|
Governments: The Puppets Of Industry?
Some of the world's biggest and wealthiest companies attend the international climate negotiations. They are industry lobbyists with a clear agenda: to prevent governments taking swift action at the Kyoto Climate Summit in December to cut steadily rising emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) - the main greenhouse gas. We scrutinise their positions on six key issues for climate protection, and contrast them with the positions of industrialised governments and the emerging group of "solutions" industry lobby groups or organisations. The latter broadly represent companies well positioned to be our future clean energy providers. We find that most governments - either deliberately, or through indecision and failure to implement basic commonsense policies at home - are colluding with industry's aggressive, well funded agenda to continue to exploit carbon. The fact that many industrialised nations still subsidise the fossil fuel industry is a case in point. Who are these groups? Names like the Global Climate Coalition and International Petroleum Institute Environmental Conservation Association are fronts for a host of U.S. and internationally branded companies and associations - such as BP, Exxon, BHP, Chrysler, DuPont - many whose advertising campaigns rely on presenting the world with a green-tinged corporate image. The appendix to this briefing provides a who's who in the corporate anti-climate lobby. 'Big' Industry - United in Self Interest The well-established traditional industry lobby groups remain united in self interest in their efforts to protect the fossil fuel economy in the lead up to the third Ministerial level Conference of Parties in Kyoto in December.. Aggressive activities of groups like the Global Climate Coalition - a collection of 56 oil, coal, car and mining companies and associations are now notorious. As far back as 1992 the GCC was using now well-known climate sceptics like Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling and Fred Singer as "experts" at press conferences in its attempts to undermine the credibility of climate science and the outcomes of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This strategy coupled with other "fossil" industry attempts to undermine science through the IPCC process itself resulted in high level condemnation from US Under-secretary of Global Affairs, Tim Wirth last July. One Geneva newspaper carried the banner headline in French reading 'American business against the planet' . This has resulted in a more carefully crafted message by these groups, but the objective appears the same. Even the traditional industry groups perceived as "moderate" like the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and the International Climate Change Partnership (ICCP) merely dress up the same bottom line in more "credible" language. They are prepared to acknowledge the scientific imperative for action, but fail to support binding early CO2 reductions. This is despite the well documented potential for energy efficiency, windpower and other renewables, and rising concern amid their insurance company members. The effort by the traditional industry lobby now is to refocus on economics. A particular target is to publicise the alleged economic costs to developing countries of CO2 reducing policies implemented by industrialised nations. This is in an effort to counter developing countries calls for the rich to honour their commitments under the Convention and act first. Governments - Whose Agenda? Last July, at the second top level session of the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) the vast majority of Ministers signed a "Geneva Declaration" stating that the latest science conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC ) "provide a scientific basis for urgently strengthening action." To increase political momentum towards action by the December Kyoto Summit they agreed that legally binding targets leading to "significant overall reductions" of greenhouse gas emissions should be a key part of the response. Notably 14 countries - representing the oil exporting nations (OPEC) and Russia objected to the entire Geneva Declaration. Australia - with its significant coal exports - could not agree to the section referring to binding emissions agreements. These countries could not divorce their global obligations to help protect the climate from national fossil fuel industry interests. The lack of national and international action towards implementing significant CO2 emissions reductions indicates that a majority of industrialised country governments are succumbing to industry rhetoric. For example the International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA) circulated a paper at the December 1996 climate talks with a "key conclusion" on climate change that "Current proposals for near-term (10-20 years) emissions reductions in developed countries, which imply curbs on fossil fuel-based energy use, would result in substantial costs that would inhibit economic growth and negatively affect trade, investment, competitiveness, employment and lifestyles...The benefits of these proposals are highly uncertain and would not be realised for many years". In contrast a recent U.S. statement endorsed by over 2000 economists, including six Nobel Laureates, stated: "As economists, we believe that global climate change carries with it significant environmental, economic, social and geopolitical risks, and that preventive steps are justified." They further stated that: "there are many potential policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for which the total benefits outweigh the total costs." Inaction and indecision by governments, in the face of full knowledge of climate science is an implicit collusion with an industrial fossil fuel agenda. There are many examples of failure to implement basic commonsense measures, in the face of pressure not to. For example market deregulation in the electricity sector rarely includes full environmental pricing or commercial incentives to reduce electricity sales; failure to constrain the exploitation and development of significant new oil and coal reserves as well as to remove subsidies still being handed out to the fossil fuel, and nuclear, industry. It is audacious, if not surprising, that oil economies like Nigeria and Kuwait want full compensation for oil revenues lost due to new agreements under the Framework Convention on Climate Change. It mirrors exactly the intention of the oil industry lobby mentioned above. New