Ursula Von der Leyen announces increased funding for EU armament and border control as she is confirmed for a second term as President of the European Commission
On July 17, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) published a ruling holding the European Commission (EC), led by President Ursula von der Leyen, responsible for concealing segments of COVID-19 vaccine procurement contracts from the European Parliament. Less than 24 hours later, von der Leyen was confirmed for a second term during a parliamentary session in Strasbourg.
During her re-election campaign, von der Leyen worked diligently to secure support beyond her home European People’s Party (EPP) group. To ensure the required majority, she needed at least 173 additional votes, on top of the 188 guaranteed by the EPP. By July 18, members of the Socialists & Democrats, the liberal Renew group, and the Greens—who had initially filed the complaint to the ECJ—announced their support, describing von der Leyen as a stabilizing figure in uncertain times for Europe.
In her initial address to the parliamentarians, von der Leyen promised “prosperity and competitiveness” for the European Union over the next five years. She emphasized the European Green Deal, pledging further efforts towards renewable energy and environmental protection. However, several members of parliament called her out for what they described as greenwashing and failure to take concrete steps in this area. The Left parliamentarian Rudi Kennes criticized the vague character of von der Leyen’s commitment to just green policies, citing her inaction on preserving jobs in sectors that could prove crucial for the EU’s green transition. He pointed to the potential closure of an Audi factory in Brussels as an example.
Von der Leyen also prioritized security, defense, and border control in her speech, announcing the creation of a European Defense Union, new commissioner posts for defense and the Mediterranean, approximately tripling the number of Frontex guards, and just about doubling Europol staff. The aim of these measures, according to the EC President, is to “rebuild, replenish, and transform national armed forces” rather than breaking away from NATO. One of the first steps towards this better-armed EU will be incentivizing private defense investment with support from the European Investment Bank.
What the defense and international policy agenda will certainly not mean, judging from the guidelines presented on Thursday, is taking a strong stance on the genocide Israel is committing in the Gaza Strip. A side note in von der Leyen’s speech, the brutal attacks on Palestinians were reduced to an unfortunate bloodspill, with no guarantees given that the EC would act to stop it. Instead, von der Leyen stated she would work towards a two-state solution.
In her speech, Von der Leyen merely brushed upon the social and economic issues affecting millions in the EU. Her approach remained market-oriented, with only minor concessions on housing and living costs. Among others, Marc Botenga of the Workers’ Party of Belgium criticized her for inaction on tax justice and strengthening public services.
“Millions of Europeans are living in poverty or are at risk of falling into poverty. Did Ursula von der Leyen seek funds from multimillionaires [to address this]? No. Did she impose taxes on the excess profits of European multinationals? No. On the contrary, she provided support to these multinationals,” Botenga said.
There is little indication that von der Leyen’s policies will change in her new term. With expected austerity measures and increased defense spending, more Europeans will be deprived of basic social rights. Some parliamentarians have already pledged to oppose this direction actively.
“Your Europe is not our Europe, Mrs. von der Leyen. Against your Europe of austerity and the market, you can count on us defending the Europe of humanity and solidarity,” said Manon Aubry, co-chair of The Left, announcing the bloc’s vote against von der Leyen’s presidency
Exclusive: Energy firm making ‘misleading’ claims about ‘neutralising’ gas with carbon credits
The Labour Party’s biggest corporate donor has been accused of “greenwashing” after an investigation by openDemocracy.
Ecotricity Ltd, which has given almost £3.4m to Labour since Keir Starmer became leader in 2020, claims to be “Britain’s greenest energy supplier”.
Yet 99% of the gas it supplies comes from fossil fuels. The company claims this gas is “carbon-neutralised” because it invests in “carbon reduction programmes to cancel out the carbon burned”.
But openDemocracy has learned that Ecotricity has no active carbon credits – despite listing four environmental projects on its website that it says it supports.
When questioned about the company’s claims that “carbon emissions from our fossil fuel gas are offset by investing in carbon reduction schemes”, a spokesperson admitted that some of the schemes it previously supported had not done “as promised” – and said that information on its website would be “refreshed”.
But experts warned that even if the company held active carbon credits, its claims that these “neutralise” its fossil fuel gas would still be misleading.
“It is highly misleading for a company to claim that its product – or itself – is carbon- or climate-neutral,” said Lindsay Otis Nilles from Carbon Market Watch. “These false claims are based on heavily flawed scientific principles and lead to consumer confusion.”
The company has not broken any laws, but it will be illegal to claim that carbon offsets can “neutralise” fossil fuel products in the EU from 2026, as the bloc looks to crack down on greenwashing. An EU directive says these claims create a “false impression to consumers that the consumption of that product does not have an environmental impact”.
