Crooked Bough News Round-up

— Q&A: Cold War Foes Made Treaties to Limit the Spread of Nukes. Could a Similar Approach Wind Down Fossil Fuels?

 

at 11/22/24 5:52am

To watch a video version of this interview, please register for the Climate Consciousness Summit 2024, staged by the Pocket Project in partnership with DeSmog.  Could the world negotiate a wind-down of the fossil fuel industry — just as Cold War adversaries once agreed to limit their stockpiles of nuclear weapons?  In an interview for the Climate Consciousness Summit 2024, Tzeporah Berman, founder and chair of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative said a growing wave of support for the proposal — which has been endorsed by more than 3,000 scientists, 121 cities and sub-national governments, and 14 nations — could ultimately make new fossil fuel projects unacceptable, even in the United States, the world’s biggest producer of oil and gas.   “I would say this is a moment in history where we need bold new ideas,” said Berman, who is also International Program Director at Stand.Earth. “This is a bold new idea, and we cant afford to not try it.” Berman, who was named last week as one of TIME’s hundred most influential climate leaders in business in 2024, also spoke about the need to combat the pervasive influence of fossil fuel advertising — which had “stolen our imagination” to envisage a world run on clean energy; the new perspectives she has gained from working with Indigenous elders in the Amazon; the importance of arts and culture for the climate movement; and how connecting with nature has helped sustain her 30 years of environmental activism in her native Canada and around the world.   To watch the video, please register for the Climate Consciousness Summit 2024, staged by the Pocket Project in partnership with DeSmog, here. The following is an abridged transcript, lightly edited for clarity. Matthew Green: Why did you decide to take the route of advocating for a Fossil Fuel Treaty? Tzeporah Berman: It grew for me out of my work in the oil sands, also known as tar sands, in Alberta. I worked for several years both in advocacy and with Indigenous peoples trying to stop the expansion of the tar sands and the trillion litres of toxic tailing ponds in the centre of Canada. Its the single largest industrial project on Earth. The devastation is hard to imagine if youve never been there, and its poisoning people and land. And its also the primary reason that Canada has been missing our climate targets year after year, performing worst in the G20. Because even though Canada has done a lot of really progressive things on zero emission vehicles, or a national carbon tax, we keep growing the oil and gas sector, and the emissions domestically just from that production are now 31 percent of Canadas emissions.  And it took me a while to realize that no-one considered constraining production of the products that are causing the problem as climate policy. And even when we had progressive governments come into place like [Prime Minister Justin] Trudeau, the idea was that we do emissions targets, we do demand-side measures, but we dont constrain production. The markets will do that, thats not our problem. But of course, the markets arent constraining production, because the markets are distorted by the $7-8 trillion the IMF says were given in fossil fuel subsidies last year; thats $13 million a minute. These are the most powerful companies on Earth, and most profitable companies on Earth, and they continue to hold influence so that they can grow and expand their products. And so I started looking around the world and saying, “Okay, where are there good examples of people actually addressing this issue?” And I found in Norway, Argentina, the UK, everywhere I went, everyone I met with was dealing with the exact same issues. And Ill never forget the day that I searched the Paris Agreement, trying to understand how does the Paris Agreement constrain production? And I found out that the Paris Agreement doesnt even include the words “oil, gas or coal.” Before the interim text last year talking about a fossil fuel phase-out, which we finally won in Dubai, it didnt even include the words “fossil fuels.” And thats not by mistake. The fossil fuel industry has tried to make this our problem, “You use it, we just produce it. We should keep getting to produce it.” And they’ve influenced climate negotiations and climate policy for 30 years to such an extent that even climate leaders believed that constraining production, stopping infrastructure, pipelines, new [Liquefied Natural Gas] terminals, was not a climate issue. Even President Biden, with the IRA [Inflation Reduction Act], an incredible piece of legislation on a lot of fronts on climate, encouraged increased production. And now, of course, the U.S. has become the largest producer of oil and gas.  And so I set about to try and learn how society has addressed issues like this before, with intransigent products. And when you look at the Montreal Protocol that bans CFCs, or the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, land mines, chemical weapons bans, you find that it always took international cooperation. It always took first-mover countries acknowledging the science and acknowledging that we need to stop the expansion of the bad stuff in order to build the world that we want. And it was on that very simple principle, inspired by a declaration that came out of the South Pacific, called the Suva Declaration [on climate change], that island nations came together and said, “No, we need a moratorium on fossil fuels.” So we developed the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, the three pillars roughly modelled after the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Firstly, countries need to cooperate to stop expansion of production. And thats in line with what the International Energy Agency and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have all said: no new projects fit if were going to meet Paris goals.  Secondly, manage a wind-down — who gets to produce, and how much. We have enough oil, gas and coal in existing fields that are already producing, or product thats on the surface of the planet, that if we burned it today, it would take us past two degrees. And in fact, the UN Production Gap Report shows that we are on track, right now, to produce 110 percent more oil, gas and coal by 2030 than we can ever burn if we want to stay below 1.5. So we have to manage who gets to produce and how much, and there has to be equity and fairness in that.  There are some countries that are digging for more coal, or drilling for more oil, just to feed their debt, like Ecuador, in the heart of the Amazon. So we need debt relief. We need to do trade agreements. We need to do tax agreements.  And then the third pillar is to fast track the Just Transition. How do we support that in those countries? What kind of finance agreements are going to be made?  Five years ago, we started working on it in earnest. That year we brought together diplomats and lawyers from around the world now and its a global movement. We have 3,600 organizations that have endorsed [the treaty] in 117 countries, and the campaign is active in about 50 countries now. And now 14 nation states have endorsed and started to form a bloc of countries that will in the next year, we believe, begin negotiations on a Fossil Fuel Treaty that would be a companion to the Paris Agreement. Green: What do you say to people who think, ”That sounds like a great idea in theory, but with the way the geopolitics are, its just out of reach.” Berman: I would say three things. First of all, I think the fossil fuel industry has stolen our imagination to imagine a world that is not dependent on their products, and theyve done that through billions of dollars of relentless advertising throughout our whole lives.  Yesterday, I was walking down the street, there was a huge billboard that had a picture of a woman carrying groceries, saying they will be more expensive if you dont support the oil and gas industry. They have been fear-mongering on price and scarcity for so long that its embedded in us that expansion of this product is what is essential for prosperity. Its not true. The IEA says we have the technology today to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels by 50 percent by 2030. The other piece thats really important is that sure, the US may never sign, Russia may never sign, Saudi Arabia may never sign, but we studied six other treaties, and the actual binding agreements that are made, as a group of countries form, and more countries join, starts to create advantages — trade agreements and tax agreements — that other people want to become a part of. That creates a wave. But most importantly, it creates a social norm where it becomes unacceptable to be stockpiling nuclear weapons.  We’ve had over 3,000 scientists; 101 Nobel laureates [support the treaty] — and over 114 cities from all around the world, in every continent. Building that wave of people saying, “No, we dont want this. We dont need this, and its hurting us to expand it” is part of shifting that social norm thats going to make it unacceptable in foreign policy for any government, even President Trump, to be announcing new projects If enough countries are saying, “We know were going to buy some [coal, oil and gas] between now and 2050, but we’re only going to buy from countries that have endorsed the Fossil Fuel Treaty because we know that their production is on a wind down, in line with a safe planet,” well, that creates market access issues. And then finally, I would say this is a moment in history where we need bold new ideas. This is a bold new idea, and we cant afford to not try it. Green: Its easy to get locked into this culturally induced trance, where it seems impossible to imagine a world that operated in a radically different way from the one we have now. And yet that is obviously what we need if were going to preserve a habitable planet.  Berman: I remember debating the premier of Alberta at one point when I was working in the tar sands and she said, “Tzeporah is talking about a world that is unrealistic, but here in Alberta, we dont ride unicorns, we ride horses.” It was the headline in the news the next day. She totally dusted me. But what I found fascinating about that is that she could just cast doubt on technologies that are a reality today and functioning well in several countries.  Electric vehicles are growing quickly. They are faster, they are cleaner, they are better, but still there are the myths in our society, the fear – the influence on our psyches has been significant.  And if you dig into some of the work of someone like InfluenceMap, you start to see why. Because these companies have spent decades infiltrating our consciousness, from sponsoring our Rides for Cancer and our museums, to funnelling money into universities, to being one of the largest blocs of people at the climate negotiations; let alone the relentless advertising. They have taken away our ability to think past our dependence on them, and thats exactly what they want. Lets not forget these are companies that have made $2.8 billion a day, every day, for the last 50 years – the most profitable companies in the history of the world. They have a lot of money to push this propaganda down our throats. But Ive been at this a long time, and the interesting thing for me is that the evidence — despite the fact that theyre paying for the science and infiltrating the universities – just no longer supports them, because the solutions are working, and the solution that they have proposed, which would allow them to continue production — carbon capture and storage — is failing dramatically and historically all over the world. And 80 percent of the [carbon] offsets that have been studied have been shown now to be bogus. And the idea that we can just protect forests while continuing to expand fossil fuels in a world where our forests are literally on fire is absurd.  I think — as author John Valiant said in an interview when he released his incredible book on the wildfires in Alberta — “Were falling out of thrall with Big Oil.” And I think were seeing that happen from the lawsuits against the oil industry by states and cities now; from the number of cultural institutions saying theyll no longer take their money; to divestment; to the research that were now seeing. I think we are building up our evidence, but what clearly remains to be seen, especially after [US presidential elections] last night, is how to shift the popular conversation so people feel safe, people have confidence in alternatives, especially in a world with increasing economic inequality. Green: You spoke about the evidence and persuading people rationally. But how do we open peoples hearts? Berman: Ive thought a lot about this in the last year. I started working again with one of my great mentors and heroes, Kumi Naidoo, who, many will know, was the secretary-general of Amnesty International, secretary-general of Civicus, executive director of Greenpeace International, a social justice activist in South Africa against apartheid since he was 15 years old. An incredible, incredible man, and he just announced that he has now become global, president of the fossil fuel treaty, and Im just thrilled. He took a couple of years sabbatical after the death of his son, and started doing some soul searching about why were failing in the climate movement. And he called me last summer and said, “I think we forgot that other social movements — when I think back to my days in the apartheid movement — other social movements spent just as much time, if not more, opening people’s hearts.” Arts and culture and music as messengers were supported as part of the movement. They were critical. And the climate movement grew out of policy wonks, more than many other movements. If you look at the conservation movement, it grew out of philosophers and poets, and Indigenous leaders. The climate movement grew out of number crunchers who realized early on that we were in big trouble, and started developing policy emissions targets.  All of these concepts and numbers — weve made it so difficult for people to engage. Our job is to build power, to build movements, to make the tent bigger, and to do that, we need to open peoples hearts. So simultaneously to starting to talk with Kumi, I had started talking with allies in the South Pacific, from Samoa, Vanuatu, Tuvalu, Fiji and New Zealand — artists who had come together to support the Fossil Fuel Treaty. Because their stories are not just about their islands literally sinking underwater and being battered by cyclones. Their stories are about their ancestry and their history and how the project of colonization is intimately connected to what were seeing now in climate change. And they formed a group called This Is Our Home, and for the past couple of months, Ive been touring with them. I just got back from Samoa, from the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, and they were also in New York. And when those people sing about their home and about climate change, theres not a dry eye in the room. And when they sing one of their upbeat songs, everyones up, and you can feel in a room this sense of joy and common purpose.  And I watched it happen at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, where there had been all these rancorous debates and then This Is Our Home played, and it was this ball of love. And the conversations afterwards were different: People were listening to each other. And so Im newly inspired by the work of trying to bring arts and culture into the climate movement to support these artists who say it a different way. One of them, his names Junior — hes a very well known artist in the South Pacific, said to me, “Your job is to change peoples minds. Your job is to speak to their head, but our job is to speak to their heart and open them so that they can hear you,” and I think thats very powerful. Green: Theres something about creating these kind of coherent group fields that allow us to download a new future. Berman: There are two other things that Im drawing strength from, to get up every morning and do this work. One is — and it sounds romanticized, but its not — is the wisdom of Indigenous peoples around the world. I have had the tremendous opportunity over the last couple of years to spend quite a bit of time with Indigenous nations from northern Canada, from the tar sands, to the Kichwa and the Achuar and Waorani in the Amazon, and it has it has struck me just how the project of colonization has taken this knowledge, these voices, and either romanticized it so its some kind of caricature, or completely ignored it.  And that’s at the core of what all of the Indigenous nations that Ive been working with have been saying: their policies, their laws, their way of life, all stem from valuing life, from recognizing our dependency on living systems. When you look at our economic system, clean air, clean water doesnt factor — we have disassociated ourselves so far from basic human needs, and our tremendous fragility as one species on this planet.  I was in the heart of the Amazon in a very small village, and I was strategizing with a number of Indigenous leaders on how to stop oil development in the Amazon in Ecuador. And late in the night, were having tea, and I was sitting with one of the elders, a shaman, And he had recently gotten a computer and Wi-Fi and a solar panel, and he turned to me, and he said, through two interpreters, “Ive been studying your people, and Id like to ask you a question. Is it true that your whole society defines wealth based on this paper money that youve created?” And it was just one of those moments in my life that I will never forget, because the question was so simple, and it also rocked so many of my ideas of who I was and what I was doing there, and who they were. And I said, “Yes, thats true. Tell me how you define wealth.” And he said, “Well, its very simple. We define wealth as love, a strong community, and a healthy forest that brings us our air and water and food and medicine.” And their life philosophies, their plans, their everything, all stem from those three things. And in a lot of ways, for someone whos very heady, who spent a lot of time in university studying economic theory and political theory, it was just a moment where everything just kind of ground to a halt, and then shifted into place for me.  And thirdly, time in nature — when we have times like last night in the U.S. election, or we hear about another fossil fuel mega-project being approved; or another flood in Spain; or fire in Canada — the only way I can pick myself back up is to go to the forest or the beach and spend time in nature, to recognize the awe and beauty and majesty of nature, to feel a part of it, to feel the energy running beneath your feet and beneath your fingertips, to recognize how little we know and understand of its functioning. Somehow it takes away the ego, all the hubris. It just makes me realize that I can do my part, and I need to do it well, and that Im part of this much larger ecosystem and consciousness.  It also makes me feel this tremendous responsibility. For a while it was crushing, until I actually spent time meditating, and in nature, and I started realizing instead that it was a gift that gives me my place and my sense of purpose. And I cant hold it all. None of us hold it all. Green: Youve also been meditating with monks? Berman: I was very lucky to be invited by [former UN climate chief] Christiana Figueres and the monks of Plum Village several years ago to go to Plum Village in France, and Ive since worked with them a number of times. They have online courses now, and theyre doing retreats all over the world, Zen and the Art of Saving the Planet. It really changed me. It kind of slowed my revving down. It forced me to think deeper, and also to find space and clarity and to be grounded, not just in the time I spent every day meditating, but in moments when Im in negotiations, or Im in a hard conversation with a prime minister or president, and I can just breathe and drop down to that feeling of spaciousness and allowing myself to let whats going to come come, to listen to myself in a different way, and thats been tremendously useful for me. When Thích Nhất Hạnh Titian passed away, he asked the monks of Plum Village to continue his practice of engaged Buddhism by reaching out to climate leaders, because the world was going to need us, and we needed resiliency. And I think thats true, whether you find it in meditation or in nature, or in the incredible trauma work that youre doing with the Pocket Project, I think being able to go deep into despair and grief, to find resiliency, to find a groundedness and sense of purpose, is absolutely essential. And I think also to find joy, to allow yourself those joyful moments, whether its in nature or an amazing meal with your family, or dancing in the kitchen with your kids, joy is a strategy, as author Rebecca Solnit says, and we need that to fuel these movements.  I see it fuelling the Fossil Fuel Treaty movement around the world, with faith leaders and Indigenous leaders and artists coming together to call for the world that we want, to say no to expanding the products that are killing us, and to say yes to protecting what we love. And we need to find those places, those campaigns, where we can come together, because together, were so much more powerful than apart. To watch a video version of this interview, please register for the Climate Consciousness Summit 2024, staged by the Pocket Project in partnership with DeSmog.  The post Q&A: Cold War Foes Made Treaties to Limit the Spread of Nukes. Could a Similar Approach Wind Down Fossil Fuels? appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Fish Farming Industry is Using ‘Misleading’ Figures to Downplay its Role in Overfishing, New Research Finds

 

