Crooked Bough News Round-up

— Tory Leadership Contender Robert Jenrick’s Pro-Coal and Anti-Net Zero Record

 

at 7/25/24 8:44am

Former Conservative minister Robert Jenrick, who has today entered the race to lead the Tory party, has a growing record of attacks on climate action. The MP for Newark – who saw a 23.9 percent swing against him in the general election, and served as secretary of state for immigration under former prime minister Rishi Sunak – has attacked what he calls “net zero zealotry”, and has labelled the UK’s net zero target “dangerous fantasy green politics unmoored from reality”.  This is despite Jenrick having hailed the UK’s “world-leading commitment to net zero by 2050” as recently as 2020. Jenrick has also called for the building of “new gas power stations” and supports new fossil fuel extraction, including North Sea oil and gas, and the opening of new coal mines.  Jenrick’s campaign manager is Conservative MP Danny Kruger, a political reactionary who is also an advisor to climate denier Jordan Peterson’s Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC). His candidacy follows the Conservative Party losing a landslide election on 4 July against a Labour Party committed to climate action, during which the Tories supported new North Sea oil and gas extraction, and the delaying of key climate reforms. Almost half of voters (49 percent) believe renewable energy would lower household bills, while only 14 percent say the same for more fossil fuels, according to polling by More in Common.  This week saw what climate scientists believe could be the hottest day on record thanks to climate change. The world’s leading climate science group, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has said that there is “a brief and rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all”. Attacks on Labour’s Climate Agenda In his response to the announcement of Labour’s legislative agenda in the King’s Speech last week (19 July), Jenrick used an address in the House of Commons to launch an attack on the government’s climate policies, spreading familiar misinformation.  Jenrick said that “despite being only responsible for one percent of global emissions, we find ourselves with a government pursuing for ideological reasons a net zero policy which is going to make it harder for our own consumers to afford their bills, [and] which is further going to erode our industrial base”. Downplaying a country’s emissions is a “widely deployed” tactic used to delay international climate action, according to academics. Contrary to Jenrick’s claims, the UK’s cost of living crisis has been made worse by its dependence on fossil fuels, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). And rather than “eroding our industrial base”, net zero policies are already creating new jobs and economic development. The UK’s net zero economy grew nine percent in 2023 to £74 billion – equivalent to 3.8 percent of the total UK economy, and supported more than 765,000 jobs, according to the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU).  Jenrick also attacked Labour’s green investment vehicle, Great British Energy – launched today – as a quango “which serves no apparent purpose”, warned that new solar farms would “despoil our countryside”, and claimed that “200,000 jobs in the oil and gas sector have been put in danger”, using a widely debunked figure. The chief advisor to the National Farmers Union (NFU) has said solar farms “do not in any way present a risk to the UK’s food security”, while NFU president Tom Bradshaw has attacked the claims made by Jenrick and others as “sensationalist”.  On 11 July, when Labour announced its decision not to defend the new proposed coal mine in Cumbria in the High Court, Jenrick posted on X: “First the oil and gas industry, now coking coal for the steel industry. Less than a week in and jobs and economic growth are already being sacrificed on the altar of Labour’s net zero zealotry.” In 2021, Jenrick decided not to challenge the planning application for the new mine – the UK’s first deep coal mine in more than 30 years, which would extract 2.8 million tonnes of coking coal a year, emitting an estimated 220 millions tonnes of greenhouse gases over its lifetime. Net Zero U-Turn Jenrick’s attacks on Labour’s green policies mirror his growing criticism of climate action – despite having previously celebrated the Conservatives Party’s support for net zero. In February, Jenrick wrote an article for The Telegraph – a newspaper that regularly publishes attacks on climate science and net zero reforms – claiming that voters are sick of the “dishonesty” from politicians about “what net zero entails”.  He said that the UK’s 2050 net zero ambition was decided upon in the summer of 2019, “while the country was occupied by Brexit debates”, and was “nodded through the Commons with fewer than 90 minutes of debate”. At the time, Jenrick, who was Treasury minister, welcomed the adoption of the target. In 2020, while serving as communities secretary under Boris Johnson, Jenrick praised the UK’s “world-leading commitment to net zero by 2050”. Ahead of the 2019 general election, he said that voters should support the Conservatives on the basis that the UK was the “first advanced economy in the world to pass a net zero target”. Yet, in the February 2024 Telegraph article, Jenrick wrote that it was obvious to him “at the time” that the costs associated with net zero “were likely to be astronomical.” The article went on to claim that “reaching net zero by 2050 requires us to overhaul the material foundations of our economy in just three decades”, and that the result “is a dangerous fantasy green politics unmoored from reality and that lacks the buy-in of the public”. Climate Denial Links Jenrick’s campaign for Tory leader is being run by fellow Conservative MP Danny Kruger. Kruger is the chair of the New Conservatives faction in Parliament – a group that advocates for more socially conservative, right-wing ideas within the Tory party, campaigning against “woke” culture, and immigration.  It also appears that New Conservative press officer Sam Armstrong is serving as one of Jenrick’s campaign aides, although Armstrong neither confirmed nor denied his role when approached for comment.  As DeSmog has revealed, the New Conservatives received £50,000 in December from the Legatum Institute, a free market think tank that formerly employed Kruger as a senior fellow.  In May of this year, Jenrick gave a speech to the Legatum Institute’s ‘Free Market Roadshow’ event at the group’s London office, where he called for new fossil fuel plants. He said: “We are smothering our ability to build new nuclear power stations, to build new gas power stations, which we’ve got to have to have the base capacity that we need as a country, in this mesh of regulation.” The Legatum Institute’s parent company is UAE-based investment firm Legatum Group, which co-owns the right-wing broadcaster GB News. The outlet frequently spreads climate denial, both via its presenters and guests. Kruger is also on the advisory board of another Legatum project, the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC), alongside some of the world’s most high-profile climate science deniers.  Jenrick has pledged to win back voters who have switched from the Tories to Reform UK, the right-wing populist party led by Nigel Farage, which is bankrolled by climate deniers and polluting interests, and campaigns to “scrap all of net zero”. Polling from the Conservative Environment Network, a green caucus backed by dozens of Tory MPs, found that only two percent of voters who planned to switch from the Conservative to Reform saw climate change as the most important issue for them in July’s election. The post Tory Leadership Contender Robert Jenrick’s Pro-Coal and Anti-Net Zero Record appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Dutch and U.S. Climate Deniers Join Forces as Europe Shifts to the Right

 

at 7/24/24 11:00pm

I embrace that high carbon lifestyle [] CO2 is showing huge, huge benefits, and so we should celebrate it, U.S. climate science denier Gregory Wrightstone tells the audience. Welcome to Clintel’s fifth anniversary celebration. Here, windmills are referred to as bird choppers, and carbon dioxide is not something to fear, but rather a miracle molecule that we should emit more of, not less. Apparently, according to Wrightstone, the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are now so low that the planet is experiencing a CO2 famine. Clintel (short for the Climate Intelligence Foundation), the Netherlands best-known climate science denial group, has chosen a remodelled warehouse in the small town of Roelofarendsveen, a 20-minute drive from Schiphol Airport outside Amsterdam, for its conference. Near the entrance, balloons decorate a blue and white banner emblazoned with Clintel’s slogan: There is no climate crisis. Although the rundown conference hall may not be the most charming location, co-founder and director Marcel Crok is optimistic about the future: The next celebration will be in the RAI in Amsterdam, he said, referring to a 12,900-seat venue in the nation’s biggest city, host to events such as the Eurovision Song Contest. On June 18, around 120 paying attendees gathered to listen to talks from Clintels co-founders Guus Berkhout — a retired geophysicist with a background in the oil and gas industry — and Crok, an independent author and journalist. The international panel of speakers featured well-known and controversial climate science deniers, including aerospace engineer Willie Soon and Wrightstone, a geologist and executive director of the U.S.-based CO2 Coalition, an organisation Clintel is increasingly looking to for support. Established in 2015, the CO2 Coalition is dedicated to educating thought leaders, policy makers, and the public about the important contribution made by carbon dioxide to our lives and the economy. The Coalition has received funding from the Koch brothers — the right-wing libertarian U.S. oil billionaires who have been at the heart of climate change denial in the United States — and the Mercer family, who provided financial backing to former U.S. President Donald Trump for his successful election bid in 2016.  The conference organisers had turned several tables into book displays, showcasing a wide selection of publications in Dutch and English. Among them was Wrightstone’s latest publication A Very Convenient Warming, launched that day in Dutch. Two comic books published by the CO2 Coalition purported to explain the scientific method to children.  Looking around Hall 60, it would have been easy to dismiss Croks optimism. The conference was far from sold out, and most attendees were elderly men who appeared eager for something to get involved with during their retirement. Participants listened attentively to the extensive presentations, and cheered and applauded energetically throughout the day. But while it may be tempting to assume Clintel and its audience are mostly irrelevant, their reach and influence extend far beyond Roelofarendsveens industrial area. A Favourable Climate In fact, Clintel has the wind in its sails. On July 2, the Netherlands witnessed the inauguration of the first government led by the extreme-right Party for Freedom (PVV), reflecting a broader surge in support for far-right politicians at last months elections to the European Parliament. In the run-up to the Dutch elections in November, PVV’s leader Geert Wilders suggested putting the countrys climate policies through the shredder. In his manifesto, Wilders pledged to end the fear-mongering of climate scientists, arguing that their doom scenarios have not materialised. PVV members of parliament have cited Clintel publications during national policy debates. The recently founded Boer Burger Beweging (BBB), a party that grew out of the Dutch farmers protests against European Union nitrogen regulations, is part of the multi-party government as well. While the BBB is not entirely dismissive of climate change, it is very critical of any type of regulatory solutions or fixed emissions reductions targets, instead supporting voluntary and incentive-based policies. The Dutch media landscape has also shifted in Clintels favour since 2019, when the new and controversial right-wing media organisation Ongehoord Nederland (ON) secured a licence to broadcast a talk show on Dutch public television. While climate deniers had previously been given little serious attention by Dutch media, Clintel has been invited onto ON’s talk show at least six times since its launch. The show reached an average of 138,000 Dutch viewers for every episode in 2022. Clintel has cultivated links with a vocal web of climate deniers since its launch. In 2019, the organisations one-page World Climate Declaration, sub-titled There is no climate emergency, formed the basis of an open letter to the European Union and the United Nations. Many of the hundreds of signatories were affiliated with libertarian think tanks such as the U.S.-based Cato Institute, the Heartland Institute, and the London-based Institute of Economic Affairs — back then all well-known partner organisations of the Koch-funded Atlas Network. This global collective of more than 500 think tanks champions unfettered free market economics, and many of its partner organisations have histories of spreading climate denial, doubt, and delay. Clintels World Climate Declaration was referenced by U.S. Senator Ron Johnson [R-WI], during a Senate committee hearing held on May 1, 2024 as part of an investigation into the oil industry’s attempts to avoid accountability for climate change. You ought to take a look at that, Johnson suggested to the committee members, referring to the declaration.  While it is embedded in a global movement, Clintel’s funding seems to come from a largely Dutch-based network of deep-pocketed private individuals and smaller donors. Dutch real estate investor Niek Sandmann supported Clintel’s launch with a pledge of half a million euros. A Clintel newsletter from 2022 stated that the organisation also received a generous donation (the amount was 750 euros, Clintel later told DeSmog) from Edward Heerema, sole shareholder of Dutch company Allseas, which builds platforms and pipelines for the oil and gas sector, including clients such as Royal Dutch Shell. Financially, Clintel seems to be thriving. Public records show its annual revenue almost doubled to 202,952 euros in 2022 from 104,547 euros in 2019. An analysis by the Platform for Authentic Journalism, a Dutch investigative journalism collaboration, revealed that 54 percent of Clintel’s total revenue between 2019 and 2022 came from unspecified private entities, the rest being covered by Sandmann (22.4 percent); non-profit organisations (16.4 percent); companies (3.3 percent); and publications, lectures and other activities. Clintel told DeSmog that it does not receive grants from the oil industry. Clintel has used this money to organise multiple live events over the years, and launch a campaign against wind turbines in the Netherlands using arguments that have long since been discredited. Clintel also recently helped to promote and distribute the climate denier film Climate: The Movie, full of debunked myths, including that global temperatures aren’t increasing. The film has been watched 634,827 times on Clintel’s YouTube channel. Clintel videos, and those featuring co-founders Crok and Berkhout, have had 2.34 million views. ‘Did You Come up With This?’  In Roelofarendsveen, the day’s programme was an all-you-can-eat buffet of the many flavours of climate science denial. Narratives on offer ranged from climate change is happening but not due to human activity to the adverse effects of climate change are exaggerated or non-existent and climate change is occurring, is caused by humans, but has beneficial outcomes. For the audience, these apparent contradictions did not seem to matter much. After all, they all point to the same conclusion: Its not worth spending money to tackle the problem. Theo Wolters, who is editor of Climategate, a climate science denial website, presented the conveniently rounded number of one million euros per Dutch family to make the Netherlands climate neutral. Gasps could be heard from the audience, because Wolters’ calculations amount to 4.5 trillion euros, or almost four-and-a-half times the size of the Dutch economy. It can be half a million, it can be two million. But this is what my spreadsheet says at the moment, Wolters said.  Wolters, who also founded the European Climate Realist Network, a Dutch-based informal umbrella group for organisations across Europe that see themselves as climate realists, later admitted to DeSmog that these were — in his words — bizarrely high figures, based on an extrapolation of current trends. Wolters added: No one has a sensible idea of what that fossil-free energy supply could look like, and so you cannot reliably calculate its costs. Seen from this perspective, the threat of climate change is merely an excuse used by governments and international institutions to tighten control over people’s lives, aided by compliant media organisations. Responding to a request for comment after the conference, Crok said he considered DeSmog’s coverage to be the opposite of “real and reliable”. “It has only one purpose: to vilify anyone who criticises the alarmist climate narrative,” he said. In his talk, Jacob Nordangård, author of books such as The Global Coup d’Ètat and Rockefeller: Controlling the Game, supposedly identified those responsible. He spun a 30-minute yarn of global elites; Dutch and British Royalty; shadowy research agendas; and Great Reset conspiracy theories, which left even the host of the talk jokingly wondering out loud: Did you come up with this yourself?.   Nordangård later told DeSmog that he considers the questions he is asking about global power dynamics to be a legitimate area of study, arguing that it would be contradictory to characterise his work as a conspiracy theory when it shares parallels, in his view, with DeSmog’s research into the fossil fuel industry’s funding of climate denial.  Speakers gather on the conference stage. Credit: Nina Tea Zibetti Climate in the Courts Another central topic at the conference was the recent surge in climate litigation cases against governments and corporations. Crok, the Clintel co-founder, titled his lecture Should the Climate War Be Won in Court? His answer to his own question was No. However, as long as these cases continue to be pursued, Clintel plans to make the best of it. Dutch law allows parties with a provable interest in a pending case to request permission to intervene. Clintel wants to use this avenue to challenge climate science and policies in the courtroom. The Netherlands has seen two notable, successful climate cases. In 2015, the Hague district court ruled in Urgenda vs. The Netherlands that the Dutch state must reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. The countrys Supreme Court subsequently upheld the ruling.  In 2021, Milieudefensie (the Dutch chapter of the environmental group Friends of the Earth), along with other environmental organisations, and more than 17,000 citizens, successfully sued Shell. Shell appealed the ruling, in which the Hague district court ordered the company to reduce its emissions by 45 percent by 2030. (The ruling applies to the direct emissions from Shell’s operations, while the company must also make a ‘best-effort’ reduction in its indirect emissions, which constitute 95 percent of its total emissions).   In October 2022, Clintel made filed a motion to intervene in the appeal proceedings of the Milieudefensie vs. Shell case. Clintel contended that the U.N.-backed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had not conclusively proved “dangerous climate change” and the court should therefore not issue a ruling based on its findings. In April 2023, the Court of Appeal in the Hague rejected Clintels request, deeming that Clintel lacked a sufficient interest in the case. The court also noted that the role of a joined party is limited to supporting the position of the party to whose side they join [and that] Clintels position on the state of climate science differs from that of Shell or Milieudefensie. Meanwhile, the eurosceptic Frans van der Werf spearheaded the launch of a new foundation called Milieu & Mens (Environment & People), expressly to participate in the Shell case. Its self-described mission is to level the playing field with respect to environmental organisations. To bolster its legal standing, Milieu & Mens said it was representing a group called Concerned Energy Users, set up to oppose climate regulations that could increase energy prices.   Soon after the launch of Milieu & Mens in February 2022, Crok posted on LinkedIn, that he and lawyer Lucas Bergkamp had come up with a new plan to intervene in the Milieudefensie vs. Shell case, and encouraged people to sign an online petition launched by Concerned Energy Users. Milieu & Mens has, however, adamantly denied any affiliation with Clintel. Milieu & Mens did not respond to a request for comment.  In early 2023, Milieu & Mens filed an application to serve as a joined party with Shell on behalf of Concerned Energy Users. This time, the court ruled in favour of Milieu & Mens: M&M fears that the prices of fossil fuels will rise as a result of the allocation of those claims. Therefore, M&M has an interest in joining. The CO2 Coalition has also got involved in the case. In November 2023, William Happer, the group’s chair and co-founder, wrote an expert opinion for Milieu & Mens together with noted U.S. climate science denier Richard Lindzen, a former professor at MIT,  and Steven Koonin, a former chief scientist for the oil major BP, who is now a professor at New York University. Clintel appears to have developed a liking for this type of legal strategy. At the conference, Crok proudly informed the audience that the organisation is preparing to intervene in future cases, starting with Milieudefensies climate case against Dutch bank ING, announced earlier this year. As soon as this case is officially filed, Clintel will try to join in, Crok said. What the effects will be, beyond publicity, remain to be seen. M&M’s intervention in the Shell case, however, led to several months of delay. Bad news for the climate and bad news for those worldwide who are already suffering the consequence of the climate crisis, wrote Milieudefensie. A verdict on Shells appeal is expected in early November. Teach Us How Willie Soon speaks at the conference. Credit: Nina Tea Zibetti In Hall 60, the day ended with a talk by charismatic keynote speaker Willie Soon, the aerospace engineer, peppered with memes. These included a football meme showing the IPCC and Soons foundation drawing 1-1, despite a distinctly uneven playing field.  If this is the first half of the match, Clintel definitely hopes to tip the score in their favour after the break. Next year, Clintel will have more people and more money, Crok promised, after handing the speakers their thank-you gifts, packets of paling (smoked eel).  To succeed, they are turning to their U.S.-based allies, the CO2 Coalition, for advice. Gregory [Wrightstone] and I will have a meeting tomorrow. The CO2 Coalition is now growing rapidly, they have much more funding than we have, Crok told the audience. But tomorrow, he is going to teach us how to do it. The post Dutch and U.S. Climate Deniers Join Forces as Europe Shifts to the Right appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Dutch and U.S. Climate Deniers Join Forces As Europe Shifts to the Right

 