Business Lobby - More and Early Action In contrast to the oil, coal and car interests momentum is growing amid an emerging lobby representing companies that not only welcome government action but which call for early reductions in greenhouse emissions. The majority are the companies which are either commercially active in "solutions" industries like energy efficiency, renewables technology or which perceive the costs of climate change itself - the insurance industry. The US Business Council for a Sustainable Energy Future, for example, is an organisation of business' involved in new technology including wind, photovoltaics and fuelcells. It "applauded" the Ministerial Declaration last July, which said governments would negotiate a legally binding agreement by COP3. They stated that "this agreement marks a major economic and environmental opportunity for the US and the world." The European BCSEF justifies its participation at the climate change talks "the delegates to the negotiations have yet to realise the enormous potential of energy efficiency, co-generation and renewable energy. The representatives of the oil and coal industry lobby present and active at the negotiations will not necessarily refer to these options." Under the auspices of the UNEP Insurance Industry Initiative over 60 major insurance and reinsurance companies, called for strong government action to cut greenhouse emissions. They released a position paper at the Ministerial level climate talks last July. It stated "The property insurance industry is the financial sector most likely to be directly affected by climate change, since it is vulnerable to variability in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events. ....The costs of such events could escalate dramatically as a consequence of the increased greenhouse effect due to human activities." "We insist that: 2.3.1 In accordance with the precautionary principle, the negotiations for the Framework Convention on Climate Change must achieve early, substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions." Key Issues for the Kyoto Climate Summit 1. More Action Agreed by Kyoto: governments have already agreed that commitments under the climate convention are too weak to protect the climate and that new agreements to reduce emissions would be agreed at the third Ministerial meeting, December 1997. Attempts to delay cutting CO2 emissions seriously undermine the world's ability to prevent dangerous climate change. 2. Binding Emissions Reduction Targets and Timetables: it is essential that new agreements are legally binding , reduce CO2 emissions and set a specific timetable for progressive cuts. Without this there will be no political or market incentives to act. Work by the Dutch government indicates that a 20 to 60% reduction in CO2 emissions is necessary by 2010 to stay within the world's safety limits. 3. Precautionary Approach: industry's call for 'more science' or more economic analysis before action is taken to protect the climate runs counter to the precautionary approach. 4. Same Goal for all Industrialised Countries: there is currently an attempt to have different targets for different industrial countries, often referred to as "differentiation" or "flexibility". Proposals put forward, for example by Australia, indicate that countries seek a formula where they do least. Greenpeace believes that there is significant untapped potential for energy efficiency, renewable energy and more efficient transport in all industrialised nations and therefore no justification from moving away from a common target for all. 5. "Historic Responsibility": all parties have agreed that industrialised nations must act first as they have been principally responsible for the 30% increase in CO2 levels since the 1850s. "Fossil" Industry has been aggressively pushing the line that the main increase in future emissions will come from developing countries therefore they should make commitments too at an early stage. This is an obvious attempt to deflect attention away from action to curb current fossil fuel use in the developed world. 6. Binding Policies and Measures: industry is strongly opposed to binding or mandatory policies and measures. Measures to speed up the introduction of renewable energy or energy efficiency - like carbon taxation and minimum energy efficiency standards - are opposed despite recognition of the role of energy efficiency in helping to cut CO2 emissions. Industry favours voluntary agreements and market measures, however most countries with voluntary agreements with industry are failing to meet current emissions goals. The Traditional Industry Lobby
THE NEW VOICE OF BUSINESS - STRATEGIC INTEREST IN CHANGE
The World Business Council for Sustainable Development released a position statement at the March 97 climate talks in Bonn. They approve of binding targets and timetables as long as they fulfil certain criteria. They do not identify what level of emissions reductions they support and do not explicitly support early action by 2005. Nor do they advocate the industrialised countries' responsibility to act first. However they do support market incentives for renewable energy and energy efficiency and the removal of "counterproductive" subsidies. On the negative side they also support nuclear power. Politics Ministers of all nations, with the notable exception of Australia, Russia and most OPEC countries, agreed at the second Conference of Parties last July that the latest science conclusions "provide a scientific basis for urgently strengthening action at the global, regional and national levels" However despite this important Declaration, it is evident that many industrialised countries (in Annex I to the Convention) support a position closer to the interests of the fossil fuel industry agenda than the climate agenda.
The Puppets Of Industry? The direct comparison between the major issues pushed by industry and the government position shows that in most cases governments are backing the industry agenda rather than a precautionary approach.. The longer countries remain undecided on key issues, the more support they give to the fossil industry agenda to delay action.
No binding targets and timetables for CO2 reduction:
No early action (2005):
Put "more science" or economic issues before the precautionary approach:
No uniform targets:
No responsibility to lead (developing country action now):
No binding Policies and Measures:
Note: EU, France, Iran, NZ and Switzerland all mention their support for the removal of subsidies to the fossil fuels.
March 1997
|