at 11/21/24 8:40am

Aquaculture is the world’s fastest growing food sector – one that proponents have long argued can help conserve wild fisheries. The argument goes that farming seafood instead of catching it will provide respite to over-fished species at sea.  Farmed fish themselves also need to eat, however. And some of the world’s most valuable species, like salmon and trout, are fed on fish from the ocean.  In fact, according to a new study, published in October in the peer-reviewed journal Science Advances, kilo-for-kilo, carnivorous fish such as salmon and trout eat far more seafood than they provide. These results suggest that, contrary to the aquaculture’s sustainability claims, the global fish farming industry uses as much as 307 percent more wild fish than previously reported. A separate review, published in the same journal, found that while the sector has repeatedly claimed to be reducing its hunger for wild-caught fish, it was using “misleading and often inaccurate” figures, which downplay its demand. Every year, 23.4 million tonnes of wild-caught small fish – including sardines, sandeels, and mackerel – are ground into fishmeal and fish oil, most of it destined for inclusion in feed for carnivorous farmed seafood like salmon, trout, and shrimp. The rising demand for fishmeal has been linked to overfishing in India, Vietnam, and other countries where lower fish populations means less food for humans and animals in ocean ecosystems. “What we understand about carnivorous fish farming has relied on the most optimistic data,” said Jennifer Jacquet, an environmental scientist at the University of Miami and co-author of the study. “The picture is not as rosy as previous studies led us to believe”. Read DeSmog’s new database entries on salmon feed producers Cargill Aqua Nutrition and Skretting, which, together with Mowi and Biomar, produce most of the world’s salmon feed.  Depleting Wild Fisheries To determine how much wild fish was consumed by farmed fish, a research team led by Spencer Roberts, a doctoral student at the Rosenstiel School in the Department of Environmental Science and Policy at the University of Miami, estimated the quantities of wild caught fish –and cereal crops – needed for different types of aquafeed, based on publicly available data.  Roberts and his team determined that farmed salmon consume up to six times their body weight in wild fish by the time they go to market, while shrimp eat up to one and a half times their body weight in wild fish. The figures challenge industry claims that both farmed species consume less, or equal to what they produce. Salmon and shrimp are some of the most popular farmed marine animals among consumers in the Global North. In 2022, global salmon sales were worth more than $21 billion, while the shrimp market is estimated at almost $74 billion in 2024. The impacts of these industries have been repeatedly underestimated by those in the sector, according to the second study, co-authored with researchers from environmental advocacy group Oceana.  This team, led by Patricia Majluf, an environmental scientist with the Center for Environmental Sustainability at the Cayetano Heredia University, reviewed scientific literature on the use of wild-caught fish in aquaculture. The researchers found that contrary to the industry’s claims that it is helping to “feed the world”, aquaculture is depleting wild fisheries that would otherwise be used by coastal communities. Aquaculture is “primarily being used to produce high-value, globally traded seafood that benefits only the few who can afford it,” the researchers stated. Both studies concluded that aquaculture almost never produces more calories or nutrients than it consumes, contradicting the industry’s claim that large-scale fish farming is essential to nourishing a growing human population.  When contacted by DeSmog, IFFO, a trade group that represents the interests of the marine ingredients industry, declined to comment directly on the findings of the two recent studies. “On net, it is very clear that the industry destroys food”, said Roberts. “It’s not feeding the world, but actually starving people”. Competition for Food Campaigners have long accused the aquaculture industry in West Africa of competing with human food needs, driving overfishing, and threatening fishworkers’ livelihoods.    In Mauritania, Senegal, and the Gambia, fishmeal and fish oil factories funnel nutritious small fish away from the local population. The small fish provide essential – often irreplaceable – micronutrients like zinc and iron, and provide employment to tens of thousands of women fish workers. Pressure on these already overexploited and declining stocks puts them at risk of collapse.  As fed-aquaculture production continues to grow, demand for fishmeal and fish oil increases. Between 2010 and 2020, fishmeal and fish oil factories expanded exponentially along the West African coastlines. During the same period, fish consumption per person in Senegal halved, with quantities of highly nutritious pelagic fish (the main local seafood) dropping from 16 to 7 kilos per year.   Much of aquaculture’s fish oil demand is driven by rich countries’ hunger for farmed salmon, which consumes 44 percent of the world’s fish oil.1 A portion of this is sourced from North-West Africa, where salmon giant Mowi and salmon feed producers Cargill Aqua Nutrition, Skretting, and Biomar all sourced fishmeal and fish oil in 2023, according to company reporting.  Norway, the world’s largest salmon producer, is the destination for most North-West African fish oil. Feedback, a food and farming campaign group, estimated that the volume of West African fish fed to Norwegian salmon in 2020 could have instead provided up to 4 million people with a year’s supply of fish sufficient to meet their nutritional needs.“Farming of species such as salmon and seabass is not only damaging ocean ecosystems, its also hurting communities that rely on fishing for their livelihoods, and harming food security in some of the poorest regions of the world,” according to Feedback industrial aquaculture campaigner Amelia Cookson. In response to a request for comment, Mowi told DeSmog via email that it no longer sourced from West Africa.Skretting told DeSmog that it sourced from the region, and stated that it was actively involved in multiple stakeholder initiatives with the aim “to improve the environmental and social impacts of our operations”.“Skretting is committed to continuously drive improvements across its supply chain,” it said. “For maximum impact, we need to work together and find solutions through collaboration with partners throughout our value chain”. Skewed Numbers  According to both studies, the aquaculture industry has downplayed its impacts on wild fish stocks by using estimates that rely on averages that calculate feed use by all seafood farming, rather than just carnivorous species.Since non-fed farmed species like mussels and oysters subsist on microscopic organisms naturally occurring in the water, including different farmed species in calculations makes it appear as if carnivorous farmed species are consuming less fish per kilo produced.    In addition, industry figures only account for the number of fish harvested to be turned into marine ingredients. But according to the study led by Roberts, many more fish are killed as by-catch or in a process known as “slipping”, when vessels that catch a higher number of fish than their allowed quotas allow unwanted fish escape – but up to 99 percent of escaped fish die in the process. Another issue with industry figures concerns the industry’s treatment of trimmings. These are fish parts such as heads and tails, offcuts from fish caught for human consumption that are usually characterised as waste, and therefore excluded from calculations of wild fish usage.  For example, the global fishmeal and fish oil lobby group IFFO calls trimmings an “environmentally friendly way of recycling waste products”, and says that over half of fish oil and a third of fishmeal globally are made from trimmings, rather than whole fresh fish.However, Roberts’ study found that in some regions, due to rising demand for fishmeal, the market for trimmings is so profitable that it is driving fishing, and is not a byproduct. The sector has historically defended its demand for wild-caught fish by arguing that these are not fish eaten by people anyway, but that is not always the case. In Senegal, according to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation, the industry is using fish previously consumed by local communities. Globally, up to 90 percent of fish used in fishmeal and fish oil could be directly eaten by people.  “Aquaculture producers [hide] behind crafty accounting to downplay fish farming’s impact on wild fish populations,” Cookson from Feedback said. Aquaculture’s Impacts on Land With the seafood industry growing, even efforts to reduce the amount of wild fish needed per kilo of fish farmed have come at an environmental cost.  The sector has been increasing its use of plant-based ingredients in feeds, in order to replace some of the fishmeal and fish oil used. Crops used in fish feed include rapeseed, soy, maize, and wheat farmed in countries around the world. But while this switch might help limit overexploitation at sea, it adds to demands on agricultural land and water supplies.  The volume of crops eaten per kilo of farmed salmon doubled between 1997 and 2017. And with the industry trebling production, this means that six times more crops were used in total each year by the end of the period, Roberts and his team found.2  In 2020, three of the world’s four largest salmon feed producers – Cargill, Biomar, and Skretting – sourced soybeans linked to recently deforested land in Brazil, according to data compiled by the environmental group Trase.  Advocacy organisations such as Rainforest Foundation Norway have criticised the aquaculture industry’s increasing volume of crops in fish feed and their links to deforestation and wild habitat destruction.  Skretting told DeSmog: “In 2023, 8 percent of our total soy purchases were untraceable or originated from high-risk regions without any certification, whereas 92 percent of our soy purchases in 2023 were compliant with our intermediate goals […] We are committed to sourcing 100 percent deforestation-free by the end of 2025”. Biomar, and the Federation of European Aquaculture Producers (FEAP) did not respond to a request for comment. 1    According to calculations made by DeSmog based on a 2022 report published by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization and a 2022 study.2    Calculations by DeSmog using supplementary data in Roberts et al. 2024. Salmon production in 1997 was at 1,200,000 tonnes, using 650,000 tonnes of crops (each tonne of salmon consumed about half a tonne of crops). In 2017, salmon production was at 3,500,000 tonnes using 3,700,000 tonnes of crops (each tonne of salmon consumed about one tonne of crops).The post Fish Farming Industry is Using ‘Misleading’ Figures to Downplay its Role in Overfishing, New Research Finds appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Why Alberta Shouldn’t Be Celebrating Trump’s Election Win

 

at 11/21/24 7:01am

Some on the political right in Canada have been quick to gloat over the re-election of Donald Trump as U.S. president. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith plans to attend his inauguration, publicly doubting that the government of Canada will adequately advocate for the oil patch. “For Alberta’s story to be told and Alberta’s interest to be represented, I’ve gotta do it myself.” But as they say, be careful what you wish for. While Canada has been a vital and reliable trading partner to the U.S. for decades, the protectionist policies of the incoming administration could have a devastating impact north of the border – especially for Alberta.   Subscribe to our newsletter Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts Name -- Email Address What content do you want to subscribe to? (check all that apply) All International UK Sign Up (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery); Trump has promised a 10 percent tariff on all U.S. imports, and as high as 60 percent for China. Many are hoping that Canada will get special treatment, particularly on oil. The much-hyped $34 billion Trans Mountain pipeline has done little to diversify our international markets with most TMX shipments still going to U.S. refineries on the west coast. Last year, 97 percent of Canadian crude oil exports were destined to the U.S. According to a recent report from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, 10 percent tariffs from our biggest trading partner would shave over five percent from our national GDP and cost our economy more than $45 billion. The energy and auto industries are unsurprisingly the most exposed. Alberta’s oil and gas shipments to the U.S. represent more than 80 percent of all provincial exports. Lowered Prices Even if Canadian oil is exempt from U.S. import tariffs, Trump’s campaign promise to vastly scale up American production to reduce U.S. gas prices by 50 percent would have big implications on oil sands producers and Alberta resource revenues.  Even before the U.S. election, many analysts were predicting global oil prices to tank due to diminishing demand from a slowing Chinese economy and accelerating uptake of electric vehicles. The International Energy Agency just predicted in their World Energy Outlook that global fossil fuel demand will peak in 2030.  U.S. oil production already tops any country at any time in history. Contrary to what many believe, the Biden Administration approved more drilling permits than those issued in Trump’s first term. Can American oil production go even higher? The nomination of fracking CEO Chris Wright as Energy Secretary certainly signals they are going to try.  This is terrible news for oil-dependent Alberta with Premier Danielle Smith stating last month that the province would run a deficit if the price of west Texas intermediate (WTI) crude dropped below $74 per barrel that her government projected in the last budget.  Global traders swiftly signaled where they thought prices were heading after the U.S. election with WTI dropping over seven percent in eight days. Some analysts now believe global oil prices will average $60 per barrel in 2025. Even at $69 per barrel, Alberta would be $1.9 billion in the red next year.  Gas Glut The Trump victory is also a major blow to Canada’s liquified natural gas (LNG) industry. Two approved export terminals on the west coast are scheduled to come online by 2027 and their already-questionable economics just got a lot worse. Federal and provincial governments shoveled over $6 billion of taxpayers money at these boondoggles that are projected to coincide with a global glut of LNG.  Citing climate concerns, the Biden Administration paused further approvals of additional LNG facilities on the U.S. gulf coast already projected to increase American export capacity 80 percent by 2028. With climate-skeptical Chris Wright as energy secretary, the Trump Administration is almost certain to lift those restrictions, further exacerbating oversupply.  Trump has also boasted he will end the war in Ukraine on his first day in office. Beyond what may be a swift abandonment of the Ukrainian people, this could also mean lifting of sanctions on Russian natural gas exports – further flooding the global market.  LNG cheerleaders on this side of the border have been bombarding Canadians with ad campaigns promoting an additional six proposed export terminals. Trump’s election and ensuing oversupply would likely tank the business case for these projects no matter how much taxpayer’s money is thrown at them.  Trump’s planned tariffs of up to 60 percent on China would also lead to retaliatory tariffs from the world’s number two economy. The ensuing trade war would slow growth around the world, leading not only to higher interest rates and inflation, but lower global oil prices due to decreased demand. “America first means commodities second” warned Bank of America strategist Francisco Blanch in a post-election interview with Bloomberg.  The hidebound narrative within the oil patch is that Ottawa is their enemy. It would be a mistake to assume that Trump is their friend, regardless of any assumed ideological alliance.  It has been said that if someone tells you who they are, believe them. On that front, Trump has been clear and blunt: “we are going to take other country’s jobs.” The post Why Alberta Shouldn’t Be Celebrating Trump’s Election Win appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Climate Science Deniers Use Farmers’ Protests to Attack Net Zero

 

at 11/21/24 6:17am

A network of conspiracy theorists has jumped on the inheritance tax debate to fuel an anti-green “culture war”, experts say. Thousands of farmers demonstrated in Westminster on Tuesday against the Labour government’s plans to remove an inheritance tax exemption on agricultural assets, with tractors blocking roads outside parliament.  The policy, which raises inheritance tax on farms worth more than £1 million to 20 percent from April 2026, has been criticised by the National Farmers’ Union (NFU), the Conservative Party, the Liberal Democrats, The Green Party and others, with disputes about how many farms will be affected.  But social media analysis by DeSmog shows how the protests have also been exploited by a number of high-profile individuals and groups, spreading conspiracy theories about a left-wing government plot to take away people’s freedoms under the guise of climate action.  Subscribe to our newsletter Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts Name -- Email Address What content do you want to subscribe to? (check all that apply) All International UK Sign Up (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery); These include TV presenter Jeremy Clarkson, who has repeatedly cast doubt on the role of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions on climate change. The campaign group ‘No Farmers, No Food’, which has spread false claims about governments forcing people to “eat bugs”; the Together Declaration, which has cast doubt on the safety of life-saving Covid-19 vaccines; and Reform UK, the anti-immigration party which campaigns to “scrap net zero” and open new coal mines, were all active at the protest. The protests have also attracted the attention of international commentators, among them Donald Trump ally Elon Musk, who shared a Guardian column defending the policy, adding: “Britain is going full Stalin.” Musk is increasingly commenting on UK politics, posting during the summer’s far-right riots: “Civil war is inevitable.”  DeSmog has contacted Clarkson, NFNF and Together for comment. Conspiracy Theories Jeremy Clarkson, who presents the “Clarkson’s Farm” documentary series, was a celebrity speaker at the protests, calling for Labour to “back down” on the policy and receiving widespread media attention. In a column for The Sun newspaper on 8 November, Clarkson described Labour’s centre-left chancellor Rachel Reeves as “an admirer of communists”.  He wrote: “I’m becoming more and more convinced that Starmer and Reeves have a sinister plan. They want to carpet bomb our farmland with new towns for immigrants and net zero windfarms. But before they can do that, they have to ethnically cleanse the countryside of farmers.” The comments echo alarmist claims made in the Netherlands since 2019 that the government is using green policies to take land from farmers in order to house asylum seekers. Far-right parties have won major election victories in the country in part thanks to the public anger expressed in farmers’ protests.    Clarkson has commented on farmers’ protests in the Netherlands and Germany. In January he wrote a piece for The Times titled: “Apparently it’s far-right to grow food.” Labour has reported on how farmers’ protests on a range of issues have been “hijacked” and blamed on green policies.  Clarkson’s claims also echo the “Great Reset”, a post-Covid conspiracy theory which claims that the World Economic Forum (WEF) and other international “elites” are using green policies to impose a socialist dictatorship on the world.   These claims have also been promoted by ‘No Farmers, No Food’ (NFNF), a campaign group which had a significant presence at Tuesday’s protests. As DeSmog reported in February, the group is run by PR executive and GB News pundit James Melville and backed by the Together Declaration, a climate denial and conspiracy theory group set up in 2021 to oppose Covid-19 lockdowns.  In January, NFNF shared a post on X which said: “Farmers stand between us and WEF’s desire for us to ‘EAT BUGS, own nothing and be happy’.” The same month, Melville shared a post which read: “Farmers across Europe are mass protesting the globalists trying to crush them. Between Bill Gates, the CCP [Chinese Communist Party] & the WEF, we’re going to have no private farmland left. They want you eating bugs.” Earlier this week Melville posted that “farmers are the lightning rod in so many key battles that determine our way of life”, including “the net zero debate”. He added: “It’s probably the most important fight for the very fabric of British society right now.” Clarkson has also written columns in The Sun this month attacking Labour’s energy policies and mocking prime minister Keir Starmer’s attendance at COP29, the UN climate summit taking place in Azerbaijan, as “virtue signalling” and “a complete waste of time”.   In 2021, Clarkson told the Sunday Times that he bought his £4.25 million farm, Diddly Squat, in order to avoid paying inheritance tax. When asked about this by the BBC at the protest on Tuesday, he said the question was “classic BBC”, and that the real reason was that he wanted to “shoot pheasants”.  Anti-Net Zero Agenda Attending the protests was Alan D Miller, a businessman who founded the Together Declaration in August 2021. At Tuesday’s protest he was photographed alongside Clarkson, who was holding a placard which read: “With Our Farmers #Together”.  Miller posted a video of himself on GB News on X with the caption: “the obsession with net zero has far too much virtue signalling & far too little open honest transparent debate.” As DeSmog reported in May, research by the cross-party think tank Demos found that Together was responsible for all online posts attacking low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) in 2023. In the same year, the group published an open letter which said, “We have no confidence in the process for ensuring ongoing safety of the Covid-19 vaccines”. In 2023, Together also launched its “No to Net Zero” campaign which attacked the premise and implementation of net zero, saying that the targets are based on “wildly exaggerated fears about the future” and that “modern industry and farming are not what is killing us, it is what is keeping us alive.” The farmers’ protest was supported by Ben Pile, Together’s “cabinet member for net zero”, who posted on X that farmers should “please remember that no part of the UKs green agenda is your friend. All of it is intended to deprive you of your livelihood, one way or another. That is its design.” Pile is a climate crisis denial blogger who has falsely claimed that “the evidence for anthropogenic climate change is neither as strong nor as demanding of action as is widely claimed”. This wing of the farmers’ protest was also supported by Reform UK, the right-wing populist party led by Nigel Farage MP. In a post on X, the party’s official account, used the NFNF slogan: “All the Reform MPs are at today’s farmers protest in Westminster. We are sending a message. No farmers, no food.” A YouGov poll published this week found that just one in three Reform voters believe in man-made climate change. Farage was also interviewed by Miller at the demonstration. In a video posted on X by Together, Farage called for similar farmers’ protests “in every market town in the country” and warned that these policies could cost Labour 100 seats in parliament.  Culture War Labour has staunchly defended the inheritance tax plans, which it says will affect only 500 of the UKs 209,000 farms. Environment secretary Steve Reed said it was only right to ask the wealthiest landowners and the biggest farms to pay their fair share, citing the “£22 billion fiscal hole” inherited from the Conservative government. However, Tom Lancaster, a land, food and farming analyst at the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), argues that the policy is likely to do more harm than good.  “The risk of this tax reform is that it distracts from the government’s climate and nature objectives, angering the very farmers we need to deliver these goals,” he told DeSmog.  “It’s hard to argue that the long-term costs of damaging their relationship with farmers to such an extent is worth the relatively small amount of money that it will raise, and it is also clear that in rushing the reform, they have missed an opportunity to use APR [Agricultural Property Relief] to further wider aims on the environment and tenancy reform.” He added that the policy had been helpful for political opportunists. “The way these reforms have been handled – sprung on farmers after all the signals were to leave the reliefs alone – is also a gift to those who would seek to ferment a culture war in farming,” he said. “There is nothing so appealing to a culture warrior as a betrayal narrative, and this gives them that on a plate.” The post Climate Science Deniers Use Farmers’ Protests to Attack Net Zero appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Alberta Pledges Constitutional Showdown Over Emissions Cap

 

at 11/20/24 6:31pm

Just days after Alberta’s ruling United Conservative Party voted to abandon its net zero goals and recognize carbon dioxide as an “essential nutrient” supporting life on Earth, Premier Danielle Smith threatened a legal fight or constitutional challenge to new federal emissions cap regulations. Following through on an announcement made late last year, on November 4, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government has released draft regulations aimed at capping greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector. Canadian environmental organizations welcomed the news, by and large calling it a much needed cap on pollution.  The draft regulations, which are now proceeding through their public consultation phase, aim to cap greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector at 35 percent below 2019 levels by 2030. This proposal was on the low end of emissions caps that were considered. Reuters reported that unless Canada’s oil and gas sector intensifies efforts to decarbonize, Canada will miss its target of reducing emissions to 40-45 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. Canadian environmental organizations like Environmental Defence noted that while the draft regulations are encouraging, they need to be strengthened in order to be effective. Subscribe to our newsletter Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts Name -- Email Address What content do you want to subscribe to? (check all that apply) All International UK Sign Up (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery); “The rules must take effect sooner than the proposed 2030 timeline, and align with Canada’s climate goal of a 40-45 percent emissions reduction by 2030,” said Aly Hyder Ali, Environmental Defence’s oil and gas program manager, in a statement.  “Loopholes which allow companies to avoid having to reduce their own pollution, like offsets and a decarbonization fund, must also be closed.” At a press conference held shortly after the draft regulations became public, Danielle Smith at some points indicated she felt surprised or was caught off guard by the proposal, while at other times indicated she knew it was coming and her government was preparing for it. In response to a question about her government’s negotiations with the federal government over the Pathways Alliance carbon capture project, Smith said: “How are you supposed to participate in good faith with a partner who hammers you over the head when your back is turned? Thats how we feel today. Weve been sitting with them having regular bilateral meetings throughout the course of the last year and a half as I committed to doing. And every single time (Federal Environment Minister) Steven Guilbeault, comes out, he comes up with a bludgeon. And so how are we supposed to have some meaningful conversations to work together on a shared purpose? I think he’s destroyed the trust.” Martin Z. Olszynski, chair in energy, resources and sustainability at the University of Calgary’s Faculty of Law, doesn’t buy the premier’s take. “It’s hard to square that with her public messaging for the past couple of weeks that they suspected Minister Guilbeault would announce something during COP,” said Olszynski in an interview with DeSmog. “Moreover, it’s not like the idea of an oil and gas emissions cap is new — it was part of the (federal) Liberal Party’s campaign last election (in 2021).” Emissions vs. Production The Trudeau government announced they were working on a proposed emissions cap in December 2023. As previously reported by DeSmog, that announcement was met with a flurry of condemnation by pro-oil libertarian Canadian think tanks affiliated with the Atlas Network. At the press conference, Smith characterized the federal proposal as a “production cap” that would necessitate cutting oil production by an estimated one million barrels per day. “It is not an emissions cap. It is a production cap,” said the premier, visibly angry. “This cap violates Canadas constitution. Section 92-A clearly gives provinces exclusive jurisdiction over nonrenewable natural resource development.” Despite Smith’s rhetoric, the federal emissions cap proposal does not specify cuts to production as a means of achieving the goal. Instead, the regulations propose a cap and trade system intended to recognize companies that successfully reduce emissions while incentivizing producers to clean their production methods. Minister Guilbeault has said the government wants to motivate producers to invest their considerable annual profits — estimated at $66.6 billion ($47.95 billion) in 2022 — into decarbonization. Ironically, though most Canadian environmental organizations would prefer the federal government come up with oil and gas production caps — if not a planned phase out of fossil fuels altogether — the federal government’s proposed emissions cap falls far short of what’s considered necessary to meet international obligations and blunt the effects of global warming.  Climate Action Network Canada notes that the proposed compliance period doesn’t even begin until 2030, and that there aren’t sufficient protections for oil and gas sector workers who would require retraining. There are legitimate concerns, such as those listed by the David Suzuki Foundation, that loopholes remain in place that will allow oil and gas companies a chance to buy their way out or delay action until 2030. In her attack on the proposed emissions cap, Smith argued widely, saying it would impact everything from the province’s financial wellbeing to the national economy, from the average monthly income of Canadian households, to international energy security. “We will also continue to defend the livelihoods of the estimated 150,000 workers nationwide who will lose their jobs as a result of this cap,” said Smith.  “We will continue to defend the families all across this country who will be left with $419 per month less to be able to pay for groceries and mortgage payments and utilities. We will continue to defend Albertans and Canadians who rely on revenues from oil and gas to pay for the public services that they desperately need, including health care, education law, justice services, roads and bridges.” War Room Stats Smith’s statistics appear to be pulled from the province’s Canadian Energy Centre — also called the energy war room — and ‘Scrap the Cap’ propaganda campaign. DeSmog reached out to the premier’s office but did not receive an immediate response. Some of the assertions don’t add up. For instance, Canada’s oil and gas sector is estimated to employ 150,000 people in total, so the proposed emissions cap is unlikely to result in an end to all employment in the sector, particularly given that Canadian government policy aims to keep production going despite the appeals of environmentalists. Where exactly the $419 per month in lost household income figure comes from isn’t clear, though it has featured in the province’s ‘Scrap the Cap’ propaganda campaign. On the matter of public services ostensibly dependent on oil and gas revenues, it is chiefly the government of Alberta that pays for such services with royalties from the oil and gas sector, a policy that has been duly criticized both because it has kept provincial incomes taxes untenably low, and because doing so has robbed the province of long-term wealth from its fossil fuel resources. Smith and other Alberta conservatives have long argued Alberta’s oil economy supports social spending in other provinces through equalization payments, but this is in fact false and has been debunked countless times.  Smith concluded by saying she’s prepared to make a federal case out of the issue. “Albertans and all Canadians can rely on our government to actively explore the use of every legal option, including a constitutional challenge and the use of the Alberta Sovereignty within a United Canada Act,” said Smith in closing her press conference.  “We will not stand idly by while Justin Trudeau sacrifices our prosperity, our Constitution, and our quality of life for his extreme agenda.” Writing in the Globe and Mail, West Coast Environmental Law Association lawyers Anna Johnston and Andrew Gage objected to arguments that the emissions cap was neither necessary nor constitutional. They noted that Alberta and Saskatchewan account for nearly half of Canada’s total annual GHG emissions, that the oil and gas sector represents more than 30 percent of Canada’s annual domestic emissions, and that industry commitments to voluntarily curb emissions made three decades ago amounted to less than nothing, given a 40 percent increase in emissions during that time. With this in mind, Johnson and Gage remind that Canada’s Supreme Court had already determined the federal carbon tax is constitutionally sound, given global warming is an existential threat to all humanity, irrespective of provincial or regional borders. Olszynski said Alberta may attempt to challenge the matter on constitutional grounds, but similarly doubts they’ll succeed. “In my view, the feds have a strong argument that these regulations are a valid exercise of their legislative authority to make laws in relation to the ‘criminal law’, which has long since been broadly construed as extending beyond the conventional criminal law to matters such as food and drug safety, tobacco advertising, and environmental harm.” Whether a premier who oversaw a party convention that removed carbon dioxide’s designation as a pollutant is in any position to be challenging federal emissions regulations is a critical point for Olszynski. “That the premier was not prepared to challenge this and other disinformation within her own party tells you everything you need to know about her sincerity.” Olszynski says Smith goes out of her way to avoid acknowledging the reality of climate change. “Instead, she sidesteps the question by stating that she supports the industry in its stated goals to achieve net zero. As we know, however, industry is good at talking about emissions reductions, but persistently resistant to actually achieving them.” The post Alberta Pledges Constitutional Showdown Over Emissions Cap appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

