Dozens of New MPs Worked for Oil and Gas Lobbyists

Spread the love

Original article by Andrew Kersley republished from DeSmog.

The Houses of Parliament in Westminster. Credit: Garry Knight / Flickr (CC BY 2.0)

A host of parliamentarians were previously employed by agencies with fossil fuel clients.

At least 24 newly elected MPs used to work for public relations, consultancy and lobbying firms that have a history of representing oil and gas companies, DeSmog can reveal.

A DeSmog analysis of the MPs entering Parliament after the 2024 general election found that two dozen had a background working for oil and gas giants, coal power station conglomerates, as well as other highly polluting clients.

The findings have sparked concerns that fossil fuel interests in Parliament may influence policy-making.

“I entered politics after working as an engineer in the renewables industry exactly because I could see we had the technology to make the transition to clean and green energy, but we were lacking the political will to make it happen,” said Green Party co-leader and Bristol Central MP Carla Denyer.

“Part of what stops this transition from occurring is the embedded influence of the fossil fuels industry in politics.”

Labour’s new Ossett and Denby Dale MP Jade Botterill started working at lobbying firm Portland after her parliamentary candidacy was announced in September 2023. Portland’s clients include oil major BP, French energy firm EDF, Heathrow Airport, and Chinese state-owned oil company CNOOC. Another Labour MP – Laura Kyrke-Smith – worked for Portland several years ago. She told DeSmog that she didn’t represent any oil firms while working for the company. 

Portland told DeSmog that they “do not comment on client relationships”.

At least three new Labour MPs – Oliver Ryan, Mary Creagh, and Steve Race – previously worked for Lexington Communications, a lobbying firm that works for oil giant Phillips 66, the International Airlines Group (IAG), and Eren Holding, a firm that runs coal-fired power stations in Turkey.

New Conservative MP for Bromsgrove Bradley Thomas spent at least five years working for Phillips 66, latterly as a strategy lead, before becoming an independent consultant to the sector.

Almost a third of Labour’s new MPs have a background working in communications and lobbying, according to the Sunday Times, a similar share to the Conservatives. Due to the UK’s limited transparency rules around lobbying, it’s often impossible to know whether these individuals worked on behalf of oil and gas clients.

However, we do know that several other major lobbying and consultancy firms with fossil fuel links – in addition to Lexington and Portland – used to employ a number of new MPs. These include:

  • Teneo (clients include BHP, Centrica, and EnQuest)
  • Arden Strategies (SGN, UK Power Networks)
  • Headland (London City Airport)
  • Weber Shandwick (ExxonMobil, Shell, Independent Fuel Suppliers Association, Cairn Oil and Gas)
  • Hanbury (Rockhopper Exploration, Spirit Energy)
  • Consulum (Saudi Arabia)
  • Hanover (Valero)
  • Camargue (Esso)
  • Four Communications (Oman Oil Company)

Four Communications emphasised that its work for the Oman Oil Company ended in 2019, though the firm also has offices in the petrostates United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia.

In June 2024, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said that PR agencies had “aided and abetted” the fossil fuel industry, “acting as enablers to planetary destruction”. He called on these agencies to stop taking on new fossil fuel clients, and to set out plans to drop their existing ones.

“Fossil fuels are not only poisoning our planet – they’re toxic for your brand,” he said. 

All the MPs named in this article were approached for comment. 

Gas Lobbyists and Energy Consultants

Several new MPs have also worked for much smaller groups with links to the energy industry. This includes Labour’s new Cannock Chase MP Josh Newbury, who between 2019 and 2022 worked as senior parliamentary officer for the Energy and Utilities Alliance (EUA) – a trade group for the gas industry and fossil fuel boiler manufacturers.

DeSmog revealed in 2023 that the EUA, which is led by former Labour MP Mike Foster, was behind a barrage of negative press attacking heat pumps as a home heating source. Foster has repeatedly labelled pro-heat pump campaigners as a “green cult”.

New Liberal Democrat MP for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire Ian Sollom worked as the principal of StrategicFit, an energy sector strategic consultancy that has worked for the oil major ExxonMobil, and the Chinese state oil firm CNOOC.

Sollom told DeSmog that “as a scientist entering Parliament, I am committed to the phasing out of fossil fuels, and my previous career primarily focused on improving decision making and collaboration between energy companies, regulators and other stakeholders”.

Liberal Democrat MP for Cheltenham Max Wilkinson used to work for Camargue, which lobbied politicians in Westminster on behalf of the oil company Esso while he was employed by the firm. 

A spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats stressed that Wilkinson did not work for any oil and gas clients.

Fossil fuel companies have extensive existing ties to Westminster politics. DeSmog revealed that, from the 2019 general election to the start of the 2024 election campaign, the Conservative Party received £8.4 million from oil and gas interests, climate science deniers, and polluting industries.

Meanwhile, a number of leading right-wing think tanks have received direct funding from the fossil fuel industry. Onward, which hosted the most government meetings of any think tank in 2023, receives funding from Shell and BP.