at 7/24/24 1:48pm

I embrace that high carbon lifestyle [] CO2 is showing huge, huge benefits, and so we should celebrate it, U.S. climate science denier Gregory Wrightstone tells the audience. Welcome to Clintel’s fifth anniversary celebration. Here, windmills are referred to as bird choppers, and carbon dioxide is not something to fear, but rather a miracle molecule that we should emit more of, not less. Apparently, according to Wrightstone, the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are now so low that the planet is experiencing a CO2 famine. Clintel (short for the Climate Intelligence Foundation), the Netherlands best-known climate science denial group, has chosen a remodelled warehouse in the small town of Roelofarendsveen, a 20-minute drive from Schiphol Airport outside Amsterdam, for its conference. Near the entrance, balloons decorate a blue and white banner emblazoned with Clintel’s slogan: There is no climate crisis. Although the rundown conference hall may not be the most charming location, co-founder and director Marcel Crok is optimistic about the future: The next celebration will be in the RAI in Amsterdam, he said, referring to a 12,900-seat venue in the nation’s biggest city, host to events such as the Eurovision Song Contest. On June 18, around 120 paying attendees gathered to listen to talks from Clintels co-founders Guus Berkhout — a retired geophysicist with a background in the oil and gas industry — and Crok, an independent author and journalist. The international panel of speakers featured well-known and controversial climate science deniers, including aerospace engineer Willie Soon and Wrightstone, a geologist and executive director of the U.S.-based CO2 Coalition, an organisation Clintel is increasingly looking to for support. Established in 2015, the CO2 Coalition is dedicated to educating thought leaders, policy makers, and the public about the important contribution made by carbon dioxide to our lives and the economy. The Coalition has received funding from the Koch brothers — the right-wing libertarian U.S. oil billionaires who have been at the heart of climate change denial in the United States — and the Mercer family, who provided financial backing to former U.S. President Donald Trump for his successful election bid in 2016.  The conference organisers had turned several tables into book displays, showcasing a wide selection of publications in Dutch and English. Among them was Wrightstone’s latest publication A Very Convenient Warming, launched that day in Dutch. Two comic books published by the CO2 Coalition purported to explain the scientific method to children.  Looking around Hall 60, it would have been easy to dismiss Croks optimism. The conference was far from sold out, and most attendees were elderly men who appeared eager for something to get involved with during their retirement. Participants listened attentively to the extensive presentations, and cheered and applauded energetically throughout the day. But while it may be tempting to assume Clintel and its audience are mostly irrelevant, their reach and influence extend far beyond Roelofarendsveens industrial area. A Favourable Climate In fact, Clintel has the wind in its sails. On July 2, the Netherlands witnessed the inauguration of the first government led by the extreme-right Party for Freedom (PVV), reflecting a broader surge in support for far-right politicians at last months elections to the European Parliament. In the run-up to the Dutch elections in November, PVV’s leader Geert Wilders suggested putting the countrys climate policies through the shredder. In his manifesto, Wilders pledged to end the fear-mongering of climate scientists, arguing that their doom scenarios have not materialised. PVV members of parliament have cited Clintel publications during national policy debates. The recently founded Boer Burger Beweging (BBB), a party that grew out of the Dutch farmers protests against European Union nitrogen regulations, is part of the multi-party government as well. While the BBB is not entirely dismissive of climate change, it is very critical of any type of regulatory solutions or fixed emissions reductions targets, instead supporting voluntary and incentive-based policies. The Dutch media landscape has also shifted in Clintels favour since 2019, when the new and controversial right-wing media organisation Ongehoord Nederland (ON) secured a licence to broadcast a talk show on Dutch public television. While climate deniers had previously been given little serious attention by Dutch media, Clintel has been invited onto ON’s talk show at least six times since its launch. The show reached an average of 138,000 Dutch viewers for every episode in 2022. Clintel has cultivated links with a vocal web of climate deniers since its launch. In 2019, the organisations one-page World Climate Declaration, sub-titled There is no climate emergency, formed the basis of an open letter to the European Union and the United Nations. Many of the hundreds of signatories were affiliated with libertarian think tanks such as the U.S.-based Cato Institute, the Heartland Institute, and the London-based Institute of Economic Affairs — back then all well-known partner organisations of the Koch-funded Atlas Network. This global collective of more than 500 think tanks champions unfettered free market economics, and many of its partner organisations have histories of spreading climate denial, doubt, and delay. Clintels World Climate Declaration was referenced by U.S. Senator Ron Johnson [R-WI], during a Senate committee hearing held on May 1, 2024 as part of an investigation into the oil industry’s attempts to avoid accountability for climate change. You ought to take a look at that, Johnson suggested to the committee members, referring to the declaration.  While it is embedded in a global movement, Clintel’s funding seems to come from a largely Dutch-based network of deep-pocketed private individuals and smaller donors. Dutch real estate investor Niek Sandmann supported Clintel’s launch with a pledge of half a million euros. A Clintel newsletter from 2022 stated that the organisation also received a generous donation (the amount was 750 euros, Clintel later told DeSmog) from Edward Heerema, sole shareholder of Dutch company Allseas, which builds platforms and pipelines for the oil and gas sector, including clients such as Royal Dutch Shell. Financially, Clintel seems to be thriving. Public records show its annual revenue almost doubled to 202,952 euros in 2022 from 104,547 euros in 2019. An analysis by the Platform for Authentic Journalism, a Dutch investigative journalism collaboration, revealed that 54 percent of Clintel’s total revenue between 2019 and 2022 came from unspecified private entities, the rest being covered by Sandmann (22.4 percent); non-profit organisations (16.4 percent); companies (3.3 percent); and publications, lectures and other activities. Clintel told DeSmog that it does not receive grants from the oil industry. Clintel has used this money to organise multiple live events over the years, and launch a campaign against wind turbines in the Netherlands using arguments that have long since been discredited. Clintel also recently helped to promote and distribute the climate denier film Climate: The Movie, full of debunked myths, including that global temperatures aren’t increasing. The film has been watched 634,827 times on Clintel’s YouTube channel. Clintel videos, and those featuring co-founders Crok and Berkhout, have had 2,34 million views. ‘Did You Come up With This?’  In Roelofarendsveen, the day’s programme was an all-you-can-eat buffet of the many flavours of climate science denial. Narratives on offer ranged from climate change is happening but not due to human activity to the adverse effects of climate change are exaggerated or non-existent and climate change is occurring, is caused by humans, but has beneficial outcomes. For the audience, these apparent contradictions did not seem to matter much. After all, they all point to the same conclusion: Its not worth spending money to tackle the problem. Theo Wolters, who is editor of Climategate, a climate science denial website, presented the conveniently rounded number of one million euros per Dutch family to make the Netherlands climate neutral. Gasps could be heard from the audience, because Wolters’ calculations amount to 4.5 trillion euros, or almost four-and-a-half times the size of the Dutch economy. It can be half a million, it can be two million. But this is what my spreadsheet says at the moment, Wolters said.  Wolters, who also founded the European Climate Realist Network, a Dutch-based informal umbrella group for organisations across Europe that see themselves as climate realists, later admitted to DeSmog that these were — in his words — bizarrely high figures, based on an extrapolation of current trends. Wolters added: No one has a sensible idea of what that fossil-free energy supply could look like, and so you cannot reliably calculate its costs. Seen from this perspective, the threat of climate change is merely an excuse used by governments and international institutions to tighten control over people’s lives, aided by compliant media organisations. Responding to a request for comment after the conference, Crok said he considered DeSmog’s coverage to be the opposite of “real and reliable”. “It has only one purpose: to vilify anyone who criticises the alarmist climate narrative,” he said. In his talk, Jacob Nordangård, author of books such as The Global Coup d’Ètat and Rockefeller: Controlling the Game, supposedly identified those responsible. He spun a 30-minute yarn of global elites; Dutch and British Royalty; shadowy research agendas; and “Great Reset” conspiracy theories, which left even the host of the talk jokingly wondering out loud: “Did you come up with this yourself?”.   Nordangård later told DeSmog that he considers the questions he is asking about global power dynamics to be a legitimate area of study, arguing that it would be contradictory to characterise his work as a conspiracy theory when it shares parallels, in his view, with DeSmog’s research into the fossil fuel industry’s funding of climate denial.  Speakers gather on the conference stage. Credit: Nina Tea Zibetti Climate in the Courts Another central topic at the conference was the recent surge in climate litigation cases against governments and corporations. Crok, the Clintel co-founder, titled his lecture Should the Climate War Be Won in Court? His answer to his own question was No. However, as long as these cases continue to be pursued, Clintel plans to make the best of it. Dutch law allows parties with a provable interest in a pending case to request permission to intervene. Clintel wants to use this avenue to challenge climate science and policies in the courtroom. The Netherlands has seen two notable, successful climate cases. In 2015, the Hague district court ruled in Urgenda vs. The Netherlands that the Dutch state must reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. The countrys Supreme Court subsequently upheld the ruling.  In 2021, Milieudefensie (the Dutch chapter of the environmental group Friends of the Earth), along with other environmental organisations, and more than 17,000 citizens, successfully sued Shell. Shell appealed the ruling, in which the Hague district court ordered the company to reduce its emissions by 45 percent by 2030. (The ruling applies to the direct emissions from Shell’s operations, while the company must also make a ‘best-effort’ reduction in its indirect emissions, which constitute 95 percent of its total emissions).   In October 2022, Clintel made filed a motion to intervene in the appeal proceedings of the Milieudefensie vs. Shell case. Clintel contended that the U.N.-backed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had not conclusively proved “dangerous climate change” and the court should therefore not issue a ruling based on its findings. In April 2023, the Court of Appeal in the Hague rejected Clintels request, deeming that Clintel lacked a sufficient interest in the case. The court also noted that the role of a joined party is limited to supporting the position of the party to whose side they join [and that] Clintels position on the state of climate science differs from that of Shell or Milieudefensie. Meanwhile, the eurosceptic Frans van der Werf spearheaded the launch of a new foundation called Milieu & Mens (Environment & People), expressly to participate in the Shell case. Its self-described mission is to level the playing field with respect to environmental organisations. To bolster its legal standing, Milieu & Mens said it was representing a group called Concerned Energy Users, set up to oppose climate regulations that could increase energy prices.   Soon after the launch of Milieu & Mens in February 2022, Crok posted on LinkedIn, that he and lawyer Lucas Bergkamp had come up with a new plan to intervene in the Milieudefensie vs. Shell case, and encouraged people to sign an online petition launched by Concerned Energy Users. Milieu & Mens has, however, adamantly denied any affiliation with Clintel. Milieu & Mens did not respond to a request for comment.  In early 2023, Milieu & Mens filed an application to serve as a joined party with Shell on behalf of Concerned Energy Users. This time, the court ruled in favour of Milieu & Mens: M&M fears that the prices of fossil fuels will rise as a result of the allocation of those claims. Therefore, M&M has an interest in joining. The CO2 Coalition has also got involved in the case. In November 2023, William Happer, the group’s chair and co-founder, wrote an expert opinion for Milieu & Mens together with noted U.S. climate science denier Richard Lindzen, a former professor at MIT,  and Steven Koonin, a former chief scientist for the oil major BP, who is now a professor at New York University. Clintel appears to have developed a liking for this type of legal strategy. At the conference, Crok proudly informed the audience that the organisation is preparing to intervene in future cases, starting with Milieudefensie’s climate case against Dutch bank ING, announced earlier this year. As soon as this case is officially filed, Clintel will try to join in, Crok said. What the effects will be, beyond publicity, remain to be seen. M&M’s intervention in the Shell case, however, led to several months of delay. “Bad news for the climate and bad news for those worldwide who are already suffering the consequence of the climate crisis,” wrote Milieudefensie. A verdict on Shell’s appeal is expected in early November. Teach Us How Willie Soon speaks at the conference. Credit: Nina Tea Zibetti In Hall 60, the day ended with a talk by charismatic keynote speaker Willie Soon, the aerospace engineer, peppered with memes. These included a football meme showing the IPCC and Soon’s foundation drawing 1-1, despite a distinctly uneven playing field.  If this is the first half of the match, Clintel definitely hopes to tip the score in their favour after the break. Next year, Clintel will have more people and more money, Crok promised, after handing the speakers their thank-you gifts, packets of paling (smoked eel).  To succeed, they are turning to their U.S.-based allies, the CO2 Coalition, for advice. “Gregory [Wrightstone] and I will have a meeting tomorrow. The CO2 Coalition is now growing rapidly, they have much more funding than we have, Crok told the audience. But tomorrow, he is going to teach us how to do it.” The post Dutch and U.S. Climate Deniers Join Forces As Europe Shifts to the Right appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Labour Urged to Release Cumbria Coal Mine Documents by Ex-Net Zero Tsar

 

at 7/24/24 8:07am

Former government net zero tsar Chris Skidmore has called on the new Labour administration to immediately publish the evidence and rationale provided to ministers before they approved a new “net zero” coal mine in Whitehaven, Cumbria. Former Conservative MP Skidmore, who authored a landmark report on net zero in 2023, is acting as a witness in a court case brought on behalf of Democracy for Sale that challenges the continued government secrecy around the granting of planning permission for the Whitehaven mine. The case is due to be heard later this summer.  “Accountability and transparency must be at the heart of all decision-making processes in the future, particularly when it comes to delivering on our own net zero commitments,” Skidmore told Democracy for Sale. “There is no such thing as a new net zero coal mine and ministers simply shouldn’t have been allowed to abuse the terminology of net zero by claiming something that was palpably false,” added Skidmore, who resigned as a Tory MP in January 2024 over former prime minister Rishi Sunak’s backtracking on key climate targets. Skidmore has urged the new government to release the evidence given to his former colleague Michael Gove before he gave the go-ahead to the project, which is the UK’s first deep coal mine in more than 30 years.  The proposed mine would extract 2.8 million tonnes of coking coal a year from under the Irish Sea to produce steel, emitting an estimated 220 millions tonnes of greenhouse gases over its lifetime. The mine has become a political flashpoint in discussions over the UK’s commitment to reach net zero by 2050. In 2021, the International Energy Agency concluded that any new fossil fuel extraction was incompatible with global decarbonisation targets. Since being elected on 4 July, Labour has signalled that it wants to halt the coal mine. Angela Rayner, Gove’s successor as secretary of state for housing, communities and local government, chose not to defend the scheme from a legal challenge by Friends of the Earth, and South Lakes Action on Climate Change that was heard last week. The future of the mine is now in serious doubt after Rayner spoke of an “error in law” during the approval process. But the “need for full transparency and accountability around the extraordinary decision” remains strong, Skidmore said.  WCM Resources, the mining firm given the planning permission, continued to claim in the High Court that Whitehaven would be a “unique net zero” mine. WCM is headquartered in Sussex but controlled by EMR Capital, an international private equity firm with a base in the Cayman Islands.  WCM Resources claims that the mine will be built and run using green transport and electricity, and that constructing the mine in the UK will substitute coal mined in other parts of the world. However, the government’s own research has said there is “high certainty” that there will be no demand for the coking coal set to be produced by the mine, due to the steel industry’s transition to green energy. Last year, Democracy for Sale used access to information laws to ask for the publication of the ‘ministerial submission’ – the evidence and rationale for approving the mine – given to Gove before he approved the scheme. Democracy for Sale has now launched legal proceedings at the Information Tribunal under Environmental Information Regulations after the government refused to release the documents.  Numerous experts and politicians have criticised the previous Conservative government’s decision to grant a licence to the Whitehaven coal mine. Tory peer Lord Deben, the former chairman of the Climate Change Committee, which advises the government on its net zero policies, branded the coal mine’s approval as “absolutely indefensible”. He said the decision “would damage the UK’s leadership on climate change”. Lord Adair Turner has called it “climate vandalism and economic incompetence on a scale difficult to believe”.  The Times also revealed that the inspector who recommended the Whitehaven mine’s approval is a former miner “who has spoken of his anguish at pit closures.” The Department for Housing, Communities and Local Government declined to comment on the record. This article was originally published on the Democracy for Sale Substack The post Labour Urged to Release Cumbria Coal Mine Documents by Ex-Net Zero Tsar appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Enquête : Les initiatives de l’industrie de l’aquaculture visant à promouvoir des pêcheries durables en Afrique de l’Ouest sont entachées de « conflits d’intérêts massifs »

 