—  It’s Not Just Oil Giants Seeking to Sway the Climate Talks. Their Favourite PR Firms Are in Baku, Too.

 

at 11/20/24 11:29am

More than 1,700 oil, gas and coal lobbyists are registered attendees of this years international climate summit, currently underway in Baku, Azerbaijan, to try to persuade the world that the fossil fuel industry can be part of the climate solution.  The PR companies that help them sell that message are not far behind. Dozens of the consultants registered for the two-week conference, called COP29, come from 10 public relations agencies that work with oil giants such as Saudi Aramco, ExxonMobil, and Shell. The agencies include Edelman, Dentsu, FleishmanHillard, and Burson, according to a DeSmog review of the official delegates list, as well as reports by the PR industry trade press. Staff from seven of these agencies registered with delegations from countries taking part in the negotiations, including Japan, Brazil, Turkey, and the United Kingdom, as well as the United Arab Emirates, which hosted the last round of the annual negotiations. Governments often hire PR teams to create content, provide media training, and handle press at high level conferences. Most of the consultants were listed under each country’s “party overflow”, which gives them access to policymakers, politicians, and business leaders outside the negotiation zone. Since the start of 2023, these 10 agencies have collectively held at least 91 contracts to burnish the reputations of companies involved in the fossil fuel industry, according to research by DeSmog and Clean Creatives. Subscribe to our newsletter Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts Name -- Email Address What content do you want to subscribe to? (check all that apply) All International UK Sign Up (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery); It is unclear whether any of the agency employees registered for COP29 have also worked on fossil fuel accounts. At big communications companies, which can employ thousands of staff, only a small number of employees might be working on oil and gas contracts at any one time. Nevertheless, the proximity of employees from so many fossil-friendly PR firms to the climate negotiations underscores wider concerns about the communications industrys role in helping to defend the business models of major polluters. “Any agency with fossil fuel clients at a climate summit is a walking conflict of interest,” said Duncan Meisel, director of Clean Creatives. “Fossil fuel PR agencies show up at events like the COP in order to delay progress by claiming their clients are somehow essential and responsible companies.” Climate advocates are calling on the advertising and PR industry to stop protecting polluting companies and oil-exporting countries from pressure to decarbonise, often by pushing risky climate solutions like carbon capture, or arguing fossil fuels are necessary for energy security.  In June, United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres called for communications agencies to drop their fossil fuel clients, saying oil and gas companies had been “aided and abetted by advertising and PR companies — Mad Men fueling the madness.” Three months later, Clean Creatives published a report documenting over 1,000 fossil fuel contracts in the PR and advertising industry since the start of 2023. Oil Producers Hamper Progress At the Baku conference, Saudi Arabia and allied oil exporters are attempting to block an agreement made at COP28 in Dubai last year to “transition away” from fossil fuels from being included in this year’s final text, according to reporting by news service Earth Negotiations Bulletin. The Saudi government, which has worked to hinder U.N. climate talks for decades, owns the largest oil company in the world by revenue, Saudi Aramco. New York-headquartered Burson, one of the PR agencies attending COP29 as part of Turkey’s delegation, has worked for Saudi Aramco at least as recently as 2023, according to research by Clean Creatives. Burson also has 10 other current or recent clients in the fossil fuel sector. Burson was formed by a merger between Hill & Knowlton and BCW in July, which created the largest PR firm in the world by revenue. When Egypt, the host of 2022s climate summit, hired Hill & Knowlton to lead public communications for the conference, over 400 scientists signed an open letter calling for the agency to drop its fossil fuel clients. The letter described Hill & Knowlton’s work for oil giants such as Saudi Aramco and ExxonMobil — clients now retained by Burson — as “incompatible” with spearheading the PR for UN climate negotiations. Burson is a subsidiary of UK-based WPP, the largest global network of PR and advertising agencies in the world by revenue. WPP’s agencies have collectively held at least 79 fossil fuel contracts since the start of 2023, according to Clean Creatives. Twenty-two employees from the U.S.-based firm Teneo, which has been hired by the Azeri hosts to work on COP29, were registered as part of the Azeri delegation — the most of any agency in the analysis — along with one in the New Zealand delegation. The most senior registered member of Teneos COP29 PR team is Geoff Morrell, a former BP communications chief. In the run-up to COP29, Teneo conducted an extensive public relations campaign for the Azeri government that portrayed the country as a leader in climate action. The company is in line to earn $5 million for this work, according to documents the company filed with the U.S. Department of Justice under rules requiring American companies to report work for foreign governments. That task has been complicated by Azerbaijan’s plans to increase oil and gas production. A senior Azeri COP executive was secretly filmed as he appeared to use his role to set up meetings to explore possible fossil fuel deals. Teneo has worked with at least six oil and gas producers in the past five years, including Chevron and Shell, according to research by DeSmog. The climate plans of both companies, like those of the majority of the fossil fuel industry, are incompatible with the goals of the 2015 Paris Agreement between nations to keep global heating “well below” 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above the historic average, according to a May report by Oil Change International. Azerbaijan’s delegation also includes six consultants from BTP Advisors, a communications firm that specialises in advising governments with a history of using controversial PR tactics. In January 2023, an Australian scientist told nonprofit news outlet EUObserver that he had been tricked into promoting “Azerbaijan propaganda” by BTP as the firm sought to buff the country’s image during its conflict with neighbouring Armenia. According to reporting by The European Conservative, BTP confirmed it was working for Azerbaijan, but did not make any further comment on the allegations. In May, BTP CEO Mark Pursey told AZERTAC, the Azerbaijan state news agency, that hosting COP29 in Baku would be an opportunity for the oil and gas-reliant nation to demonstrate its clean energy capabilities — comments which were later recycled in other state news stories. Japan’s delegation to the Baku summit includes five representatives from Tokyo-based marketing and public relations conglomerate Dentsu. In the past two years, the firm has held at least 27 contracts with 25 different companies involved in the fossil fuel industry, including ExxonMobil and BP, according to DeSmog research. One staff member of FleishmanHillard — a global agency headquartered in the U.S. that is owned by holding company Omnicom — registered for the summit as part of Brazil’s national delegation, along with one employee of Brazil-based FSB Comunicação. According to Clean Creatives, since the start of 2023 FleishmanHillard has worked for oil and gas producer Repsol, oilfield services company SLB, and fossil fuel-reliant utility company Engie. FSB Comunicação works for Brazilian gas distributor Comgás. Lynn Davidson, a senior director at APCO, a global lobbying firm headquartered in Washington, is registered as a UK delegate. APCO has worked for two oil and gas producers since early 2023, including Tullow Oil, which is headquartered in London and operates in Africa, and an Australian company named Jadestone Energy. Davidson was previously an advisor to Alok Sharma, the president of the 2021 UN climate summit held in Glasgow, and prior to that worked at Teneo. Another APCO director, Thomas Billinghurst, is part of the United Arab Emirates’ delegation. Billinghurst created videos and generated news coverage for senior UAE climate envoys in the lead-up to the oil-rich nations hosting of COP28 in 2023. Several global PR firms, including Edelman, Weber Shandwick, and FTI Consulting, are also on the ground in Baku to conduct research rather than as part of country delegations, according to reporting by the trade publication PR Week. Together, these three firms have collectively held at least 33 fossil fuel contracts in the past two years, according to Clean Creatives, for clients including oil and gas producers and lobby groups such as TotalEnergies, ExxonMobil, and the Asia Natural Gas & Energy Association. Additional reporting by Kathryn Clare The post  It’s Not Just Oil Giants Seeking to Sway the Climate Talks. Their Favourite PR Firms Are in Baku, Too. appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Hungary COP29 Climate Delegates Linked to State Oil Company

 

at 11/20/24 8:30am

A Hungarian “climate institute” attending COP29 is an offshoot of an Orbán-backed think tank funded by the state oil and gas company.  Nine delegates from the Climate Policy Institute (CPI) were down to attend the United Nations climate summit, now in its second week in Baku, Azerbaijan. According to the official UN list, CPI director Mónika Besenyei, head of secretariat Csilla Gajer, three researchers and three “students” all attended as part of Hungary’s “overflow” delegation.   Subscribe to our newsletter Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts Name -- Email Address What content do you want to subscribe to? (check all that apply) All International UK Sign Up (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery); A spokesperson told DeSmog the institute was one of “many other NGOs” at the summit, and that they had “hosted events in collaboration with the UN, making us contracted partners of the global organization”. Despite this significant delegation at the summit, and its stated mission “to promote nature-loving, nature-friendly practices”, DeSmog can reveal the CPI has ties to the Hungarian fossil fuel industry, and has promoted some of the world’s best-known opponents of climate action.  Its senior representatives have also attacked climate targets as “ideological” and likened climate advocates to a religious sect.  The CPI was set up in 2020 by Mathias Corvinus Collegium (MCC), a conservative think tank which received £1.3 billion from the Hungarian state that year. MCC was also given a ten percent stake in the country’s multinational oil and gas company MOL. MCC has been criticised as a tool of Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán’s efforts to promote his government’s ideas and interests around the world. Its chair, Orbán’s political director Balázs Orbán (no relation), has said: “It is our goal for Hungary to become an intellectual powerhouse, in which MCC plays a key role.” Hungary’s list of delegates at COP29 also include Viktor Sverla, vice president of MOL, and Attila Somfai, managing director of MOL Azerbaijan. Prime minister Orbán, one of only a few European Union leaders attending the flagship climate talks, used his platform last week to argue for the continued use of oil and gas.  The world’s leading climate scientists have said that no new oil and gas projects should be approved if emissions are to be cut enough to avoid the most devastating effects of climate change. At least 1,7000 fossil fuel lobbyists were granted access to COP29 this year, more than the 10 most climate-vulnerable nations combined. Last week DeSmog revealed that oil and gas companies including Chevron, ExxonMobil, SOCAR, and TotalEnergies had spent tens of thousands of dollars to sponsor events at the summit via a business lobby group.  Climate Policy Institute The CPI describes itself as a think tank which “focus[es] on action and solutions, rather than scaremongering and climate change anxiety”.  Its website adds: “We also look at global issues through Hungarian eyes. In environmental protection, local values are as important as international climate agreements, quotas and summits.” While it claims to support tackling climate change, the CPI has boosted the work of prominent opponents of climate action.  In March 2022, the CPI held an event in Budapest with Danish writer Bjorn Lomborg, to promote his 2020 book “False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet”.  Lomborg has regularly downplayed the impact of climate change. In an article for the Wall Street Journal last year titled “Climate change hasn’t set the world on fire”, Lomborg cited a decline in the scope of wildfires worldwide since 2001 – despite rising temperatures making wildfires more likely and more destructive, according to experts.  In November 2021, the CPI held a launch event for the Hungarian edition of Michael Shellenberger’s book ‘Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All ’, which MCC helped publish.  In a 2020 cover piece for Forbes, which was later retracted by the magazine, Shellenberger apologised “on behalf of environmentalists everywhere” for what he called “the climate scare”, and claimed that “climate change is not making natural disasters worse”.  Gergely Kitta, head of institutes at MCC and head of communications at Climate Policy Institute, said: “The Climate Policy Institute firmly believes that tackling climate change is one of humanity’s most critical challenges. However, we remain critical of certain mainstream policies currently being promoted.“We found Bjorn Lomborg’s perspective thought-provoking, particularly his argument that investing in poverty alleviation is essential to fostering greater public awareness of climate change. “Similarly, Michael Shellenberger’s emphasis on the pivotal role of nuclear energy in achieving net-zero goals, as acknowledged by the IPCC [Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change], IEA [International Energy Agency], and OECD, was of significant interest to us.” Net Zero ‘Ideological Purity’ The CPI has also attacked the UK’s climate policies. The group’s director, Callum Nicholson, is also director of the Danube Institute, another Hungarian think tank which has received government funding via the non-profit Batthyány Lajos Foundation (BLA).  Danube Institute president John O’Sullivan – who was a speechwriter for Margaret Thatcher – wrote in 2021 that climate change is not happening as quickly as scientists say, citing the work of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), the UK’s main climate denial group.  In June, Nicholson argued that the UK’s target to cut emissions to net zero by 2050 was “putting an ideological agenda ahead of realities”, and that the Labour government’s ban on new North Sea oil and gas licences was part of an “aspiration to purity” in a climate movement which he likened to “millenarian” religious sects.  The UK’s legally-binding 2050 net zero target is based on climate scientists’ recommendations for limiting global temperatures to 1.5C, as set out in the Paris Agreement.  Nicholson was speaking on a podcast called Deprogrammed run by the New Culture Forum, a conservative think tank based at 55 Tufton Street, a hub of anti-regulation lobby groups including the GWPF.  The CPI promoted the episode on its website, describing it as a discussion about “the politicization of science by managerial elites at the global and national level and why Labour leader Kier [sic] Starmers World Economic Forum agenda will ruin Britain.”  The idea that the World Economic Forum, a talking shop with no power to make policy, is behind climate policies has become a common feature of conspiracy theories since the Covid-19 pandemic, according to experts at the Institute of Strategic Dialogue.  MCC and the Danube Institute are involved in National Conservatism, a right-wing initiative which has held conferences attended by lawmakers and activists.  The two groups sponsored the NatCon event held in Brussels in April, and attended by Orbán, former UK home secretary Suella Braverman and Reform UK leader Nigel Farage.  The post Hungary COP29 Climate Delegates Linked to State Oil Company appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Trump Energy Secretary Pick Chris Wright Calls Climate Crisis Denier Bjorn Lomborg a ‘Friend’

 

at 11/19/24 11:53am

The fracking executive selected by President-elect Donald Trump to run the U.S. Department of Energy, Chris Wright, has called the concept of carbon pollution “outrageous” and says that the influential climate crisis denier Bjorn Lomborg is a “friend.”  Wright is chief executive officer of Liberty Energy, a Colorado-based fracking company. He’s an outspoken advocate for fossil fuels who frequently claims that fears about global temperature rise are overblown, calling this a “false and dishonest narrative.”  Wright’s thinking about climate change appears to have been shaped in part by Lomborg, who is founder and president of a climate obstruction group called the Copenhagen Consensus Center and author of the book, False Alarm, which claims that climate change is “not the apocalyptic threat that we’ve been told it is.”  During a podcast interview from 2020, Wright referred to Lomborg’s book as “fantastic,” and earlier this year described the Danish climate solutions denier as a “friend” on LinkedIn.   Lomborg writes an internationally syndicated column about climate change that is filled with mischaracterizations of climate science, argues Bob Ward of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics. Lomborg regularly appears in mainstream media outlets like the Wall Street Journal and The New York Times and was featured in September on the HBO show Real Time with Bill Maher. “By far, Lomborg is the world’s most influential climate change denier,” Ward told DeSmog. “And Chris Wright is in denial about the fact that the product he produces [oil and gas] is causing death and destruction around the world.” Ward said it’s alarming that Wright – who has also voiced appreciation for the work of climate crisis deniers Matt Ridley and Michael Shellenberger – will hold one of the most important cabinet positions in the federal government as the deadly impacts of climate change are accelerating. “People’s lives are going to be destroyed. Americans are going to suffer as a result,” Ward claimed. DeSmog sent questions to Wright via his company Liberty Energy but didn’t receive a response. Lomborg didn’t respond to a media request either.  Wright’s Ties to Denier Networks In addition to running Liberty Energy, which describes itself as “a leading North American oilfield services firm,” Wright frequently produces online videos and other content where he shares views about fossil fuel development and climate change that are far outside the scientific and economic mainstream.  “There is no climate crisis, and we’re not in the midst of an energy transition either,” he said in a video posted on his LinkedIn page last year, seemingly ignoring that 2024 is set to be the hottest in recorded history while global investments in clean energy surpass $2 trillion. “Humans and all complex life on Earth is simply impossible without carbon dioxide. Hence, the term ‘carbon pollution’ is outrageous,” he added. Those views may have helped forge relationships between Wright and powerful conservative networks that seek to obstruct climate action in the U.S. and internationally. Wright in 2022 spoke at an event hosted by the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), a conservative think tank that has received at least $3.6 million since 1998 from foundations linked to the oil and gas billionaires Charles and David Koch.  The board of directors at TPPF includes Tim Dunn, the religious-right fracking billionaire who helps run a pro-MAGA organization called the America First Policy Institute (AFPI). Trump’s pick to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, Lee Zeldin, is a chair at AFPI.  Kevin Roberts, the former president of TPPF, is now head of the Heritage Foundation. The foundation produced the 900-page policy blueprint for the new Trump administration known as Project 2025. Roberts congratulated Wright on being selected by Trump, posting on X that he “will be an outstanding #EnergySecretary.”  Wright is also connected to global anti-climate networks. He said earlier this year that he is a “personal friend” of Magatte Wade, the director of the Center for African Prosperity, a project of Atlas Network, a worldwide coalition of free-market think tanks with a decades-long history of backing climate obstruction and denial.  The future U.S. energy secretary taped a podcast this spring with the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC), an international network of conservatives and climate crisis deniers launched by the Canadian rightwing influencer Jordan Peterson.  Lomborg’s Global Influence Lomborg is on ARC’s organizing board, and co-wrote an op-ed in 2023 with Peterson describing “a pervasive and false apocalyptic narrative” surrounding climate change. He appeared on stage with Peterson at the launch event for ARC last year in London, where he acknowledged that global temperature rise is real but downplayed its severity, saying, “We can fix this.” Lomborg, unlike more explicit deniers of climate science, is able to maintain a regular presence in mainstream media because he portrays himself as “the voice of reason” on a complex issue, Ward argued. But Ward says the end result is still the same – diminished urgency for policies and technology investments that could lessen the mounting climate crisis. “Climate change denial doesn’t just apply to people who deny the greenhouse gas effect,” he said. “It applies to people who deny the risks of climate change, and Lomborg clearly does.” Lomborg has parlayed his writing and advocacy into real-world policy influence. This spring he traveled to Zambia, a country highly vulnerable to climate impacts, including droughts and floods, where he met with the country’s Minister of Finance and provided advice about sustainable development strategies.  With Wright now tapped to serve in Trump’s cabinet, Lomborg’s influence could potentially extend into the highest levels of the U.S. government, something that Ward says all Americans should be concerned about. “Climate change denial is a real problem that leads to human suffering,” Ward said. “There is a big human cost to these guys not being able to deal with reality.” The post Trump Energy Secretary Pick Chris Wright Calls Climate Crisis Denier Bjorn Lomborg a ‘Friend’ appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Q&A: Meet the Lawyer Fighting To Pry the ‘Jewel’ From ExxonMobil’s Crown 