Analysis by openDemocracy shows that some of the carbon offset projects that Ecotricity previously pumped money into have been linked to environmental concerns and human rights abuses.
In some cases, records cast doubt on whether the company’s offsetting credits actually helped to reduce emissions at all – since the projects it invested in were already fully funded.
For example, two years ago, Ecotricity purchased credits in the Soubré hydropower plant, the largest hydroelectric dam in Ivory Coast, which was completed in 2017.
The project cost around £452m, 85% of which had already been secured by January 2017, with a loan from EXIM Bank of China. The remaining 15% was covered by the Ivory Coast government.
The Soubré powerplant previously came under fire in a 2019 report that accused it of having an “irresponsible” approach to monitoring its potential environmental impact.
The report, which was published by American environment and human rights organisation International Rivers, also included complaints by workers at the dam of instances of “discrimination and physical abuse” and “threats from the government” when they spoke out.
Meanwhile, the project’s main contractor, Chinese firm Sinohydro – which is responsible for its engineering, procurement and construction – has faced allegations of fraud elsewhere.
The company is currently excluded from projects financed by the European Investment Bank, following an investigation into “misconduct”. And in 2018, another investigation by the African Development Bank found that Sinohydro had “engaged in a fraudulent practice”.
Ecotricity has also held carbon credits in another hydroelectric power plant in Indonesia, called Asahan 1. Reports from as far back as 2012 say the company behind it, PT Bajradaya Sentranusa, had already secured funding from a bank “to take over the entire existing project loans for the construction” when Ecotricity bought the credits.
A spokesperson for Ecotricity said: “The information on the website about carbon reduction projects is being refreshed.”
They added: “We used carbon credits to entirely offset our gas supply for the financial year 2024 which is now closed and our offsetting programme for the financial year 2025 is currently under review which is why we do not currently hold any credits. Any suggestion that we do not or will not offset our gas in the future is false and misleading.”
“Offsetting is an annual accounting period practice and can take place at any point in that [financial year] – that is standard practice. Our offsetting programme for the financial year 2025 is currently under review. Any suggestion that we do not or will not offset our gas is wrong.”
The spokesperson added that Ecotricity is looking at “more direct carbon capture methods”, adding: “Carbon offsetting has been a bridge. We have always been clear about that.”
‘Greenwashing’
Ecotricity not only boasts about its own climate credentials, it also actively warns customers about “greenwashing” by rival energy suppliers.
“A number of energy companies claim green credentials for themselves or for some of their tariffs,” it says, “but are their claims genuine?”
But Ecotricity has itself now been accused of greenwashing. Responding to the company’s claims about carbon offsets, Nilles of Carbon Market Watch told openDemocracy: “It is a fallacy to think that purchasing carbon credits on the voluntary carbon market can magically ‘cancel out’ or ‘offset’ climate harm. Greenwashing practices like this must stop once and for all.”
Ecotricity’s founder, Dale Vince, recently joined Labour’s campaign in Bristol. His involvement in the constituency is controversial because it is seen as one of the few seats the Green Party has a genuine chance of winning in this week’s general election. But Vince tweeted: “Labour has a green manifesto and can make it happen.”
The self-styled “green industrialist” is the outright owner of Ecotricity’s parent company, Green Britain Group Limited. According to the latest accounts filed with Companies House, this firm made £38m profit in the year ending 30 April last year, after bringing in more than £550m turnover.
Responding to openDemocracy, Vince repeated the claim that carbon credits were used to achieve “net neutrality”.
He said: “Ecotricity bought carbon credits from the Asahan and Soubre schemes two years ago – we no longer do so. We’ve been reducing our carbon footprint annually for decades and only recently used carbon credits to achieve net neutrality, for our green gas while we built new gasmills.
“It’s important to reduce as far as possible before using credits, but that world is full of uncertainty, risk and projects that don’t do as promised, which these two schemes appear to be an example of. We welcome the EU move to clamp down on all forms of greenwashing.”
Vince accused openDemocracy of a “smear attack” with a “rather distorted presentation of facts”.
Prior to this response, openDemocracy had repeatedly asked Ecotricity to provide a complete and up-to-date list of its carbon credit portfolio, but it failed to do so.
Last week, Vince told the Financial Times that he was not seeking support for his own energy projects from Labour. “I don’t want support for my projects,” he said, “I’m not interested, life’s too short to be chasing money.”
The latest accounts filed by Green Britain Group Limited show it received £123m in “government grants” in the year ending April 2023. The financial support was designed to pay energy firms to cap prices for consumers.
The previous year, the company received a £9.4m Covid “business interruption” loan to support large companies in the pandemic.