at 7/23/24 5:04am

The original version of this article appeared in English on DeSmog on 4 July 2024 Les initiatives phares visant à garantir un « approvisionnement responsable » pour le secteur mondial de laquaculture en Afrique de lOuest se trouvent compromises par des conflits dintérêts systémiques, menaçant ainsi les efforts déployés en vue de préserver des stocks de poissons essentiels, comme le révèle l’enquête de DeSmog. Les conclusions de cette étude suscitent de vives inquiétudes à lheure où les dommages causés par lindustrie des farines de poisson dans la région sont de plus en plus manifestes, et donnent lieu à des accusations d’« écoblanchiment » de la part des défenseurs de l’environnement et des droits humains.  Au cours de la dernière décennie, les usines produisant de la farine et de lhuile de poisson (le moteur de lindustrie de lélevage de poissons carnivores) ont proliféré le long des côtes dAfrique de lOuest, à savoir en Mauritanie, au Sénégal et en Gambie.  Lindustrie cible les petits poissons « pélagiques » gras (tels que les sardines, les sardinelles et les maquereaux) qui sont broyés en aliments aquacoles destinés aux saumons, aux bars et aux crevettes. Ces poissons sont utilisés dans le secteur alimentaire qui connaît la croissance la plus rapide au monde (l’aquaculture), sachant que la demande en farine et huile de poisson est aujourd’hui supérieure à loffre. En Afrique subsaharienne, les activités de lindustrie sont connues pour être à lorigine de la pollution, de linsécurité alimentaire et de pertes demplois. Les espèces pélagiques, souvent considérées comme le « poisson du pauvre », apportent des nutriments essentiels aux régimes alimentaires locaux et leur pêche génère des emplois pour des dizaines de milliers de travailleuses de la pêche. La pression exercée sur ces stocks déjà épuisés expose ces espèces à un risque d’effondrement. DeSmog a établi une cartographie de trois initiatives de développement durable menées depuis 2017 en Afrique de l’Ouest et mises en place par de puissants acteurs et acheteurs mondiaux de lindustrie de la farine et de lhuile de poisson, en réponse aux critiques visant le secteur. Parmi les acteurs participant à ces initiatives figurent le fabricant américain daliments pour animaux Cargill, les producteurs européens daliments aquacoles Skretting et Biomar, ou encore l’association professionnelle des ingrédients marins, l’IFFO. Un programme de certification (MarinTrust), une table ronde du secteur et un projet damélioration de la pêche (‘Fishery Improvement Project’, FIP) ont été analysés. Pour ce faire, nous avons examiné leurs membres, ainsi que les affiliations et les emplois des personnes participant à ces trois initiatives interconnectées et se renforçant mutuellement.  Létude a révélé que les représentants de la société civile dAfrique de lOuest, les femmes travaillant dans le secteur de la pêche et les pêcheurs artisanaux étaient absents des trois initiatives, et ce, alors que les acteurs et les communautés au niveau local subissent de plein fouet les impacts de lindustrie de la farine de poisson. DeSmog a également constaté que les géants de laquaculture Cargill, Skretting et BioMar (trois des plus grands fournisseurs mondiaux daliments destinés aux saumons d’élevage) sont représentés dans les trois initiatives. Ils siègent également au sein des comités de contrôle du programme de certification MarinTrust, le principal organisme chargé de fixer les normes pour lindustrie de la farine et de lhuile de poisson. Les trois entreprises sapprovisionnent déjà activement en huile de poisson en Mauritanie, bien que la pêche pélagique de ce pays ne soit pas encore certifiée comme étant gérée de manière durable. Ces entreprises ont toutes pour projet daccroître leur production daliments aquacoles et ont publié des objectifs ambitieux à court terme pour augmenter la part dingrédients marins certifiés dans leurs produits alimentaires destinés à laquaculture.  Lanalyse de DeSmog a révélé que les représentants des grandes entreprises et de leurs groupes commerciaux dominaient le conseil dadministration de lorganisme chargé de lélaboration des normes (MarinTrust) ainsi que la Global Roundtable on Marine Ingredients (Table ronde mondiale sur les ingrédients marins). Trois de ces organisations se sont par ailleurs opposées par le passé aux réglementations environnementales. Au sein comités de direction de ces initiatives, la représentation des entreprises du secteur est loin dêtre contrebalancée par celle des ONG ou des instituts de recherche indépendants. Seules deux organisations internationales à but non lucratif de protection de la nature sont en effet représentées pour l’ensemble des trois programmes. Les structures de direction de MarinTrust se sont également avérées être entièrement contrôlées par des membres de lOrganisation des ingrédients marins (The Marine Ingredients Organisation, l’IFFO), lassociation professionnelle de lindustrie de la farine et de lhuile de poisson, avec laquelle MarinTrust partage la même adresse à Londres.  « Comment peut-on prendre au sérieux un programme de certification si ce sont uniquement les entreprises qui développent leurs propres critères et que ce sont elles qui contrôlent tout ce qui a trait à l’obligation de rendre des comptes ? », déplore Devlin Kuyek, chercheur qui se concentre sur lagro-industrie mondiale au sein de lorganisation à but non lucratif GRAIN. « Il ny a rien dans tout cela qui permette de garantir un équilibre des pouvoirs ». Aby Diouf, un marchand de poisson sénégalais, dresse un constat inquiétant : « Nous sommes dans des organisations, nous avons nos présidents. Mais cela ne veut pas dire quon nous demande notre avis, et nos représentants ne sont pas là quand les décisions sont prises. Nous aimerions faire partie de ces organismes, car nous pourrions ainsi nous défendre. Les usines de farine de poisson ne nous rendent pas service. » Dans un communiqué, un porte-parole de MarinTrust a décrit lorganisme comme une « initiative dirigée par lindustrie, dont la crédibilité provient de sa connaissance approfondie du secteur des ingrédients marins : lindustrie, le secteur de la certification et le réseau des ONG sont représentés au sein de sa gouvernance. » Selon ce dernier, MarinTrust a organisé des consultations publiques afin de sassurer que les observations des parties prenantes soient bien prises en compte. MarinTrust souligne également que son « modèle repose sur létablissement des normes et NON sur loctroi de certificats (cette mission est assurée par un organisme de certification tiers indépendant) », précisant que lorganisme est « membre de ISEAL [lorganisation mondiale de normes de durabilité crédibles] et quil respecte ses codes de bonnes pratiques » Toutes les organisations et personnes mentionnées dans cet article ont été contactées en vue de recueillir leurs avis et remarques. Les réponses de MarinTrust, de la table ronde sur les ingrédients marins et de l’IFFO sont consultables ici.  Une industrie mondiale puissante DeSmog a analysé les données figurant sur le site web de ces trois initiatives volontaires, ainsi que les informations relatives aux parcours professionnels de leurs membres à partir de profils LinkedIn, afin de déterminer quelles entreprises, quels individus et quels groupes de la société civile participaient à ces programmes. Figure 1 : Carte interactive reflétant linfluence de lindustrie sur les initiatives de durabilité dans le domaine des farines de poisson en Afrique de lOuest Figure 1: Les acteurs gérant les trois programmes de l’industrie visant à promouvoir une pêche durable et axés sur lAfrique de lOuest. De gauche à droite : les partenaires référencés du programme de gestion des pêches « Mauritania Small Pelagics Fisheries Improvement Project » (FIP), les membres de linitiative de durabilité « Global Roundtable on Marine Ingredients », et les principaux membres du conseil dadministration et du comité de direction du programme de certification des farines et huiles de poisson « MarinTrust ». Crédit : Brigitte Wear et Michaela Herrmann DeSmog a cartographié et analysé trois initiatives sectorielles interconnectées en Afrique de lOuest (voir figure 1). Létude a passé en revue les 21 partenaires du Fishery Improvement Project (FIP), qui est dirigé par le secteur en collaboration avec le gouvernement mauritanien et qui a été mis en place par la société française de raffinage dhuile de poisson Olvea. Létude a également passé à la loupe les affiliations des 39 membres de différents comités du programme de certification MarinTrust ainsi que celles des 14 membres de la Global Roundtable on Marine Ingredients (Table ronde mondiale sur les ingrédients marins). Ces deux programmes ont été créés par la très influente association professionnelle IFFO, dont lobjectif principal est la « gestion de sa réputation » face à ce qui constitue, selon cette organisation, « de nombreuses critiques négatives et injustes » à lencontre de lindustrie. Les sociétés membres de lIFFO représentent plus de la moitié de la production mondiale de farine et dhuile de poisson et 80 % de son commerce mondial. Parmi ces entreprises, figurent certains des plus grands producteurs de saumon délevage, qui consomment 44 % de lhuile de poisson produite dans le monde et dont la valeur du marché mondial est estimée à 16 milliards de dollars en 2022. L’association professionnelle considère les ingrédients marins (farine et huile de poisson) comme la base du secteur des produits de la mer délevage. Fabriqués à partir dorganismes tels que les petits poissons, le krill et les algues, la majorité des ingrédients marins sont utilisés pour produire des aliments destinés au marché croissant des poissons délevage. Cependant, lalimentation porcine, lalimentation pour animaux de compagnie et les nutraceutiques (compléments alimentaires pour les humains) constituent également dimportantes destinations pour les ingrédients marins. Lindustrie de la farine et de lhuile de poisson est souvent critiquée pour son utilisation inefficace des ressources, car elle dépend des poissons sauvages pour nourrir dautres animaux. On laccuse également de dommages écologiques : elle génère de la pollution, favorise la pêche illégale, non déclarée et non réglementée (pêche INN), et provoque l’épuisement du réseau alimentaire marin pour les oiseaux de mer et dautres espèces marines. En Afrique subsaharienne, lOrganisation des Nations unies pour lalimentation et lagriculture (FAO) a conclu que « lindustrie constitue une menace pour les moyens de subsistance et la sécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle des communautés locales. » Consommés frais ou séchés, les petits poissons représentent une source vitale (souvent irremplaçable) de zinc, de vitamine A, de fer, de calcium et dacides gras, en particulier pour les enfants au cours de leurs 1 000 premiers jours de vie. Ils sont consommés par les habitants des régions côtières de lAfrique de lOuest et de lintérieur des terres. En 2023, les usines de Mauritanie ont exploité un volume de poisson sauvage qui aurait pu permettre à 6 à 9,6 millions de personnes de la région de disposer dun approvisionnement en poisson suffisant pour répondre à tous leurs besoins nutritionnels pendant un an [1]. Les liens entre MarinTrust et les associations professionnelles Les consommateurs et les détaillants exigent de plus en plus que les poissons délevage soient nourris avec des matières premières certifiées, mais loffre est insuffisante.  Plus de la moitié de la production mondiale de farine et dhuile de poisson est certifiée conformément à la norme MarinTrust. Le programme sest fixé comme objectif de parvenir en 2025 à ce que 75 % de tous les ingrédients marins soient certifiés, que ce soit dans le cadre dune évaluation ou dun « programme damélioration » (‘Improver Programme’) de pré-certifications. MarinTrust a fait ses débuts en tant que « norme responsable » de lorganisation IFFO (IFFO ‘Responsible Standard’) en 2009, une norme créée par l’association professionnelle en réponse au « besoin accru de rassurer sur la durabilité de la pêche à travers la chaîne de valeur ». Lorganisme vise à « améliorer lapprovisionnement en produits de la pêche responsable et la production dingrédients marins à léchelle mondiale » via létablissement de normes pour les usines, les transformateurs et les négociants de farine de poisson, et des programmes pour les usines sapprovisionnant auprès de « pêcheries en voie d’amélioration ».  La norme RS de lIFFO a été renommée MarinTrust en 2020. Elle a par le passé rejeté les allégations selon lesquelles elle était un « organisme de certification quasi interne » au sein de lIFFO, déclarant sur son site Internet quil s’agissait bien dune « entité distincte dotée de sa propre structure de gouvernance, de ses propres statuts, de ses propres objectifs et de son propre budget. » Mais lanalyse de DeSmog a révélé que MarinTrust et lIFFO ont des liens étroits et durables. Lanalyse des liens daffiliation de ses membres montre que le conseil d’administration de MarinTrust est entièrement contrôlé par l’organisation des ingrédients marins. Sur ses six administrateurs, quatre occupent actuellement des postes de direction ou de très haut niveau au sein de l’IFFO, dont notamment le directeur technique de l’IFFO (qui est mandaté pour siéger au conseil dadministration en vertu des termes de référence de MarinTrust et qui est également membre de son comité de direction), le directeur général de lIFFO et de deux membres du conseil dadministration de lIFFO. MarinTrust et lIFFO sont également enregistrées à la même adresse à Londres, daprès les documents publiés par la Companies House (registre des sociétés). Les organisations environnementales à but non lucratif Changing Markets Foundation et Feedback Global ont déjà pointé du doigt les relations étroites quentretient MarinTrust avec cette association professionnelle. Kevin Fitzsimmons, professeur de sciences de lenvironnement à luniversité de lArizona, a comparé cette situation au « renard qui garde le poulailler ». « Le fait que tant de personnes membres dune association professionnelle soient les mêmes que celles qui dirigent un organisme de certification na aucun sens pour moi », a déclaré M. Fitzsimmons à DeSmog. « Ils ne vont pas demander à leur propre association professionnelle de rendre des comptes ». « Si lon veut prendre ces certifications au sérieux, il faut que les organismes qui les délivrent souvrent et soient plus indépendants », exhorte-t-il.   Petter M. Johannessen, directeur général de lIFFO, explique dans un communiqué que « LIFFO encourage ses membres à aller bien au-delà du respect des exigences légales : ladhésion à des normes de certification volontaires est essentielle pour garantir un approvisionnement et une production responsables ». Et de poursuivre : « Les programmes volontaires ne constituent pas une approche binaire où il ny aurait que deux choix à faire : il sagit clairement dune initiative axée sur le marché, qui exerce une pression sur ce dernier. Ils complètent les cadres réglementaires et peuvent contribuer à responsabiliser les entreprises en les amenant à se conformer aux exigences du standard international ISO (International Organisation for Standardisation). Ces programmes doivent être crédibles à la fois du point de vue de lindustrie et de la société civile. Cette crédibilité est assurée par des consultations publiques et des mécanismes de gouvernance solides.» Représentation de lindustrie Lanalyse de DeSmog a révélé que près de 30 % des membres du Comité de MarinTrust sont actuellement employés dans lindustrie de la farine et de lhuile de poisson ou dans lindustrie de lalimentation animale (en mai 2024). Lanalyse a également révélé que MarinTrust avait un nombre significativement plus élevé de représentants dentreprises et de groupes de lobbying au sein de son conseil dadministration (83 %) que des organisations comparables, telles que lAquaculture Stewardship Council (33 %) et le Marine Stewardship Council (11 %) (voir figure 2). Figure 2. Liens entre lindustrie des produits de la mer et les conseils dadministration des programmes de certification Répartition des principales affiliations des membres des comités exécutifs au sein des programmes de certification MarinTrust, ASC et MSC. Le nombre (n) de membres de chaque conseil dadministration ou comité de direction est indiqué au-dessus de chaque barre verticale. Le terme « industrie » englobe laquaculture, les produits de la mer, la pêche, les entreprises de farine et dhuile de poisson, ainsi que leurs groupes de lobbying et associations professionnelles respectifs. (MarinTrust dispose de deux structures de type conseil dadministration, contrairement à ASC et MSC, et nous avons donc inclus les deux pour donner une image plus complète des affiliations des membres). Crédit : Brigitte Wear Bien que MarinTrust publie en ligne les biographies des membres de son comité, il ne mentionne pas sur son site web leurs conflits dintérêts, ni ses propres sources de financement. Au total, huit entreprises sont représentées au sein du conseil dadministration de MarinTrust et de son comité de direction, dont les responsabilités incluent la révision et linterprétation des normes du programme de certification. Le comité de direction compte parmi ses membres le grand producteur daliments pour animaux Cargill, qui fabrique des produits aquacoles et qui est copropriétaire du géant chilien du saumon Multi-X et de lentreprise norvégienne Grieg, spécialisée dans la production de saumon, le producteur norvégien de farine de poisson Pelagia, les négociants grecs Distral et Veolys, ainsi que le détaillant français de produits de la mer Labeyrie Fine Foods. Les directeurs généraux du géant péruvien de la farine et de lhuile de poisson TASA et du négociant danois de farine de poisson FF Skagen siègent tous deux au conseil dadministration de MarinTrust. Lanalyse a révélé que cinq employés (directeurs, gestionnaires et responsables) actuellement en poste chez Cargill, Skretting, BioMar et Pelagia, le géant de la farine de poisson, siègent dans les comités de MarinTrust, et notamment au sein des comités de direction des normes (Standard Steering) et de conseil technique.  Par ailleurs, les sept producteurs et négociants de farine et dhuile de poisson siégeant dans les comités de MarinTrust possèdent tous des sites certifiés conformes à la norme MarinTrust. Parmi eux, figurent les sociétés représentées au conseil dadministration de MarinTrust (TASA et FF Skagen) ainsi que Pelagia, dont le PDG est également lactuel président du groupe de lobbying sur les ingrédients marins, lIFFO. Les trois géants des produits aquacoles siégeant dans les comités de MarinTrust ont tous des objectifs à court terme pour inclure une plus grande proportion daliments certifiés dans leurs produits. BioMar a pour objectif de « sapprovisionner à 100 % auprès de pêcheries responsables dici 2030 », Skretting vise à ce que « 100 % des ingrédients marins soient certifiés ou issus de pêcheries en FIP [Fishery Improvement Project] dici 2025, avec 85 % pour les certifications et 15 % pour les pêcheries en FIP dici décembre 2025 » et Cargill a « fixé un objectif intermédiaire consistant à sapprovisionner en ingrédients marins auprès de sources certifiées ou ‘en amélioration’ dici 2025 ». Les structures de MarinTrust sont « fortement défectueuses », selon Dyhia Belhabib, responsable du programme Pêches de lorganisation à but non lucratif EcoTrust Canada. « Elles ne prennent en compte aucune dimension sociale, ni aucune notion de véritable durabilité et de son sens le plus large », s’inquiète-t-elle.   « Je soutiens limplication de lindustrie dans les programmes de certification et de durabilité, mais il faut veiller à ce que lapproche soit fondée sur un principe d’indépendance », ajoute-t-elle. « Il sagit clairement dun programme conçu par lindustrie pour lindustrie. Si vous intégrez des membres actuels de lindustrie qui bénéficient du système, cela constitue un énorme conflit d’intérêts, et cela ne devrait pas être autorisé. » Daniel Lee, de la Global Seafood Alliance, qui siège au conseil dadministration de MarinTrust et au comité dapplication du programme damélioration (Improver Programme Application), a précisé dans un e-mail que « MarinTrust est un organisme de mise en place de normes et non un organisme de certification et, en tant que tel, MarinTrust ne certifie rien. Cette distinction des rôles est fondamentale dans les systèmes de certification par des tiers ; elle est comparable à la ‘séparation de lÉglise et de lÉtat. » MarinTrust a fait savoir dans une communication adressée à DeSmog que « la certification MarinTrust porte sur le site [l’usine] et non sur lentreprise, la marque ou la pêcherie. MarinTrust garantit que les ingrédients marins certifiés font l’objet d’un approvisionnement et d’une production responsables, et NON quils sont durables. » Pourtant, toutes les grandes entreprises de produits aquacoles  (Cargill, Skretting et Biomar) ont élaboré leurs politiques dapprovisionnement sur la base des programmes de certification de MSC et de MarinTrust et des projets damélioration des pêcheries (FIP). Cargill cite lapprovisionnement en « ingrédients marins produits de manière responsable et certifiés par MarinTrust » pour illustrer la manière dont ils « contribuent à la protection des stocks de poissons sauvages », tandis que Skretting classe MarinTrust dans la catégorie A en matière de durabilité (‘Sustainability class A’) La Table ronde mondiale sur les ingrédients marins MarinTrust indique dans son rapport annuel quil « continue de jouer un rôle central » dans le volet Afrique de lOuest de la Table ronde mondiale sur les ingrédients marins (Global Roundtable for Marine Ingredients).  Également mise en place par lassociation professionnelle IFFO, en partenariat avec lONG internationale de conservation marine Sustainable Fisheries Partnership (SFP), la table ronde a été instaurée en 2021 afin de « relever une série de défis environnementaux et sociaux urgents », de recueillir des informations fiables et factuelles sur les impacts de lindustrie, de contribuer aux discussions et « daccroître la disponibilité dingrédients marins durables. » La table ronde na pas publié de critères de participation et celle-ci se fait « sur invitation ». Lorganisation na pas voulu divulguer les noms des représentants des entreprises à DeSmog, mais Dave Robb, responsable du programme de développement durable chez Cargill, a confirmé sa participation à cette initiative, ainsi quaux deux autres initiatives analysées dans notre enquête. Par ailleurs, la table ronde compte parmi ses membres six organisations qui sont également représentées au sein du conseil dadministration et du comité de direction de MarinTrust.  Parmi les 14 membres de la table ronde, figurent notamment : Nestlé, qui utilise des ingrédients marins dans les aliments pour animaux de compagnie, les préparations lactées pour nourrissons et les compléments alimentaires à base dhuile de poisson, mais aussi Mars, le fabricant daliments pour animaux de compagnie, ainsi que Nissui, une entreprise de produits de la mer qui possède des fermes délevage de saumons au Chili. Les entreprises daliments aquacoles Cargill, BioMar et Skretting, ainsi que Olvea, la société française de raffinage et de commerce dhuile de poisson, participent à la table ronde, de même que lassociation professionnelle de laquaculture au sein de lUE, la Federation of European Aquaculture Producers (FEAP), lIFFO, et le groupe de lobbying Global Seafood Alliance. Le Sustainable Fisheries Partnership (SPF) constitue la seule ONG présente à la table ronde (voir figure 1). « La table ronde est largement dominée par les producteurs daliments pour animaux », constate le chercheur Devlin Kuyek. « Elle ressemble à une organisation sectorielle qui est là pour protéger ses intérêts. » M. Kuyek souligne également que les entreprises viennent principalement dEurope et dAmérique du Nord, et que les entreprises chinoises, qui constituent pourtant un autre gros acheteur de farine de poisson en Afrique de lOuest, en sont absentes. « Cela montre quelles se préoccupent dun ensemble particulier dintérêts, et de marchés particuliers », ajoute-t-il.  La Mauritanie est le septième exportateur dhuile de poisson à destination de lUE. Avec la Norvège, lUE représente un marché important pour lhuile de poisson, qui est essentielle à loptimisation de la nutrition du saumon et de la truite.  Sur une période de cinq ans allant jusquen 2021, la Norvège (le plus grand producteur de saumon au monde) a toujours été le plus grand importateur dhuile de poisson mauritanienne, représentant plus de la moitié des exportations en 2021. La France, le Danemark, lEspagne, la Grèce et la Turquie sont également des importateurs réguliers dhuile de poisson mauritanienne sur la même période. Kevin Fitzsimmons estime que la table ronde ressemble à « lindustrie qui se parle à elle-même », tout comme le conseil dadministration de MarinTrust. « La plupart des tables rondes que je connais sefforcent dobtenir une certaine diversité dans leur composition, avec des représentants de la société civile et du gouvernement », a-t-il déclaré. Árni M Mathiesen, président indépendant de la Table ronde mondiale sur les ingrédients marins, a expliqué à DeSmog par e-mail : « Nous pensons que la pression du marché peut créer un environnement favorable dans lequel les régulateurs se sentent en confiance pour agir. La Table ronde mondiale sur les ingrédients marins a été créée pour constituer un point de contact unique pour les parties prenantes qui produisent ou utilisent des ingrédients marins ou qui définissent des normes pour un approvisionnement et une utilisation responsable de ces ingrédients, avec la volonté de susciter des changements positifs dans le secteur par le biais de la pression du marché. Nous félicitons le gouvernement mauritanien davoir mis en place des réglementations plus strictes sur la production de farine de poisson en 2023. » Mathiesen a rappelé quun rapport commandé par la table ronde à une ONG, Partner Africa, se faisait lécho détudes antérieures menées par les Nations unies et de nombreuses ONG, confirmant que les usines de production de farine de poisson en Mauritanie et au Sénégal polluaient lair, leau et le sol, entraînaient une insécurité alimentaire, en particulier pour les personnes à faible revenu, ainsi que des pertes demploi et de revenus pour les femmes transformatrices de poisson. « Cette plateforme ne fixe aucun critère de durabilité, mais sappuie plutôt sur des données scientifiques et des audits réalisés par des tierces parties (comme le rapport de Partner Africa) », a-t-il précisé. Les trois entreprises daliments aquacoles participantes, Cargill, Skretting et BioMar, mettent toutes en avant leur participation à la table ronde dans leurs rapports annuels sur le développement durable. Lentreprise Biomar affirme quelle favorise une « aquaculture plus durable » en raison de son adhésion à des initiatives volontaires. De son côté, lentreprise Skretting soutient quen participant à linitiative, elle contribuera à «  nourrir une population croissante avec des protéines marines sûres et nutritives. » Mais M. Kuyek ne croit pas que linitiative permettra de lutter contre linsécurité alimentaire. « Une table ronde dominée par lindustrie ne fera quaggraver la situation, car cest bien laugmentation de la production de ces denrées qui pose problème ici », conclut-il. « Cette initiative sapparente tout bonnement à de lécoblanchiment pur et simple. » « Les initiatives privées portées par de puissantes multinationales ne feront quaggraver la situation », estime Andre Standing, conseiller principal de la Coalition pour des accords de pêche équitables (CAPE), une plateforme dorganisations européennes et africaines. « Toute réponse qui se veut efficace doit reposer sur la transparence et la participation du public. Tout le contraire de cette table ronde à laquelle les citoyens des pays dAfrique de lOuest ne sont pas conviés. » À lintérieur d’un site dAtlantic Protein, une usine de farine et dhuile de poisson basée à Nouadhibou, en Mauritanie. Credit: imageBROKER.com GmbH & Co. KG / Alamy Stock Photo La participation des communautés locales à la table ronde Standing reconnaît que des partenaires dAfrique de lOuest ne souhaitent peut-être pas être associés à cette table ronde. Il suggère que les organisateurs de cette initiative invitent plutôt des « observateurs » à titre de solution provisoire. « Cest un cercle très fermé. La table ronde nest pas ouverte à lexamen du public, alors quelle traite de biens publics aussi importants », fait-il remarquer. La table ronde a donné lieu à un atelier en collaboration avec la FAO et des représentants des communautés dAfrique subsaharienne en décembre 2023. Par la suite, ses organisateurs ont publié « un communiqué commun insistant sur la nécessité de réglementer le secteur des ingrédients marins, dappliquer les lois et de ne transformer en farine de poisson que les matières premières qui nont pas de marché pour la consommation humaine directe », souligne M. Mathiesen dans un entretien accordé à DeSmog. Pour Devlin Kuyek, les collaborations avec lONU ne se substituent pas à lobligation de rendre des comptes : « Lorsque ces entreprises participent à des initiatives avec la FAO, cela leur donne plus de poids. Parce quils ne se présentent pas comme le groupe de lobbying de lindustrie de lalimentation animale, mais comme une table ronde consacrée à la durabilité ».  Diaba Diop, présidente du Réseau des Femmes de la Pêche Artisanale du Sénégal (REFEPAS), qui représente plus de 45 000 travailleuses de la pêche au Sénégal, a participé à l’atelier organisé au Ghana par la FAO, en collaboration avec la table ronde sur les ingrédients marins. « Jai abordé les difficultés liées à ces usines auxquelles les femmes sont confrontées », confie-t-elle. « Notre secteur de la transformation emploie des milliers de personnes et crée beaucoup d’emplois. Cependant, d’une part, les usines de farine de poisson nemploient que quelques personnes, et d’autre part, elles ne fabriquent que des aliments pour animaux. Est-il normal que lon nourrisse des animaux plutôt que des êtres humains ? » « Nous navons pas le même pouvoir politique », fait observer Mme Diop. « Si cétait le cas, nous naurions pas à plaider auprès des autorités. Elles accordent les autorisations aux usines, et nous ne pouvons rien y faire. Nous ne cessons de plaider pour notre cause et de rencontrer différents acteurs pour les sensibiliser au fait que si les usines perdurent, le métier de femme transformatrice disparaîtra. » Un porte-parole du groupe de lobbying du secteur des produits de la mer, la Global Seafood Alliance (GSA), a indiqué que « les programmes volontaires tels que ceux promus par les membres de la table ronde sont essentiels, en particulier dans les régions où la réglementation gouvernementale concernant ces ressources halieutiques est moins stricte. La GSA est membre de la Table ronde mondiale sur les ingrédients marins parce que nous nous sommes engagés à suivre les principes des objectifs de développement durable des Nations unies. Dans ce contexte, nous reconnaissons que les pêcheries du monde entier subissent dimportantes pressions pour leur exploitation à des fins de production dalimentation animale et humaine. Toutes ces pêcheries doivent être gérées de manière à promouvoir des pratiques dapprovisionnement responsables. » Un porte-parole de lentreprise Mars a invité DeSmog à se référer à la déclaration de la Table ronde et à sa politique dapprovisionnement responsable. Un porte-parole de Skretting a quant à lui mentionné le rapport de Partner Africa, commandé par la Table ronde, estimant que « cette action audacieuse, combinée à des groupes de discussion et à des ateliers, tels que celui organisé conjointement avec la FAO au Ghana, entraînera des changements positifs dans ces pays et positionnera lindustrie à lavant-garde de la gestion durable des ressources naturelles et du dialogue avec les communautés locales. » Historique des campagnes de lobbying DeSmog a démontré que trois des entreprises et associations professionnelles membres de MarinTrust et de la Table ronde sur les ingrédients marins sopposent depuis longtemps aux réglementations en matière denvironnement.  Lun des membres de la table ronde, lassociation professionnelle European Fishmeal and Fish Oil Producers (EFFOP), a mené une campagne de lobbying contre une proposition de législation visant à renforcer les règles de lUE relatives aux niveaux autorisés de dioxine, un polluant hautement toxique et cancérigène, dans les farines de poisson. Un autre membre, la FEAP, a également fait pression sur les organes de lUE afin quils « trouvent un équilibre » entre la protection de lenvironnement et la production aquacole. Cargill affiche un bilan médiocre en matière de violations des droits humains et d’atteintes à lenvironnement dans sa chaîne dapprovisionnement. La société a déjà mené des actions de lobbying et manœuvré pour bloquer les mesures de protection des forêts liées à la culture du soja, une accusation quelle nie. Le groupe European Fishmeal and Fish Oil Producers (EFFOP) a fait savoir à DeSmog que la proposition de lUE sur les restrictions concernant la dioxine ne serait pas réaliste au vu des technologies actuelles. Leur réponse est publiée dans son intégralité ici. Des ONG qui « approuvent les yeux fermés » Sustainable Fisheries Partnership (SFP) est la seule ONG qui est associée à lensemble des trois initiatives. Elle participe à la fois à la table ronde sur les ingrédients marins et à MarinTrust, et se décrit comme un soutien de linitiative FIP en Mauritanie. WWF UK, une autre organisation internationale qui se consacre à la conservation des milieux marins, est la seule autre ONG identifiée dans lanalyse DeSmog à être impliquée au niveau exécutif : elle dispose dun siège au sein du comité de direction de MarinTrust. Le Sustainable Fisheries Partnership (SFP) et lorganisation caritative WWF UK reçoivent tous deux un financement important de la part des entreprises. En 2022, le SFP a reçu plus dun million de dollars provenant de partenariats avec des entreprises, soit près de 20 % de ses revenus, tandis que le WWF UK a reçu plus de 21 millions de dollars au cours de la même année.  Le SFP déclare que les solutions axées sur lindustrie « ne font pas seulement partie de lapproche du SFP, c’est lapproche du SFP ». En 2022-2023, les partenaires du SFP comprenaient des chaînes de supermarchés américaines, britanniques et européennes, McDonalds, Nestlé Purina et le géant de la pêche Thai Union Group. Andre Standing, de la Coalition pour des accords de pêche équitables (CAPE), se dit préoccupé par le fait que les partenariats de longue date conclus avec les organisations non gouvernementales, les coopérations et les liens financiers avec les entreprises signifient « quelles ne peuvent plus se prononcer et critiquer leurs partenaires » et quelles risquent de finir par « approuver les yeux fermés » ou faciliter des conflits dintérêts. Les multinationales comme celles qui participent à la table ronde et siègent aux conseils dadministration et comités de MarinTrust « nont lair respectables uniquement parce quelles ont conclu des partenariats avec des organisations comme la SFP et le WWF, ce qui les rend légitimes », insiste-t-il.  Dave Martin, directeur de la SFP pour les tables rondes sur la chaîne dapprovisionnement et les enjeux sociaux, a expliqué à DeSmog que lorganisation acceptait des fonds de lindustrie pour évaluer les pêcheries, et que les résultats étaient publiés sur le site FishSource. Les conclusions « mettent clairement en évidence les lacunes et les besoins damélioration des pêcheries » et sont « basées de manière transparente sur des données scientifiques et ouvertes à tous ceux qui souhaitent y contribuer et les critiquer. » Et dajouter : « Les actions volontaires de la part de lindustrie des produits de la mer ont permis daméliorer la gestion de diverses pêcheries et de créer un environnement propice à laction des décideurs politiques. Mais les solutions permanentes permettant de garantir des pêches durables et équitables reposent sur des cadres juridiques applicables. » Un représentant du WWF UK a affirmé que lorganisation siège à MarinTrust à titre consultatif et quelle ne reçoit de financement daucune des organisations. Selon lui, « les entreprises et les industries ont un impact considérable sur les milieux naturels et exercent une grande influence sur la scène mondiale. Les entreprises peuvent et doivent en faire davantage et, pour le WWF, contribuer à modifier le comportement habituel des entreprises est indispensable en vue de lutter contre le changement climatique et dinverser le processus de destruction de la nature. » Le Projet d’amélioration des pêches en Mauritanie DeSmog a également analysé les membres du Projet damélioration des pêches (ou FIP, de l’anglais ‘Fishery Imrovement Project’) pour les petits pélagiques en Mauritanie (voir Figure 1). Les FIP sont des outils fondés sur le marché et utilisés pour aider les pêcheries à améliorer leur durabilité, dans le but dobtenir à terme une certification. Le FIP relève dune initiative du secteur privé qui fait appel aux acteurs de la chaîne dapprovisionnement pour soutenir le plan de gestion des petits pélagiques du gouvernement mauritanien, qui prévoit la collecte de données, lévaluation des stocks et lapplication de ses règles. La Mauritanie constitue lépicentre de lindustrie de la farine et de lhuile de poisson de la région, avec 29 usines qui, en 2023, ont transformé environ 350 000 tonnes de poissons entiers en farine et en huile de poisson [2]. Le FIP mauritanien pour les petits pélagiques a été lancé en 2017 par le distributeur français dhuile de poisson Olvea qui, avec Cargill et Skretting, finance le projet. Il regroupe aujourdhui 23 partenaires, dont 70 % sont des fabricants ou des utilisateurs de farine et dhuile de poisson. Les autres partenaires sont liés au gouvernement mauritanien et comprennent les garde-côtes, le ministère de la pêche et lInstitut mauritanien de recherche océanographique et halieutique (IMROP). La section industrielle des protéines marines (SIPM) de la Fédération nationale de pêche de Mauritanie (FNP) est un autre partenaire du FIP. Le secrétaire de la FNP a indiqué à DeSmog que la SIMP ne représentait « que les propriétaires dusines. » Harouna Ismail Lebaye, président du groupe de pêcheurs artisanaux de la section de Nouadhibou de la Fédération libre de la pêche artisanale (FLPA), a confirmé que les pêcheurs artisanaux nétaient pas représentés par ce groupe, déclarant : « Il nest pas possible de défendre en même temps le loup et l’agneau. Et cest le cas avec la pêche artisanale et la pêche industrielle. » La pêcherie mauritanienne de petits pélagiques a été acceptée dans le ‘Improver Programme’ de MarinTrust en octobre 2019, devenant ainsi le premier projet damélioration des pêches (FIP) accepté par le programme de certification en Afrique. Elle vise désormais également la certification plus stricte du Marine Stewardship Council. Le FIP a été mis en place, en partie, en réponse à une baisse spectaculaire des stocks de poissons ciblés par les usines. Plus particulièrement, le stock migrateur de sardinelles rondes (lingrédient phare de la thieboudienne, le plat national du Sénégal voisin) se trouve dans un état critique, selon la FAO.  Face à la croissance des usines, qui ont absorbé en 2018 90 % du total des captures de pélagiques, les stocks de sardinelles plates et rondes ont chuté pour atteindre les niveaux les plus bas jamais enregistrés (voir la figure 3). Figure 3 Les captures de sardinelles rondes et plates ciblées par les usines de fabrication de farine de poisson sont en forte baisse, alors que le nombre dusines en activité en Afrique de lOuest a augmenté au cours de la dernière décennie. Les lignes pointillées rouges et la zone ombrée indiquent la date à partir de laquelle les deux espèces de sardinelles ont été évaluées comme étant surexploitées. NB. Les captures sont utilisées comme indicateur approximatif des populations de poissons. Un changement dans les captures peut être lié à des changements dans le nombre de poissons, mais peut également indiquer des changements au niveau de leffort de pêche. Les données relatives au nombre dusines recensées proviennent des sources suivantes : FAO, 2022 ; Corten et al., 2017 ; IMROP, 2023 ; DITP, 2022 ; Fall et al., 2023. Crédit : Brigitte Wear Les entreprises qui s’approvisionnent en Mauritanie Trois des quatre entreprises partenaires du programme FIP achètent activement de la farine et de lhuile de poisson provenant de Mauritanie, bien que la pêcherie ne soit pas encore certifiée comme étant « gérée de manière responsable » aux termes de la norme MarinTrust. Olvea vend 49 000 tonnes dhuile de poisson par an, dont un tiers provient de Mauritanie et de son usine de Nouadhibou, le cœur de lindustrie de la farine de poisson. Norsildmel (société détenue à 50 % par Pelagia, partenaire du FIP) a importé 24 000 tonnes de farine et dhuile de poisson provenant de Mauritanie entre 2017 et 2020, ce qui en fait le cinquième plus grand importateur au cours de cette période. Le PDG de Pelagia, Egil Magne Haugstad, est également lactuel président de lIFFO.  Les deux géants du secteur de l’alimentation aquacole (Skretting et Cargill) participant à ce FIP ont indiqué au Financial Times sapprovisionner en Mauritanie en « petites quantités ». Skretting et Cargill déclarent se fournir auprès de lune des deux usines reconnues par MarinTrust comme travaillant à lamélioration de la pêche. Cargill déclare sapprovisionner en sardines, tandis que Skretting sest approvisionné en sardinelles en 2022. Royal Canin a déclaré quil ne sapprovisionnerait auprès de la pêcherie couverte par le FIP mauritanien que lorsque son « huile de poisson serait certifiée MarinTrust. » Les prémices dune réglementation La Mauritanie a mis en place des règles visant à protéger les principales espèces de poissons et à améliorer la collecte et le partage des données. Mais si les défenseurs d’une pêche responsable se félicitent du renforcement de la transparence, lapplication de la réglementation reste limitée. Depuis 2021, par exemple, la Mauritanie stipule que 20 % de tous les poissons introduits dans une usine doivent être congelés et réservés à la consommation humaine. Cette règle devait permettre de remédier à la baisse drastique de la consommation de petits poissons, qui a notamment diminué de moitié en dix ans au Sénégal. Mais un fonctionnaire de linstitut de recherche gouvernemental IMROP a informé DeSmog que le poisson congelé mis de côté est exporté vers lAsie, lEurope et le Maroc. Dès 2016, le gouvernement mauritanien a fixé un quota pour les usines de farine de poisson afin de limiter la production de farine de poisson fabriquée à partir de poissons entiers frais à 2000 tonnes par an, le reste étant fabriqué à partir de sous-produits. Mais cette mesure ne semble pas avoir été respectée. Une étude publiée en mars 2024 indique que 95 % de la farine et de lhuile de poisson sont fabriqués à partir de poisson frais entier (ce qui correspond aux chiffres des précédents rapports). Pourtant, les exportations mauritaniennes ont fortement augmenté après 2016, et la production moyenne enregistrée en 2017 par les cinq usines partenaires du FIP sélevait à 10 660 tonnes (plus de cinq fois supérieure à la limite). Le règlement prévoyait également que les usines réduisent leur production de farine de poisson de 15 % chaque année jusquen 2019. Or, les exportations de farine et dhuile de poisson de la Mauritanie ont triplé entre 2010 et 2020. Depuis mai 2021, lutilisation des sardinelles rondes dans la production de farine de poisson est interdite en Mauritanie, ce qui a pour effet de déplacer leffort de pêche minotière vers les sardines, qui ne sont pas encore « pleinement exploitées », conformément à la classification de la FAO. Un rapport de MarinTrust de 2021 confirme que lindustrie de la farine de poisson utilise des volumes considérablement réduits de sardinelles rondes. Cette information a été confirmée à DeSmog par le représentant du FIP et responsable des statistiques à lIMROP, Cheikh-Baye Braham, qui a déclaré quaujourdhui « la farine de poisson est principalement produite à partir de sous-produits et de sardines, qui ne sont pas largement consommées localement. » Mais selon cette même évaluation de MarinTrust, les contrôles du FIP relatifs à la composition des captures, et à la « déclaration des débarquements par espèce » ne sont pas non plus satisfaisants (obtenant la mention « fail »). Par ailleurs, une évaluation de la pêcherie réalisée en 2023 par le SFP indique que la pêche illégale, non réglementée et non déclarée (INN) des sardines en Mauritanie « est préoccupante ». Et malgré linitiative FIP et les réglementations du gouvernement, la sardinelle ronde et la sardinelle plate sont toujours classées comme des espèces surexploitées par la FAO, dans une évaluation de 2022. « Je peux comprendre les raisons pour lesquelles lindustrie, qui possède des capitaux, cherche à soutenir la gouvernance de la pêche en Afrique de lOuest, et pourquoi le gouvernement mauritanien, qui souhaite garantir une pêche durable, coopère avec eux », explique Christina Hicks, spécialiste des sciences sociales de lenvironnement et professeur au groupe décologie politique de luniversité de Lancaster. « Mais la gestion de la pêche est toujours difficile, en particulier lorsque leffort de pêche est dicté par les forces du marché mondial. Il aura fallu vingt ans d’une gestion intensive des pêches dans des pays disposant de ressources et de capacités considérables pour inverser la tendance au déclin des stocks. » Christina Hicks nest pas convaincue que les mesures prises en Mauritanie soient à la hauteur de lampleur du problème. « Il semble que ni la capacité de gestion intensive des pêches ni un engagement significatif ne soient au rendez-vous, puisque la pêche sest poursuivie après que les stocks ont été déclarés surexploités et parce que les principaux acteurs ne se sentent pas représentés. Le risque est de légitimer la poursuite de la surexploitation de ce stock crucial », prévient-elle.  Des allégations de durabilité Cheikh-Baye Braham, du FIP mauritanien, a souligné à DeSmog que « la réglementation a été considérablement renforcée ces dernières années. »  Et dajouter : « Toute usine qui le souhaite peut rejoindre le FIP en tant que participant. Lobjectif est dêtre inclusif. Tout ce que fait le FIP est, par nature, volontaire. La réglementation de la durabilité incombe au gouvernement mauritanien. » Le SFP a déclaré à DeSmog que la présence dun FIP « atteste que diverses parties prenantes se sont réunies pour résoudre les problèmes affectant une pêcherie. Il ne sagit pas dun gage de durabilité et il ne faut pas le décrire comme tel.» « Tous les membres du FIP mauritanien reconnaissent pleinement les problèmes rencontrés dans la pêcherie, laquelle est identifiée comme étant ‘mal gérée’ dans le dernier rapport du SFP sur les pêcheries de réduction. » Pourtant, les politiques de durabilité et dapprovisionnement des quatre plus grands producteurs daliments aquacoles au monde, Cargill, Skretting, BioMar et Mowi, indiquent toutes quils sapprovisionnent auprès de « pêcheries certifiées, ou relevant d’un FIP. » Un ancien employé dune usine en Mauritanie a déclaré à DeSmog : « Toutes les usines de Mauritanie essaient de participer au FIP pour avoir accès aux marchés européens. » Skretting a fait part de sa décision à DeSmog dans un communiqué : « Depuis notre implication dans le FIP pour les petits pélagiques (FIP), nous avons continuellement diminué nos achats de matières non certifiées en Mauritanie. À partir de 2024, et conformément à notre Politique dapprovisionnement en ingrédients marins, nous nachèterons plus que des ingrédients provenant du FIP. » Lentreprise a ajouté quelle communiquait ses sources dapprovisionnement à lOcean Disclosure Project et dans son rapport annuel sur le développement durable. Le MSC a fait savoir à DeSmog dans un communiqué quil nexistait pas de pêcheries certifiées dans le programme MSC en Afrique de lOuest : « Il ny a pas de pêcheries certifiées MSC en Afrique de lOuest et nous ne participons pas au projet damélioration des pêcheries (FIP) en Mauritanie. » Pour Mme. Belhabib, lindustrie de la farine de poisson est fondamentalement non durable : « elle retire le poisson, une excellente source de nourriture, de la bouche des habitants de communautés pauvres où les stocks de poissons ne sont déjà pas très abondants. Cest un véritable gâchis environnemental. Ce nest pas durable et cest contraire à léthique. » « Il faut absolument que les communautés artisanales dAfrique de lOuest, les personnes dont la subsistance dépend de ces poissons, soient représentées. Nous devons cesser de les considérer comme de simples parties prenantes. Il faut les considérer comme les propriétaires légitimes de la ressource ».  Traduit par Grégoire Fournier NOTES DE BAS DE PAGE [1] Méthodologie de calcul. 1) DeSmog a pris les volumes déclarés de farine de poisson (FM, ‘Fishmeal’’) et dhuile de poisson (FO, ‘Fish oil’) produits en Mauritanie en 2023 (FM = 71 370 t/ FO = 17 645t), ce qui équivaut à 350 000 tonnes de poisson frais, selon le ratio 20:1 de poisson frais entier requis pour fabriquer de lhuile de poisson. 2) Nous avons pris la portion recommandée de 100 g de poisson / personne / par jour (= 36,5 kg / personne / an) établie par EAT-Lancet, sur la base de Hicks et al. 2019. 3) La limite supérieure de 9,6 millions de personnes suppose que le poisson est consommé entier (100%). La limite inférieure de 6 millions est une estimation prudente basée sur la taille des portions comestibles de la FAO (62 %). 4) La somme finale = 350 000 000 kilos de poisson frais/an/ divisé par 36,5 kilos/ consommation par habitant. Cette méthodologie suit celle utilisée par Feedback dans son rapport Blue Empire. [2] DeSmog a pris les volumes déclarés de farine de poisson (FM) et dhuile de poisson (FO) produits en Mauritanie en 2023 (FM = 71 370 t/ FO = 17 645 t), ce qui équivaut à 350 000 tonnes de poisson frais, selon le ratio 20:1 de poisson frais entier nécessaire à la fabrication de lhuile de poisson. The post Enquête : Les initiatives de l’industrie de l’aquaculture visant à promouvoir des pêcheries durables en Afrique de l’Ouest sont entachées de « conflits d’intérêts massifs » appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— World’s Biggest Meat and Dairy Companies Spend More on Ads than Cutting Emissions — New Report