 

at 11/19/24 10:51am

A video of this interview can be seen by registering for the Climate Consciousness Summit 2024, staged by the Pocket Project in partnership with DeSmog.  Building cases on laws she wrote into the statute books 30 years ago, Melinda Janki is deploying every conceivable legal strategy in her bid to halt ExxonMobil’s fast-growing oil drilling operations off the coast of Guyana.  The Houston-based oil major discovered oil in ultra-deepwater fields in Janki’s home country in 2015, and has since named the project its most successful offshore venture, and a “jewel in the crown” of its global portfolio. ExxonMobil and its partners hope to ramp up output from Guyana — which borders Venezuela, Brazil, and Suriname — to more than a million barrels a day over the next few years. Burning all of Guyana’s estimated offshore reserves of at least 11 billion barrels would release about five gigatons of planet-heating carbon dioxide — the equivalent to ten times the amount of greenhouse gases the UK emitted last year. To watch the video of the interview, please register for the Climate Consciousness Summit 2024. The eight cases Janki has filed since February 2018 have already highlighted the risks to investors associated with offshore oil exploration in the Caribbean. By seeking to prove that ExxonMobil and the government are in breach of existing environmental laws, the Guyanese lawyer and her team say their “rule of law” approach could serve as a model for litigation against fossil fuel companies in other countries.    In an interview for the Climate Consciousness Summit 2024, Janki spoke about the various legal avenues she and her colleagues are pursuing; the victories they have won; and the need for the climate movement to focus on shutting down the fossil fuel industry as fast as possible. Janki, who won the Commonwealth Lawyers Association Rule of Law Award in 2023, also spoke about the risks an oil spill could pose to the Caribbean; the growing impacts of the climate crisis on Guyana’s population of 800,000 people; the imminent threat rising seas pose to the capital Georgetown; and the strength she draws from connecting with nature.  Subscribe to our newsletter Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts Name -- Email Address What content do you want to subscribe to? (check all that apply) All International UK Sign Up (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery); ExxonMobil did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The company has defended its Guyana operations, saying it has operated in compliance with the country’s laws, and that its contracts with the government — which critics say are heavily skewed in favour of the oil industry — reflect the risk assumed by the various parties. Guyana’s government has argued that any move to prevent it developing its oil would bring “unwarranted” economic and social costs. The video interview can be seen by registering for the Climate Consciousness Summit 2024, staged by the Pocket Project in partnership with DeSmog. The below is an abridged and lightly edited transcript. Matthew Green: What makes you think you can beat ExxonMobil? Melinda Janki: The short answer to the question, ‘why do I think we can beat ExxonMobil?’ is because weve already beaten them. Last year, we had a court ruling that required ExxonMobil Corporation to provide an unlimited, uncapped parent company guarantee [to pay damages in the event of an oil spill or other disaster], and The Guardian said that knocked about 12 percent off Exxons share price. The judge said that Exxon in Guyana had engaged in “disingenuous conduct”, which was designed to mislead. But weve had a string of other victories as well, including cutting their [environmental] permits down from 20 years to five years. Big Oil is vulnerable, we can beat Big Oil, and we are beating Big Oil in Guyana. Green: Youre actually relying on clauses in the Constitution and the countrys environmental laws that you wrote?  Janki: Yes. The motivation behind all of these cases is that if people come to Guyana, then they have to obey national law. Thats why in 2023 the Commonwealth Lawyers Association gave me the Rule of Law Award for this work to uphold the rule of law, particularly in the fossil fuel industry. Many of the cases are using the Environmental Protection Act, which I drafted many years ago, and which, for example, requires companies to take into account their impact on the climate, their impact on the atmosphere, their impact on the ocean. And I should say that goes back to 1996 — so long before people were really talking about climate, long before they were talking about ocean acidification. Several of our cases have been showing claims that Exxon is not complying with the conditions of its permits, or with the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act; and that the Environmental Protection Agency is not complying with its statutory obligations. In fact, last year, the judge ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency — using this wonderful phrase — was in “a state of laxity and condonation” and put Guyana at risk of a catastrophic event. So the judge has pointed out that the Environmental Protection Agency is just not doing its job. Theyre not following the Environmental Protection Act. Thats the backbone of many of our cases, “look, you have to do your job.” Green: What’s keeping you going in fighting round after round against Exxon? Janki: Well, thats very simple: Either we fight the fossil fuel industry and we survive, or the fossil fuel industry survives. Its one or the other. There is no way that this earth can continue with a fossil fuel industry. There is no way that life on earth can continue with fossil fuels. So I dont think we have a choice. We have to stop the fossil fuel industry, and we have to stop it now. Green: Why is this case being so closely watched in other parts of the world? Janki: I think the real lesson for people is, “look, the fossil fuel industry is here to make money, thats all.” They dont care about human rights, no matter what they say. They dont care about social justice, no matter what they say. They dont particularly care about their social license to operate, no matter what they say. And they dont care about energy security. What they really care about is money. ExxonMobil came to Guyana in order to make money, and thats it. They understand power. If you really want to have any impact, you have to look at what matters to the oil industry, and that is money. I dont think that its very helpful to be going to court on social justice issues, but thats just my view, and thats not what we do. What I do is I lead a team of excellent lawyers in private practice who can hold their own against the best, and thats what it takes.  Green: You mentioned this unlimited parent company guarantee. Could you unpack what that means and why thats important? Janki: The oil operations offshore Guyana are very dangerous. Theyre taking place about 120 miles out. The ocean is about a mile deep, and the oil itself is maybe two miles below the sea bed. So you can imagine the pressure that that oil is under. I understand that ExxonMobil is operating above the [safety] limits set for their floating production, storage and offloading vessels. The limits are set in the environmental impact assessment, and they have said that they are operating those above those limits, which makes it even more dangerous. Now there are oil spill maps produced by Exxon. Im only using their material, which shows that in the event of an oil spill,  oil could reach Jamaica, which is thousands of miles away. So we face potential devastation of the Caribbean islands. Whos going to pay for that if it happens? Bear in mind the courts have already said that the Environmental Protection Agency is not doing its job and not regulating ExxonMobil Guyana properly, not making them comply with their permits the way they should be. So the danger goes up all of the time.  Guyana doesnt have the money to compensate anybody. Guyana doesnt have the ability to deal with an oil spill. Nobody does. Just think back to the BP Macondo well blowout, which devastated the Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf hasnt recovered. Nothing recovers from an oil spill. People think its okay because oil basically disappears, but its there in the ocean. So Guyana has no way of coping with an oil spill, and we have to make sure of two things, one that it doesnt happen, hence these cases, and the other is that if it does happen, its ExxonMobil that pays for the damage caused by their operations, not Guyana and not the people in the Caribbean whose livelihoods will be destroyed, whose environments will be destroyed. So its basically the polluter pays. You want to do these operations, you pay for the pollution. Green: So youre saying, before you brought this case, that it was Guyana that would have been liable to pay compensation for an oil spill?  Janki: Yes. Guyana will be picking up the bill unless Exxon puts up the money. Now, the order was made for this unlimited, uncapped parent company guarantee to indemnify the Environmental Protection Agency and the government of Guyana. And also we got an order that they have to put in place insurance because they had no insurance in place, either. They had put an insurance document in court, and when we looked at it, the insurance was actually for Egypt, not for Guyana. So you can see that the regulatory agency is really not doing its job. After this, the Environmental Protection Agency appealed against the order in their favor. The government of Guyana — the attorney-general — has joined the case on the side of Exxon to argue that Exxon should not have to produce a guarantee to protect Guyana, so you can see what were up against. And of course, Exxon in Guyana has also appealed against this, and were waiting for the Court of Appeal to hear this case. Green: A lot of people are seeing this as an economic opportunity for Guyana. What kind of pressures have you been under to step back from this kind of work? Janki: There isnt huge money here. The way the deal works is Exxon — and its two partners, Hess [Corp] and CNOOC [China National Offshore Oil Corporation] — get to take 87.5 percent of Guyanas oil for free. Guyana then takes the remaining oil and has to sell it on the market. None of them pay any taxes. They recover all their costs, which is why they get so much of Guyanas oil for free. And Guyana gets a two percent royalty. So there is really very little money for Guyana in this, plus the huge risks, you still have all the damage to the ocean that is going on. The total reserves are estimated to be around 13 billion barrels. So if — and this isnt going to happen, but if, for the sake of argument — they were able to extract and burn all of that oil, we are talking about more than five gigatons of carbon dioxide going up into the atmosphere, and dissolving into the ocean. The reason I say its not going to happen is because the fossil fuel industry is not viable, so it is going to collapse. Its a question of when, not if. So, in addition to destroying Guyanas natural capital, Exxon could well leave Guyana with the costs of shutting down those oil wells and decommissioning costs running into billions. And the United States knows this very well because they have orphan wells which cost billions of dollars to shut down.  Green: Im curious to hear about the climate change impacts that are already hitting Guyana, which surely must already be very considerable? Janki: When Im on my computer, for example, I get a little message at the bottom that shows the temperature, and very often its a record, or near a record. Weve had unprecedented floods in the interior of Guyana, washing away peoples homes, killing livestock. We had a massive flood in 2006 which basically put Georgetown underwater, and people were living on the first floor of their houses because the flooding was so bad, and that basically cost almost two-thirds of Guyanas GDP. Whats really important for people to understand is that Georgetown, the capital city of Guyana, is below sea level. So my house is below sea level, and were protected by a very small sea wall thats about three or four feet high in places. Behind that, you have the mighty Atlantic. With rising sea levels, this is not a good position for Georgetown to be in. So every day that the government is allowing Exxon Mobil to extract oil is a day in which the government of Guyana is saying to people “we dont care about you, we are going to continue to pollute the atmosphere with greenhouse gasses in order to get some money,” knowing full well that Guyana is one of the most vulnerable nations on the planet to rising sea levels, to climate change, and the government has openly admitted this. So we have a situation where its estimated that Georgetown will be covered by the ocean by 2030. Green: How does the climate movement respond now?  Janki: I would say, Look around you. Is it not obvious that what we have to do right now is shut down the fossil fuel industry? How many more people have to die? How many more animals have to die? How many more forests have to burn? How many more species have to go extinct? How many? I mean, just ask those questions. How many more? And the answer ought to be none. We have to stop fossil fuels now. And you know this is not a difficult thing to do. Governments are subsidizing the fossil fuel industry to the tune of $7.1 trillion in 2022. Remove those subsidies right now, and the market will deal with the problem. The fossil fuel industry will cease to exist, and we can move immediately to renewable energy. Green: Why is it that were struggling to get a hold of this existential threat?  Janki: The answer has  got to be the fossil fuel industry and the lies that they have told. For example, were talking about climate change. Climate change is a symptom. What is the problem? The problem is greenhouse gas pollution. Its polluting the atmosphere and causing global overheating, which in turn causes rising sea levels, the breakdown of the global climate system, the melting of the polar regions, a warming ocean, which means its more inhospitable to marine life. But those are symptoms, and what the fossil fuel industry has done very cleverly, is to say to people, oh, “focus on the climate.” You cant fight the climate. You cant blame the climate. Its not a human being. But if you think about this, its pollution, greenhouse gas pollution. We know who the polluters are. Find them. Shut them down. Green: Where do you think the climate movement is going wrong?  Janki: The climate movement has some absolutely brilliant and wonderful people in it. And Im not in any way wanting to criticize people , many of whom now are feeling despair, but I do think that there is a story here of false hope. Lets take the Paris Agreement, which in 2015 was celebrated as a great breakthrough, and the climate movement lined up behind the Paris Agreement. Well, where are we today? The Paris Agreement is dead. Weve gone past 1.5 degrees centigrade. Were on track for probably three degrees centigrade now, and that was a story of false hope.  Between 1992 and 2015 greenhouse gas pollution has rocketed up to 415 parts per million, and yet those negotiators sat in that room and condemned the earth to global warming of at least 1.5 degrees, knowing that at one degree, we start to lose corals, knowing that species will go extinct long before you get to 1.5. I think that it was dangerously irresponsible for those negotiators to do that. Green: Were speaking hours after it looks very likely that Donald Trump will be the next U.S. President. How does the climate movement maintain momentum? Janki: I think we have to come to terms with reality. We have to look at the truth and embrace it, and that liberates us to act. Stop those subsidies immediately. Stop the polluters. We need to get to what people call negative emissions. So this talk about net zero by 2050, about bringing the curve down — this is also false hope right now. Everybody needs to become a carbon sink, and this is where I think Guyana is so interesting, because we are a carbon sink. Our forests take out 150 million tonnes of carbon dioxide every year. We are the climate leader on the planet, and the government is squandering that climate leadership role by running after the chicken feed that Guyana is getting from the oil deal with Exxon Mobil. So the future is now: Move to renewable energy, as people are already doing. Move to carbon sinks. Green: We see headlines about the ‘carbon bomb’ that Exxon Mobil is detonating in Guyana. Youve sometimes taken exception to that phrase. Janki: What you have here is one of the blind spots in the climate movement. People say, “Oh, but Guyanas a carbon bomb that could be let off.” Actually, were a carbon sink, so you need to take that into account right now. And the second thing is, there are ongoing carbon bombs. The United States is the biggest ongoing carbon bomb on the planet. They pollute the atmosphere with more carbon every year than will come from all of Guyanas oil resources. Dont come and tell me that my carbon sink country is a carbon bomb while youre sitting comfortably in your ongoing carbon bomb society.  Green: Ive never been to Guyana, sadly, but Id love to hear a little bit more about life in Georgetown. It sounds like you live a lot closer to nature than certainly I do living in southwest London. Janki: Bear in mind, Im living in a capital city, but even so, I have around me a mini-ecosystem, a very green space. IIn 2020 the government shut the markets unexpectedly, I didnt have time to go and buy food, and I had enough stuff growing in the garden that I could eat for the few days until they came to their senses and realized that actually people need to have vegetables and fruits to eat. I have a very small garden, but I have about 85 trees in it, This is a tropical country, so everything grows. If you were to visit me, Matthew, I would have to say to you, if you come in one evening, look, be very careful going up the steps, I cant switch the light on for you. In fact, I havent switched the light on for 20 years because there is a birds nest on it, and every year the birds are there. So youd have to be very careful. If you came into my house, I would say to you, dont use the wine glasses. I dont drink, but I do use the wine glasses to sometimes catch the little frogs that come in before the cats get to them, or sometimes the grasshoppers, or, whatever it is that happens to be visiting me at that particular time so I can get them outside to safety. In the evening, you would hear the frogs. this incredible, beautiful orchestra. I call it an orchestra because you can hear the little ones that make a tremendous noise, and the big ones that are actually a bit more muted. It really is like an orchestra. This is just life. There are bats, or birds coming into my house. Sometimes I look out the window at night and I watch the bats. There are swallows. Theres a particular season when the peregrine falcons arrive. Ive had more than 30 species of bird just in my garden, which is tiny. Sometimes we find the little snakes and we catch them and put them back into the water. There are fish right outside the gate to my home. Its full of life, absolutely full of life. And all of this is slated to be underwater by 2030 because of the fossil fuel industry, because people will not say “no” to that industry now, but imagine that we have time, and we dont have time. If we think, for example, of the movement for the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, we dont have the time for that. It takes at least 10 years to get a new treaty, and even when you have a treaty, it can be meaningless. We already have the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. We already have the Paris Agreement. We have treaties coming at us from every direction, and thats made no difference. So its futile to be asking for another treaty. Lets just shut the industry down, now, using what we have. Green: How do we tune into the role that is ours to play at this time? Janki: I think in every single person, there is one thing that only they can do. When you look deep inside of yourself and you realize who you are, and you live in harmony with that, then you will see what it is that you should do. But I dont think you can do that disconnected from nature. I really think that one of the reasons we are in the situation that we are in is that the decision-makers are disconnected from nature. They dont wake up to birdsong. They dont encounter non-human life generally. They have concrete and steel and hard pavements where you cant walk barefoot and you never feel the grass. You have to connect back, I think, with Mother Earth, with nature — whatever you want to call it, but you have to connect back. Green: What is the best way for people to join or support what youre doing? Janki: Telling the story of victory against the oil industry, because I only gave you one or two examples, but there are so many more. Earlier this year we had the Caribbean Court of Justice. We lost that case, by the way, so Im not going to pretend we won it. But the Court said that Exxons co-venturers Hess and CNOOC are not allowed to extract oil under their petroleum production license, because they did not get an environmental permit. The court also said that Hess and CNOOC  have joint and several liability with Exxon, which means that Hess and CNOOC now have uncapped, unlimited liability.   The Court said that they have to have complete transparency over their operations. And they cited the Escazú Agreement, which is a regional treaty that I had worked on at the very beginning. They said, public interest litigants who are in good faith trying to protect the environment, the courts must not award costs against them. So this is a huge step forward. Combine that with the rulings that we have on liberal standing for litigants, and were opening up space now for people to come to the courts and hold the oil industry to account. So I think one of the things people can do is stop focusing on the climate. Dont, dont despair, but lets do what we need to do to shut the industry down. Dont get distracted by the false hope of the Paris Agreement and other movements like that. Dont get distracted by the false hope of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty. The problem is fossil fuel pollution. Stop it. Lobby your governments, bring the cases, support our work if you want to, but just do it. And then theres no need for despair, because then we know were crafting a future for ourselves, for the other species we share this planet with, and for our descendants. A video of this interview can be seen by registering for the Climate Consciousness Summit 2024. The post Q&A: Meet the Lawyer Fighting To Pry the ‘Jewel’ From ExxonMobil’s Crown  appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy] [Link to media]