All the agencies named in this article were approached for comment.

Original article by Andrew Kersley republished from DeSmog.

Continue ReadingDozens of New MPs Worked for Oil and Gas Lobbyists

Just Stop Oil paint Heathrow departure boards to demand a fossil fuel treaty to end oil and gas

Spread the love

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/just-stop-oil-paint-heathrow-departure-boards-demand-fossil-fuel-treaty-end-oil-and-gas

Phoebe Plummer and Jane Touil at Heathrow Airport, July 30, 2024 Photo: Just Stop Oil

TWO Just Stop Oil supporters sprayed several departure boards at Heathrow Airport with orange paint today. [30 July 2024]

The protest was part of the Oil Kills uprising, a series of actions co-ordinated by climate groups across 12 countries.

The activists are demanding that governments establish a fossil fuel treaty to end the extraction and burning of oil, gas and coal by 2030. Actions have taken place at 18 airports so far.

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/just-stop-oil-paint-heathrow-departure-boards-demand-fossil-fuel-treaty-end-oil-and-gas

Continue ReadingJust Stop Oil paint Heathrow departure boards to demand a fossil fuel treaty to end oil and gas

BP Condemned Over ‘Mammoth Profits’ as Fossil Fuels Wreak Havoc on the Planet

Spread the love
Extinction Rebellion protests at BP
Extinction Rebellion protests at BP London. Banner reads big profits before planet

“The world can no longer afford fossil fuel companies putting short-term profits above people and planet.”

The London-based oil giant BP announced Tuesday that it hauled in $2.8 billion in profit during the second quarter of the year as the world faced the consequences of the fossil fuel industry’s business model in the form of record-shattering heat, devastating wildfires, and other weather extremes.

The company’s second-quarter profit surpassed analysts’ expectations and brought its total profit for the first half of 2024 to $5.5 billion. BP on Tuesday also announced a 10% dividend increase, an expansion of its stock buyback program, and a green light for a new drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico, even as international scientists say any new fossil fuel production is incompatible with critical warming targets set out by the Paris climate accord.

BP said that once completed, the new floating platform would have the capacity to produce 80,000 barrels of crude oil daily.

Chiara Liguori, Oxfam Great Britain’s senior climate justice policy adviser, said in a statement that “the world can no longer afford fossil fuel companies putting short-term profits above people and planet.”

“It is inexcusable that BP, one of the world’s most polluting and profitable fossil fuel companies, continues to rake in billions of pounds while low-income countries are in urgent need of funds to tackle the devastating impacts of the climate crisis despite doing the least to cause it,” said Liguori. “The costs of inaction are already here with deadly heat waves, wildfires, flooding, and drought, but it is people living in poverty who are left paying the highest price.”

BP’s profit report came weeks after the company, now under the leadership of CEO Murray Auchincloss, announced it would pause new offshore wind projects and put fresh “emphasis on oil and gas amid investor discontent over its energy transition strategy,” as Reuters reported last month. The move came over a year after the company rolled back its plan to curtail oil and gas production.

Extreme weather driven by the burning of fossil fuels, meanwhile, continued to wreak havoc across the globe.

“As global temperatures spiked to their highest levels in recorded history [last Monday], ambulances were screaming through the streets of Tokyo, carrying scores of people who had collapsed amid an unrelenting heat wave,” wrote The Washington Post‘s Sarah Kaplan over the weekend. “A monster typhoon was emerging from the scorching waters of the Pacific Ocean, which were several degrees warmer than normal. Thousands of vacationers fled the idyllic mountain town of Jasper, Canada ahead of a fast-moving wall of wildfire flames.”

“By the end of the week—which saw the four hottest days ever observed by scientists—dozens had been killed in the raging floodwaters and massive mudslides triggered by Typhoon Gaemi,” Kaplan continued. “Half of Jasper was reduced to ash. And about 3.6 billion people around the planet had endured temperatures that would have been exceedingly rare in a world without burning fossil fuels and other human activities, according to an analysis by scientists at the group Climate Central.”

Izzie McIntosh, a climate campaigner at the United Kingdom-based advocacy group Global Justice Now, said Tuesday that BP’s “mammoth profits” come “at the expense of our climate, communities, and the Global South facing the most brutal impacts of a climate crisis they did not cause.”

“Labour has made some promising signals about a move toward green energy—it now needs to throw its weight behind tackling the rampant profiteering of oil and gas companies,” McIntosh said of the newly elected U.K. government. “It can do this by introducing a windfall tax and other measures to fund the U.K.’s contribution to a globally just fossil fuel phaseout that works for workers and communities in the U.K. and around the world.”

Original article by JAKE JOHNSON republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

Original article by JAKE JOHNSON republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

‘Twisted’: BP And Shell CEOs See Pay Double As Workers Struggle To Heat Homes ›

Continue ReadingBP Condemned Over ‘Mammoth Profits’ as Fossil Fuels Wreak Havoc on the Planet

For decades, governments have subsidised fossil fuels. But why?