 

at 7/22/24 7:35am

Global meat and dairy giants are investing just a fraction of their revenues into cutting emissions despite being among the world’s largest polluters, according to new estimates.  Company spending on advertising outstripped that on low-carbon solutions, the report by campaign group Changing Markets Foundation found, as corporations ramped up attempts to win consumers over with their green credentials.  The meat and dairy sector – responsible for over 14 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions – has come under increasing pressure in recent years to tackle major climate harms. The New Merchants of Doubt, published on Thursday, examines the climate targets, lobbying records and advertising campaigns of 22 of the largest livestock companies, through case studies in the U.S., the UK, the EU, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, and Brazil.  Cows emit large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions through their burps and farts – and the expansion of the livestock sector is driving rising emissions as meat consumption grows. Meat and dairy companies have also been linked to deforestation of the Amazon and other vital carbon sinks, where vast swathes of forest have been cut down for ranching or to allow the production of soy exported for animal feed. None of the companies in the report had targets to cut emissions that aligned with guidance from UN experts.  The report found that the sector failed to take action on tackling emissions, while also spending millions on marketing sustainability claims. Companies have seen a spate of greenwashing allegations in recent years, with multiple firms forced to pull misleading ads – including Brazilian meat giant JBS, which last year was ordered by the U.S. advertising watchdog to stop making “net zero” claims.  Industry campaigns were strongly geared towards younger Gen Z consumers, including through TikTok and YouTube partnerships, and school education programmes, the report found. Researchers contrasted this green marketing to the livestock sectors lobbying behind the scenes. Companies and their trade groups had opposed nature-friendly laws in multiple countries, the report noted, including attempts to curb methane, a potent greenhouse gas. The report “exposes the blatant hypocrisy of Big Meat and Dairy”, said Nusa Urbancic, CEO of Changing Markets Foundation. “They claim to be committed to climate solutions while employing deceptive tactics to distract, delay and derail meaningful action. These tactics mirror those of Big Oil and Big Tobacco, allowing them to continue their harmful practices unchecked.” ‘Greenwashing’ While the majority of companies analysed have promoted efforts to reach net zero and carbon neutrality, most do not declare how much they plan to invest in cutting emissions.  The report’s analysis of publicly available data found that companies spent just one percent of their revenue on research and development (R&D) – an area that includes spending on improving sustainability.In numerous cases – where spending information was available –  companies paid more for advertising than their efforts to decarbonise.   JBS, the world’s largest meat company, invested just 0.03 percent of annual revenues into climate measures, the estimate suggests – equivalent to around six percent of its total advertising spend. Meanwhile dairy giants Fonterra, Nestlé, and Arla all spent more on advertising than on research and development of low-carbon solutions, according to the report.  Nestlé – which is estimated to have higher emissions than Slovenia – spent 14 times more on “marketing and administration in the last year than it did on “regenerative agriculture” (the company’s headline sustainability spending pledge) for the past five years, the report found.  “Regenerative agriculture”, which includes organic and no-till farming, has been widely touted by livestock companies as a solution to their rising emissions. However, the nonprofit research organisation World Resources Institute found that while good for the environment, it has “limited potential” to mitigate climate change.  Fonterra’s director of sustainability, Charlotte Rutherford, said the figures in the report did not accurately reflect the organisation’s investment into sustainability, and that “it only covers outdated capital investment, rather than the significant investment we have made across the Co-op”.  She added that Fonterra had a “large team of sustainability experts” and “was working constructively with industry and government to ensure emissions reduction strategies can deliver”. A spokesperson for Nestlé said the company was investing and delivering on their “net zero roadmap”, and that the company was on track to cut agricultural emissions in its supply chain by 50 percent by 2030.  “We continue to ramp up our climate efforts using world-class R&D, including via the Nestlé Institute for Agricultural Sciences, they said in an emailed statement. We also advocate for the right enabling policy environment to speed up decarbonization in agriculture at scale, and provide transparent reporting on our activities.” The other companies and groups referenced in this article were all contacted for comment, but had not responded prior to publication. The report also found that companies’ large marketing budgets had sometimes been used to mislead consumers through greenwashing claims. Companies did this through vague and misleading statements on product packaging, for example. Danish dairy company Arla has marketed its cheddar as “building a sustainable future”, despite the company not having climate targets aligned with 1.5C, the report found. JBS, the world’s biggest meat producer, is currently being sued by New York’s Attorney General, Letitia James, over allegations that it has misled consumers about its climate commitments.  The company has said that it disagrees with the attorney general’s characterisation of its commitments to sustainability. The Changing Markets Foundation report also found that the meat and dairy industry had targeted younger audiences through tailored campaigns on social media and online collaborations with influencers, gamers, and popular sports figures. Gen Z – which describes those currently aged between 14 and 27 years old – is generally seen as more concerned about the environment, climate change and animal welfare, and therefore likely to move towards lower carbon diets.  The report gave one example of a collaboration between industry group Dairy Farmers of America and the U.S.-based YouTube influencer Sean Evans, who teamed up in 2022 as part of a major marketing campaign.  Evans – host of First We Feast’s “Hot Ones”, which features celebs eating spicy chicken wings – made a sponsored video for his 13.6 million subscribers, promoting milk as a safeguard against spicy food and “also [to] help keep the planet from getting too hot”.  Inadequate Climate Targets Though 15 of the 22 companies analysed had published or were working towards setting climate targets, the report found that these did not align with expert advice.  The UN published guidance on setting meaningful targets earlier this year, in response to fears that inadequate targets could contribute to greenwashing. The report found that none of the companies analysed complied with the recommendations – which include calls for measures to apply throughout supply chains and see overall reductions in emissions.  Inadequate targets can fuel “a culture of climate misinformation and confusion”, the UN Secretary General stated in January 2023.  The livestock industry is responsible for over 30 percent of global methane emissions – a greenhouse gas that has a global warming potential 80 times higher than that of carbon dioxide over a 20 year period.  However, of the companies analysed, only dairy giant Danone had set a methane target – another key recommendation by the UN.  Global methane emissions have increased dramatically in the last two decades.  The report found that meat and dairy companies had repeatedly underplayed the role of the sector in methane emissions, for example misleadingly claiming that their methane emissions were a natural part of the carbon cycle and therefore absorbed by vegetation. Such claims ignore the significant short-term warming caused by the industry’s methane emissions.   Some companies produce huge amounts of the greenhouse gas, among them JBS, whose methane output increased by six percent between 2022 and 2023.  Lobbying and Revolving Doors The sector has so far largely avoided legislation to curb its climate harms. The report found that the industry had instead used “extraordinary political access” to push back against nature-friendly laws.  Meat and dairy companies held over 600 meetings with top decision-makers at the European Commission in the last decade, the analysis showed. In the U.S., revolving doors were shown to be in full swing. The report highlighted how Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack previously worked as the president of the US Dairy Export Council – following another previous stint as Secretary of Agriculture under former U.S. President Barack Obama. The sector also secured a massive win in the Inflation Reduction Act, the flagship U.S. climate policy. The 2022 act provided billions in funding for emissions cuts, but – in the wake of lobbying from firms including Cargill and Nestlé – failed to regulate the agricultural industry.  The livestock sector has incredible access to the highest political level,” said Nusa Urbancic of Changing Markets Foundation. “It is shamelessly using this to set the political agenda and even define the realm of what is possible when it comes to environmental regulation. “As the main players in the sector are very anti-regulation, we end up with the weakest possible approach: all carrots and no stick. The post World’s Biggest Meat and Dairy Companies Spend More on Ads than Cutting Emissions — New Report appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Big Oil Rallies to Obstruct Accountability