— UK Platforms World’s Largest Offshore Drilling Firm at COP29 Climate Summit

 

at 11/19/24 7:08am

BAKU – A carbon capture and storage (CCS) company owned by an oilfield giant was given the opportunity to address the UK’s pavilion at COP29, DeSmog can reveal.  The firm in question, SLB Capturi, is 80 percent owned by the world’s largest offshore drilling firm SLB, which operates in more than 120 countries and employs more than 100,000 people. SLB Capturi appeared on a panel at a UK pavilion event hosted and sponsored by the software company AVEVA, which has over 600 oil and gas customers, including some of the world’s biggest fossil fuel companies. The event, held on Saturday 16 November, focused on the role of technology and artificial intelligence (AI) in achieving decarbonisation. SLB, which is based in Houston, Texas, continues to operate in Russia, despite the country’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. The firm is the biggest Western oilfield services company still operating in Russia, has patented new oil drilling technology in the country, and is “aggressively recruiting young Russian engineers”, according to an August 2024 report by Global Witness. Subscribe to our newsletter Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts Name -- Email Address What content do you want to subscribe to? (check all that apply) All International UK Sign Up (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery); Over the course of the 11-day COP29 summit in Baku, Azerbaijan, negotiators and leaders across the globe will put in place commitments to address the climate crisis and assist the worst-hit countries. The UK pavilion is located in the “Blue Zone”, the formal COP29 conference and negotiation space. In March 2024, SLB bought the CCS company Aker Carbon Capture to create SLB Capturi – saying that it hoped to “shift the economics of carbon capture”. CCS in theory works by capturing carbon dioxide from industrial sites before the gas is released into the atmosphere. The new Labour government has committed the UK to investing £22 billion in CCS over the next 25 years, claiming that it will help to create a “new era” of clean energy jobs. However, as DeSmog has shown, most large-scale CCS projects underperform or fail to meet their capture targets. As the November 2023 UN-backed Production Gap Report pointed out: “the track record for CCS has been very poor to date, with around 80 percent of pilot projects over the last 30 years ending in failure”.” CCS is popular among fossil fuel firms because it offers a way for them to carry on business as usual, rather than transitioning to renewables. SLB has been working on “enhanced oil recovery” in the North Sea – using new techniques to extract hard-to-reach oil from mature basins.  As reported by DeSmog, the fossil fuel industry has for years been investigating how to harness carbon capture projects for this purpose – pumping the CO2 into oilfields to maximise their fossil fuel output. At least 480 carbon capture lobbyists have been granted access to the COP29 summit – more than were present at last year’s climate talks in Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE), despite the overall number of participants shrinking significantly. More than 1,700 fossil fuel lobbyists have also attended this year’s conference.  “Fossil fuel companies are promoting expensive and speculative CCS with the desperation of an industry that knows its days are numbered. CCS has repeatedly failed and underdelivered, and isnt fit for purpose to reduce climate wreaking emissions,” said Rachel Kennerley, International carbon capture campaigner at the Center for International Environmental Law. “Unfortunately governments seem to be misguidedly buying into the hype despite the huge costs to the public purse and the risk that it will delay real climate action.” DeSmog also revealed last week that oil and gas giants are paying thousands to sponsor events at the flagship summit.   During the event on 16 November, SLB Capturi’s head of sustainability and communication Hanne Rolén celebrated the passing of key rules on the first day of COP29 that will make it easier for companies to invest in CCS and meet their climate commitments.  A UK pavilion event at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, entitled: “How Tech and AI are driving decarbonisation”. Credit: UK COP Pavilion / YouTube These rules have been criticised by climate groups for allowing richer countries and corporations to offset their emissions through schemes such as planting trees or investing in carbon capture technologies.  Myriam Douo of the advocacy group Oil Change International said that the decision was “a gift” for big oil and gas companies. Rolén, however, said “lets not have the great be the enemy of good”. The host of COP29, Azerbaijan, is a petrostate that relies heavily on its domestic fossil fuel industry. Oil and gas accounts for 90 percent of its export revenue, while its president used a speech at the summit to call fossil fuels a “gift of God”.  SLB says on its website that the company “immediately took voluntary measures to curtail our Russian activity” following the Ukraine invasion, and that it has “consistently used the international sanctions to guide our actions”. The UK Pavilion The UK government has been praised for using the COP29 summit to announce a new ambitious emissions reduction target.  Referred to as a nationally determined contribution (NDC), the UK has pledged to cut its emissions by 81 percent from 1990 levels by 2035. However, there are questions about the corporate partners that have been allowed to sponsor the UK’s pavilion in Baku.  AVEVA claims that firms use its technology to “operate more efficiently, consume less energy, and reduce waste”. However, AVEVA has boasted on its website that its software has also been used to help fossil fuel companies to extract more oil and gas. For example, the firm claims that “by implementing AVEVA software solutions to automate its refinery processes, Kuwait Oil Company is on track to achieve its goal of producing 4 billion barrels of oil per day by 2030.” AVEVA has also worked for some of the world’s largest and highest-emitting fossil fuel companies, including: Shell, ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, and the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (Adnoc). AVEVA states that after Shell deployed its software, “the company began to gather operational data at an oil field in the Gulf of Mexico to improve performance of its wells, rigs, and drill floor equipment.” Alongside AVEVA, the pavilion is being sponsored by DP World, the multinational logistics company owned by the Dubai government in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The UAE derives roughly 40 percent of its income from oil and gas, while its overall climate action has been rated as “critically insufficient” by the Climate Action Tracker, an independent scientific project that measures government policies against the 2015 Paris Agreement. The sponsors of the UK pavilion are called its “official COP29 partners”, allowing these corporations to host events featuring their spokespeople. And, while they are not afforded access to official negotiations, sponsors are given the opportunity to shape influential decision-makers through the UK’s side events.  Recent COPs have been criticised for allowing corporations – and in particular fossil fuel giants – to greenwash their reputations even while striking new oil and gas deals. Prior to the summit, COP29 CEO Elnur Soltanov was recorded using his role to discuss “investment opportunities” in the country’s state oil company SOCAR. Last year in Dubai, the UAE used the climate conference to strike a dozen fossil fuel deals, according to Global Witness. Adnoc either negotiated or closed oil deals with 12 countries, including the UK, while its chief executive Sultan Ahmed al-Jaber was president of COP28. On 14 November, key experts including a former UN secretary general and former UN climate chief released a statement saying that the COP climate talks are “no longer fit for purpose” and need an urgent overhaul.  There is a “systemic imbalance in COP representation” the authors said, epitomised by the fact that fossil fuel lobbyists outnumber official representatives from scientific institutions, Indigenous communities and vulnerable nations. UN Secretary General António Guterres said at the G20 summit in Brazil on 17 November that “we must also fight the coordinated disinformation campaigns impeding global progress on climate change, ranging from outright denial to greenwashing to harassment of climate scientists”. A Department for Energy Security and Net Zero spokesperson said: “This was an event organised independently by a sponsor at COP29. “We continue to support carbon capture, usage and storage as it is vital in boosting our energy independence, with the Climate Change Committee describing it as a necessity, not an option, for reaching our climate goals.” AVEVA, and SLB were approached for comment. The post UK Platforms World’s Largest Offshore Drilling Firm at COP29 Climate Summit appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Meat, Dairy and Pesticide Lobbyists Return in High Numbers to Climate Summit

 

at 11/18/24 9:59pm

BAKU – Hundreds of lobbyists for industrial agriculture have shown up at the COP29 climate summit in Baku, Azerbaijan, new analysis shows.  This year representatives are back from some of the world’s largest agribusiness companies – such as Brazilian meatpacker JBS, animal pharmaceuticals company Elanco, and food giant PepsiCo – as well as powerful trade groups representing the food sector.Overall, 204 agriculture delegates have accessed the talks this year, analysis by DeSmog and The Guardian reveals. While the total number has dropped compared to the record highs at COP28, the figures show that climate COPs continue to be a top priority for businesses working in agriculture, a sector that accounts for up to one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions. Subscribe to our newsletter Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts Name -- Email Address What content do you want to subscribe to? (check all that apply) All International UK Sign Up (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery); Food sector lobbyists remain highly influential, travelling to Baku as part of country delegations from Brazil, Russia and Australia, among others. This year, nearly 40 percent of delegates travelled to the summit with country badges – which lent them privileged access to diplomatic negotiations, up from 30 percent at COP28, and just five percent at COP27.  Delegates from the meat and dairy sector sent 52 delegates to the summit this year, with 20 travelling in with Brazil’s government, the analysis found. Together they outnumbered the delegation of the Caribbean island of Barbados, which in July was devastated by Hurricane Beryl, a disaster linked to climate change. In the last three years, industrial agriculture giants have shown up in increasing numbers at COPs – and with sophisticated messaging plans to win over decision-makers. Meat and dairy producers in particular are coming under increasing scrutiny due to increasing pollution from cattle and sheep, which emit around a third of the global output of methane. Farming also drives deforestation and relies on synthetic fertilisers that are both fossil-fuel-based and emit greenhouse gases.But while multiple studies and peer-reviewed science points to the need for a drastic drop in meat and dairy herds, and a shift to healthier, sustainable food as the surefire route to cut emissions, the agribusiness industry lobbies hard against tougher environmental regulations and dietary change, in the EU, U.S. and at climate summits. An Lambrechts, a senior campaign strategist from Greenpeace International, said there was a clear “conflict of interest” between big agriculture’s presence at the UN talks, and the need for climate action.  “We see the same problem with the fossil fuel industry, and how they act to drive the world away from the scope of actions and solutions that are needed to fight climate change and address its impacts,” she argued. Wanun Permpibul, from Climate Watch Thailand, told DeSmog: “When Big Agriculture dominates the discussion, the voices of frontline communities – especially smallholder farmers, Indigenous peoples, women, and local food producers – are systematically excluded. “Yet these are the people who have been living in harmony with nature for generations, using traditional knowledge to manage ecosystems, preserve biodiversity, and sustain local food systems.”  Big Emitters Delegates from agribusiness join over 66,000 participants at this year’s summit, which is being held in the Olympic Stadium in Azerbaijan’s capital, Baku. Overall numbers of attendees have dropped by 25 percent since COP28 – and also include over 1,700 delegates linked to fossil fuel industries. Those present on the ground from agriculture include the world’s largest meat company, JBS, which sent three delegates to Baku. Other major food companies at COP29 include the largest global food company, Nestlé, and the world’s second largest pesticides company, Bayer, which brought 10 employees.In 2022, JBS reported emitting 156 million tonnes of greenhouse gases, more than the annual emissions of the Netherlands or Ukraine. The company is currently facing a U.S. lawsuit over “fake sustainability claims” and a “misleading” net zero strategy. JBS was contacted for comment. Last year the company pledged to attend COP28 in force, turning out 11 delegates to the summit as part of a co-ordinated PR push by the meat industry to counter its critics. As recently as August 2024, the company was linked by Global Witness to deforestation in the Pará region of Brazil. (In response, JBS said that the opaque nature of the cattle supply chain meant it was “unable to conduct a proper analysis of the farms mentioned” and shared its efforts to improve identification of animals.) Kelly Dent, global director of external engagement at World Animal Protection said: “To witness present at COP29 JBS lobbyists, the world’s largest meat producer and a major culprit in Amazon deforestation, should be of great concern to all.”Nestlé – which accessed the talks through the delegation of Switzerland – has emissions three times larger than those of its country host. It is also a member of lobby groups that have pushed back against environmental action, such as the European Dairy Association (EDA), also on the ground in Baku, which has tried to delay efforts in the EU to introduce tighter restrictions on methane emissions.Commenting on its membership of the European Dairy Association, Nestlé said: “We advocate for Paris Agreement-aligned lobbying in the trade associations and other types of private sector-led coalitions where Nestlé is a member at global, regional and local levels.”With reference to its presence at the summit, Nestlé said: “reaching net zero needs effective engagement and contributions from real economy actors, and we believe our role is critical in helping achieve effective outcomes.”The European Dairy Association told DeSmog it was at COP29 to take part in two side events on the theme of animal health and on the need for “more innovation” in the sector. “The EDA is working to address climate change and implement the best sustainability practices in the dairy supply chain,” the spokesperson told DeSmog.Two powerful pesticide companies, Bayer and Syngenta, which have also lobbied against green reforms, also came to Baku, as part of the country delegation of Brazil.A spokesperson from Bayer told DeSmog: “An integral part of our business strategy is to make agriculture more sustainable and resilient” and that it is key to embrace innovation” to achieve climate, biodiversity goals. They added: “Lobbying is an essential part of the democratic process which is practised by industry just as well as by other organisations such as NGOs.” Spotlight on Brazil Brazil, the host of next year’s climate summit, was a major funnel for agri-giants this year, sparking concerns over the sway agribusiness may have over COP30 in the Amazon city of Belém, which many see as an opportunity for ambitious food systems reform. The Brazilian government brought in 35 agriculture lobbyists – the highest of any country – including more than 20 representatives of meat companies JBS, BRF and Marfrig, as well as powerful industry groups such as the Association of Brazilian Beef Exporters (ABIEC).  Russia followed with 13 delegates from the fertiliser industry. Synthetic fertilisers are the leading driver of nitrous dioxide emissions, a greenhouse gas 200 times more powerful than carbon dioxide which is rising at unprecedented levels in the atmosphere. Brazil’s COP29 pavilion. Credit: Rachel Sherrington Australia was next in line with five representatives of the National Farmers Federation which has publicly opposed measures to curb methane from animal agriculture. Thai activist Permpibul was concerned by DeSmog’s findings. “By bringing in a large contingent of lobbyists from Big Agriculture, Brazil is sending a message that protecting corporate interests takes precedence over addressing the climate crisis,” she said. “The presence of these lobbyists raises serious concerns about whether the upcoming COP will prioritise real, community-led solutions or continue to push for market-based “fixes” that do little to address the root causes of climate change.” Pushing ‘False Solutions’  Many agribusiness delegates who attend climate summits are booked to speak on panels and hold events where they can promote their key messages to policymakers and the public.At these side events at COP29, industry leaders from meat, dairy, pesticides and fertilizer companies present wide-ranging technical solutions to bring down the sector’s emissions, in the face of authoritative studies that state efficiency measures will only ever be able to reduce a small portion agricultural emissions, and must be accompanied by demand-side policy-led reductions, such as consuming less meat in rich nations.  On Friday 15 November at COP29, Krysta Harden, the president of the trade group US Dairy Export Council, made the case for technological fixes to improve efficiency of dairy operations. These included feed additives to bring down methane in cow burps and “biogas digesters” to capture methane from lagoons of liquid manure, which Harden said would help the sector achieve “climate neutrality”. Both technologies have drawn criticism for being respectively, limited in scope and unproven at scale, and polluting. Others in attendance at the event – including the president of pesticide lobby group Croplife Brazil, Eduardo Leao de Sousa, argued for the “sustainable intensification” of agriculture, a term which runs counter to alternative, lower-impact approaches known as “agroecology”, Instead, it points to “new pesticides, bio-inputs and biotechnology” to address sustainability, and ways to apply agri-chemicals more efficiently.Pesticides and fertilisers – much of which are used to support the growth of crops for industrial animal agriculture – are often derived from fossil fuels and have had major negative impacts on biodiversity, soil and water health.  Arnold Padilla, deputy executive director of Pesticide Action Network Asia Pacific, accused big agriculture of promoting “false solutions’ designed to sustain and expand harmful farming practices, unlike “small farming communities that champion sustainable practices that avoid climate-harming chemicals and protect biodiversity.”“These are the real solutions that are essential for cutting greenhouse gas emissions and tackling the climate crisis,” he said.   Fundamental Reforms DeSmog’s analysis follows growing concerns at the outsized access corporate lobbyists have to climate summits, which has promoted calls for widespread reforms.Earlier this month, DeSmog also recorded a large jump in lobbyists from big food companies attending the UN biodiversity talks, which ended without a strong deal for nature on 2 November.On Friday 15 November, COP veterans and leading diplomats argued that the COPs were no longer “fit for purpose”. Food systems experts have also called for reforms.Teresa Anderson from development non-profit ActionAid told DeSmog she felt COPs were too swayed in favour of corporate interests.“Big Agribusiness has all the money to spend on flying, wining and dining, unlike the smallholder agroecological farmers who are busy doing the actual work of feeding communities and protecting the climate,” said Anderson, who is the charity’s global lead for climate justice. “What ends up happening is that the real answers to the climate crisis aren’t being heard over the corporate cacophony.”Padilla of Pesticide Action Network East Asia agreed that small farmers and food producers “face significant barriers to accessing global platforms” where high costs limit participation.“This marginalisation is further intensified as space shrinks within the climate COP for movements and civil society voices, which champion the rights and demands of small farmers and rural communities,” Padilla said. Kelly Dent from World Animal Protection said there needed to be fundamental changes to the COP process. “The significant presence of lobbyists impedes the prospect of meaningful transformations in our food and agricultural systems. This devalues COPs and puts their very raison d’etre at grave risk,” she said.  “A more robust governance and transparency framework at the UNFCCC is urgently needed to mitigate conflicts of interest and safeguard the integrity of climate negotiations.”  Additional reporting by Clare Carlile. Additional research by Brigitte Wear. Editing by Hazel Healy. Methodology Note DeSmog analysed the provisional list of COP29 delegates, which includes over 66,000 entries. The list was analysed for the largest corporations in major food sectors – meat and dairy, pesticide and fertiliser firms, food processors, commodity and seed traders, and grocery retail – which wield significant control in a highly concentrated food chain, and account for the majority of trade. In addition, DeSmog also included global and regional industry trade groups, some of which brought their own delegations to Baku, along with national farmer unions and institutes that have corporate affiliations and/or a history of lobbying aligned with industry demands. The post Meat, Dairy and Pesticide Lobbyists Return in High Numbers to Climate Summit appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— World’s Biggest Meatpacker JBS Wants Public Money to Fight Climate Change

 

at 11/18/24 9:55am

JBS – the world’s largest meat company, with a net revenue of $3.1 billion in the second quarter of 2024 alone – is seeking more funding to combat climate change.  The company’s global CEO Gilberto Tomazoni complained in September that “currently, only four percent of climate change investment is directed toward agriculture and food systems” , going on to laud agriculture’s “tremendous potential to capture carbon” and estimating the bill for transformation at $300 to $350 billion.Tomazoni’s bid to cast the meat sector as an overlooked would-be protagonist in the fight against climate change stands out in Brazil where the meat sector is responsible for a large share of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions.Scientists say livestock contribute 28 percent of Brazil’s total – as cattle herds emit methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, and forests are cleared for ranching.  Tomazoni’s call for greater investment in agribusiness is part of a broader strategy by agricultural giants to present themselves as part of the solution to global warming in multilateral forums, such as the G20, where global leaders meet this week November 18-19 in Rio de Janeiro.The companies will be hoping to benefit from the IMF-World Bank pledge made in October to double funding for “climate-smart” agriculture to $9 billion a year by 2030. In these fora, agribusiness can be relied on to reinforce well rehearsed and misleading arguments, which always seek to increase production – and studiously avoid any reference to reducing meat consumption.   Instead, companies claim that meat producers can play a “decisive role in sustainable food systems” with arguments such as that livestock can foster healthy soil, and thereby aid in carbon storage – a practice often coined as regenerative agriculture. However, scientists point out that soil is not a reliable long-term method for carbon sequestration.  Another talking point from the food industry is that it can play a crucial role in “combating hunger”, reducing food insecurity and malnutrition in the Global South. Yet, the United Nations Committee on World Food Security has stated that hunger and malnutrition are not caused by food shortages but primarily by issues related to power, access and distribution. JBS’s CEO led the B20 Food Systems and Sustainable Agriculture Task Force, a global business forum that aims to shape G20 decisions. The task force also included executives from other agricultural giants, such as US soy trader Bunge, China’s largest commodity trader Cofco, pesticide firm Bayer, and food giants PepsiCo, and Brazil’s BRF. The B20 found a sympathetic ear in the G20 Agriculture Working Group – which brings together agriculture ministers from the participating countries – when it presented a set of recommendations on September 9 to the group chair’s Carlos Fávaro. Brazil’s Minister of Agriculture and Livestock, Fávaro is closely aligned with agribusiness interests and a cattle farmer.  JBS and its agribusiness allies were successful in shaping global discussions on agriculture and food security, as many of the B20 recommendations made their way into a joint declaration by the G20 Agriculture Working Group ministers. According to Tomazoni, “75 percent” of the B20 task force recommendations were accepted and included in the declaration. His claim is borne out by the G20 Agriculture Working Group document, released on September 13, which explicitly references the agribusiness task force, stating:  “We take note, as appropriate, of the recommendations from B20 engagement groups (…) to ensure an inclusive transformation of the global food system, promoting productivity growth and financing models to support the transition of farmers.”  Another element of the B20 task force document that is reproduced almost verbatim in the G20 Agriculture Working Group declaration, is the call for a “transparent, fair, predictable, open, non-discriminatory, inclusive, sustainable, equitable, and rules-based multilateral trading system, with the WTO at its core, essential to promoting fair global markets, especially in times of uncertainty and global food security crises.” This point can be seen as a stance against potential protectionist measures and restrictions on Brazilian products in global markets, particularly in light of the European Unions new Deforestation-Free Products Regulation, set to take effect in January 2025. This regulation prohibits the import of agricultural products originating from areas deforested after December 31, 2020. It has drawn criticism from Minister Fávaro and agribusiness representatives, who argue that it is protectionism disguised as environmentalism. Experts have labelled the sector’s request for investment “absurd”. “The livestock sector, which grew by 29 percent last year, should be the one investing heavily in mitigating its impact, given it is highly harmful and lacks even minimal mitigation efforts,” said Carlos Bocuhy, president of the Brazilian Institute for Environmental Protection PROAM. According to Bocuhy, any investment aimed at the food sector should focus on agroecology and small-scale family farming. “It’s absolutely beneficial for the environment and free of pesticides. It’s similar to choosing between investing in clean energy or fossil fuels. Resources should be directed toward sectors that represent sustainability,” he said. JBS was contacted for comment. Rising Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Brazil A study released on November 7 by the Climate Observatory and Imaflora indicated that, for the fourth consecutive year, Brazilian agriculture set a record for greenhouse gas emissions, according to data from the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimation System (SEEG). According to the report, emissions increased by 2.2 percent compared to 2022, largely due to cattle herd growth. Methane from cattle burps alone accounted for some 355 million tonnes. “Today, cattle account for 64 percent of emissions in the agricultural sector, and agriculture as a whole represents 28 percent of Brazils total emissions,” said David Tsai, coordinator of SEEG at the Climate Observatory. In this context, “the idea of reducing herd size is increasingly discussed by scientists and environmentalists” noted Gabriel Quintana, an analyst at Imaflora. “By capping herd sizes, we could set an emissions ceiling. This would make sense from an emissions perspective, but such a measure clashes with agricultural interests, which makes it unlikely given the direct impact on exports.” A more feasible solution, he suggested, could be “early cattle slaughter,” as reducing an animal’s lifespan could lower its emissions. Livestock emissions are not the only way that agribusiness contributes to the climate crisis. In addition to being the largest source of emissions, livestock production accounts for 77 percent of deforested land in the Amazon between 1985 and 2022 across Brazil and neighbouring countries, according to a MapBiomas report published in December 2023. The post World’s Biggest Meatpacker JBS Wants Public Money to Fight Climate Change appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— British Gas Given Under the Radar Access to COP29 Climate Summit

