Tag: BP

Categories
Australia

April 13, 2011 – GE and others say Gillard is on right track

Thirteen years ago, on this day, April 13th, 2011

On 13 April 2011 the company [GE] was joined by a number of others, including AGL, Linfox, Fujitsu, BP and IKEA, in issuing a statement backing the government.

(Chubb, 2014:173)

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 391.8ppm. As of 2024 it is 425ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was this was the middle of a ferocious battle over the Emissions Trading Scheme that the Multi Party Committee on Climate Change had developed and advocated. And the Coalition, then in opposition, was trying to say that all business was opposed because it would mean extra costs, as per their brilliant attack line “a great big tax on everything.” 

So the fact that GE and other companies said, “nah, it’ll be fine” should have been far more newsworthy. But it didn’t fit the frame. And also, the companies probably weren’t terribly keen on being dragged into a culture war. And so it never really gained a lot of traction. 

What we learn is that “business” is invoked by political parties as if it’s a monolith. And it’s always, almost always far more nuanced than that. But in the words of that sociologist “fuck nuance “.

What happened next, despite the sturm und drang, and the sound and fury emanating from Abbott and the climate denialists, and anti carbon tax people, the legislation passed, became law. And, according to its advocates, it actually started to reduce emissions. (Others say that this was an artefact of extra hydro electricity from Tasmania in the mix.)

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Also on this day: 

April 13, 1968 – the New Yorker glosses air pollution, mentions carbon dioxide

April 13, 1992 – Denialist tosh – “The origins of the alleged scientific consensus”

Categories
Europe

August 9, 2013 – BP writes the rules (de facto)

Ten years ago, on this day, August 9, 2013, BP explains to the EU Commission how it is going to be…

The EU abandoned or weakened key proposals for new environmental protections after receiving a letter from a top BP executive which warned of an exodus of the oil industry from Europe if the proposals went ahead.

“The missive to the EU’s energy commissioner, Günther Oettinger, was dated 9 August 2013, partly hand-written, and signed by a senior BP representative whose name has been redacted.” http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/20/eu-dropped-climate-policies-after-bp-threat-oil-industry-exodus

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 392ppm. As of 2023 it is 423ppm , but check here for daily measures. 

The context was

BP executives were literally writing EU energy policy. The context was that by this time the EU’s CCS ambitions were in tatters but it still needed to talk a good game. The oil companies were not interested in anything ambitious, why would they be? And so you see this kind of naked power play.

What I think we can learn from this sometimes the mask slips/is wrenched off –  it’s on occasions like this. 

What happened next

Oh, you know, the 2015 Paris COP – everyone held hands, sang Kumbaya, announced Net Zero, 1.5 degrees all the rest of it. 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong? Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Categories
Denial United Kingdom United States of America

May 19, 1997 – an oil company defects from thedenialists. Sort of.

Twenty six years ago, on this day, May 19, 1997 BP’s boss backs away from denial

“The overlapping and nesting of organizational fields implies that developments in one country or industry can disrupt the balance of forces elsewhere. For example, the landmark speech by British Petroleum’s Group Chief Executive, John Browne on 19 May 1997 represented a major fissure in the oil industry’s position, which bore implications for other industries in Europe and in the USA”

(Levy and Egan, 2003: 820) 

“There is now an effective consensus among the world’s leading scientists and serious and well informed people outside the scientific community that there is a discernible human influence on the climate and a link between the concentration of carbon dioxide and the increase in temperature … it would be unwise and potentially dangerous to ignore the mounting concern.”

He added: “If we are to take responsibility for the future of our planet, then it falls to us to begin to take precautionary action now.”

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air was roughly 366.7ppm. As of 2023 it is 420ppm, but check here for daily measures. 

The context was that the Global Climate Coalition had been getting rougher and rougher on the climate science, especially around the Second Assessment Report of the IPCC, and that had made some businesses nervous about the reputational risk. In the UK the new Blair Government probably wasn’t going to be terribly impressed by BP’s continued membership of the GC. There had already been defections. And so Browne, bless him, decided to put a very, very positive spin, in every sense, on the issue. 