 

at 7/19/24 12:57pm

This article by ExxonKnews is published here as part of the global journalism collaboration Covering Climate Now. In the face of mounting scrutiny from local, state, and federal officials, fossil fuel companies and their allies are deploying a range of tactics to obstruct ongoing lawsuits and investigations concerning evidence that the industry has misled the public about the harms it knew its products would cause to the climate, environment, and human health. Far-right industry allies with ties to Chevron have mounted an “unprecedented” pressure campaign calling on the Supreme Court to stop a potentially historic climate deception lawsuit against oil majors from going to trial. Republican attorneys general are separately urging the Supreme Court to throw out similar climate fraud lawsuits from five states. Plastics industry trade associations are suing the California state attorney general’s office to block an investigation into whether oil companies lied about plastic recycling. And fossil fuel giants and their trade groups have responded to congressional subpoenas with highly redacted records and “baseless” First Amendment legal defenses.  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); “I think we’re seeing an escalation by the industry to do anything it can to avoid being held accountable for the consequences of climate change,” said Lisa Graves, executive director of investigative watchdog group True North Research and an expert on dark money special interest groups. “It continues to try to thwart efforts to try to mitigate climate change and it continues to try to stop efforts to get any compensation for the harms it has caused, not just through the burning of fossil fuels but also by the delay and deceit that it has promoted through front groups.” State and local climate lawsuits, which accuse oil and gas majors of lying about the dangers of fossil fuels and seek to hold them accountable for the resulting damages, are advancing in state courts despite the industry’s efforts. Most recently, a Colorado judge denied nearly all motions by ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy to dismiss the City and County of Boulder’s case against them.  It’s the fifth time to date that a court has rejected Big Oil’s efforts to dismiss climate accountability lawsuits — bringing the companies closer to facing trial and potentially billions of dollars in liability. If any of the cases go to trial, said Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, “it will shine a very harsh light on the fossil fuel companies and it could lead to crushing monetary judgments.” “Clearly the defendants here are using everything they can think of to derail these cases,” Gerrard said. That attitude has been most evident in Big Oil’s response to a lawsuit from Honolulu, which could be among the first communities to put the companies on trial.  In February, oil company defendants — including Exxon, Chevron, BP, and Shell — petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review a Hawai‘i state Supreme Court ruling that allowed Honolulu’s case to move toward trial. The case, the companies argued in their petition, is preempted by federal law and should be dismissed.  But after traditional legal arguments have failed to shield the industry to date, allies seem to be turning to more extreme and novel measures. Leonard Leo to the Rescue? In the weeks and months before the Supreme Court was scheduled to hear Big Oil’s petition in Honolulu’s lawsuit, a flood of social media ads and op-eds called for the Supreme Court justices to take up — and throw out — the case. “To end this nuisance charade, the Supreme Court needs to take up the Honolulu case and declare once and for all that public nuisance is for local issues, not global climate change,” reads the narrator of one such video ad posted to X.  The name behind that ad, the Alliance for Consumers, is part of an organization called the Concord Fund, formerly known as the Judicial Crisis Network. Those groups, Graves and others have pointed out, are projects of billionaire Leonard Leo, head of the far-right legal advocacy group the Federalist Society and known as the architect of the current Supreme Court. CRC Advisors — one of the Leo-backed companies in the effort — appears to have had Chevron, a defendant in Honolulu’s case, as a client. The fossil fuel industry also helped fund the Federalist Society, and partners at major law firms representing oil and gas companies — including Theodore Olson of Gibson Dunn, the law firm representing Chevron against Honolulu and other communities’ climate liability cases — sit on its board.  Former Hawai‘i Supreme Court Justice Michael Wilson, who served on the state’s highest court for a decade, called the pressure campaign targeting the Supreme Court a “powerful intervention” by “the strongest special interest group in the history of human civilization.”  “This is the most important case in the United States from the point of view that it will allow a jury of citizens to see the fraud and to decide what to do about it,” said Wilson. “This is a high-risk strategy that shows that the fossil fuel industry is desperate.” Oil companies, which quietly funded front groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) to sow climate denial and oppose climate action on their behalf, are now rallying their allies and benefactors to strike at lawsuits that seek to hold them accountable, explained Graves. In April, 20 Republican attorneys general filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the oil companies’ petition. The attorneys general are all members of the Republican Attorneys General Association, or RAGA, which helps Republican attorneys general with their election or reelection campaigns. Its top donor in 2024 was Leo’s Concord Fund. “The Leo-tied groups are a soup-to-nuts intervention machine, from the Republican attorneys general to the judges he helped put on the court,” said Graves. In June, the Supreme Court delivered a one-line order asking the U.S. Justice Department to weigh in on the case — an “extraordinary” response at this stage, according to Wilson, considering that the case has not yet gone to trial. If the Solicitor General neglects to weigh in before the election, that response could be in the hands of a Trump administration. Trump has promised that if re-elected, he will “stop the wave of frivolous litigation from environmental extremists.”   A ‘Highly Unusual’ Request In May, 19 members of RAGA made a “highly unusual” request to the Supreme Court: to intervene in and undermine climate accountability lawsuits filed by five states — California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Rhode Island — claiming that their cases would impose “ruinous liability” on fossil fuel companies and threaten “our basic way of life.”  The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over disputes between states — meaning it can hear a case without it first being heard by another court —  but such challenges are more commonly brought over issues like water rights, said Gerrard of Columbia’s Sabin Center. “I’ve never previously heard of an instance where there’s an effort to invoke the original jurisdiction of the [U.S.] Supreme Court to swat down litigation,” he said. RAGA obtains some of its largest donations from the fossil fuel industry — including Koch Industries, Exxon, and the American Petroleum Institute, all of whom are defendants in climate liability cases — according to an analysis by the Center for Media and Democracy.  “These AGs have now placed their allegiance directly with the special interest group that is threatening the survival of future generations,” said Wilson. The filing argues that “oil and natural gas have supported improvements in environmental quality and have reduced weather-related deaths,” and claims that “America’s air is cleaner than a century ago thanks in part to the increased use of oil and natural gas.” It isn’t the first time Republican attorneys general have rushed to shield oil companies from accountability for their climate deception — and overtly used climate denialist talking points first leveraged by Big Oil in their defense. In 2016, Exxon sued the attorneys general of New York and Massachusetts in an attempt to block investigations into the company’s private research and public communications about climate change, claiming the probe was an attack on their free speech and other constitutional rights.  Republican attorneys general from 12 states filed a 2018 brief in support of the oil giant, arguing that “Climate change is the subject of legitimate international debate.”  “[T]he most undeniable fact about climate change is that, like so many other areas of science and public policy, the debate remains unsettled, the research is far from complete, and the path forward is unclear,” they wrote. A(nother) First Amendment Fight Another industry strategy to block accountability is playing out in response to California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s investigation into whether Exxon and other petrochemical companies deceived the public about the efficacy of plastic recycling as a solution to plastic waste. In May, the American Chemistry Council and Plastics Industry Association — two major trade groups representing oil and chemical giants including Exxon, Chevron, Amoco, Dow, and DuPont — filed a lawsuit against the attorney general in federal court, claiming the investigation violates their free speech rights. Bonta, who had said he would decide whether to sue Exxon by the summer, responded with petitions asking the Sacramento County Superior Court to order the groups to comply with his office’s subpoenas. “For years, the plastics industry has engaged in an aggressive campaign to deceive the public, perpetuating a myth that recycling can solve the plastics waste and pollution crisis,” Bonta said in a statement. “The continuous delay tactics are failing to comply with our subpoena. Enough is enough: What are they trying to hide?” Members of Congress have similarly accused the Big Oil companies of trying to obstruct investigations.  When Senate Budget Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and House Oversight Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-MD) referred their years-long investigation into the industry’s climate deception to the Justice Department, the lawmakers wrote that “some companies claimed that the First Amendment or undefined ‘privilege’ protected them from the House Oversight Committee’s subpoena.” The main subjects of that investigation have been Exxon, Shell, Chevron, BP, API, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “The companies further obstructed the investigation by significantly redacting or entirely withholding more than 4,000 documents without any valid basis,” the lawmakers wrote, adding that their refusal to comply “provides a basis to infer that there is even more damning evidence of deceptive practices by the companies and their trade associations waiting to be uncovered.” Fossil fuel companies and the law firms representing them have used a First Amendment defense to try to dismiss the climate accountability lawsuits, claiming company statements on climate change are protected political speech. One of the most prominent voices for that argument have been attorneys at Gibson Dunn, the firm that represents Chevron, and whose partner Theodore Olson sits on the Federalist Society board.  If these “overt” and “brazen” efforts to escape accountability can be overcome, the industry will no doubt face a reckoning, said Wilson, the former Hawai‘i Supreme Court justice. Communities like Honolulu “are being ravaged by climate” and “will apply the rule of law fairly,” he said.  “Hawai‘i is not a place that can be manipulated by the fossil fuel industry. That is a very big threat to the most powerful special interest group that’s now maintaining its power based on complicity.” The post Big Oil Rallies to Obstruct Accountability appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Environmental Groups Challenge New Rules on Toxic Air Pollution from Plastic and Chemical Plants 

 

at 7/19/24 12:25pm

Environmental groups are teeing up a legal challenge to new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules on pollution from chemical and plastics plants, citing concerns the EPA relied too heavily on lowball industry estimates as it sized up the risks to people’s health posed by ethylene oxide (EtO), chloroprene, and other toxic air pollution. The EPA just announced the new rules in April, saying they’re intended to “significantly reduce” dangerous pollution from chemical plants and some plastics plants. 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); But the Environmental Integrity Project, Earthjustice, Sierra Club, California Communities Against Toxics, Air Alliance Houston, and others filed suit this week in the federal D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, with attorneys for the groups telling DeSmog they believe the EPA’s rules remain too weak. “The EPAs underestimation of the risks posed by chemical facilities puts nearby communities in grave danger,” Earthjustice attorney Deena Tumeh said in a statement announcing the litigation. “By downplaying ethylene oxide emissions, the EPA fails to protect public health adequately.” When contacted by DeSmog, the EPA declined to comment, citing pending litigation. Roughly 200 plants, dotted across the country but heavily clustered along the Gulf Coast, are covered by the new rules. Those plants primarily make chemicals and “polymers and resins,” or plastics — and they release dangerous chemicals into the air in the process. Emissions from ExxonMobils Baton Rouge Refinery in Baton Rouge, Jan. 17. Credit: Julie Dermansky The new rules, years in the making, update Clean Air Act standards on a half dozen pollutants from those plants, including the highly carcinogenic EtO and benzene, chloroprene (used to make the neoprene that’s found in wetsuits), vinyl chloride (which was notoriously burnt off in the East Palestine, Ohio, train derailment), a vinyl chloride precursor known as ethylene dichloride, and 1,3 butadiene (used to make synthetic rubber). The EPA has said its rule “will provide critical health protections to hundreds of thousands of people living near chemical plants.” The environmental groups’ lawsuit comes shortly after Denka Performance Elastomers asked the D.C. Circuit to block the rules from going into effect in May. Denka, a Japanese company, alleged that the EPA allowed too little time for the company to slash chloroprene emissions from its LaPlace, Louisiana, operations, giving the company just 90 days, while other chemical manufacturers would be allowed two years to curb their emissions.  Denka’s claims have drawn public support from the state’s governor, Jeff Landry, and Louisiana attorney general Liz Murrill, who also filed a D.C. Circuit challenge, citing concerns that the Denka plant could be shut down. Back in April, DeSmog first reported on concerns that loopholes in the rules, combined with plans from companies like Koch Industries to expand their operations, could mean Louisiana’s Cancer Alley won’t see a decrease in total toxic air pollution. A July 16, E&E News investigation found that tightened EPA regulations governing hazardous air pollution from oil refineries – a similar set of rules to the ones covering chemical and plastics plants – successfully tamped down dangerous emissions from most of the 130 refineries reviewed. Dozens of other refineries, however – mostly located in communities of color – saw emissions rise. Troy Abel, a Western Washington University professor of environmental policy, faulted “less stringent rules enforcement in some states versus others.” This week’s legal challenge to the rules for plastics and chemical plants doesn’t specify what criticisms the groups intend to raise before the court. But attorneys for environmental groups behind the new lawsuit filed July 16 said that while EPA’s rule marks an improvement in many ways, it also contains some dangerous flaws.  “The basic structure of the rule is good, we just dont think it runs far enough,” Abel Russ, a senior attorney for the Environmental Integrity Project, told DeSmog. That, Russ said, is in part because the rules were built based on emissions estimates provided by industry — despite evidence that emissions are actually at least an order of magnitude higher than industry claims. Dow Chemicals Union Carbide facility in Hahnville, LA , part of St. Charles Parish, April 19. Credit: Julie Dermansky “EPA takes emissions estimates, which generally come from industry reports, and they assume that theyre accurate,” Russ said. The EPA then baked those estimates into its risk calculations, he added. The problem is, when the EPA has checked industry estimates against actual fenceline data, Russ said, real-world emissions tend to be much higher than the estimates predict. That, incidentally, tracks with new peer-reviewed research, published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology a few months after EPA’s rule was finalized. Researchers from Johns Hopkins University found that in over a dozen census tracts in Louisiana, median measured EtO concentrations were 22.7 parts per trillion (ppt). EPA’s model estimated levels would be 2.5 parts per trillion. In other words, EPA’s estimates on EtO missed nearly 90 percent of the EtO that the researchers measured in the air. Flare at Formosa Plastics petrochemical facility in Point Comfort, Texas, June 20. Credit: Julie Dermansky In response to similar concerns raised during the public comment process, the EPA wrote that it “recognized” that “facility-wide emissions estimates” were generally not ”subjected to the same level of engineering review” as other estimates but that those numbers nonetheless “remain important for providing context as long as their uncertainty is taken into account in the process.” “Even though EPA knows the estimates theyre using are wrong, theyre calculating risks and making a determination about the need to tighten standards further based on their risk estimates, which are all based on numbers that they concede are wrong,” Russ said. Taking EPA’s numbers at face value, the rules still leave millions of people exposed to dangerous pollution from the plants. EPA’s risk assessment shows over 6 million people will face elevated cancer risks even after EPA’s new rule goes into effect, Russ, who has a background in toxicology and is also director of the Center for Applied Environmental Science, pointed out — and that number is based on what the environmental groups say are lowball risk figures. Flare at ExxonMobil Refinery Beaumont, Texas, June 19. Credit: Julie Dermansky “I’m concerned that EPA has left a lot of people in harm’s way,” he told DeSmog. Nonetheless, the fact that EPA acted on EtO and other chemicals still marks “an important step,” he told DeSmog. The risks associated with EtO have proven divisive. In Louisiana’s Cancer Alley, for example, many community groups praised the EPA as it announced it would act on EtO. EPA administrator Michael Regan arrived in person to announce the new rules. On April 9th, flanked by a couple of longtime Louisiana Cancer Alley community leaders, during a small invitation-only celebration for the unveiling of the new rule, Regan said the agency’s recently finalized rule had been calculated to deliver the best possible outcome to frontline communities and that the rule would deliver the best possible potential outcome. “We’re slashing EtO and chloroprene pollution by an astounding 80 percent, reducing elevated cancer risk for those living near these communities by 96 percent,” Regan said, adding that the rule will lead to the elimination of more than 6,000 tons of toxic air pollution.  Flare at UCC Seadrift Operations, Dow Chemical Union Carbide plant in Seadrift, Texas, June 22. Credit: Julie Dermansky But as the specifics have become clear, disappointment has grown. Concerned Citizens of St. John and Rise St. James Louisiana are among the plaintiffs now challenging EPA’s rule. Concerns over the shortcomings in the rules have split the residents of St. John the Baptist who are concerned over the toxic air pollution, with some continuing to believe the EPA rules can meaningfully reduce pollution while others now see the rules as having too little impact. Wilma Subra explaining the EPAs new rule related to hazardous chemicals to a resident in St. John the Baptist Parish on April 19, at Mary Hampton’s home in Reserve LA. Mary lives in the only community in the U.S. exposed to chloroprene and EtO. Credit: Julie Dermansky Meanwhile, inside the D.C. Beltway, far-right politicos have raised very different concerns over EPA’s EtO rule-making. Republican Louisiana Rep. Clay Higgins took aim at EPA Administrator Regan over the new toxic chemical rule, posting a photo of Regan on social media platform X. “This EPA criminal should be arrested the next time he sets foot in Louisiana. Charge his ass with extortion,” Higgins wrote under the photo on April 8. “Send that arrogant prick to Angola for a few decades.” In response, Sen. Ed Markey (D) of Massachusetts slammed Higgins’ post, calling it a “racist dog whistle.” “The only crime that’s been committed is the decades of negligence by fossil fuel and petrochemical companies,” Sen. Markey added. Westlake Epoxy in Deer Park, Texas, June 20. Credit: Julie Dermansky The new litigation, filed in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, falls under the same Supreme Court that recently issued the Loper Bright decision, which tossed aside Chevron deference, a legal doctrine that historically gave administrative agencies like the EPA significant leeway over federal rules. “Loper Bright changes things a little bit. We dont know what the new level of deference is going to be,” Russ told DeSmog. “Its a little bit disconcerting what we see coming from the Supreme Court.” “But there are a lot of cases Ive worked on over the years where weve challenged agency action and we dont necessarily like the fact that they get deference. We want the court to look critically at what EPA did,” he added. “So maybe theres a silver lining here. At the end of the day, much of the dispute comes down to how seriously the EPA should take discrepancies between industry estimates and real-world emissions levels. “They dont think its significant,” Russ said. “We disagree. Exxon SABIC Gulf Coast Growth Ventures, a petrochemical plant in Gregory, Texas, June 21. Credit: Julie Dermansky The post Environmental Groups Challenge New Rules on Toxic Air Pollution from Plastic and Chemical Plants  appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Keystone XL Developer TC Energy Listed as RNC Host Committee Sponsor

 

at 7/18/24 4:41pm

TC Energy, a Calgary-based energy company with operations throughout North America, is a sponsor of the Republican National Convention Host Committee, according to the committee’s website.The convention, currently taking place in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, will confirm Donald Trump as the Republican Party’s candidate for the 2024 U.S. presidential election. TC Energy was the driving force behind the Keystone XL pipeline project, which was delayed by the Obama administration in 2015 and revived by the Trump administration in 2020. The company cancelled the $9 billion, 1,200-mile project in June 2021 after the Biden administration issued an executive order blocking a key permit. Canadian officials, including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Government of Alberta, objected to the decision at the time.  The news comes after an American arbitration tribunal rejected the company’s claim to recover $15 billion from the U.S. government for its role in cancelling the project. As reported by Reuters, TC Energy said the claim was rejected because the tribunal felt it lacked authority to determine whether Biden’s revocation contravened obligations under NAFTA. The NAFTA agreement was terminated in July 2020 and replaced by the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Why TC Energy is supporting the RNC host committee is not clear. Efforts to contact TC Energy’s media relations department by DeSmog were not successful. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that the RNC Host Committee is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, legally separate from the Republican Party that works “to ensure the convention runs smoothly.” The Journal Sentinel further reports that the host committee was charged with raising $70 million to support the convention, and exceeded this goal by $15 million. Though financial contributions haven’t been disclosed, the Journal Sentinel reported that RNC sponsorships typically range from $100,000 to $5 million. A list of RNC host committee partners. Credit: RNC host committee website It isn’t clear that TC Energy has any specific goal in sponsoring the committee — there are no statements on the company’s website related to its sponsorship of the event. There are several articles posted to the company’s website concerning their support of LGBTQ+ employees for pride month, as well as Indigenous and Asian employees for their respective heritage months. Trump and the Republican Party have a poor record with Indigenous communities and bear responsibility for fueling anti-Asian hate during the COVID-19 pandemic. Human rights groups have condemned Trump’s numerous homophobic and transphobic comments and policy proposals. Environmental advocates say the partnership could prove to be a disaster for climate progress. “TC Energy’s sponsorship of the Republican National Convention’s Host Committee is a tactic straight out of the oil and gas playbook,” said Julia Levin, an associate director on climate with Environmental Defence.  “We’ve recently seen how TC Energy seeks to influence climate progress in Canada. In fact, a TC staff lobbyist was recently caught bragging about the company’s ability to sway the position of the BC premier,” Levin said, referencing a recent investigation by the Narwhal. “It’s no wonder that many of the discussions happening at the Republican National Convention are calling for more fossil fuel development — despite the urgency of the climate crisis,” she added. “TC Energy is willing to champion politicians who will help protect their profits, no matter the cost. TC Energy was one of several sponsors listed by the host committee, including General Motors, the Heritage Foundation, and the American Petroleum Institute. Formerly known as TransCanada Corporation, TC Energy was originally created in 1951 to build a national pipeline delivering natural gas to eastern provinces. Though not a Crown corporation, the original TransCanada benefitted from considerable support from Canada’s mid-20th century federal governments and required Canadian parliamentary assent given the national scale of the project. The majority of TC Energy’s share capital — over 83 percent — is owned by Canadian institutional investors, including Canada’s “big five” banks, which are estimated to own about 23 percent of the company in total. The Royal Bank of Canada is the largest single investor, owning about 9 percent. Several major Canadian pension plans also have ownership stakes in the company, including Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan Trust Fund and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. The post Keystone XL Developer TC Energy Listed as RNC Host Committee Sponsor appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Havas Agencies Lose B Corp Status Over Work For Shell