 

at 11/16/24 7:03am

BAKU – The CEO of Centrica, the parent company of British Gas, has quietly gained access to the flagship COP29 climate conference in Baku, Azerbaijan, DeSmog can reveal. The UN’s official attendee list indicates that Christopher O’Shea is attending the conference as a guest of the African Centre for Climate Actions and Rural Development Initiative (ACCARD), an NGO focused on “sustainable green development [and] youth empowerment”. ACCARD also appears to have given a pass to Laura Harvey, Centrica’s director of public affairs. In the attendee list, neither O’Shea nor Harvey are listed as Centrica employees. O’Shea is listed as a “partnerships specialist” in the “partnerships and climate solutions” team at ACCARD, while Harvey is listed as a member of its “partnerships and programs” team. British Gas is the biggest supplier of gas in the UK, while gas contributes about 20 percent of the global emissions of carbon dioxide produced from burning fossil fuels. DeSmog contacted Centrica, Harvey, and ACCARD for comment. None offered an explanation for why O’Shea and Harvey accessed the COP29 summit seemingly without declaring their Centrica credentials. Subscribe to our newsletter Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts Name -- Email Address What content do you want to subscribe to? (check all that apply) All International UK Sign Up (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery); O’Shea and Harvey hold a ‘blue zone’ pass, allowing them access to the main negotiating and meeting space of this year’s flagship climate conference, which runs until 22 November. Over the course of the 11-day summit, negotiators and leaders across the globe will put in place commitments to address the climate crisis and assist the worst-hit countries. More than 1,700 fossil fuel lobbyists have been approved to attend COP29, according to the Kick Big Polluters Out coalition – outnumbering the delegates from the nations most vulnerable to climate change. DeSmog revealed last week that oil and gas giants are paying thousands to sponsor events at the flagship summit.   “Fossil fuel interference with climate talks has long been a problem,” said Alice Harrison, head of fossil fuel campaigning at Global Witness. “Oil and gas lobbyists have been swarming to the COPs for decades – this year we counted 1,773 of them. Lobbyists sit on panels, give speeches, whisper into the ears of government delegations, and the companies they represent spend millions on PR and spin.  “Fossil fuel lobbyists are in the business of selling oil and gas and they desperately want to keep us all hooked on it. Inviting them to climate talks is like inviting arms dealers to peace talks.”  Stark Versus O’Shea O’Shea yesterday participated in an event hosted in the UK’s official pavilion space as part of a roundtable discussion on the public-private collaborations needed to achieve the country’s clean energy policies. During the event, O’Shea criticised Chris Stark, who leads the government’s clean energy taskforce, for suggesting that green investments would be able to drive down people’s energy bills in the next five to 10 years. Appearing on the panel, Stark said that he believed the government could deliver a “quite substantial fall in bills” if it is able to improve the country’s energy infrastructure and fuel the green transition. In response, O’Shea – who was paid £8.2 million last year – claimed there is “no evidence” that bills are going to fall as renewables are rolled out more widely. A UK business roundtable at the COP29 summit in Baku, Azerbaijan. Credit: Sam Bright The new Labour government has committed to decarbonising the UK electricity system by 2030 – ensuring that 95 percent of the country’s electricity is generated by renewables. Stark also used his remarks to advocate for the winding down of gas in the UK’s power system – saying that it will soon only be needed for “reserve capacity”. As revealed by DeSmog, O’Shea appeared on a panel at this year’s Labour conference during which he said that responsibility for climate and energy policy should be stripped from democratically-elected politicians. This is not the first time that oil and gas firms have managed to find creative ways to attend the annual climate summit. In 2022, the then BP CEO Bernard Looney attended the COP27 summit as a delegate for Mauritania, while at least 15 people who registered for Saudi Arabia’s COP28 appeared to be undeclared employees of the country’s state oil company. Five executives from the consultancy giant KPMG have also been given access to COP29 by ACCARD. None are labelled as KPMG employees, in the UN’s attendee list. KPMG declined to comment. COP Controversies COP29 is being hosted by Azerbaijan, a petrostate that relies heavily on its domestic fossil fuel industry. Oil and gas production accounts for almost 50 percent of Azerbaijan’s GDP, and 90 percent of its export revenue, while its president used a speech on 12 November to call fossil fuels a “gift of God”.  The country’s climate action plan was rated “critically insufficient” by Climate Action Tracker (CAT) in September, while SOCAR and its partners are set to raise the country’s annual gas production by more than 30 percent by 2033. Meanwhile, companies linked to the oil and gas industry have a presence in the UK’s COP29 programme. As revealed by DeSmog, the UK’s pavilion is being co-sponsored by AVEVA, an industrial software firm that has worked for some of the world’s biggest polluters. AVEVA has over 600 oil and gas customers, including some of the world’s largest and highest-emitting fossil fuel companies: Shell, ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, and the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (Adnoc).  Last year, the host of COP28, the UAE, used the climate summit to strike a dozen fossil fuel deals, according to the campaign group Global Witness. Adnoc either negotiated or closed oil deals with 12 countries, including the UK, while its chief executive Sultan Ahmed al-Jaber was president of COP28. At least 2,456 fossil fuel lobbyists were granted access to the Dubai summit – nearly four times more than any previous year. Despite being the world’s flagship climate change event, many leaders have snubbed this year’s conference in Baku. Among those not attending are U.S. President Joe Biden, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, French President Emmanuel Macron, and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. The post British Gas Given Under the Radar Access to COP29 Climate Summit appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Canada Promises Climate Reparations at COP29 While Courting Big Oil at Home

 

at 11/15/24 12:24pm

Steven Guilbeault came to the COP29 climate change negotiations in Azerbaijan ready to make what the federal Liberal government deemed a “major” announcement.  The Canadian minister of environment promised a financing platform worth more than $2 billion which can help developing countries prepare for the worst impacts of climate change and shift their economies to cleaner sources of energy.  But though a rapid acceleration of climate finance – sometimes referred to as climate reparations – is badly needed, Canada is set to undermine that goal back home by potentially funneling billions of dollars to oil and gas producers at the heart of the climate crisis. Behind the scenes, oil patch lobbyists are apparently hard at work seeking expensive subsidies from the Canadian taxpayer. In the last year Pathways Alliance, a coalition representing six of the largest oil sands companies, booked 78 meetings with almost 40 senior federal officials including the deputy prime minister, three ministers, three deputy ministers, six assistant deputy ministers, three chiefs of staff, seven members of parliament and two senators. The deputy secretary to the cabinet for clean growth had 38 separate meetings with lobbyists for the Pathways Alliance.  In 2023 Canadians were bombarded with Pathways commercials claiming their carbon capture and storage scheme would make the industry carbon neutral by 2050. Pathways ads aired during the 2023 Super Bowl and FIFA World Cup and their Facebook and Instagram ad spend was the third largest in Canada in late 2022.  The Pathways Alliance abruptly scrubbed most of their website and social media accounts in July 2024 and have since mostly ghosted the public they were so aggressively courting not long ago.  While the Pathways Alliance has been heavily promoting CCS as an effective way to reduce emissions, a recent underground leak of 8,000 tonnes of stored CO2 at the first commercial site in the United States raises serious concerns about the safety of these projects and the materials used to build them.  Behind Closed Doors Are Canadians about to be surprised by another “good news” announcement that billions more in public money is being shoveled at the fossil fuel sector even as the climate emergency accelerates? As usual, taxpayers footing the bill for such giveaways will likely be the last to know. However, clues into industry’s latest expensive demands are trickling out in some conspicuous places.  Pathways ads aired during the 2023 Super Bowl and FIFA World Cup. The oil sands advocacy group abruptly scrubbed most of their website in July. Credit: Pathways Alliance The Globe and Mail featured an op-ed last month entitled “It’s time for Alberta’s oilsands to land the Pathways carbon project,” which suggests the Pathways Alliance was offered $10 billion in federal and provincial incentives that would cover about two thirds of the capital costs. Taxpayers are learning of these additional gifts to Big Oil — not through a public consultation — but in a newspaper article that asks, “when could there ever be a deal this good for Alberta’s energy companies again?”  This piece followed another Globe and Mail article about Pathways seeking billions from the Canada Growth Fund, citing “three sources familiar with the matter” but “not authorized to speak publicly about the negotiations.” In addition to the government covering over 60 percent of the capital costs, Pathways apparently wants carbon pricing guarantees backstopped by – you guessed it – the taxpayer.  More Payouts Coming In what might be the dying days of the Trudeau government, the oil patch is seeking an expensive concession called carbon contracts for difference (CCfDs). If a future government eliminated carbon pricing – as Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre is promising to do – CCfDs would require Ottawa to pay any carbon credit shortfall  potentially decades into the future.  Even if current carbon pricing stays on the books, the Globe reports that some companies are demanding that the $15 billion Canada Growth Fund guarantee prices higher than the $170 per tonne ceiling legally scheduled to be reached in 2030, creating yet another subsidy.  The oil industry is certainly on a roll, squeezing over $18 billion in subsidies from the Canadian government in the last year alone. While the fossil fuel sector’s stated business is extracting fossil fuels, a lucrative sideline has seemingly become mining the public coffers. According to a recent report by Environmental Defence, Ottawa has dumped at least $65 billion into oil and gas subsidies in the last four years, which would have “fully funded every major wind and solar project in Canada from 2019-2021 twelve times over.”  The $34 billion Trans Mountain Pipeline – entirely paid for by the Canadian taxpayer – came online this year with virtually no benefit to Alberta bitumen prices. Even if this boondoggle is ever sold to the private sector, the federal government will be out of pocket up to $18 billion due to woefully inadequate pipeline tolls. In gratitude, oil companies are currently contesting these tolls to lower them even further.  As for the Pathways project, even the Alberta government has ceased pretending that this enormously expensive carbon capture scheme will make the bitumen industry carbon neutral. In their recent $7 million “scrap the cap” ad campaign, Alberta is now equating the proposed federal emissions cap as a “production” cap. Does this mean that Canadians might be shelling out billions more in oil infrastructure that not even the Alberta government believes will work?  Taxpayers may soon learn what all those Pathways lobbying meetings were about. Expect more hints to be intentionally leaked to friendly media with the final shoe dropping in the upcoming federal fall economic statement.  A cynic might suggest that the oil patch is in a full court press to wring billions more in giveaways from the free-spending Trudeau government before their expected defeat in the next election, especially if this can be trussed up as a “good news” announcement to bolster their outgoing leader’s climate legacy. Everyone would be a winner in that dismal scenario – except of course the taxpayer and the climate.  Back at COP29, Canadian hypocrisy is rich indeed. Even if carbon capture of oil sands  production worked perfectly, this multi-billion dollar bandaid – largely funded by taxpayers – would only deal with about 20 percent of ultimate emissions. The other 80 percent of downstream emissions from Canadian fossil fuels exported elsewhere in the world now exceeds our entire economy by 327 MT/yr – an amount more than the annual emissions from the UK or 190 other countries.  Canadian negotiators stand on the world stage seeking to exalt our climate reputation for $2 billion in international climate reparations while at home our government shovels nine times that amount annually towards the fossil fuel sector, making our already outsized contribution to this global crisis even worse. The post Canada Promises Climate Reparations at COP29 While Courting Big Oil at Home appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— The World Bank Must Stop Ploughing Funds into Factory Farming

 

at 11/15/24 4:15am

Alessandro Ramazzotti is a researcher at the International Accountability Project, an international advocacy organization Animal agriculture is one of the leading drivers of the climate crisis. According to a recent World Bank report, food and agriculture generate almost a third of global greenhouse gas emissions, of which meat and dairy account for nearly 60 percent.  Separate analysis shows that cattle ranching accounts for around 70 percent of the current deforestation of the Amazon. Recognising the significant problems that animal-based foods are causing, the World Bank’s cafeteria stopped serving meat earlier this year. At the IMF-World Bank annual meetings last month, Bank President Ajay Banga went much further, by announcing plans to create “a comprehensive ecosystem for agribusiness”, with a pledge to double its funding for agriculture to $9 billion a year by 2030. Banga told attendees that finance should be used to advance climate-smart agriculture, which would “grow productivity” while reducing associated emissions.  However, while the World Bank appears to be saying many of the right things about sustainable farming, new research we carried out on behalf of Stop Financing Factory Farming (S3F) – a coalition of more than 25 human rights, environmental and animal protection organizations – shows that the World Bank and other multilateral development banks are failing spectacularly to put their money behind sustainable solutions. ‘Worst Offender’ We found that 16 leading international finance institutions together invested $3.33 billion in animal agriculture in 2023. Over two thirds (68 percent or $2.27 billion) was channeled to industrial agriculture or factory farming – projects that support concentrated or intensive animal operations or supply chain activities. And just two percent ($77 million) went towards non-industrial animal farming projects, which invest in small-scale agriculture and more sustainable practices.  Worryingly, we were unable to categorize the remaining 29 percent ($979 million) because of a lack of transparency from the banks about what they’re funding. The World Bank Group was the worst offender – investing $747 million in factory farming in 2023. Two-thirds ($501m) of that came from its private sector arm, the International Finance Corporation (IFC). The next largest investors were the European Investment Bank ($427m) and the African Development Bank ($410m).  In his speech at the World Bank annual meetings, President Banga promised to bring all parts of the Bank together “to work as one unit” – to dramatically scale up agricultural climate finance, and to specifically support smallholder farmers and farmer organizations. Yet this is not what we’re seeing. Some of the investments that the IFC made were simply outrageous for an organization that has committed to align its investments with the Paris Agreement and the Global Biodiversity Framework.  For example, last year IFC provided a $47 million loan to a Chinese company for four multi-story pig farms. These “hog hotels”, which can be up to 13 stories high, cram pigs into appalling conditions and generate high levels of emissions, waste and environmental damage.  The IFC has also lent money to Pronaca, Ecuadors largest pork and poultry producer, to build new factory farms in Santo Domingo de los Tsáchilas, an area of Ecuador that is home to the Tsáchila indigenous community and large swathes of tropical forest. The pig farms in the area generate an estimated two million kilograms of toxic waste every day – resulting in contaminated rivers, killing off fish which local people rely on for food and jobs, and harming local tourism. More recently, the IFC proposed a $60 million investment to expand its industrial-scale cattle farming operations in Mongolia. After local and global civil society groups raised concerns, the IFC postponed its board discussion date twice, showing their vulnerability to the arguments raised against the project.  Urgent Review Needed The role of multilateral development banks – including the World Bank and its subsidiaries – should be to help spur the transition towards more sustainable diets and forms of food production, rather than replicating and expanding the broken systems that are wrecking our planet. Traditional food production systems and local expertise should be leveraged to improve food security among the most vulnerable populations, rather than expanding harmful global value chains that enrich a few corporations based in Europe and North America. At a global level, we need to increase the production and consumption of plant-rich foods, which are better for the environment. Some banks are already supporting their uptake for example, the European Investment Bank is investing in plant-based meat alternatives.  Animal products also remain an important part of many people’s diets – particularly in low income countries, where parts of the population might struggle to get the nutrients they need from other sources of food. Therefore banks should invest in animal agriculture projects, but only when they are sustainable – following agroecological principles such as promoting species diversity, using nature’s resources efficiently, and recycling waste products.  For example, banks should support livestock farms that recycle human food waste by feeding it to pigs and chickens; or silvo-pastoral agroforestry, where trees are planted at wide spacings or existing woodland thinned to allow the undergrowth to flourish for livestock to feed on – which is good for biodiversity, animal welfare and income diversification. As the World Bank prepares to rapidly increase its agricultural spending, it’s vital that it – and all other multilateral development banks – urgently review their lending portfolios and rule out any further factory farm investments, which are totally out of step with the promises they’ve made to tackle climate change. Doing this would not only be good for the climate, but also bring a whole host of other economic and social benefits, including improving diets, creating jobs and supporting biodiversity. The post The World Bank Must Stop Ploughing Funds into Factory Farming appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— World Bank’s Green Farming Push Needs Action – Not Just Words