Spread the love
Sobrevolando Patagonia/Shutterstock

Bernard Njindan Iyke, La Trobe University

Even now, decades after we first began trying to avert the worst of global warming, more than 80% of the world’s total energy comes from fossil fuels.

You might think this would make fossil fuel production extremely profitable. But it’s not always the case. Much of the most accessible oil has already been extracted and burned. Many countries want to shore up domestic sources of fossil fuels to boost energy security. Energy price fluctuations and competition from new energy sources such as solar, wind and fossil gas have made it harder for some fossil fuel companies to make money, especially in coal.

This is where fossil fuel subsidies come in. Australia gave A$14.5 billion in subsidies to major fossil fuel producers and consumers in 2023–24 alone.

You might have wondered – why would some of the largest companies on Earth need subsidies? Here’s why.

LNG tanker
Australia’s surging liquefied natural gas industry has been boosted by government funding. KDS Photographics/Shutterstock

Private companies, public money

Globally, private companies dominate fossil fuel production, though fossil fuel-rich nations often have state-owned companies, such as Saudi Arabia’s Aramco and Russia’s Rosneft.

Why would governments give fossil fuel companies money? Many reasons. But the most important is that wealthy countries have historically needed huge volumes of fossil fuels for manufacturing, transport and power. Many countries have some sources of fossil fuels inside their borders, but only a few are self-sufficient. This has enabled fossil fuel giants such as Saudi Arabia to become wealthy beyond belief.

Many governments have used subsidies to boost their energy security and encourage local producers to seek out new sources of coal, gas and oil. These subsidies can make all the difference in making fossil fuel companies competitive internationally. For instance, Canada spent billions on subsidies to boost its oil sands and fracking projects.

Subsidies were essential in the United States’ fracking revolution. Novel approaches to extracting fossil gas and oil – boosted by major tax incentives – turned the US from a major importer of oil and gas into a net exporter by 2019.

You can see why the US did this. At a stroke, it went from being dependent on energy provided by foreign nations to being independent.

Once subsidies are in place, they become very hard to remove. Indonesia’s lavish fuel subsidies now account for 2% of the nation’s GDP. When the national government tried to walk these back, there were riots.

And there’s another reason, too. Fossil fuels are still playing an important role in boosting the economy in most nations. Subsidising them has long been seen as a way to maintain economic growth and stability.

Globally, these subsidies are estimated at a staggering $10.5 trillion each year.

This figure has grown sharply in recent years, after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. As European nations tried to wean themselves off Russia’s gas, energy prices surged worldwide. In response, some countries introduced new subsidies to support businesses and consumers.

The top-line figure of $10.5 trillion includes two types of subsidy – explicit (meaning real dollars change hands) and implicit (for example, governments building roads and railways to encourage crude oil transport).

Explicit subsidies

Explicit fossil fuel subsidies are direct financial incentives from governments to fossil fuel producers and consumers. These incentives come in different forms, such as tax breaks, direct payments, grants and price controls. All of them aim to reduce the financial burden associated with fossil fuel production and use.

In Australia, explicit subsidies include fuel tax credits and exploration tax reductions. Fossil fuel companies can get subsidies to offset the losses they make during the years it takes to find and begin extracting new fossil fuels.

In the US, oil and gas companies benefit from the oil depletion allowance, which permits them to deduct a percentage of their gross income from oil and gas sales as an expense. They can also claim tax deductions for intangible drilling costs, such as the wages of workers and material needed to find new sources of oil and gas.

China, too, uses direct subsidies, discounted land-use fees, and preferential loans as explicit subsidies to boost coal production and consumption. The national government also supports fossil fuel consumption through direct payments to consumers.

coal miners China
China has used subsidies to encourage exploitation of its large coal resources. zhaoliang70/Shutterstock

Implicit subsidies

Implicit subsidies are often described as “imaginary”. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist, just that they’re not a direct transfer to directly paid to fossil fuel producers.

For instance, the cost of burning fossil fuels is borne by the global community and the natural world, in the form of climate change, damage to human health and other harms. Most fossil fuel companies don’t have to pay a cent for the pollution their products cause – so in effect, they are being granted an indirect subsidy.

Implicit incentives also include government investment in facilities such as transport networks, pipelines, oil refineries and port infrastructure, which will accelerate fossil fuel production and delivery. Think of the Middle Arm development in Darwin, funded by both the federal and territory government.

Why are these subsidies still being paid?

As the world grapples with a worsening climate crisis, fossil fuel subsidies are under great scrutiny.

It’s politically difficult to withdraw subsidies once given. This is why governments around the world have instead begun to give subsidies and tax incentives to green energy developers, including the enormous $500 billion Inflation Reduction Act in the US, the European Union’s Green Deal, and China’s massive subsidies of green technologies such as electric vehicles and solar panels.

The goal here is to make renewable energy and electrified transport steadily more affordable and competitive – just as fossil fuel subsidies did for oil, gas and coal.

Bernard Njindan Iyke, Lecturer in Finance, La Trobe University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue ReadingFor decades, governments have subsidised fossil fuels. But why?