 

at 7/18/24 4:35am

Four agencies owned by French advertising group Havas have been stripped of their B Corp status — a marker of high social, environmental and corporate governance standards — due to the company’s work for Shell, the group that oversees the certifications said.  The decision underscores the growing reputational risks facing advertising and public relations firms that portray themselves as climate champions while simultaneously advancing the interests of oil and gas companies. Havas London, Havas Lemz, Havas New York, and Havas Immerse are no longer Certified B Corps, B Lab UK said in a statement. Other entities in the Havas group are also ineligible to certify. Although the four agencies had no direct relationship with Shell, B Lab UK deemed that decisions taken at the group level were relevant to their B Corp status since Havas used a common brand across its agencies. B Lab UK said it had found that Havas actions constituted a breach of the B Corp communitys core values as expressed in its Declaration of Interdependence, and that Havas had declined to take unspecified remedial action required to retain its certification. Toxic for Your Brand Havas said it accepted the ruling. Our level of commitment towards sustainability remains unchanged, the company said in a statement. We are proud to support our clients in their transformation for the future and remain focused on progressing towards the highest levels of social and environmental performance, with more to come in the coming months and years. The agencies loss of B Corp status is a blow to Havas CEO Yannick Bolloré, who had defended the companys decision to take on a major advertising contract with Shell last year on the grounds that Havas could use its insider position to influence the company to become more sustainable. In an interview with advertising trade magazine Campaign in October, Bolloré had said: As long as we are making things better, B Corp agrees that we can partner with [controversial] industries. Bolloré had previously sought to position Havas as climate champion, expressing his concern over the climate crisis in interviews, and arguing that a global communications group of Havas scale could play a positive role in influencing people to make more environmentally friendly choices. United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres last month called on governments to ban fossil fuel advertising and warned creative agencies that working for the industry would prove toxic for your brand. Cover for Greenwashing In October, a group of 22 other B Corp-certified PR agencies called for Havas London, Havas Lemz (based in Amsterdam), Havas New York, and Havas Immerse (based in Malaysia) to lose their B Corp status on the grounds that working for fossil fuel polluters clashed with B Labs values. Creative agencies should not be working for the companies destroying the planet. I want to thank B Labs for doing the right thing and revoking certification for agencies that promote fossil fuel polluters, said Duncan Meisel, executive director of Clean Creatives. They listened to the dozens of B Corps who spoke out about this and took the right steps to protect their community from agencies that wanted to use certification as a cover for greenwashing. Chris Norman, CEO and Founder of GOOD Agency, the UK’s highest accredited B Corp advertising agency, who was among the complainants, said the length of time it had taken B Lab to reach its verdict had damaged its reputation, but hoped the decision would set a precedent. There should never have been any doubt that an agency helping promote and support a fossil fuel company should retain its B Corp accreditation, Norman said. Whilst the delay has been damaging to B Lab’s reputation, and undermines confidence in the accreditation, we are pleased that there is now a precedent that establishes this principle. We hope that this is now replicated as standard practice across all B Corp agencies. Earlier this month, Clean Creatives said it had submitted another complaint to B Lab after discovering another five B Corp-accredited communications agencies — Cullen Communications; Edit; SEC Newgate; Tinkle Communications (a Havas subsidiary); and Total Media — have worked with fossil fuel clients in the last three years. There was no immediate indication of any potential commercial impact on Havas from the ruling. When Shell’s selection of Havas came to light in mid-September, the campaign group Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative immediately and loudly cancelled its communications contract with Havas Red, a U.S. subsidiary headquartered in New York City.  It was unclear if any clients of the four former Havas B Corp agencies would follow suit. B Corp status is also coveted by agencies competing to attract creative talent, the lifeblood of the advertising industry, from a climate-conscious younger generation. The post Havas Agencies Lose B Corp Status Over Work For Shell appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Havas Agencies Lose B Corp Status Over Work With Shell

 

at 7/18/24 4:35am

Four agencies owned by French advertising group Havas have been stripped of their B Corp status – a marker of high social, environmental and corporate governance standards – due to the company’s work for Shell, the group that oversees the certifications said.  The decision underscores the growing reputational risks facing advertising and public relations firms that seek to portray themselves as climate champions while simultaneously working to advance the interests of oil and gas companies. “B Lab has concluded its investigation of a group of Certified B Corps (Havas London, Havas Lemz, Havas New York, and Havas Immerse) following complaints regarding a new contract between Havas and Shell plc,” B Lab UK, which administers the certifications, said in a statement. “Havas London, Havas Lemz, Havas New York, and Havas Immerse are no longer Certified B Corps. Other entities in the Havas group are also ineligible to certify.” Although the four agencies had no direct relationship with Shell, B Lab Uk deemed that decisions taken at the group level were relevant to their B Corp status since Havas used a common brand across its agencies. Havas said it accepted the ruling. “Our level of commitment towards sustainability remains unchanged,” the company said in a statement. “We are proud to support our clients in their transformation for the future and remain focused on progressing towards the highest levels of social and environmental performance, with more to come in the coming months and years.” The agencies loss of B Corp status is a blow to Havas CEO Yannick Bolloré, who had defended the company’s decision to take on a major advertising contract with Shell last year on the grounds that Havas could use its insider position to influence the company to become more sustainable. In an interview with advertising trade magazine Campaign in October, Bolloré had said: “As long as we are making things better, B Corp agrees that we can partner with [controversial] industries”. Bolloré had previously sought to position Havas as climate champion, expressing his concern over the climate crisis in interviews, and arguing that a global communications group of Havas scale could play a positive role in influencing people to make more environmentally friendly choices. In October, a group of 22 other B Corp-certified PR agencies called for Havas London, Havas Lemz (based in Amsterdam), Havas New York, and Havas Immerse (based in Malaysia) to lose their B Corp status on the grounds that working for fossil fuel polluters undermined the core values of B Labs Declaration of Interdependence. Creative agencies should not be working for the companies destroying the planet. I want to thank B Labs for doing the right thing and revoking certification for agencies that promote fossil fuel polluters, said Duncan Meisel, executive director of Clean Creatives. They listened to the dozens of B Corps who spoke out about this and took the right steps to protect their community from agencies that wanted to use certification as a cover for greenwashing. Chris Norman, CEO and Founder of GOOD Agency, the UK’s highest accredited B Corp advertising agency, who was among the complainants, said the length of time it had taken B Lab to reach its verdict had damaged its reputation, but hoped the decision would set a precendent. There should never have been any doubt that an agency helping promote and support a fossil fuel company should retain its B Corp accreditation, Norman said. Whilst the delay has been damaging to B Lab’s reputation, and undermines confidence in the accreditation, we are pleased that there is now a precedent that establishes this principle. We hope that this is now replicated as standard practice across all B Corp agencies. This live story is being updated. The post Havas Agencies Lose B Corp Status Over Work With Shell appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Shell Canada Drops 2050 Climate Goal from Website

 

at 7/17/24 5:26pm

Shell Canada has deleted a “net-zero” goal by 2050 from its website. The description of Shell’s Quest carbon capture and storage (CCS) project was edited in recent weeks, and no longer includes the heading “Achieving Net Zero by 2050.” That language appeared on Shell Canada’s website as recently as June 18, according to the Internet Archive. Shell further removed the phrase “Shell’s target is to become a net-zero emissions energy business by 2050, and we know that our business plans need to change to make this happen.” The company also replaced the term “lower-carbon fuels” with “alternative fuels” in a paragraph that formerly read “Our priority is to avoid emissions, for example by adopting solutions that are emissions-free when used. When this is not possible, we work to reduce emissions, for example by making use of lower-carbon fuels and technologies like CCS.” This news comes just weeks after DeSmog reported Exxon’s Imperial Oil deleted its CEO’s claims that carbon capture is critical to meeting Paris Agreement goals. These changes were likely the result of recent amendments to Canada’s Competition Act that will require any organization making claims about the potential environmental benefits of their product, service, or project to provide evidence of those claims. Companies found to be misleading the public could face fines of up to $10 million CAD. Shell Canadas website on June 18, 2024. Credit: Web.Archive.org DeSmog previously reported that the Pathways Alliance — a consortium of Canadian tarsands producers — had scrubbed their website of all content on June 19, 2024. Pathways’ website previously stated that “the path to net zero begins with carbon capture.” In the days that followed, several Canadian oil and gas companies, as well as the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, and a third-party pro-oil advertiser called Canada Action, had all removed pages from their websites or significantly modified language concerning carbon capture, LNG, and the oil and gas sector’s environmental goals. Carbon capture and storage technology has until recently been championed by Canada’s oil producers, and continues to be championed by Canadian government officials. Canadian environment minister Steven Guilbeault recently lauded a new carbon capture project funded through the Canada Growth Fund, stating such government-funded carbon capture efforts would “build a cleaner economy and a more sustainable future.” PR Fig Leaf There is little evidence suggesting carbon capture is an effective climate change mitigation tool. The technology has been described as a “PR fig leaf” and a “scam.” Carbon capture was originally called “enhanced oil recovery” and was used to extend the serviceable lifespans of otherwise derelict oil wells. The technology has been criticized as a greenwashing effort used to mask continued emissions-intensive oil production, as much as an inefficient use of financial resources that might otherwise be used for decarbonization of the energy grid.  Shell Canada did not respond to DeSmog’s request for comment, but a recent statement attributed to “solutions” director Huibert Vigeveno suggests the company is treading carefully when it comes to carbon capture claims. Vigeveno said CCS “is a key technology to achieve the Paris Agreement climate goals,” and that “The Polaris and Atlas projects are important steps in reducing emissions from our own operations.”  The statement further claimed that Shell’s Quest project has stored nine million tonnes of CO2 since 2015. A groundbreaking study of the Quest project revealed it was actually emitting more CO2 than it captured. But even if Shell could prove that the facility captured nine million tonnes of carbon dioxide in the last nine years, it’s what’s left unsaid that matters most. Namely, emissions from Alberta’s tarsands was estimated to be 81 megatonnes in 2022, meaning the 1 megatonne of CO2 equivalent Quest is alleged to remove from the atmosphere per annum is comparatively quite small. Worse, Canada might be undercounting tarsands emissions by as much as 65 percent. If Shell was in fact committed to becoming “a net-zero emissions energy business by 2050,” the company could conceivably abandon high-emissions tarsands production in the first place. Cautionary Note Shell also included a substantial cautionary note. This included language that appeared to guard against future liability. Two subsections were included, titled “Shell’s net carbon intensity” and “Shell’s net-zero emissions target.” The “net carbon intensity” disclaimer said “Shell only controls its own emissions” and “The use of the term Shell’s net carbon intensity is for convenience only and not intended to suggest these emissions are those of Shell plc or its subsidiaries.” Concerning Shell’s “net-zero emissions target,” the company says its “operating plan, outlook and budgets are forecasted for a ten-year period and are updated every year,” and that they “reflect the current economic environment and what we can reasonably expect to see over the next ten years.” For that reason, Shell argues that its operating plans “cannot reflect our 2050 net-zero emissions target as this target is currently outside our planning period.” The company further states that, “In the future, as society moves towards net-zero emissions, we expect Shell’s operating plans to reflect this movement. However, if society is not net zero in 2050, as of today, there would be significant risk that Shell may not meet this target.” In addition to retreating from its net-zero ambitions, the company has quietly abandoned its goal of turning 1 million tonnes of plastic waste into pyrolysis oil by 2025. Though Shell was once a leading advocate of “chemical recycling,” according to the Guardian the company determined its goal was unfeasible. The determination was made last year, and published in its 2023 sustainability report, issued in March. The post Shell Canada Drops 2050 Climate Goal from Website appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Climate Movement Sounds Alarm on Trump Picking ‘Big Oil Sellout’ J. D. Vance for VP

 

at 7/17/24 1:07pm

Climate campaigners reacted to former U.S. President Donald Trumps selection of Sen. J.D. Vance as his running mate Monday by highlighting the Ohio Republicans climate denial and strong support for the fossil fuel industry—one of his top campaign contributors. Like Donald Trump, J.D. Vance has proven that he will make it a top priority to roll back climate protections while answering to the demands of oil and gas CEOs, Sunrise Movement communications director Stevie OHanlon said in a statement. Vance is one of Congress biggest recipients of donations from oil companies. 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); J.D. Vance not only flip-flopped on supporting Trump, he flip-flopped on climate, she continued. He went from expressing concern about climate change before running for the Senate, to voting to gut [Environmentl Protection Agency] protections and denying that there even is a climate change crisis. OHanlon added: J.D. Vance will sell out to the highest bidder, whether thats Trump or the fossil fuel industry. That makes him dangerous. Donald Trump was the worst president for climate in U.S. history. J.D. Vance will empower Donald Trump to enact even worse damage on our planet in a second Trump administration. Just posted a video breaking down some of JD Vance’s wild statements on climate and clean energy. They are…even more bananas than you’d expect. https://t.co/H3UlPrCTKc— Jamie Henn (@jamieclimate) July 15, 2024 Some of Trumps key first-term Cabinet appointees—including Rex Tillerson, his first secretary of state, and Ryan Zinke, who headed the Interior Department—were former fossil fuel executives or had track records of supporting the oil, gas, and coal industries. Trumps White House tenure was also marked by an aggressive rollback of climate and environmental regulations and protections. Food & Water Watch Action Deputy Director Mitch Jones said that just like Trump himself, J.D. Vance is a fossil fuel backer and climate change denier that poses a serious risk to public health and our environment. Among the countless reasons that Trump and Vance shouldnt be elected to lead our country, the duo represents an existential threat to a livable climate future for all Americans and people around the globe, Jones added. BIG UPDATE: we took over the gala dinner honoring JD Vance. JD Vance hates you and hates your children. He is ready and willing to tear down democracy and torch the planet. His only principle is power. We must stop him. And. We. Will. pic.twitter.com/33Igq5e2zk— Climate Defiance (@ClimateDefiance) July 15, 2024 J.L. Andrepont of 350 Action asserted that we are facing a dire need to ward off further climate catastrophe and injustice, so lets be clear: J.D. Vance is another climate-denying authoritarian who poses massive danger to this country. He has praised the horrific Project 2025 plan and said there are good ideas in there,' they continued. He says he would be totally fine with a federal ban on abortion. And as the effects of climate change accelerate at an alarming pace right in front of our eyes, Vance is a strong supporter of the oil and gas industry who claims that climate change is not a threat. We must reject him and all climate deniers at the polls, Andrepont stressed. The post Climate Movement Sounds Alarm on Trump Picking Big Oil Sellout J. D. Vance for VP appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Alberta’s Energy ‘War Room’ Lost a Doomed Battle Against the Future

 

at 7/17/24 11:41am

“War is only a cowardly escape from the problems of peace,” observed Nobel laureate Thomas Mann. This insight seems particularly true regarding the recently vanquished Alberta war room  – officially known as the Canadian Energy Centre – that squandered millions in a futile fight against the future.  Former premier Jason Kenney launched the ill-fated CEC in 2019 “to quickly and effectively rebut every lie told by the green left about our world-class energy industry.” However, raging against the rapid global transition towards cheaper and cleaner forms of energy did nothing to address the compelling problems confronting a province still dangerously dependent on the waning fossil fuel sector.  The CEC was armed with every advantage available to Alberta in their “war” with perceived enemies of the oil patch. Endowed with an initial budget of $30 million of public funding, it was incorporated instead as a private company to avoid outside scrutiny from freedom-of-information legislation. Four years and millions of dollars later, this weary warrior seemed capable of wounding only its own credibility. A litany of embarrassing episodes ensued including the war room doing battle with an animated Bigfoot character in children’s show, a Twitter spat with the New York Times and the CEC repeatedly having to go back to the logo drawing board after multiple accusations of copyright infringement.  Comparison of the former Canadian Energy Centre logo (left) and the Progress Software logo (right). Credit: Wikimedia Commons Even the image of their office dog “Bean” was revealed to be an uncredited stock photo. Alberta Energy economist Andrew Leach observed “youd have been forgiven for wondering if the sole mission of the [the war room] was to make every other government expenditure seem like a bargain.”  The CEC was in fact mostly funded by the oil and gas companies through large emitter carbon pricing paid under Alberta’s Technology, Innovation and Emissions Reduction (TIER) program. Credible carbon pricing models are intended to reduce emissions by sending a meaningful economic signal to industries and individuals to discourage using our atmosphere as a free dumping ground. Instead, from revenues Alberta’s TIER program directly funded oil industry information efforts so dubious that the CEC was required to register as a foreign agent under United States law drafted to combat foreign interference.  What abruptly ended the Alberta war room (and perhaps the Pathways Alliance) appeared to be new federal requirements for accuracy in oil industry advertising that will not even come into force until the fall. Even the threat of information accountability seemingly caused both these well-funded talk shops, which for years flooded Canadian media with oil-friendly messaging, to fold like a wet cardboard box. Perhaps sunshine is indeed the best disinfectant. While Alberta waged its well-funded information war, the urgent “problems of peace” affecting so many Albertans remained studiously ignored. Oil production and carbon emissions have soared while employment in the oil patch has plummeted by more than 33,000 positions in the last decade due to increasing automation from an industry struggling to compete with lower cost jurisdictions. This permanent purge of oil patch employment is projected to approach 50,000 additional jobs by 2040.  The ruthless imperative to eliminate jobs will only accelerate as cleaner energy technologies threaten to displace high cost and high emission producers like Alberta. The International Energy Agency recently predicted that world oil demand will peak in 2030 leading to a global glut of excess production reaching 8 million barrels per day.  Clean energy investment is on track to hit $2 trillion in 2024 – double that going towards fossil fuels. Within the Potemkin village of Alberta politics leaders seem to think local restrictions on clean energy can hold back that global tide. This latest skirmish against the accelerating energy transition succeeded only in driving $11 billion in renewable investment out of the province that would have totaled 6.3 GW of generating capacity.  The expensive legacy of the Alberta oil age is another “problem of peace” that has been ignored so long that there are not even clear estimates of unfunded environmental liabilities burdening future generations. Estimates of clean up costs for abandoned wells and tailings ponds range from $60 billion to an eye-watering $280 billion. The tens of millions squandered so far on the Alberta war room would have been better spent making a small dent in this outstanding debt.  Perhaps a corner is being turned with the demise of the CEC, the Pathways Alliance, and other instruments of the oil industry information war that have undermined even imagining the next chapter of Alberta’s energy future. The recent landslide victory of former Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi as leader of the official opposition New Democratic Party may also portend more peaceful and productive years ahead. He built his impressive political reputation as a bridge builder rather than a war wager. Alberta may be ready to give peace a chance.  The post Alberta’s Energy ‘War Room’ Lost a Doomed Battle Against the Future appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— As California Regulators Refuse to Enforce New Orphan Well Rules, Lawmakers and Environmental Groups Cry Foul

 

at 7/16/24 4:00am

As two of California’s largest oil and gas companies join by corporate merger, state regulators are declining to apply tough new rules governing the transfer of defunct oil and gas wells, DeSmog has learned.  But a growing chorus of California legislators say that nonenforcement stance violates a groundbreaking law they fought to pass just months ago — and they, along with dozens of environmental groups, are demanding that regulators change course.  “They’re just ignoring the statute,” Kassie Siegel, director of the Climate Law Institute at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in an interview. “We need the governor to step in and tell the agency to follow the law,” she added, referring to CalGEM, the agency that oversees oil and gas regulations.  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); On July 1, the California Resources Corporation (CRC) announced that it had completed its acquisition of competitor Aera Energy in an all-stock transaction, a merger that stands to make the combined company the state’s largest onshore oil producer. In a press release, CRC President and CEO Franscisco Leon called it a “transformational deal,” one that would “help the Golden State meet its ambitious climate goals.”  But critics say the deal should never have been allowed to proceed this far under California rules — not without CRC issuing a massive financial assurance bond, one big enough to cover the cost of safely shutting down Aera’s thousands of idle and low-performing wells. They’re pointing to AB 1167, signed into law by California Gov. Gavin Newsom in October 2023, which was intended to prohibit any company from selling or transferring such wells without first issuing bonds large enough to fully fund their cleanup.  “It’s pretty simple,” said state representative Wendy Carrillo, who sponsored the legislation, in emailed comments to DeSmog. “Any oil company that drills in California must also be responsible for cleaning and capping that oil well once it no longer produces, and in the event wells are sold, the new operator must provide the financial assurance via a bond to ensure the wells are not left abandoned.”  By law, industry must shutter unused wells, a process that can cost over $100,000 per site. But specific requirements vary from state to state, and companies routinely avoid their plugging obligation in practice — either by exploiting legal loopholes that allow them to defer the task indefinitely, or by selling wells to smaller companies that then declare bankruptcy before plugging.  Both scenarios put the public at risk.  “If not properly plugged and abandoned, these wells and facilities can contaminate waterways and soil, serve as a source of climate and air pollutants, and can present physical hazards to people and wildlife,” CalGEM concluded in a 2023 legislative report. Leaks of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, and cancer-causing chemicals like benzene are among the top concerns.  Oilfields in Kern County, California, where Aera Energy owns thousands of idle wells. The merger with CRC will put an unprecedented number of low-performing wells in the hands of one operator. Credit: Bureau of Land Management California (PDM 1.0 DEED) Federal and state money is available for plugging in the event that companies can’t pay. But those funds only cover about two percent of what’s needed, according to a ProPublica analysis. In California, the situation is especially dire as oil profits face a steep decline. A 2023 report by the nonprofit think tank Carbon Tracker found that the state’s remaining oil reserves will generate another $6.3 billion in revenue. But the cost of safely shuttering all its unplugged wells will be at least $13 billion — a looming, $7 billion cash shortfall that the industry can’t possibly hope to cover on its own.  AB 1167 was written to help ensure that these cleanup costs don’t fall to the public. By mandating that idle and low-producing wells can’t change hands until they’re fully bonded with CalGEM,  lawmakers had hoped to make it harder to walk away.  Aera Has More Than 9,000 Idle Wells In February, when CRC announced its intent to purchase Aera, the law faced a critical first test. Aera is California’s second-largest holder of idle wells, behind only Chevron, according to a December 2023 report from the Sierra Club. DeSmog’s review of public CalGEM data found that Aera currently has over 9,200 wells classified as “idle” by the state. It would take Aera at least $800 million to fully bond all those wells with CalGEM, based on the agency’s average plugging cost of $87,000 in the state’s central region, where most of Aera’s wells are located.  But AB 1167 doesn’t just require companies to bond idle wells before transferring them. In the event of a sale, a company must fully bond its low-producing wells, too. Aera has thousands of wells producing below the average daily threshold of 15 barrels of oil or equivalent, according to DeSmog’s analysis of 2022 data compiled by Fractracker, a nonprofit advocacy group — bringing the potential bonding requirement to well over $1 billion. For context, CRC valued Aera at only $2.1 billion in the deal.  For Carrillo, the language of the law is clear: Those at-risk wells should be bonded before the merger goes through.   “I wrote AB 1167, and worked with a coalition of environmental advocates to ensure it was signed into law despite heavy opposition from the oil industry,” she wrote in an email to DeSmog. “This deal highlights the exact need for the bill.”  In the months following the merger announcement, it had been unclear how — or if — CalGEM would apply AB 1167. But documents obtained by the nonprofit National Resources Defense Council via public records request, and shared with DeSmog, show CRC worked behind the scenes to suggest Aera’s wells should not be subject to the rules.  On February 15, shortly after the proposed deal was announced, CRC assistant general counsel Kate Tyler emailed a representative at California’s Department of Conservation (CalDOC), which oversees CalGEM, with information on the deal. An attached document describing the terms of the proposed merger claimed “there will be no change in the organizational structure of Aera Energy LLC or its operating subsidiaries as a result of this transaction.”  That argument had critical relevance to AB 1167. The law stipulates that any entity that “acquires the right to operate a well or production facility by purchase, transfer, assignment, conveyance, exchange, or other disposition” must fully bond that well with CalGEM. But CRC seemed to be suggesting that, because Aera’s assets would remain nestled under its existing corporate structure, the wells weren’t really changing hands.  At the same time, in the first quarter of 2024, Aera spent over $67,000 on lobbying, including on topics related to “1167 implementation,” according to a public filing.  Oil rigs in Kern County, California, where Aera Energy owns more than 9,000 idle and other low-performing oil wells. Credit: Bureau of Land Management California, (PDM 1.0 DEED) In the following months, as CRC swiftly moved toward completing its acquisition of Aera, it remained unclear whether CalGEM would subject the merger to AB 1167’s bonding requirements. The agency repeatedly declined to answer DeSmog’s emailed questions about its plans for enforcement, and turned down a request for interviews.   On June 11, as the merger drew closer to completion, Carrillo and nine other state assembly members and senators wrote to CalGEM supervisor Doug Ito to “respectfully urge [him] to enforce AB 1167 … in the pending merger.”  “This merger is precisely the sort of transaction that AB 1167 was designed to address,” they wrote, noting that the law’s “wording triggers the full-cost bonding requirement upon any type of transfer.”  “We urge you to implement the statute as we intended when passing this bill,” they wrote.  By June 21, the lawmakers had not yet received any response. On that date, leaders from six environmental groups followed up in a second letter to Ito, one that copied other government representatives including CalDOC director David Shabazian and Lauren Sanchez, senior climate advisor to Gov. Gavin Newsom.  “We have grave concerns that the oil industry is attempting to evade the critical protections in AB 1167,” they wrote. “We are asking you to immediately state that California Resources Corporation’s acquisition of Aera Energy LLC and its wells must not be finalized prior to compliance with AB 1167’s full bonding requirements.”  They pointed out that CRC would control around 16,000 idle wells after a completed deal — about 40 percent of all the idle wells in the entire state. That’s a “staggering” liability, they wrote, especially considering how quickly oil and gas production is declining across the state.  Mind-boggling Position On June 27, CalDOC director Shabazian finally responded to the lawmakers’ inquiry. It was the response they feared; the agency, he wrote, had decided that AB 1167 was not relevant to the merger. He used the same logic proposed by CRC: “It is evident that only ownership of Aera LLC is being transferred, not any of Aera’s assets.” The company was changing hands, in other words, but not the wells themselves. He also noted that AB 1167 makes no specific mention of stock transfers, even though the bill is broadly written to include transfers “by any other disposition.”  “It is mind-boggling that CalGEM has taken this position,” said Siegel, who signed the June 21 letter on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity. “It’s a terrible dereliction of duty.” She also called Shabazian’s claim that the law doesn’t apply to stock transfers a “nonsensical statement.”  “It just couldnt be any more clear that CRC does, in fact, control Aera’s wells,” she said. “Therefore, the state has to require full bonding.”  “Aera is being fully subsumed by CRC, so CRC should be the operator of record,” Rep. Carrillo wrote, in her comments to DeSmog. “CalGEM’s interpretation of AB 1167 is extremely concerning.”  Jasmine Vazin, a senior campaign organizer with the Sierra Club, pointed out that CalGEM also recently tried to approve a suite of new drilling permits within a protected 3,200-foot “setback zone” just hours before new rules banning that practice took effect.  “With both of these things happening in tandem, it definitely feels like the agency is going rogue,” she said. “The mandate of CalGEM is to protect public health and the interests of Californians. But time and time again these disappointing decisions are being made.”   Concerned citizens rally in San Francisco against CalGEMs decision. Credit: Peg Hunter CalDOC media spokesperson Jacob Roeper said the department had no comment on the findings in this piece. Gov. Newsom’s office had no comment except to direct DeSmog to director Shabazian’s letter.  On July 1, days after Shabazian’s response, CRC announced that it had completed its acquisition of Aera. But the debate about AB 1167’s implementation is still raging. On July 8, representatives from 77 environmental and public health groups sent a letter to Supervisor Ito, writing that CalGEM’s interpretation of AB 1167 “is inconsistent with the letter and spirit of the law.” They urged him not to recognize the merger as final until Aera’s at-risk wells are fully bonded.  “CRC has already filed for bankruptcy once,” they wrote, referring to the company’s 2020 restructuring, which wiped out the $5 billion in debt. (CRC had been saddled with the debt by its former owner, the oil and gas multinational Occidental Petroleum, which spun off its California operation to create CRC in 2014.) “CalGEM should not allow such a financially precarious company to control 40 percent of the wells in the state,” the letter states.  On July 2, the day after the CRC announced its Aera acquisition, a group of concerned citizens  — organized by  1000 Grandmothers for Future Generations and Third Act, as well as the Oil and Gas Action Network, three groups that signed the July 8 letter — gathered on San Francisco’s Embarcadero Plaza to protest CalGEM’s stance on the merger. Demonstrators hoisted a banner that read “CalGEM: Do Your Job.”  CRC and Aera did not respond to requests for comment on this story.  Cesar Aguirre, oil and gas director of the Central California Environmental Justice Network, signed the June 21 letter. In Kern County, where many of Aera’s wells are located, he said, the communities he serves deal far too often with poor air quality and dangerous leaks from nearby wells.  “The state doesn’t have enough money. The current bonding is not enough,” he said, arguing that the state’s oil and gas companies are “dumping accountability elsewhere” by finding ways to avoid bonding their wells.  “We can’t really let them get away with that,” he said. The post As California Regulators Refuse to Enforce New Orphan Well Rules, Lawmakers and Environmental Groups Cry Foul appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— The Polluters of Paris