 

at 11/15/24 4:15am

Alessandro Ramazzotti is a researcher at the International Accountability Project, an international advocacy organization Animal agriculture is one of the leading drivers of the climate crisis. According to a recent World Bank report, food and agriculture generate almost a third of global greenhouse gas emissions, of which meat and dairy account for nearly 60 percent.  Separate analysis shows that cattle ranching accounts for around 70 percent of the current deforestation of the Amazon. Recognising the significant problems that animal-based foods are causing, the World Bank’s cafeteria stopped serving meat earlier this year. At the IMF-World Bank annual meetings last month, Bank President Ajay Banga went much further, by announcing plans to create “a comprehensive ecosystem for agribusiness”, with a pledge to double its funding for agriculture to $9 billion a year by 2030. Banga told attendees that finance should be used to advance climate-smart agriculture, which would “grow productivity” while reducing associated emissions.  However, while the World Bank appears to be saying many of the right things about sustainable farming, new research we carried out on behalf of Stop Financing Factory Farming (S3F) – a coalition of more than 25 human rights, environmental and animal protection organizations – shows that the World Bank and other multilateral development banks are failing spectacularly to put their money behind sustainable solutions. ‘Worst Offender’ We found that 16 leading international finance institutions together invested $3.33 billion in animal agriculture in 2023. Over two thirds (68 percent or $2.27 billion) was channeled to industrial agriculture or factory farming – projects that support concentrated or intensive animal operations or supply chain activities. And just two percent ($77 million) went towards non-industrial animal farming projects, which invest in small-scale agriculture and more sustainable practices.  Worryingly, we were unable to categorize the remaining 29 percent ($979 million) because of a lack of transparency from the banks about what they’re funding. The World Bank Group was the worst offender – investing $747 million in factory farming in 2023. Two-thirds ($501m) of that came from its private sector arm, the International Finance Corporation (IFC). The next largest investors were the European Investment Bank ($427m) and the African Development Bank ($410m).  In his speech at the World Bank annual meetings, President Banga promised to bring all parts of the Bank together “to work as one unit” – to dramatically scale up agricultural climate finance, and to specifically support smallholder farmers and farmer organizations. Yet this is not what we’re seeing. Some of the investments that the IFC made were simply outrageous for an organization that has committed to align its investments with the Paris Agreement and the Global Biodiversity Framework.  For example, last year IFC provided a $47 million loan to a Chinese company for four multi-story pig farms. These “hog hotels”, which can be up to 13 stories high, cram pigs into appalling conditions and generate high levels of emissions, waste and environmental damage.  The IFC has also lent money to Pronaca, Ecuadors largest pork and poultry producer, to build new factory farms in Santo Domingo de los Tsáchilas, an area of Ecuador that is home to the Tsáchila indigenous community and large swathes of tropical forest. The pig farms in the area generate an estimated two million kilograms of toxic waste every day – resulting in contaminated rivers, killing off fish which local people rely on for food and jobs, and harming local tourism. More recently, the IFC proposed a $60 million investment to expand its industrial-scale cattle farming operations in Mongolia. After local and global civil society groups raised concerns, the IFC postponed its board discussion date twice, showing their vulnerability to the arguments raised against the project.  Urgent Review Needed The role of multilateral development banks – including the World Bank and its subsidiaries – should be to help spur the transition towards more sustainable diets and forms of food production, rather than replicating and expanding the broken systems that are wrecking our planet. Traditional food production systems and local expertise should be leveraged to improve food security among the most vulnerable populations, rather than expanding harmful global value chains that enrich a few corporations based in Europe and North America. At a global level, we need to increase the production and consumption of plant-rich foods, which are better for the environment. Some banks are already supporting their uptake for example, the European Investment Bank is investing in plant-based meat alternatives.  Animal products also remain an important part of many people’s diets – particularly in low income countries, where parts of the population might struggle to get the nutrients they need from other sources of food. Therefore banks should invest in animal agriculture projects, but only when they are sustainable – following agroecological principles such as promoting species diversity, using nature’s resources efficiently, and recycling waste products.  For example, banks should support livestock farms that recycle human food waste by feeding it to pigs and chickens; or silvo-pastoral agroforestry, where trees are planted at wide spacings or existing woodland thinned to allow the undergrowth to flourish for livestock to feed on – which is good for biodiversity, animal welfare and income diversification. As the World Bank prepares to rapidly increase its agricultural spending, it’s vital that it – and all other multilateral development banks – urgently review their lending portfolios and rule out any further factory farm investments, which are totally out of step with the promises they’ve made to tackle climate change. Doing this would not only be good for the climate, but also bring a whole host of other economic and social benefits, including improving diets, creating jobs and supporting biodiversity. The post World Bank’s Green Farming Push Needs Action – Not Just Words appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Governments Must Tackle Climate Disinformation, Experts Urge

 

at 11/14/24 11:47am

Governments around the world must take “immediate and decisive action” to tackle climate disinformation, scientists and campaign groups have urged as talks at the COP29 climate summit in Baku, Azerbaijan enter their fourth day.  A coalition of 55 climate information integrity groups and 42 leading climate scientists and experts have signed an open letter urging countries to counter the risk of false and misleading claims that are wrecking efforts to slow climate change.  It comes two days after UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer spoke at COP29 arguing that “there is no national security without climate security” – and a week after the election in the United States of Donald Trump, who has previously called climate change a “hoax”.  Subscribe to our newsletter Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts Name -- Email Address What content do you want to subscribe to? (check all that apply) All International UK Sign Up (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery); The letter published today – signatories to which include Friends of the Earth, the Institute of Strategic Dialogue, and regional branches of Greenpeace and WWF – lists steps governments could take.  These include adopting a universal definition of climate disinformation, such as the working definition proposed by the Climate Action Against Disinformation (CAAD) coalition, another signatory.  According to the letter, the definition should cover anything that misrepresents scientific data or “falsely publicises” supposed solutions to climate change which in fact contribute to global warming, often referred to as “greenwashing”.  Such a definition should cover “deceptive or misleading online behaviour” that undermines public understanding of climate change, the fact it is caused by human activity, and the need for urgent mitigation and adaptation action, the letter said.  Signatories also urged governments to take action against organisations which give a platform to climate disinformation – including social media outlets, advertising technology providers, broadcasters, and publishing companies.  “The spread of disinformation continues to undermine and delay our collective ability to act, jeopardising progress at crucial negotiations and the upcoming G20 Summit in Brazil”, the letter said.   “Climate disinformation, waged by vested interests, undermines climate action and puts our collective future at risk. Our information ecosystem is being damaged, and those responsible must be held accountable.” The letter ends by arguing that “by adopting these principles, governments can foster a healthier and safer online environment that supports informed decision-making and enables effective climate action.” The world’s leading climate science group, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has warned that efforts to tackle climate change were being delayed by “rhetoric and misinformation that undermines climate science and disregards risk and urgency”. As disinformation continues to be an obstacle to vital climate action, the message from this open letter to decision makers globally is clear: protecting truth in the climate conversation is critical if we are to secure meaningful change”, said Max MacBride, Head of Counter-Disinformation at Roots Greenpeace, the NGO’s grassroots campaign initiative. “At Roots, we see every day how climate disinformation stifles youth advocacy, and we join this call to hold governments and platforms accountable for enabling informed, equitable climate action”, he said. Climate Disinformation Threats  A CAAD report published earlier this week found that climate disinformation is widespread online, and is hobbling efforts to address climate change.  The report said that social media platforms bear responsibility for allowing “super spreaders” to “pollute their platforms with debunked claims attacking renewable energy and electric vehicles”. CAAD also found that fossil fuel companies were allowed to use digital advertising across Meta platforms to greenwash their reputations, by promoting false solutions or presenting fossil fuels as essential to the energy transition.  A study published in February found that 14 percent of Americans don’t believe climate change is real – even as growing numbers of Americans say they are concerned about the climate. In the US, weve painfully experienced the role disinformation has played in thwarting disaster response and threats to the lives of responders, Kate Cell, Senior Climate Campaign Manager at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told DeSmog. As climate-fueled disasters become more common around the world, governments can protect their residents by addressing the problem of climate disinformation systemically.  Another report released this week by the scrutiny NGO InfluenceMap found 2.500 cases of fossil fuel companies pushing arguments which contradict IPCC recommendations since COP28 last year.  Thais Lazzeri, founder of educational group FALA, a signatory to the letter, told DeSmog: “The letter comes at a unique time for Brazil, which is hosting the G20 and the incoming COP30 Presidency. The alliance of so many Brazilian institutes and professionals shows the urgency for answers and the intersectoral power of this Brazilian network, willing to work together. He added: At the opening of the Brazil space at CO29, Environment Minister, Marina Silva, said that denialism doesnt fit. The Brazilian government can lead by example and guarantee information integrity policies and strategic, connected actions to change the game.” DeSmog has previously reported on news media spreading false climate claims, with The Telegraph newspaper in the UK attacking climate solutions – a trend that has increasing since July’s general election. As revealed by DeSmog in 2023, one in three presenters on the right-wing broadcaster GB News had spread climate disinformation during the previous year.  The post Governments Must Tackle Climate Disinformation, Experts Urge appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— ‘Give Trees a Hand’ — Ad Agencies Line Up to Sell Sketchy Climate Solutions 

 

at 11/13/24 10:01pm

The video opens on an anonymous industrial site, where a woman stands under a clear blue sky. Shes wearing a white hard hat and a grey utility shirt with the name “Regina” stitched above the breast pocket. Smiling into the camera, she tells viewers that “the world needs ways to reduce carbon emissions.”  Speakers from diverse backgrounds then reassure viewers that, luckily, they’re working on solutions to that very problem, “like carbon capture, and clean energy from hydrogen.” If it weren’t for the logos appearing on their uniforms, it would be easy to miss that these characters are representatives of one of the world’s biggest oil companies — until Regina reappears to say, “Believe it or not we’re ExxonMobil.” This ad, created by New York-based agency BBDO, barely mentions fossil fuels, even though it was paid for by one of the world’s biggest oil and gas companies. These kinds of ad campaigns are popping up all over.  Even as the ad and PR industry comes under growing scrutiny for its role in polishing up the reputation of the fossil fuel industry — agencies are seeking new ways to give their oil and gas clients a climate-friendly sheen. From claims that carbon capture can give trees a hand, to an apparent TikTok influencer touting the technology on behalf of Chevron, firms are deploying their creative talents to sell the perception that the industry is the gatekeeper to climate solutions.  Yet both fossil fuel companies and their advertising agencies know that carbon capture and storage (CCS) — a 50-year-old technology used to trap carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from smokestacks, then bury the planet-heating gas underground — may never make a meaningful contribution to the climate fight. Despite decades of pledges to deploy it at scale, carbon capture has been plagued by such a litany of failed targets, cost overruns and economic and technical hurdles that the worlds entire existing operational capacity can only mop up about 0.14 percent of annual global carbon emissions (assuming that capacity is working at full tilt, which it rarely is). The advertising agencies promoting this technology also know that fossil fuel companies — who are spending tens of thousands of dollars on sponsorships at the COP29 UN climate talks that opened in Azerbaijan this week — continue to spend almost all their development budgets on oil and gas. Sean Buchan, a lead researcher at the Climate Action Against Disinformation research and advocacy group, says that these types of ads represent attempts by fossil fuel companies to distance themselves from their past climate denial.  Choosing to spend sizable marketing budgets on greenwashing narratives, like celebrating false solutions, marks a shift in what fossil fuel companies believe is appropriate communications, says Buchan. Among hundreds of oil and gas industry internal documents released by a U.S. Senate investigation into climate disinformation in May, an email chain revealed that ExxonMobil executives met with BBDO in 2016 to discuss a proposed package of ads highlighting CCS and low-carbon fuels. BBDO’s initial ideas for proclaiming the technology’s benefits were so zealous that they prompted a cautious response even from Exxon, whose executives suggested replacing any lines “that imply the technology is live today, and [sic] more the solution more future focused (e.g. we’re building a plant to test this)” Buchan believes that carbon capture is often featured in these types of ad campaigns because it would allow oil and gas companies to continue doing business as usual. In their perfect world they can still build all the fossil fuel infrastructure, extract all the oil and gas and just pay a small tax via CCS to reduce the emissions. Subscribe to our newsletter Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts Name -- Email Address What content do you want to subscribe to? (check all that apply) All International UK Sign Up (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery); Seat at the Table Melissa Aronczyk, a professor of media studies in the School of Communication and Information at Rutgers University, said the promotion of unproven technologies is designed to give oil and gas companies a seat at the climate policy table. The whole solutions framework is really about delaying and minimising policymaking, whether it’s at a federal government level or at a state level,” Aronczyk said. The UK government appears to be buying claims from the oil and gas industry that CCS poses a viable solution to slashing planet-heating emissions. In October 2024, DeSmog revealed that the government’s pledge of £22 billion in subsidies for carbon capture projects followed a steep rise in lobbying efforts by major fossil fuel companies.  According to research by InfluenceMap, more than 80 percent of CCS advocacy by companies and industry groups, including PR and advertising, is used as part of a more explicit argument to oppose the transition away from fossil fuels, and fails to clarify how the technology might best be used to meet international climate goals. Data on how much fossil fuel companies are spending on advertising carbon capture is hard to come by because marketing budgets can be divided between any number of appointed advertising agencies. Still, since the ad campaigns themselves are appearing as posters on public transport, online videos, TV commercials, and in widespread social media campaigns, it is likely that agencies are earning millions to produce them. Crafting the Narrative An advertising industry designer who has worked on carbon capture campaigns says that most of the work they were involved in was aimed at “rebrands” that made the technology “seem public-friendly” — often by making the science behind the approach digestible for the general public. “If I had a penny for every time they used the phrase, ‘bridging the knowledge gap’…” says the insider, who asked not to be identified for fear of professional repercussions. The insider stressed that it was not stated outright that the underlying intent of the ads was to maintain public support for oil and gas production — but rather to educate the public on the viability of carbon capture as a solution.  “In my entire time working on these campaigns I never heard mention of oil and gas companies.” Documents made public by the Senate investigation, however, show that Exxon knew in 2018 that capturing carbon might be hard, and modelled a much smaller deployment of carbon capture under a low-emissions scenario than rival Shell.  According to one slide from an internal presentation, labelled “Scenario D,” Exxon envisioned fewer than 500 carbon capture and storage sites operating globally by 2050 — while an equivalent scenario by Shell saw 10,000 such facilities by 2070. Still, in 2019, BBDO developed Exxon’s “Unexpected Energy” campaign, which portrayed carbon capture and storage as a technology that would help “industrial plants … be more like plants.” The ads ran on multiple platforms, including podcasts and in social media. In a June 2019 email conversation between members of the Exxon PR team, a social media manager named Jayme Meyer responded to lobbyist Gemma Allman’s feedback that the ads should “de-emphasize the concept that catching carbon is difficult or hard.” BBDO has worked with Exxon since 2011, according to DeSmog’s research. BBDO’s parent company, Omnicom Group, had at least 74 contracts with oil and gas companies across its agencies in 2024, according to Clean Creatives.  BBDO and Exxon did not respond to requests for comment. Promoting CO2 Pipelines Other prominent advertising firms have also worked with Exxon. Edelman, the worlds largest private public relations firm with 2023 revenues of $1.4 billion, has had Exxon contracts since 2020, according to the industry publication PR Week. According to Ad Age, another trade publication, the global media firm Interpublic Group has worked with the oil and gas giant since 2011. These agencies are far from outliers, and a number of major ad firms have also jumped on the carbon capture bandwagon on behalf of their fossil fuel clients. In 2023, McCann, a New York-based ad agency owned by Interpublic Group, launched a series of video ads for the U.S. petroleum company Valero, according to an archived page from an employee’s website. In a spot titled “Trees,” a voiceover described how Valero would transport its emissions via a controversial new carbon capture pipeline across the Midwest. This project would “give trees a hand” in trapping emissions, according to the ad. DeSmog has documented a relationship between Valero and Interpublic Group, sometimes via its subsidiary Campbell Ewald, that stretches back to 2015.  McCann and Valero did not respond to requests for comment. Images from Chevrons TikTok campaign. Casual Tone Chevron has had a TikTok account since 2022. In a bid to reach Gen Z consumers, Chevron ran a campaign on the platform that boasted of its investment in CCS and other carbon-reducing technologies.  The posts featured an apparent influencer explaining the techniques in the casual tone common on the platform, using simple production values largely indistinguishable from typical TikTok influencers.  Several of the videos even boasted the tag “#edutok”, which TikTok itself created as part of an in-app challenge for users to post e-learning videos. According to a report by Climate Action Against Disinformation, Chevron spent an estimated $1.8 million on promoting these ads in 2023 — a sum that doesn’t include money paid to its advertising agencies. While it’s unclear which of Chevron’s appointed ad agencies is responsible for operating its TikTok account, according to the latest Clean Creatives research, the oil major holds contracts with several of the world’s largest advertising holding companies, including Edelman, WPP, Omnicom, Interpublic Group, Dentsu, and Publicis. In May 2024, Clean Creatives awarded Dentsu a satirical “Excellence in Science Fiction” award for a Chevron campaign promoting carbon capture. Chevron did not respond to a request for comment. Tasty A 2019 campaign produced for Exxon by the London-based agency Group SJR featured videos in the style of Buzzfeed’s then-popular “Tasty” videos. Where Buzzfeed’s videos showed up-close recipes for popular snacks, Group SJR’s videos compared classic food pairings — like peanut butter and jelly — to natural gas and renewables with the slogan “one cannot exist without the other,” Group SJR also produced five short films for the UK power station operator Drax — the country’s largest single source of CO2 emissions — between 2022 and 2023. The campaign, which Group SJR entered for an award, highlighted Drax’s development of industry standards for carbon dioxide removals (CDRs) — a term used to cover approaches used to draw down CO2 from the atmosphere. One of the videos states that Drax is leading the world in the development of CDRs, using biomass from “sustainably managed forests to generate renewable electricity while also removing CO2 from the atmosphere.” Stills from Draxs video series on carbon dioxide removals. These claims were called into question in February, when documents obtained by BBC documentary programme Panorama showed Drax had taken timber from Canadian old-growth forests considered “rare and irreplaceable.” In March, climate campaigners warned that Drax’s plans to manufacture wood pellets sourced from California forests would endanger natural habitats and increase toxic air pollution for rural communities. Drax’s plan to capture emissions from burning wood pellets by trapping them underground has never been tried before. According to research by the think tank Ember, “not only is there a strong chance [Drax] will fail to deliver its promised negative emissions, but it may also be environmentally destructive” due to Drax’s wood sourcing practices.  In October, The Times reported that the Drax power plant in North Yorkshire — the proposed site for its carbon capture project — had lost support from the opposition Conservatives “amid concerns the scheme is fuelled by the mass burning of trees”. Claire Coutinho, who had served as net zero secretary when the Conservatives were in power, had herself approved the planning application, but told The Times that the case for the scheme had “simply ­unravelled” on closer examination. Group SJR, which is owned by London-based WPP, the worlds largest advertising company by revenues, has also worked for Chevron, Shell, and BP. Group SJR and Drax did not respond to requests for comment. Carbon Neutral Extraction In the summer of 2023, ads began appearing on buses, trams, rental bikes, and bus shelters in Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal portraying carbon capture as “an important step towards carbon neutral resource extraction.” Posts on Facebook, Instagram and YouTube pushed a similar line.  The ads were placed by the Pathways Alliance, a lobby group representing the tar sands industry, where ballooning CO2 emissions are undermining Canada’s climate goals.  A Pathways Alliance ad on a Vancouver bus in April 2023. Credit: Cathay 888/CPTDB Wiki In private, the Pathways Alliance was rather less bullish on carbon capture — acknowledging in a December 2021 document, uncovered by the Narwhal, that the technology was “still on the lab bench.”  Complaints over the ads prompted Canada’s competition watchdog to launch an investigation, which is still ongoing. Montreal’s public bike-rental agency, Bixi, asked for the ads to be removed from its system. The city of Toronto, meanwhile, passed a motion last month aiming to restrict fossil fuel advertising on municipal property, though it stopped short of advocating for a total fossil ad ban.  An ad for carbon capture and storage on the Pathways Alliance Facebook account. The Pathways Alliances public-facing ads worked in tandem with lobbying behind closed doors.  Bluesky Strategy Group, an Ottawa-based PR firm, represented Pathways Alliance at a number of meetings with the Canadian government in 2022 and 2023, according to a paper in the journal Energy Research and Social Science. The paper also identified several types of misleading ads used by the organisation, which represents Cenovus, ConocoPhillips, Canadian Natural, MEG Energy, Suncor, and Imperial Oil (majority-owned by ExxonMobil). “On the one hand they are talking to the public about their net zero methods,” said Aronczyk, the Rutgers professor, who co-authored the study. “But when we looked at the lobbying reports, there were dozens of meetings with the federal government.”  Bluesky Strategy Group and Pathways Alliance did not respond to a request for comment. In June, Pathways Alliance scrubbed its website of all content related to carbon capture, ahead of changes to Canadian competition law that include fines of up to $10 million for ads that mislead the public.  Additional reporting by TJ Jordan and Kathryn Clare. For profiles of advertising and PR agencies working for major polluters, please visit DeSmogs climate disinformation database. The post Give Trees a Hand — Ad Agencies Line Up to Sell Sketchy Climate Solutions  appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Havas Warns of Reputational Risks Over Fossil Fuel Clients Following Shell Backlash