What I think we can learn from this

Capitalism is not a monolith. The fossil fuel sector is not a monolith. The oil industry is not a monolith. But we also learn, surely, that just because they’re not monolithic – on politics and presentation – doesn’t mean their actual strategies diverge very much. 

What happened next

And BP is, as an article published in The Guardian on the day that I’ve narrated this, still, of course, spending much more on hydrocarbons than renewables, because they are not an energy company. They are a fossil fuel company. And if they have convinced you otherwise, best maybe to take another look. 

What do you think? Does this pass the ‘so what?’ threshold? Have I got facts wrong? Interpretation wrong?  Please do comment on this post, unless you are a denialist, obvs.

Categories
Australia Carbon Capture and Storage Coal

May 22, 2007 – “Clean coal” power station by 2014, honest…

On this day, May 22nd 2007, the Canberra Times reported on an announcement by two big coal miners that they were going to build a “carbon capture and storage” plant by 2014. Oh yes.

Dobbin, M. 2007. BP, Rio in clean coal power bid; Project based on Canberra research. Canberra Times, 22 May.

BP and Rio Tinto announced joint plans yesterday for a $2billion coal- fired power station at Kwinana in Western Australia that would be the first in Australia to capture and store its greenhouse gas emissions deep underground. The so-called clean coal station which could be completed within seven years would produce enough power to supply 500,000 houses.

Why this matters

When we hear the latest promises, we should

a) remember the old ones

b) think about hype cycles

What happened next

It. didn’t. happen. Because the taxpayer wasn’t willing to stump up….

Anon. 2007. CO2 trading no solution. Canberra Times, 27 May. L AST week’s announcement that BP and Rio Tinto have teamed up to look at building a ”clean” coal power station in Western Australia is great news. There’s only one catch. The project won’t go ahead if it depends on the key proposal to encourage clean energy contained in a report due to be handed to the Prime Minister on Thursday. This need not pose an insuperable barrier. But it suggests the Government will have to do more than simply rely on setting up a market for trading greenhouse gas emissions, which the report, from a joint business/public service task group, is expected to recommend. The idea is to issue a limited number of permits to release greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), which the Government says contributes to global warming. These permits will then be traded in a government-run market designed to create a price which is supposed to increase the cost of emitting high levels of greenhouse gases when products such as electricity are made. According to a spokesman for Rio Tinto, Ian Head, ”An emissions-trading scheme alone will not be enough to encourage the clean coal project in Western Australia to go ahead”

Categories
Uncategorized

May 19, 1997 – BP boss says “If we are to take responsibility for the future of our planet, then it falls to us to begin to take precautionary action now.”

On May 19, 1997, 25 years ago, and months before the Kyoto meeting at which the world’s richest countries are supposed to agree binding emissions cuts, the Chief Executive Office of one of the world’s biggest oil companies, John Browne of BP, makes a speech at Stanford University.

This marks the end of the united anti-climate front of the oil majors, exemplified by the “Global Climate Coalition.”

Browne said, in part

“There is now an effective consensus among the world’s leading scientists and serious and well informed people outside the scientific community that there is a discernible human influence on the climate and a link between the concentration of carbon dioxide and the increase in temperature … it would be unwise and potentially dangerous to ignore the mounting concern.” He added: “If we are to take responsibility for the future of our planet, then it falls to us to begin to take precautionary action now.”

You can read the whole thing on the Climate Files website.

And here’s the video.

What happened next

BP changed its logo.

Why this matters

Fracture points and critical junctures that turn out to… well, not matter as much as they seemed to. What can ya do?

See also

“The overlapping and nesting of organizational fields implies that developments in one country or industry can disrupt the balance of forces elsewhere. For example, the landmark speech by British Petroleum’s Group Chief Executive, John Browne on 19 May 1997 represented a major fissure in the oil industry’s position, which bore implications for other industries in Europe and in the USA”. (Levy and Egan, 2003: 820)