 

at 7/15/24 11:01pm

At the end of this month, the French capital will host humanitys biggest and brightest celebrations of sport: the Olympic and Paralympic Games. The hype ahead of these games — the 33rd — is palpable and the organisers have promised to deliver a Games like no other.  Sustainability has been central to this promise. As humanity begins to stare down one of the greatest upheavals of the 21st century — the planetary crises of global heating and ecological catastrophe — the Games are under pressure. Almost every Olympic host nation of the recent era has promised big on environmental action, and every one has fallen short, under-delivering. For all of London’s promises back in 2012, having BP as a sponsor augured badly all along. The question for Paris is, can it buck the trend and give the world a glimpse of what a mega sports event must look like in the era of breaking planetary ecological boundaries? Pressure is not just coming from fans and the public. Olympians and Paralympians are increasingly speaking out about the lethal competing conditions that climate breakdown is creating. And the pioneering environmental leadership of Paris Mayor Ann Hidalgo raises expectations on those organising the Games. A major programme of urban greening and traffic reduction is under way thanks to Hidalgo which, earlier this year, also saw Parisians vote to increase charges on SUVs in the city.  But there continues to be the prospect of Olympic smoke rings made from fossil fuels hanging over the organisers’ ambitions to deliver the ‘greenest ever games’: the pervasive presence of polluting sponsors that use the Games to raise their profile, normalise high carbon products and lifestyles with billions of people, while distracting from their complicity in the worsening climate and ecological crises. At the Paris Games, just three of the sponsorship deals, those with Air France, Toyota and steelmaker ArcelorMittal, will produce more pollution than eight coal plants running for an entire year, according to new research from the Badvertising campaign ‘Olympic Smoke Rings’. Fossil Fuel Playbook At a larger level the oil-dependent aviation and vehicle industries have used a similar playbook to the fossil fuel companies. They’ve lobbied against climate action, sought to evade responsibility for their own pollution, and when pushed produced plans that are wildly inadequate in the face of the climate action needed. In specific, large-scale examples, some vehicle makers have been caught illegally cheating on emissions, while the aviation industry globally ignores half of its climate impact and has no realistic plans to deal with the other half.  These sectors, and the major companies within them, are responsible for a large part of global heating — and the organisers of the Games make themselves complicit through allowing the Olympics to be used for their promotion.  Historically, the Olympics has taken sponsorship from multiple oil and gas companies, airlines and vehicle makers. Fast forward to the Paris Games and little has changed. Three major polluters at these Games are not only responsible for enough carbon emissions and air pollution to make the eyes water of all the athletes and fans attending, they have also actively lobbied against ambitious climate policy and hoovered up public subsidies on the premise of decarbonisation.  Air France (an entity merged with Dutch airline KLM) continues to lobby against higher taxes or decarbonisation initiatives within the aviation sector. CEO Ben Smith argued that an EU kerosene tax would “have a negative impact on Europes air transport sector”. And, Air France-KLM strongly fought the proposed flight cap at the Netherlands’ Schiphol airport and took legal action against the measure. Toyota boasts annual CO2 emissions higher than most oil and gas companies, and has production plans that will see the company overshoot Paris-aligned emissions targets by as much as 184 percent. Badvertising’s previous report, Dangerous Driving, detailed how Toyota is also ranked amongst the worst car makers globally for action on climate change, has been energetically resisting the move to cleaner, fully electric cars, and been active in lobbying against climate policy in France, the host nation of the next Olympic Games.  The steel giant ArcelorMittal is front and centre at this year’s games. In 2023 ArcelorMittal was responsible for an estimated 114.3 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent — comparable to the annual emissions of the wealthy, industrialised nation of Belgium. ArcelorMittal is producing the iconic Olympic torches for the Paris Games using ‘steel with a reduced carbon footprint’. But despite this glitzy push, ArcelorMittal does not have scientifically-validated CO2 emissions reductions targets in alignment with a 1.5C climate scenario, and continues to rely on coal-based steel production. This, however, did not stop the company from accepting around €3.5 billion in public subsidies to stimulate decarbonisation.  When keeping company like this, its hard to believe the Olympics and Paralympics are truly serious about the threat posed by climate breakdown to sport and all those who love it. In fact, researchers from Carbon Market Watch auditing the Paris Games’ sustainability plans noted that the sponsors are a “reflection of the credibility, or otherwise, of the games climate commitment” and that “all future games must break from the status quo of associating with polluting companies.” It is clear that climate and environmental breakdown threaten the very fabric of the Games, where they can be hosted, and how well the athletes can compete at them. The Games see themselves as among the greatest gatherings of the international community. When the Secretary-General of the United Nations, another great global coming together, António Guterres, recently called on governments to ban fossil fuel adverts and phase down demand for polluting products and lifestyles, his vision would certainly have encompassed the Olympic rings. He would not want them to be made from fossil fuel smoke.  The very least the Games can do now, to play their own part in averting climate breakdown, is to cut all ties with polluting sponsors that are undermining the future of the Games and the nations, fans, Olympians and Paralympians that make it the spectacle it is. Andrew Simms is co-director of the New Weather Institute, co-founder of the Badvertising campaign, the  Rapid Transition Alliance and assistant director of Scientists for Global Responsibility. Follow on X @AndrewSimms_uk or Mastodon. @andrewsimms@indieweb.social. The post The Polluters of Paris appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Here’s What Nigel Farage’s Reform Party MPs Have to Say About Climate Change

 

at 7/12/24 10:10am

Last week’s general election handed power to a Labour government committed to climate action, and four seats for the Green Party for the first time. But it also saw the election of five MPs from Reform UK, a climate science denial party led by right-wing populist Nigel Farage. Reform campaigns to “scrap all of net zero” and backs new fossil fuel extraction, including via fracking and opening new coal mines.  Reform’s policies are in step with its donors. DeSmog has previously revealed that since the 2019 general election, Reform received £2.3 million from climate deniers, polluters, and fossil fuel interests – who represent 92 percent of its funders.  The partys leaders Farage and Richard Tice have also worked as presenters on GB News, a right-wing broadcaster whose biggest investor Paul Marshall holds £8 million of shares in fossil fuel companies via his hedge fund Marshall Wace.  Given its record and media platform, Farage’s party threatens to be a small but noisy voice trying to undermine Labour’s climate plans.  Here’s a run down of Reform’s members of parliament and their record of climate science denial:  Rupert Lowe MP for Great Yarmouth (New) Rupert Lowe, a former City trader who served as chairman of Southampton Football Club from 1996 to 2006, was a Brexit Party MEP from 2019 to 2020.  Lowe won the previously Conservative seat of Great Yarmouth, with a majority of 1,400 votes over the Labour candidate, who came second. Lowe had failed to win a seat in February’s Kingswood by-election. Lowe has a history of climate science denial, as DeSmog has previously revealed. In January 2020, when Lowe was a Member of European Parliament (MEP) for the Brexit Party (now Reform UK), he used a debate on bushfires in Australia, which destroyed more than 3,000 buildings and killed 34 people, to dismiss the role of climate change.  “It’s disappointing that climate change has been blamed as the primary cause of these devastating bushfires by both our [European] parliament and other so-called climate experts”, Lowe said.  “The cult of climate change marches on with no definitive evidence to support or deny the factual accuracy of their assertions. Logic suggests that climate change has little to do with this natural catastrophe.” Lowe suggested the fires were caused by campfires, sparks from electric transmission lines, “discarded cigarettes” and “arson”. Blaming climate-influenced wildfires entirely on arsonists is a common trope used by climate science deniers. March 2020 analysis by the World Weather Attribution initiative estimated that the bushfires had been made 30 percent more likely by human-induced climate change.  When challenged on his remarks during the session, Lowe repeated that the fires had “nothing to do” with “dryness or heat”, adding that: “We’ve had bushfires in Australia… for many centuries” and that “The biggest fires happened in 1974-75”. The claim that extreme weather has been worse in the past is another familiar climate denial argument.  In May 2023, Lowe also appeared to defend physical confrontations with climate protesters. He shared a video on X of a man who was stopped by police for grabbing climate protesters, and said that it was a “scandal” that officers were confronting a person who was “doing their job for them” by “removing these climate loons from blocking up the roads”. James McMurdock MP for South Basildon and East Thurrock (New) James McMurdock is a former banker at Barclays Capital, Goldman Sachs, and Lehman Brothers, who says he only joined Reform UK in May, a month before the election.  Last week he was elected after a recount in the previously Conservative seat of South Basildon and East Thurrock, beating Labour by less than 100 votes.  McMurdock does not appear to have spoken publicly about climate policy. But his decision to run for Reform suggests he backs their anti-climate platform.  In a profile on Reform’s website, McMurdock describes his politics: “I am committed to the principle that there is no such thing as government money — only your money, collected through taxes. No politician can allocate your resources better than you can.” This is in keeping with Reform’s opposition to government-led green policies.  Richard Tice MP for Boston and Skegness (New) Richard Tice is a multi-millionaire property developer who chaired Farage’s Brexit Party ahead of the 2019 general election and was one of its MEPs. Tice led the renamed Reform UK party from 2020 until Farage took over last month, when Tice became chairman. In the general election, Tice won the Boston and Skegness seat, beating the Conservative candidate to second place by 2,000 votes. On Thursday, he was made Reform’s deputy leader.  Tice has a long record of climate science denial. In November, Tice posted a video on X attacking climate policy, with the caption: “CO2 isnt a poison. Its plant food! We need to challenge the climate change nonsense!” In July 2023, Tice dedicated his TalkTV “sunday sermon” to the subject, in a monologue with the title “there is no climate crisis”.   During the election campaign, (ahead of Farage’s return as leader), Tice appeared on BBC Breakfast and blamed climate change on “the power of the sun or volcanoes”. Lee Anderson MP for Ashfield (Re-elected) Lee Anderson is a former Conservative MP who served as the party’s deputy chair in 2023. In January, while suspended for saying London Mayor Sadiq Khan was under the control of Islamists, Anderson defected to Reform UK, declaring: “I want my country back.” Anderson has repeatedly attacked the government’s net zero policies. In September 2022, he signed an open letter written by the Net Zero Scrutiny Group (NZSG) of backbench MPs that was published in The Telegraph. It called on the UK government to green-light fracking for shale gas, and argued that gas projects should be “fast-tracked” in light of the energy crisis. In July 2023, Anderson called the climate activist group Just Stop Oil “the biggest menace in our society” in an X post celebrating new oil and gas licences.  In February, at the launch of Popular Conservatives – a new Tory faction run by Mark Littlewood, the former director of the BP-funded Institute of Economic Affairs think tank – Anderson said net zero “never comes up on the doorstep” aside from “the odd weirdo”. He also claimed that a net zero UK “wouldn’t make a blind bit of difference to the earth’s atmosphere”, because of other countries’ emissions.  Nigel Farage MP for Clacton (New) Nigel Farage is a former city trader who led the UK Independence Party (UKIP) from 2006 to 2016, campaigning against immigration and European Union membership. On Thursday he was elected MP for Clacton, beating the Conservative candidate by 20,000 votes. Farage has a long record of dismissing climate change. Under his leadership, UKIP manifestos pledged to rip up green measures, repeal the UK’s Climate Change Act, withdraw from the 2015 Paris Agreement, and support fossil fuel extraction. In a 2021 appearance on GB News, Farage attacked “this complete obsession with carbon dioxide almost to the exclusion of everything else, the alarmism that comes with it, based on dodgy predictions and science”.  The following year, during Farage’s self-described “retirement” from politics, he launched a campaign for a Brexit-style referendum on net zero, (a policy Reform did not include in its 2024 manifesto).  During the election campaign, Farage spread open climate science denial.  “We’ve had climate change for millions of years,” he said in a BBC 5 Live interview with Nicky Campbell on 14 June. When told, “Not at this rapidity”, he replied: “How do we know? Our scientific knowledge of this is very small.” In fact, climate scientists have concluded that global warming since the industrial revolution is “unparalleled”, and stated that the human role in it is “unequivocal”. Farage claimed in the same interview that “man produces about 3 percent of the CO2 produced in the world every year”. His claim was wrong by a margin of 30 percent. The Reform MP has also spread conspiracy theories about climate policy. In 2023 on X, Farage warned that London’s ultra-low emission zone (ULEZ) would lead to “climate lockdowns” – a conspiracy theory about plans to impose Covid-style restrictions under the guise of tackling climate change. Reform did not respond when contacted for comment. In May, a Reform spokesperson told DeSmog: “Climate change is real, Reform UK believes we must adapt, rather than foolishly think you can stop it. “We are proud to be the only party to understand that economic growth depends on cheap domestic energy and we are proud that we are the only party that are climate science realists, realising you can not stop the power of the sun, volcanoes or sea level oscillation.” In March, a spokesperson told DeSmog, “you know what our policies are towards net zero and the climate agenda” adding that it should come as no surprise when Reform is “supported by others that agree with us”. The post Here’s What Nigel Farage’s Reform Party MPs Have to Say About Climate Change appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Oil and Gas Leases on Federal Lands in Question as Lawmakers Eye Shale Collusion Allegations

 

at 7/11/24 4:28pm

A dozen Democratic lawmakers on the House Natural Resources Committee want to know if shale drillers could see their oil and gas leases and operations on federal lands suspended amid allegations that the companies may have colluded to drive oil prices up. “Such market manipulation would have enormous impacts on the price of gas paid by working families across the country,” the lawmakers wrote in a July 9 letter to the Department of the Interior. The lawmakers, who include Democratic representatives like Arizonas Raul Grijalva and Californias Katie Porter, cited evidence that the Federal Trade Commission uncovered during its roughly six-month review of an ultimately successful merger between ExxonMobil and Permian shale giant Pioneer Natural Resources, and class action litigation alleging at least eight major shale producers engaged in antitrust violations. 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 to Interior calls attention to federal rules that let the government suspend or break off contracts with companies that engage — or are suspected of engaging — in a wide range of wrongdoing, including antitrust violations. The lawmakers asked Interior officials to weigh in on whether companies named in the class action litigation could be “permanently barred from obtaining future leases” on federal lands. They also questioned whether any of the companies might be “barred not just from obtaining future leases but from operating on public lands and waters” if they were found civilly or criminally liable for antitrust violations. Federal regulators have previously suggested that oil and gas leases could potentially be affected by collusion convictions, the letter notes. Not long after the FTC’s investigation results were made public in May, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Director Liz Klein was asked about oil and gas leases during a Congressional oversight hearing. “If a company is found guilty of something like collusion, we have regulations in place that make them ineligible to hold a lease in the future,” she testified. The eight defendants in the antitrust lawsuits include Pioneer, which in May merged into ExxonMobil, (NYSE:XOM)), Occidental Petroleum (NYSE:OXY), Hess Corp. (NYSE:HES), EOG Resources (NYSE: EOG), Diamondback Energy (NYSE:FANG), the privately held Continental Resources (a private company), Chesapeake Energy (NYSE:CHK) and Permian Resources (NYSE:PR). None of the companies named responded to DeSmog requests for comment on the allegations or on the letter. The Department of Interior did not respond when asked if it is considering suspending or debarring any oil and gas operators over antitrust concerns. Suspected Wrongdoing Temporary suspensions of government contracts can be imposed “based on suspected wrongdoing,” the lawmakers wrote. While investigations remain pending, regulators need less evidence to act, the letter says, pointing to rules requiring “adequate” evidence, rather than the more onerous “preponderance” of evidence needed to justify a “debarment,” or multi-year bar on federal contracts. The FTC wrapped up its review of the Pioneer deal in early May, allowing the companies to merge, though it banned Pioneer’s former CEO Scott Sheffield from serving on ExxonMobil’s board. Later that month, Sheffield pushed back on the FTC’s allegations. “There is no evidence in the record of this case that can fairly be characterized as ‘attempting to collude’ with OPEC,” he wrote in public comments responding to the FTC complaint. But two days later, roughly two dozen Senators called on the Department of Justice to investigate the oil industry, citing the FTC’s findings. “At a minimum, given the specificity of some of the allegations in the FTC complaint, a criminal investigation by the Antitrust Division [of the DOJ] is a very real possibility,” the National Law Review reported in June. Meanwhile, a growing number of class action lawsuits, the first of which was filed in January, had already begun raising similar concerns, alleging that shale producers had responded to a 2016 price war with OPEC by colluding with each other and with foreign producers or oil cartels to manage oil production and keep oil prices higher. By the end of 2017, oil producers had collectively spent $280 billion more than they’d earned from shale drilling. Shale executives were under enormous pressure to start turning the flood of oil they’d produced — all the while driving prices down — into profits. Collusion Not Allowed But one big thing US corporations are not allowed to do in the pursuit of profits is to collude with each other, according to antitrust laws. You can’t agree with your competitors that you’ll all tamp down production to drive prices up, or you risk criminal penalties. Global oil markets might be dominated by OPEC and OPEC+, which are well known for their efforts to shape oil prices — but U.S. companies aren’t allowed to take part. Nonetheless, in 2017, groups of shale CEOs and executives started meeting up with OPEC representatives at private dinners. It’s those meetings that are now cited in the antitrust lawsuits alleging those shale drillers colluded with each other to ward off price wars and to drive up profits. Those allegations — depending on Interior’s response — could soon have implications that reach beyond Sheffield’s board seat. Federal contracts are often a key part of companies’ revenues — and interrupting them can cause significant impacts. “The consequences of a suspension or debarment are potentially catastrophic,” the law firm Arnold & Porter warned in a 2022 note (long before the shale collusion cases emerged) warning that federal prosecutors had stepped up their attention to antitrust violations by government contractors by launching a Procurement Collusion Strike Force. The Congressional letter also requests details on the class action defendants’ federal oil and gas leases and activities, focusing in part on drilling permits that were “approved but unused” from 2017 through 2023. It further requests info on companies’ “idled but unreclaimed wells,” asking when the wells were idled and when production from those wells resumed. And — noteworthy given that some of the collusion allegations center on companies’ actions or admissions during the 2020 Covid-19 disruptions, when Sheffield and other producers asked Texas regulators to step in and manage oil markets as demand plunged — the letter also asks Interior for details on pandemic-era royalty relief provided to the companies named. The post Oil and Gas Leases on Federal Lands in Question as Lawmakers Eye Shale Collusion Allegations appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Oil and Gas Leases on Federal Lands in Question as Lawmakers Eye Shale Collusion Allegations