 

at 11/13/24 2:43pm

Paris-based advertising giant Havas has warned investors of the reputational risks associated with its work for fossil fuel companies in the latest fall-out from its decision to work with UK oil major Shell. Havas, whose CEO Yannick Bolloré had repeatedly voiced concern over the climate crisis, faced criticism from climate advocates last September when news broke that one of its agencies, Havas Media, had won a major Shell advertising contract. In July, B Lab — the nonprofit that awards “B Corp” status for high environmental, ethical and governance standards — withdrew the certification from four other Havas agencies in response to complaints raised over the Shell deal.  In a prospectus for a listing on the Dutch stock exchange, Havas disclosed risks including that it “may fall short of stakeholder expectations relating to ethical, environmental, social and governance considerations” in ways that could “materially adversely impact the Group’s business.” Havas said that it was likely to continue to face “negative publicity” based on the identity of its clients, including those in the fossil fuel, defense, tobacco, and alcohol sectors, as a result of “the public’s (or certain segments of the public’s) view of those clients.” The prospectus did not mention Shell by name, though it referenced the stripping of B Corp status from the four Havas agencies.  Havas made no equivalent warning over the reputational risks of working with fossil fuel companies in its last annual and corporate social responsibility reports published before the Shell deal was made public.  Significant Negative Publicity In the prospectus, Havas said that the B Corp ruling “has not to date resulted in any material adverse effect on the Group’s financial performance,” though it conceded that the group suffered “significant negative publicity and corresponding reputational harm.” The prospectus warned that growing pressure on Havas might make it harder to work with new clients viewed as “harmful to the environment or otherwise negatively perceived.” Havas published the prospectus as part of its preparations to list on the Dutch stock market in December amid plans by parent company Vivendi to split its assets. Havas’ warning, first reported by trade press including Campaign and PR Week, is the latest move by the world’s largest communications groups to acknowledge the reputational risks of working with major polluters.  In a 2023 sustainability report, the Japanese ad giant Dentsu acknowledged it could face declining revenue and reputational risk if it were to serve clients that fail to decarbonise. “Our ability to attract and retain clients, business partners, employees and other stakeholders will depend on maintaining a reputation as a climate leader,” it said. According to DeSmog research, Dentsu continues to work with fossil fuel companies including Chevron, ExxonMobil and Shell. In 2022, New York-based Interpublic Group announced that it would proactively review the climate impacts of prospective clients in the oil, energy and utility sectors. However, this commitment does not apply to its subsidiaries existing fossil fuel contracts with companies including Saudi Aramco and Equinor.  In October 2023, Bolloré, the Havas CEO, told Campaign that he had been happy to pitch for the Shell account, saying “we believe the most effective change comes from within.”  “We won’t participate in any greenwashing whatsoever and we will accompany [Shell] and help achieve their transition,” Bolloré said. In August, the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority watchdog began reviewing a Shell campaign called ‘Powering Progress’ that ran on UK television in the first half of the year in response to complaints that it painted a misleading picture of the company’s role in the energy transition. ‘Powering Progress’ was the first Shell campaign that Havas had worked on since winning the account, according to Ad Week. Ad giants such as WPP, Omnicom and Interpublic Group score highly on the rankings used to gauge a company’s sustainability performance — so they’re attractive to green fund investors.  However, a DeSmog investigation found in February that these scores take little or no account of multiple risks associated with the advertising and PR industry’s role in the climate crisis — from reputational damage caused by greenwashing fossil fuel clients, to threats to staff retention, and the danger of being sued for climate damages.   The post Havas Warns of Reputational Risks Over Fossil Fuel Clients Following Shell Backlash appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Trump EPA Pick Lee Zeldin Backed by Texas Fracking Billionaire Tim Dunn

 

at 11/13/24 10:00am

The former Republican congressperson selected by Donald Trump to lead the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Lee Zeldin, has the backing of a religious-right fracking billionaire from Texas.  Zeldin is currently a chair at the America First Policy Institute (AFPI), a conservative think tank co-founded by Tim Dunn, founder of the fracking company CrownQuest, one of the biggest privately owned oil producers in the country.  Subscribe to our newsletter Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts Name -- Email Address What content do you want to subscribe to? (check all that apply) All International UK Sign Up (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery); Dunn, who has a net worth of $2.2 billion, was one of Trump’s biggest donors, contributing $5 million through his company to the Super PAC Make America Great Again. He’s been vocal about wanting Trump to reverse policies aimed at slowing climate change.  “It would be ideal if we could get rid of this ‘CO2 as a pollutant’ business,” Dunn said at an AFPI event in 2023, stating that he hoped a Trump presidency could use executive orders “to curb all this silliness about CO2 emissions.” Zeldin, a former House representative who campaigned unsuccessfully to be governor of New York in 2022, doesn’t have a lengthy track record in climate change and energy. But climate advocates predict that as head of the EPA he will loyally implement policies favorable to oil and gas producers.  “He will move to execute a fossil-fuel agenda on behalf of the far-right and billionaire donors like Dunn,” Pete Sikora, climate campaigns director for the nonprofit New York Communities for Change, told DeSmog.   The AFPI didn’t respond to questions from DeSmog about Zeldin and Dunn.  Zeldin’s AFPI Role Zeldin posted on X this week that he is “looking forward to getting straight to work as part of President Trumps Cabinet to unleash US energy dominance, make America the AI capital of the world, bring American auto jobs back home, and so much more.” Prior to Trump picking him as EPA head, Zeldin was appointed chair of the AFPI’s China Policy Initiative and the group’s Pathway to 2025 initiative, which aimed to promote “policy innovation, America First messaging opportunities, coalition building, and the preparation of a battle plan for the next conservative administration.”  A policy document from the think tank refers to the landmark 2015 Paris climate framework as an example of “lop-sided, unenforceable, America-last international agreements,” and claims that the Biden administration and climate advocates used “a myopic focus on climate change as a justification for its sweeping radical agenda and massive government expansions.”  The document calls for the federal government to open the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, attack legislation including the Clean Air Act and Endangered Species Act, and streamline federal approvals for liquefied natural gas export projects.  That approach “coincides perfectly with Dunn’s economic interests in extracting every last drop of oil and gas in the Permian Basin, thereby torching the climate, while he makes an enormous profit,” Sikora claimed. Dunn’s Influence on Trump For years, Dunn primarily focused his political advocacy on contributing to the election campaigns of Republicans in his home state of Texas, who shared his far-right views on social issues and a more significant role for conservative Christianity in politics. But after Trump’s defeat in 2020, Dunn was reportedly approached by Brooke Rollins, who previously served as Trump’s director of domestic policy, and Linda McMahon, a former member of his cabinet, about creating a think tank that could help guide a potential second Trump administration.   Dunn helped found the AFPI shortly after and currently serves on its board of directors. He also funds or helps lead other groups looking to influence Trump, including America First Legal and the Center for Renewing America. He co-founded the Convention of States, which observers described to DeSmog as an effort to rewrite the U.S. Constitution according to Christian Nationalist principles.  Dunn has serious financial interests on the line. He’s signed a deal to sell much of his fracking company, CrownQuest, to Occidental Petroleum, a transaction that could personally add an additional $2.2 billion to his net worth. During a Houston fundraiser this year, Trump suggested he would look into streamlining federal approvals for oil and gas mergers and acquisitions, according to a report in the Washington Post.  A massive expansion of fossil fuels under a Zeldin-led EPA could endanger not only the international target of keeping global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius, but may also compromise efforts to achieve the much less ideal target of 2 degrees, Sikora noted. “It’s deeply scary,” Sikora said. Zeldin’s allegiances aren’t to the American public, he argued, but instead “to a giant billionaire fracker from Texas.” The post Trump EPA Pick Lee Zeldin Backed by Texas Fracking Billionaire Tim Dunn appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Business Lobby Reached Record High at UN Biodiversity Talks

 

at 11/12/24 10:00pm

Representatives of business and industry groups more than doubled at the UN’s latest biodiversity summit, DeSmog has found, sparking fears over the growing influence of powerful private sector bodies. Despite some important breakthroughs, talks at this year’s COP16 summit in Cali, Colombia – which aimed to reverse the drastic global decline in plant and animal life – ended in disarray on 2 November, with Greenpeace’s An Lambrechts complaining that progress to protect the world’s dangerously depleted ecosystems had stalled after “unprecedented corporate lobbying”.   DeSmog’s analysis shows that business attendees at this year’s biodiversity COP reached record levels, more than doubling compared to the previous summit two years ago, to reach a total of 1,261 delegates.The rise in industry delegates was proportionally higher than the increase in overall attendees, which rose by 46 percent. Banks were the best-represented sector with 124 delegates, which included more than half of the 30 banks named as the biggest financiers of deforestation in an October report. They were followed by fossil fuel companies, which brought 40 representatives. The talks also saw a significant increase in big food and agriculture firms – such as Nestle, Pepsico and Cargill – which brought 33 delegates, nearly double the number from COP15.   The presence of agrochemical and seed companies was up, too. Their delegates increased by 40 percent and 24 percent respectively since COP15. Representatives also came to COP16 from the pharmaceutical sector – which openly opposed a tax on accessing nature’s genetic code.   Agro-chemical and biotechnology groups – such as Syngenta, BASF and their lobby group Croplife – enjoyed privileged access to negotiations in Colombia, coming in as part of country delegations with Brazil, Mexico, Switzerland and Canada.  DeSmog’s data also revealed growing interest in biodiversity protection from big tech companies – such as Amazon, Google and Microsoft – which see an opportunity in the vast volumes of data which may be required to measure and protect nature set aside for preservation.The delegates brought by some companies dwarfed country delegations from the Global South, which is home to the majority of the best-preserved natural world. For example, German multinational Bayer brought 12 delegates, while the highly biodiverse East African country of Ethiopia, brought only five. A map of business participation at COP16 by DeSmog revealed in October that powerful industry associations and multinationals – from the agriculture, pharmaceuticals, finance, mining, and fossil fuels sectors – had many routes into influencing the outcomes of the two week summit. Many of these companies are actively depleting the natural world and have lobbied hard – and with success – against any regulations that would force a change to their business model.Ioannis Agapakis, a lawyer in the wildlife and habitats programme for the law firm ClientEarth felt the business presence to be much more significant than in previous years.“What you see here are two COPs,” he said. “One where powerful interests have arrived to talk about how to legitimise destruction they are causing; and another where the Indigenous representatives are talking about the great human rights violations, and biodiversity destruction they are facing as a result.” The UN said it was important to bring private interests to the negotiating table. “This is the greatest representation of business at a CBD COP,” David Ainsworth, head of communications for the UN’s Convention on Biological Diversity told The Guardian, which has reported on DeSmog’s findings. “The increased presence of any groups to our meeting demonstrates the growing awareness of the importance of the biodiversity agenda, he said. Pesticide and Biotech Lobby  Brazil, Canada, Mexico and Switzerland all brought companies and lobby groups as members of their country delegations – lending pesticides and biotechnology representatives direct access to negotiations.The highest number of company delegates, including two members of the powerful pesticides trade group Croplife, came with Brazil, along with eight members of the country’s national trade association for biotechnology, DeSmog’s analysis found. Canada also brought in a delegate from CropLife, two representatives of pesticide company BASF arrived with Mexico, and pesticide and seed company Syngenta showed up with Switzerland.Overall, companies and trade bodies representing the pesticides, biotech and pharmaceutical sectors rose 20 percent. This was in a year that saw a major push to agree to a levy that would be placed on companies for the use of genetic data, known as Digital Sequence Information on Genetic Resources (known as DSI) at the talks.The genetic code of the world’s flora and fauna is currently used to develop a host of commercial products – everything from groundbreaking medicines, to ingredients for detergents – but companies are only asked to make voluntary donations for its use.Negotiators at COP16 made important strides towards mandating the sharing of profits from these discoveries with communities where this genetic code is found. It was agreed that large companies using DSI should contribute a one percent tax on profits (or 0.1 percent of revenue), with income channeled to a newly created “Cali fund”, which expects to raise $1 billion for conservation efforts and Indigenous communities. An exhibition of extinct animals in the green zone in the Colombian city of Cali, host of the COP16 biodiversity talks. Credit: Hazel Healy Delays and Loopholes Despite these advances, campaigners say the agreement secured at the summit contained several loopholes which may undermine its effectiveness – chief among them that payment of the levy is still voluntary. Discussions on DSI will continue next year, including defining whether the tax applies to profits or revenue, with the latter supposing a much higher fundraising potential.  “If the digital sequence fund grows to a larger percentage point and corporations are truly held accountable, it will be a game changer,” Glenn Peters from Greenpeace Asia Pacific said.  He added it was critical that negotiations were free from “intense industry pressure” in future. “Such antagonistic corporate lobbying has no place at UN nature talks”, he said. Observers also told DeSmog that lobbying by pesticide group Croplife had blocked an agreement on the COP16 “monitoring framework”, the set of metrics that will be used to measure the success of efforts to protect biodiversity.Jago Wadley from Pesticides Action Network UK said the trade group worked to block a metric for cumulative pesticides toxicity. According to Wadley, this kept agreement on the monitoring framework elusive until the final moments of the summit, when discussions were ended because of a lack of quorum.“Pesticide companies attend biodiversity COPs to protect their profits and will do all they can to undermine any efforts by governments to agree meaningful reforms,” Wadley said. “Their presence seriously hampers progress and crowds out the voices of independent scientists, affected communities and companies offering more sustainable solutions.”  A spokesperson from Croplife said: “The private sector holds a crucial role and responsibility in the implementation of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, working to create and deploy scalable, sustainable agriculture solutions that preserve biodiversity, mitigate climate impact and provide enough food to those who need it.”A spokesperson from pesticide firm BASF said: “We believe that biodiversity is best safeguarded through joint efforts. With specific regards to the biodiversity COP, we consider ourselves as one of the parties and want to play our part in creating a balanced agricultural system that minimizes the impact on biodiversity while efficiently producing high-quality food and crops.” Big Banks Descend  The finance sector had the largest presence of any business sector at the summit in Cali. Overall, 124 representatives from the banking industry attended, including the largest U.S. bank JP Morgan, which brought ten delegates, four from the UK’s HSBC, and three from the Netherland’s’ Rabobank, a major investor in industrial farming.JP Morgan – the world’s largest backer of the oil, gas and coal industry, according to the campaign group Rainforest Action Network – was among a number of institutions who this year attended the biodiversity COP for the first time, as powerful finance players sought to “monetize biodiversity”, often through creating new markets for biodiversity offsets, or green financing products. Martyna Domniak from advocacy group Stand.Earth questioned the presence at the summit of financial institutions that actively invest in companies that drive biodiversity loss. Six private banks that were identified in a recent report by Stand.Earth as being the leading funders of oil and gas development in the Amazon were all at COP16.“Financial institutions at the summit are talking about ‘nature positive solutions’ but none of them mention the actual solution: to stop financing the drivers of deforestation and stop financing fossil fuels,” said Stand.Earth campaigner Martyna Domniak.Dominiak commented that she had observed Santander “talking about changing the narrative, system change and changing the economy” at COP16. “Of course I agree with that but the same bank that is saying it is actually one of the biggest fossil fuel financiers in Europe and the biggest financier in Europe of beef, soy and other major deforestation drivers,” she said. “There’s a lot of hypocrisy in that.” Frederic Hache from the Green Finance Observatory said COP16’s wrangling over how to raise the money needed by governments in the Global South to protect nature – an estimated $700 billion per year– may end up benefiting the finance industry, and those sectors most responsible for ecological damage.In particular, the idea of a biodiversity “finance gap” positions private finance to have a larger role and has moved discussion away from addressing the root causes of nature destruction. Hache pointed to the need for re-direction of the $500 billion in public subsidies to damaging industries such as fossil fuels and industrial agriculture – a subject that barely got aired in Cali, despite being agreed in principle at the previous summit.A Santander spokesperson said: “Our financing decisions adhere to a strict policy framework which aligns with all relevant environmental regulation. We conduct additional due diligence on all lending decisions subject to our policy which could impact biodiversity, and are actively involved in several industry initiatives to protect the environment. We also work proactively with clients, as well as other banks, governments, regulators and other institutions to help improve practices, recognising this is a highly complex challenge that requires a multifaceted, multi-lateral response.” Big Tech Moves In DeSmog’s analysis of delegates also reveals a new and growing interest from Big Tech companies, which are keen to get involved in biodiversity protection, a field with potential for vast amounts of data to be monitored, logged and stored.DeSmog found 11 representatives from the ten largest software companies in attendance this year. They included three staff from Google, six from Microsoft and two from Amazon, the world’s largest cloud services provider. Nine representatives of Bezos Earth Fund, a technology-focused foundation run by the founder of Amazon, also attended the biodiversity summit.The Convention on Biological Diversitys headline goals – to protect 30 percent of the world’s land and oceans – will likely involve a high level of precise data and measurement. Companies like Amazon and Microsoft, which store vast amounts of data on their cloud services, see major opportunities. Friends of the Earth’s Jim Thomas describes the need to gather, process and analyse data – from soil, water and tissue, counting invasive species or forest cover – as “like Christmas” for tech companies. “They are casting the challenges of biodiversity conservation as a set of technical problems to be ‘fixed’ rather than political, human rights and socio-economic problems to be addressed through regulation and protection,” he said, adding that the biodiversity convention was “an opportunity for the world’s biggest companies to get even richer and more powerful”. In addition to business opportunities from data storage, tech companies such as Google and Microsoft are the largest players in an emerging field called “generative biology” – which uses AI to design new genomes, viruses and proteins.A spokesperson from Amazon said: “Amazon is committed to protecting the natural world and investing in conservation and restoration initiatives that support biodiversity. We sent a small delegation from our sustainability team to COP16 to understand how the private and public sector can better work together.” While the biodiversity COPs, which grew out of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, have a history of taking a precautionary approach to new technologies – setting up expert groups to ‘horizon scan’ for potential threats, agreeing on oversight guidelines and moratoriums – Thomas believes this past wariness has been undermined by “techno-utopian shift” at the summit in Colombia. While tech companies may see a huge role for data and AI in nature-protection efforts, not everyone is convinced. Cloud services have a huge environmental footprint; as of 2022 they generated the same amount of emissions as the aviation industry.Juan Bay, leader of the indigenous Waorani nation of Ecuador, is also uncomfortable with what he sees as business people and banks trying to take advantage.“Technology like satellites can be useful for monitoring but it can bring problems,” he says. “It’s thanks to us that nature is intact. Indigenous people are the ones who have guaranteed the protection of the Amazon, with our knowledge and understanding – advanced technology hasn’t protected or saved nature, it’s just brought destruction and death.”He has a counter proposal: the creation of the Yasuní fund, a $3 million investment plan direct to 3,500 Waorani community members, to help end oil and gas extraction on their territory, and support community-centred development instead. ‘We are the reason Nature is intact’: Juan Bay, president of the Waorani Nationality of Ecuador, at COP16. Credit: Hazel Healy More Guardrails Needed Other industries which have long been a staple at biodiversity COPs also increased their numbers this year.Oil and gas delegates, for example, crept up by 11 percent, totalling 40 lobbyists including representatives of ExxonMobil and Shell. Many of these came through the oil and gas industry group Ipieca, a presence at biodiversity COPs for the three decades since they began.A spokesperson from Shell said: “A small number of Shell’s staff attended COP16 to gather external insights, understand policy developments, and strengthen partnerships.” Overall figures calculated by DeSmog for business sectors are conservative estimates. DeSmog’s methodology included searching for the largest companies (by top ten and twenty by market share) – in sectors which use nature, and who had an interest in outcomes at the summit this year, and their sector’s trade groups. Industries analysed included agriculture, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, mining, fossil fuels and big tech.Other destructive companies that were present, but fell outside the scope of DeSmog’s analysis, were Suzano, a major player in the pulp and paper industry, which causes large-scale forest destruction. Four delegates from the world’s largest cement company, Cemex, also attended, with the corporate Wildlife Habitat Council initiative, which registered as a non-governmental organisation.  Under the scope of this analysis, national or regional business groups brought in by mixed trade groups such as the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and the International Chamber of Commerce were not included in the study.Nonetheless some of these mixed business groups, such as the Japanese Chamber of Commerce’s Keidanren Nature Conservation Council (KNCC) engaged in lobbying themselves. The KNCC brought 46 delegates, as well as hosting a COP16 pavilion, and publicly pushed back against a mandatory levy for companies using Digital Sequence Information for commercial ends. DeSmog also only analysed official participants registered in COP’s Blue Zone. Other companies only present in the Green Zone (which anyone can attend without a badge) included Meta, as well as a scores of mining companies.  Anne Maina, national coordinator of non-profit The Biodiversity and Biosafety Association of Kenya (BIBA-Kenya), said she recognised government officials in African delegations with close industry ties along with students funded by big business who “play to the industry’s tune”.The CBD secretariat said: “COP16 has seen much higher registration numbers and more diverse participation than previous COPs. Accreditation and registration of observers, including industry representatives, is carried out in accordance with the rules of procedure and relevant decisions of the Conference of the Parties”.Some individuals’ business affiliations were not immediately clear from the official list. Jim Thomas said better safeguards were needed: “We need much more robust investigations and light shone on to the ways that industry seeks to influence and skew outcomes under the convention for biological diversity and other multilateral agreements,” he said. “There needs to be more guardrails against corporate influence.” The post Business Lobby Reached Record High at UN Biodiversity Talks appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

As of 11/22/24 7:26pm. Last new 11/20/24 12:57pm.