. Storms of similar strength that have hit East Africa, like <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/zimbabwe-after-cyclone-idai-building-climate-friendly-practices/a-54251885" target="_blank">cyclones Idai</a> and Kenneth, have proved more deadly because fewer people were evacuated before disaster struck.</p><p>The Global Commission on Adaptation estimated in 2019 that a $1.8 trillion investment in early warning systems, buildings, agriculture, mangroves and water resources could reap $7.1 trillion in benefits from economic activity and avoided costs when disasters strike.</p>
Exploring Nature-Based Solutions<p>The report also highlights how restoring nature can protect people from climate change while benefiting local communities and ecology.</p><p><a href="https://www.dw.com/en/climate-fires-risk-climate-change-bushfires-australia-california-extreme-weather-firefighters/a-54817927" target="_blank">Wildfires</a>, for instance, could be made less punishing by restoring grasslands and regularly burning the land in controlled settings. Indigenous communities from Australia to Canada have done this for millennia in a way that encourages plant growth while reducing the risk of uncontrolled wildfires. Reforestation, meanwhile, can stop soil erosion and flooding during heavy rainfall while trapping carbon and protecting wildlife.</p><p>In countries like Brazil and Malaysia, governments could better protect coastal homes from floods and storms by restoring <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/mudflats-mangroves-and-marshes-the-great-coastal-protectors/a-50628747" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">mangroves</a> — tangled trees that grow in tropical swamps. As well as anchoring sediments and absorbing the crash of waves, mangroves can store carbon, help fish populations grow and boost local economies through tourism. </p><p>While nature-based solutions are often cheaper than building hard infrastructure, their funding makes up a "tiny fraction" of adaptation finance, the report authors wrote. An analysis of four global climate funds that spent $94 billion on adaptation projects found that just $12 billion went to nature-based solutions and little of this was spent implementing projects on the ground.</p><p>But little is known about their long-term effectiveness. At higher temperatures, the effects of climate change may be so great that they overwhelm natural defenses like mangroves.</p><p>By 2050, <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/rising-sea-levels-should-we-let-the-ocean-in-a-50704953/a-50704953" target="_blank">coastal floods</a> that used to hit once a century will strike many cities every year, according to a 2019 report on oceans by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the gold standard on climate science. This could force dense cities on low-lying coasts to build higher sea walls, like in Indonesia and South Korea, or evacuate entire communities from sinking islands, like in Fiji.</p><p>It's not a case of replacing infrastructure, said Matthias Garschagen, a geographer at Ludwig Maximilian University in Germany and IPCC author, who was not involved in the UNEP report. "The case for nature-based solutions is often misinterpreted as a battle... but they're part of a toolkit that we've ignored for too long."</p>
- Beavers Could Help in Adapting to Climate Change - EcoWatch ›
- Anishinaabe Tribes in the Northern U.S. Are Adapting to Climate ... ›
- Climate Adaptation Is Essential, Scientists Warn - EcoWatch ›
A Yellowstone National Park trail camera received a surprising visitor last month.
- Road to Nowhere: Highways Pose Existential Threat to Wolverines ... ›
- Court Ends Attempt to Mine for Gold Near Yellowstone - EcoWatch ›
For the first time, researchers have identified 100 transnational corporations that take home the majority of profits from the ocean's economy.
- 3 Innovations Leading the Fight to Save Our Ocean - EcoWatch ›
- 5 Ways to Curb the Power of Corporations and Billionaires - EcoWatch ›