 

at 7/11/24 4:28pm

A dozen Democratic lawmakers on the House Natural Resources Committee want to know if shale drillers could see their oil and gas leases and operations on federal lands suspended amid allegations that the companies may have colluded to drive oil prices up. “Such market manipulation would have enormous impacts on the price of gas paid by working families across the country,” the lawmakers wrote in a July 9 letter to the Department of the Interior. The lawmakers, who include Democratic representatives like Arizonas Raul Grijalva and Californias Katie Porter, cited evidence that the Federal Trade Commission uncovered during its roughly six-month review of an ultimately successful merger between ExxonMobil and Permian shale giant Pioneer Natural Resources, and class action litigation alleging at least eight major shale producers engaged in antitrust violations. 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 to Interior calls attention to federal rules that let the government suspend or break off contracts with companies that engage — or are suspected of engaging — in a wide range of wrongdoing, including antitrust violations. The lawmakers asked Interior officials to weigh in on whether companies named in the class action litigation could be “permanently barred from obtaining future leases” on federal lands. They also questioned whether any of the companies might be “barred not just from obtaining future leases but from operating on public lands and waters” if they were found civilly or criminally liable for antitrust violations. Federal regulators have previously suggested that oil and gas leases could potentially be affected by collusion convictions, the letter notes. Not long after the FTC’s investigation results were made public in May, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Director Liz Klein was asked about oil and gas leases during a Congressional oversight hearing. “If a company is found guilty of something like collusion, we have regulations in place that make them ineligible to hold a lease in the future,” she testified. The eight defendants in the antitrust lawsuits include Pioneer, which in May merged into ExxonMobil, (NYSE:XOM)), Occidental Petroleum (NYSE:OXY), Hess Corp. (NYSE:HES), EOG Resources (NYSE: EOG), Diamondback Energy (NYSE:FANG), the privately held Continental Resources (a private company), Chesapeake Energy (NYSE:CHK) and Permian Resources (NYSE:PR). None of the companies named responded to DeSmog requests for comment on the allegations or on the letter. The Department of Interior did not respond when asked if it is considering suspending or debarring any oil and gas operators over antitrust concerns. Suspected Wrongdoing Temporary suspensions of government contracts can be imposed “based on suspected wrongdoing,” the lawmakers wrote. While investigations remain pending, regulators need less evidence to act, the letter says, pointing to rules requiring “adequate” evidence, rather than the more onerous “preponderance” of evidence needed to justify a “debarment,” or multi-year bar on federal contracts. The FTC wrapped up its review of the Pioneer deal in early May, allowing the companies to merge, though it banned Pioneer’s former CEO Scott Sheffield from serving on ExxonMobil’s board. Later that month, Sheffield pushed back on the FTC’s allegations. “There is no evidence in the record of this case that can fairly be characterized as ‘attempting to collude’ with OPEC,” he wrote in public comments responding to the FTC complaint. But two days later, roughly two dozen Senators called on the Department of Justice to investigate the oil industry, citing the FTC’s findings. “At a minimum, given the specificity of some of the allegations in the FTC complaint, a criminal investigation by the Antitrust Division [of the DOJ] is a very real possibility,” the National Law Review reported in June. Meanwhile, a growing number of class action lawsuits, the first of which was filed in January, had already begun raising similar concerns, alleging that shale producers had responded to a 2016 price war with OPEC by colluding with each other and with foreign producers or oil cartels to manage oil production and keep oil prices higher. By the end of 2017, oil producers had collectively spent $280 billion more than they’d earned from shale drilling. Shale executives were under enormous pressure to start turning the flood of oil they’d produced — all the while driving prices down — into profits. Collusion Not Allowed But one big thing US corporations are not allowed to do in the pursuit of profits is to collude with each other, according to antitrust laws. You can’t agree with your competitors that you’ll all tamp down production to drive prices up, or you risk criminal penalties. Global oil markets might be dominated by OPEC and OPEC+, which are well known for their efforts to shape oil prices — but U.S. companies aren’t allowed to take part. Nonetheless, in 2017, groups of shale CEOs and executives started meeting up with OPEC representatives at private dinners. It’s those meetings that are now cited in the antitrust lawsuits alleging those shale drillers colluded with each other to ward off price wars and to drive up profits. Those allegations — depending on Interior’s response — could soon have implications that reach beyond Sheffield’s board seat. Federal contracts are often a key part of companies’ revenues — and interrupting them can cause significant impacts. “The consequences of a suspension or debarment are potentially catastrophic,” the law firm Arnold & Porter warned in a 2022 note (long before the shale collusion cases emerged) warning that federal prosecutors had stepped up their attention to antitrust violations by government contractors by launching a Procurement Collusion Strike Force. The Congressional letter also requests details on the class action defendants’ federal oil and gas leases and activities, focusing in part on drilling permits that were “approved but unused” from 2017 through 2023. It further requests info on companies’ “idled but unreclaimed wells,” asking when the wells were idled and when production from those wells resumed. And — noteworthy given that some of the collusion allegations center on companies’ actions or admissions during the 2020 Covid-19 disruptions, when Sheffield and other producers asked Texas regulators to step in and manage oil markets as demand plunged — the letter also asks Interior for details on pandemic-era royalty relief provided to the companies named. The post Oil and Gas Leases on Federal Lands in Question as Lawmakers Eye Shale Collusion Allegations appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— ‘All of Our Tricks Worked’: Spoof ExxonMobil Ad Nails Just How Easy It’s Been for Big Oil

 

at 7/11/24 1:07pm

This article was first published in Common Dreams and is reprinted here. A new parody ExxonMobil advertisement released Tuesday by a group founded by Adam McKay — the Academy Award-winning writer and director of the blockbuster doomsday climate comedy Dont Look Up — mocks humanity for letting Big Oil get away with causing one of the biggest existential threats of all time. Theres a world we all want to live in again. A world where the air is pure and crisp and clean and fills your lungs with joy. A world where you can drink water from any river or creek and your house will still be there tomorrow if it rains, the narrator of Yellow Dot Studios latest parody video says in the two-minute clip. Here at Exxon, we believe in that world, and were working hard to make sure that our customers believe that we believe in that world. 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); We understand the road has been bumpy, and we havent always done the best we could, he says over footage of the Exxon Valdez disaster, in which more than 10 million gallons of crude oil were spilled in Alaskas Prince William Sound in 1989. Wow, this new Exxon ad is surprisingly candid. pic.twitter.com/FYEf2GNdGE— Yellow Dot Studios (@weareyellowdot) July 9, 2024 The voice-over continues: Sure, our own scientists accurately predicted climate change 60 years ago. But we didnt want you to know about it. Thats why we spent billions on ads and media manipulation covering it up, then we rigged the government so leaders in both parties would do our bidding, and yes, we did everything in our power to block clean energy tech so we could keep force-feeding you oil via expanding global infrastructure, monstrous vehicles, and disposable plastics and chemicals that dont go away. Ever. The video follows the recent conclusion of a bicameral Senate investigation into Big Oils decades of spreading climate disinformation and obstructing a green transition—after which lawmakers called on the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate fossil fuel giants. There is also a nascent movement urging state and local prosecutors to go after the oil and gas industry for climate-related deaths. And yes, every now and then you squawk about how evil we are, but then we drop gas prices a nickel and you shut right back up, the narrator says. Do you have any idea how easy it is to get you off our backs with a little bullshit about your responsibilities to the planet? About your carbon footprint? Pretending plastic recycling actually makes a difference? Youre letting us get away with it, you dumb bitches he adds mockingly. All of our tricks worked. The world is a burning, out-of-control charnel house. The last generation to die of old age has already been born, and you still let oil executives freely show their face in public. Were just one company but youre 7 billion people, the video concludes. Get off your asses and do something, you fucking peasants! The post All of Our Tricks Worked: Spoof ExxonMobil Ad Nails Just How Easy Its Been for Big Oil appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

— Meet the Labour Government’s New Climate Team

 

at 7/10/24 8:29am

Labour has wasted no time in appointing its climate team, tasked with an ambitious agenda for energy. As a record 335 new MPs take tours of (and selfies in) their new place of work, we take a look at those tasked with keeping the UK on track to net zero emissions and protecting our environment. At the helm are former Labour leader Ed Miliband, heading up the UK’s net zero and energy security portfolio, and environment and farming secretary Steve Reed. Chris Stark, the former chief executive of the government’s advisory body, the Climate Change Committee, was on Tuesday appointed the head of Mission Control for Clean Power, in charge of decarbonising the UK’s electricity by 2030. The scale of the challenge is enormous. Labour plans to overhaul planning laws, and massively expand the grid to transport electricity in pylons across the country from dozens of new solar and wind farms. 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); Despite ditching its £28 billion climate pledge in February, the party’s attitude to tackling climate change has eclipsed that of the Conservatives, whose anti-net zero attacks appears to have cost the party voters ahead of the election. Former environment and climate secretaries Therese Coffey and Claire Coutinho are among the 171 Conservative MPs to be leaving Parliament, along with a host of net zero sceptics. Meanwhile Caroline Lucas, Westminster’s most vocal climate champion, has retired from politics, with four new Green MPs entering the fold. On the other side of the coin, Nigel Farage’s anti-net zero Reform UK party, now with five MPs in the Commons, has pledged to scrap the UK’s legally binding commitment 2050 target altogether. Labour’s path ahead will not be smooth. Ministers face a number of difficult decisions on hydrogen, nuclear and carbon capture and storage. They’ll also need to make a call on everything from the “carbon neutral” Cumbria coal mine to continued subsidies for Drax power station. Covering briefs on climate, the environment, transport and science, let’s meet the ministers charged with protecting the UK’s environment and keeping our emissions targets on track… Ed Miliband – Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero After 14 years in opposition, Ed Milband rejoins the government’s front bench in charge of tackling an existential issue that will demand both international and domestic diplomacy in spades. Ed has been here before. Many of Labour’s new MPs will be too young to remember when Miliband became the UK’s first Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change under Gordon Brown in 2008. Under Miliband, the government committed in 2008 to raising the UK’s emission-cutting targets from 60 to 80 percent by 2050. Over fifteen years later, Labour plans to make Britain a “clean energy superpower” with plans for a new state-owned GB Energy. This, according to the party’s manifesto, will help drive the transition to net zero electricity by 2030 and create 650,000 new high-quality jobs. Miliband and his ministers can expect stiff opposition to the build out of electricity-transporting pylons and solar that will be vital for decarbonisation. There is already one such headache on his doorstep, where plans for the 536-hectare Fenwick Solar Farm face a major backlash in his constituency of Doncaster North – a seat he has held since 2005. Labour’s plans to cut energy bills and tackle home insulation will be a critical part of his national strategy that will also resonate in Miliband’s own constituency. Nearly one in five households (around 20 percent) in Doncaster North live in fuel poverty – significantly higher than the 13 percent national average. During the election campaign, Miliband said Labour would scrap the Conservatives’ 2035 ban on new gas boilers, saying: “I know that we’ve got to show that heat pumps are affordable and are going to work for people.” Sarah Jones – Minister of State in the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero, and in the Department of Business and Trade Sarah Jones is the MP for the new constituency of Croydon West, after representing Croydon Central since 2017. Jones has served in a number of significant roles in Labour’s opposition, including as shadow minister for the Home Office and for housing. A relative newcomer to climate policy, she was appointed the shadow minister for industry and decarbonisation in September 2023. Jones has advocated for the increased use of hydrogen and carbon capture, utilisation and storage, in line with Labour’s manifesto.  Hydrogen is a clean-burning fuel that has won support across the benches a as a better alternative to fossil fuels in certain contexts, but the extent of its use remains controversial. Currently, the vast majority of hydrogen (96 percent) made globally is “grey” – created from methane, a highly potent planet-warming greenhouse gas, responsible for nearly a third of global heating. The use of other types of hydrogen is also controversial. “Blue” hydrogen – where the greenhouse gases from the “grey” process are captured and stored underground – is criticised as an unproven technology. “Green” hydrogen – made using electrolysis from wind or solar power – will have a vital role in decarbonising industry, but is hugely resource and cost intensive. In June, DeSmog reported that Jones accepted sponsorship for a fundraiser from Beyond 2050, a hydrogen lobby group supported by oil and gas companies BP and Equinor. Beyond 2050 is backed by a major Conservative Party donor, Lord Bamford. DeSmog previously reported that it had coordinated a “Hydrogen Zone” at the 2023 Labour and Conservative party conferences, where a number of its clients used stands to promote the controversial and widely discredited use of hydrogen for home heating. Labour has yet to rule out the use of hydrogen to heat homes, but will have to make a decision by 2026. Miatta Fahnbulleh MP – Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero A rising star in the Labour Party, Fahnbulleh is one of five new MPs to be awarded a ministerial role without having served as an MP. However, the newly elected representative for Camberwell and Peckham is not short of star credentials in both politics and policy.  Fahnbulleh was the CEO of the New Economics Foundation think tank until last year, and before that the director of policy and research at the Institute of Public Policy Research. She was also a political advisor to Ed Miliband during his Labour leadership, where her brief included housing, energy and climate change, and transport. Fahnbulleh spent eight years at senior levels in the Cabinet Office, including as head of the cities policy unit. Kerry McCarthy – Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero McCarthy kept hold of her Bristol East seat at the general election, seeing off stiff competition from her Green Party competitor Ani Stafford-Townsend, who took over 30 percent of the votes. The former Labour councillor, who has represented the constituency since 2005, has worked across a number of environment-related briefs over the past decade. McCarthy was the shadow environment and farming secretary from 2015 to 2016, and the shadow minister for green transport from 2020-2021. Under Keir Starmer, she was appointed the shadow minister for climate change in June 2022 and has retained that role in the new Labour government. Prior to entering politics, McCarthy was a solicitor, who worked as a lawyer for investment bank Merrill Lynch Europe and for the Labour Party. She was also the director of London Luton Airport (1999-2003), and a director of pro-European pressure group Britain in Europe (2002-2004). In 2022, she criticised the Conservative government for “blocking new solar”. In a post on her website, she said it was “beyond belief” that the government would be putting obstacles in the way of solar power. McCarthy sits on a number of environmental cross-party All Party Parliamentary Groups, including on global deforestation, biodiversity in UK overseas territories, and bees and pollinators. Michael Shanks MP – Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero Shanks is one of two Scottish Labour MPs to be appointed to government. He was elected to Parliament for the first time last year in a landslide by-election. At the time, Keir Starmer described the result in Rutherglen & Hamilton as “seismic” and a “must-win” for Labour, indicative of the party’s rising appeal in Scotland. Shanks served as the shadow minister of state for Scotland prior to joining government.  In his new role, Shanks is expected to have a large say in GB Energy, Labour’s planned publicly owned energy company, which will be headquartered in Scotland. Labour has said it will fund the company through a windfall tax on oil and gas firms, which they claim would raise £8.3 billion over the next five years. Philip Hunt – Minister of State in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero Baron Philip Hunt is a Labour life peer and a self-employed consultant to the NHS. Hunt has served in a number of ministerial roles, including as a parliamentary under secretary for the Department of Health, the Department for Work and Pensions, and the Ministry of Justice. In 2008, Hunt was appointed the deputy leader of the House of Lords, and the minister of state for sustainable development, climate change adaptation and air quality at both the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the newly created Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc).  Hunt has previously worked closely with Miliband, having served as Labour’s spokesperson on home affairs and for the cabinet office after his election as Labour leader. Chris Stark – Head of Mission Control for Clean Power The surprise appointment of Chris Stark to government has delighted climate advocates. Stark was the head of the UK’s climate watchdog, the Climate Change Committee (CCC), for six years, and the director of energy and climate change in the Scottish government between 2016 and 2018. Under his leadership, the CCC recommended the UK’s target for net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, which the Conservative Party adopted in 2019. Stark’s new position is a brand new role, in which he will head a new “Mission Control” centre. According to Desnz, the centre will be “a one-stop shop, bringing together a top team of industry experts and officials to troubleshoot, negotiate and clear the way for energy projects”. He will be “tasked with turbocharging the shift from volatile fossil fuel markets to home-grown clean power by 2030”. In a video on social media platform X, Stark described the new role as “an opportunity of a lifetime”. Steve Reed – Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Steve Reed was elected MP for the newly drawn constituency of Streatham and Croydon North, having been Croydon North MP since 2012. He has served as Labour’s shadow environment secretary since September 2023.  Reed has been an outspoken defender of the environment. In January, he spoke out against the government’s Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill, which would require annual licensing rounds for offshore oil and gas extraction in the UK. Writing on social media platform X, he described the bill as a “damaging political gimmick”. He added: “It will not bring down people’s energy bills or secure the jobs we need for the future. But it will undermine work to tackle the climate crisis.” Reed has also been a vocal supporter of farmers. In a House of Commons debate in May, Reed said: “The government’s failure to invest in home-grown clean energy has left farmers crippled by skyrocketing energy prices. They have sold farmers’ interests down the river with dodgy trade deals, opening the door to low-welfare, low-standard imports that undercut higher-quality British producers.”  On the other hand, he has also expressed concerns about the environmental land management scheme (ELMS), which gives farmers a subsidy and requires them to cut carbon dioxide emissions and protect nature. In the same Commons speech, Reed said the Conservatives had “botched” its implementation. Since his appointment, Reed has already met with the National Farmers’ Union (NFU) president, Tom Bradshaw. He reportedly told Defra colleagues that his five priorities are to clean up the country’s sewage-filled waterways, work towards Britain being a “zero waste economy”, improve food security, help nature recover, and protect communities from flooding. Daniel Zeichner – Minister for Farming, Food and Fisheries Zeichner has had a long history of working on environmental issues, and was the shadow minister for environment, food and rural affairs until his appointment as a minister this week. He has been a vocal advocate for more stringent environmental protections in relation to food and farming, arguing that “that farming and the environment must not be seen as in conflict”. Zeichner has also argued that pollinator health was “just not negotiable” in a debate on whether to ban particularly harmful neonicotinoid pesticides. Emma Hardy – Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the  Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Announcing her appointment on Instagram, Hardy said she was “excited to be at the beating heart of a Labour government”. The MP for Kingston-Upon-Hull West and Hessle since 2010, Hardy was promoted to the opposition front bench last year as shadow minister for flooding, oceans and coastal communities. From 2017 to 2020, Hardy served as parliamentary private secretary to Keir Starmer in his previous role as shadow secretary of state for exiting the European Union. In line with the vast majority of Labour MPs, Hardy has voted positively on climate issues, including against fracking for shale gas and in favour of a ban on the burning of peat in upland areas. Sue Hayman Minister of State in the Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs The Labour peer announced her appointment to Defra on Tuesday. In a post on social media platform X, she said she was looking forward to working with the team “to protect and enhance our environment, support our farmers and improve animal welfare”.  This was welcomed by Green Party peer Baroness Jenny Jones, who congratulated her and said: “You have been a superb Shadow Minister in Lords and massively deserve the Defra post.” At the time of publication, the appointment and her exact job title are yet to be confirmed.  Hayman previously served as shadow secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs from 2017 to 2019. In that role in May 2019 she called on the government to declare a “national environment and climate emergency” in a motion that was voted through in Pparliament.  After losing her seat in the 2019 general election she was appointed to the House of Lords in 2020, and made a shadow Defra spokesperson. Since 2021 she has also served as a shadow spokesperson for levelling up, housing and communities. Jonathan Reynolds – Secretary of State for Business and Trade  Reynolds has been a passionate advocate for UK climate action. He has a long history of working on climate-related briefs across roles in business, transport and environment departments, most recently as shadow business and trade secretary since September 2023.  He has already worked closely with Miliband, having served in his shadow cabinet as shadow minister for energy and climate change between 2013-2015. Representing Stalybridge & Hyde in Greater Manchester since 2010, in November 2023, he criticised the government’s programme as “not only incredibly thin, but completely incoherent”.  Reynolds has called on the UK to become a “clean energy superpower” through advances in offshore wind, solar, nuclear, and carbon capture. During a parliamentary debate on job losses at the Port Talbot steelworks, Reynolds claimed that Labour’s plan for workers was “industry-wide, comprehensive, and transformative”.As shadow rails minister from 2015-2016, he backed the nationalisation of the UK’s railways. He also called attention to a “chronic underinvestment in infrastructure in the regions outside London”. Louise Haigh Secretary of State for Transport New transport secretary Louise Haigh has told civil servants she wants to “change the way our country runs”. At 36, the MP for Sheffield Heeley is the youngest ever serving female cabinet minister.  Prior to her election in 2015, she worked for Aviva as public policy manager, responsible for corporate governance and responsible investment policy. Haigh, who held the shadow brief for over two years prior to Labour’s landslide victory, has promised to prioritise the nationalisation of British rail in the first term of a Labour government. “This will be the most public transport-committed government in Britain’s history,” she is quoted saying.In May 2024, Haigh accepted a £5,000 donation from Lodestone Communications, which has worked with clients in nuclear, hydrogen, and aquaculture, for “a report on responses to a consultation document to support me in my front bench role”. Patrick Vallance Minister of State in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology The UK government’s chief scientific advisor from April 2018 to April 2023, Vallance became a household name during the 2020 Covid-19 pandemic, during which he presented nightly briefings on TV alongside chief medical officer Chris Whitty and former prime minister Boris Johnson.  Keir Starmer has also appointed Vallance to the House of Lords. It’s not clear yet what his role will involve.  Vallance had publicly backed Labour’s pledge for “clean power by 2030”, which he was quoted saying in Labour’s 2024 election manifesto “is achievable and should be prioritised”. In the quote, he went on to liken the swift “transition to clean, homegrown energy” to the UK’s world-leading role in developing a Covid vaccine.  He has repeatedly spoken out about the need to tackle climate change. In 2022 Vallance gave an emergency briefing to 70 members of parliament, stating that the climate crisis would be more of a challenge than Covid: “We face 50 years of really big problems relating to climate, and the nature of that threat to countries around the world means that this has to be… on every government’s agenda.” In March 2023, Vallance gave a keynote speech at the Natural History Museum in which he made a detailed case for a science-based response to the climate crisis. The post Meet the Labour Governments New Climate Team appeared first on DeSmog.

[Category: Energy]

As of 7/27/24 2:48am. Last new 7/25/24 10:53am.