However, Vince told openDemocracy: “Ecotricity hasn’t had any government subsidies.”
NOAA (4/15/24) found temperature levels in every ocean high enough to cause coral bleaching.
Record levels of heat in the ocean are causing once-colorful coral reefs around the world to bleach a ghostly white. In April, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced the planet’s fourth mass coral-bleaching event on record—the second in the last decade.
While they might look like plants, corals are actually invertebrate animals related to jellyfish. They get their vibrant colors from tiny algae that live on them and provide them with food. But when ocean temperatures become too hot, corals get stressed and expel the algae, losing their food source and color. Starving coral can recover if their environments improve, but the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts that even with the Paris Agreement’s allotted warming of 1.5°C over pre-industrial levels, 70–90% of the world’s coral reefs will still die.
Because coral reefs provide such vibrant ecosystems for sea life, mass coral death will impact economies and food security for humans as well. By protecting coasts, sustaining fisheries, generating tourism and creating jobs, it is estimated that coral reefs provide ecosystem services worth trillions of dollars each year (MIT Science Policy Review, 8/20/20; GCRMN, 10/5/21).
ABC News (7/25/23) reported last year that “ocean temperatures have a strong connection to climate change”—but didn’t mention what climate change is connected to.
In the past year alone, we’ve seen staggering and unprecedented ocean temperatures amid widespread heatwaves. Last summer, water temperatures of more than 100°F were recorded off the coast of Florida (ABC, 7/25/23). Scientists say the El Niño weather phenomenon, solar activity and a massive underwater volcanic eruption have played a role in recent supercharged ocean temperatures, but the biggest cause of this coral crisis is undisputed: climate change. The IPCC reports that it’s “virtually certain” ocean temperatures have risen unabated since 1970, absorbing more than 90% of excess heat from the climate system. We also know that the burning of fossil fuels changes the climate more than any other human activity does.
Therefore, in order to give the public the most complete understanding of what’s going on—and how we can fix it—reporting on coral bleaching should not only link the phenomenon to climate change, but link climate change to its main culprit: the fossil fuel industry. While much reporting deserves credit for clearly making this connection, some reports from major outlets were still behind, implying the climate crisis might be some sort of act of God, rather than something humans have caused—and have the power to mitigate.
Good news about bad news
Coral bleaching is bad news, but I’d like to take a rare moment to highlight the good news, too: A lot of reporting on this crisis was thorough, setting a solid example of how the increasing number of climate change-related phenomena should be reported on.
Vox (4/26/24) spells it out: “Ultimately, the only real solution is reducing carbon emissions. Period.”
Vox (4/26/24) dedicated a whole piece to climate change’s effects on coral, making that fossil fuel connection. Senior environmental reporter Benji Jones wrote:
Ultimately, the only real solution is reducing carbon emissions. Period. Pretty much every marine scientist I’ve talked to agrees. “Without international cooperation to break our dependence on fossil fuels, coral bleaching events are only going to continue to increase in severity and frequency,” [NOAA marine scientist Derek] Manzello said.
The New York Times (4/15/24) made the fossil fuel connection, too, in an article by Catrin Einhorn: “Despite decades of warnings from scientists and pledges from leaders, nations are burning more fossil fuels than ever and greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise.”
NPR dedicated an episode of All Things Considered (4/17/24) to scientists’ work to breed heat-tolerant corals and algae, in hopes that they can help restore reefs. The piece, by Lauren Sommer and Ryan Kellman, outlined this work’s promise—and its limitations. Heat-tolerant algae may not share as many nutrients with the coral, potentially causing the coral to grow more slowly and reproduce later. Regulators will need to assess whether these lab-grown corals are safe for wild populations and their ecosystems as a whole. Logistically, the sheer amount of heat-tolerant coral needed to replace affected reefs is vast, and it’s only a temporary solution.
“It’s not our ‘get out of jail free’ card,” said Australian coral biologist Kate Quigley:
Maybe that gets us to 2030, 2050, for a very few number of species that we can work with. If we don’t have an ocean to put them back in that’s healthy, no amount of incredible technology or money is worth it.
The episode ended with an acknowledgment that these scientific mitigations are meant only to buy time while humans work to halt climate change, which will require “cutting heat-trapping emissions from the largest source—burning fossil fuels—and switching to alternative energy sources like solar and wind.”
All Things Considered’s coverage of the scientists’ work was impactful because it took time to explain that creating these heat-tolerant corals was an important mitigation, but that the ultimate solution is to cut fossil fuels. Without the latter, the former would be in vain.
Capable of accountability
As a media critic for an organization that’s been at this since 1986, to me it’s heartening when news outlets’ work actually improves. It’s definitely not yet time to pop the champagne—there’s still a chronic lack of clear reporting linking climate disasters to fossil fuels, as FAIR has noted in coverage of last year’s wildfires (7/18/23, 8/25/23), climate protests (9/29/23), the potential breakdown of a crucial Atlantic current (7/31/23), overstating the potential of new carbon-capture technology (1/4/24) and more. But these few coral-focused pieces offer hope that some outlets might be improving their climate reporting practices to include accountability. At the very least, it proves they are certainly capable.
Aside from the effects of the climate crisis becoming harder and harder to ignore each year, there is a commendable movement to train journalists on how best to report on climate through a number of initiatives and organizations. There’s a lot of work to do, but these stories indicate progress since Big Media was applauding Big Oil’s efforts to clean up the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 (Extra!, 3–4/90) and giving platforms to “scientists” on Big Oil’s payroll who asserted climate change was not occurring (Extra!, 11–12/04, 5–6/07).
The new denial
CNN (5/9/24) waited until the the 24th paragraph (out of 24) to tell readers that we “need to curb climate-warming carbon emissions.”
Climate denial today is more nefarious. Due to the unanimity and widespread knowledge of the scientific consensus, respectable outlets can no longer parrot views that the Earth isn’t warming. What they can do is bury or gloss over information on its primary cause, who profits off of it, and what needs to be done to prevent it from getting much worse.
In a piece on the potential of artificial reefs to mitigate this crisis that linked coral bleaching to climate change, CNN‘s Michelle Cohan (5/9/24) waited until the very last paragraph to mention the need to “curb climate-warming carbon emissions.” There’s nothing untrue about that statement, but it doesn’t tell you where those emissions come from, and leaves open the interpretation that “curbing” emissions can come from carbon capture and storage—a strategy that is largely industry greenwashing (FAIR.org, 1/4/24).
Despite likely short-form word limits, a solutions-oriented piece like this does a disservice to readers—and the scientists working on saving corals—by giving such an incomplete sketch of the necessary long-term change. It would benefit from a clear explanation that a) we need to phase out fossil fuels and b) alternative energy sources already exist, are reliable, and are more affordable than fossil fuels already. It’s not arduous or wordy to do so. All Things Considered did most of it in one sentence.
An ABC piece (4/15/24) by Leah Sarnoff and Daniel Manzo covered the coral-bleaching event, but only mentioned climate change in passing toward the end. Otherwise, “warming oceans” were just depicted as something that happened, with no clear connection or cause.
In an article expressing the dire condition of the reefs, the Washington Post‘s Rachel Pannett (4/18/24) likewise made the link to climate change only once: “Climate change is the greatest threat to the Great Barrier Reef, and coral reefs globally,” said Roger Beeden, the chief scientist of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. There was another quote from a research director with the Australian nonprofit Climate Council, who merely noted that the bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef is “a disaster at our doorstep.”
It’s important to express the dire condition the reefs are in, and the devastating risks it poses to ocean and human life. But by only mentioning “climate change” in passing, and not discussing its causes, it comes across as a natural but unfortunate phenomenon. Not highlighting its causes means not highlighting its solutions, either. The result is a potentially paralyzing doomsday narrative that is more likely to dampen than galvanize necessary climate action—especially against fossil fuels.
‘Heat stress’
The word “climate” never appears in this Washington Post piece (4/15/24).
Another Washington Post piece (4/15/24), by Amudalat Ajasa, mentioned the “heat stress” on corals, but not even climate change, let alone the culpability of fossil fuels. This piece quoted NOAA’s Manzello, saying that this global event should be a wake-up call, but didn’t elaborate on what that wake-up call would be for. Wake up to do what? This piece didn’t explain.
The piece also took a grave tone, describing the ghastly reefs off the coast of Florida, Australia and the Caribbean island of Bonaire. It quoted Francesca Virdis, a chief operating officer at Reef Renewal Bonaire: “It’s hard to find a silver lining or a positive note with everything happening.”
The article explained the role of El Niño—a naturally occurring climate pattern that warms areas of the Pacific every 2–7 years—and the hope that it will soon let up and give way to La Niña, its cooler counterpart, but did not explain that the phenomenon plays a smaller role than ongoing, human-caused warming. The aforementioned Vox piece also discussed the role of El Niño, but was sure to specify that reefs have been collapsing long before this current crisis.
The feeling of alarm is justified, but journalists should remind readers that the coral bleaching crisis—and climate change as a whole—are not totally uncontrollable acts of nature. We know what is to blame. While it may be too late to avoid breaching the 1.5°C limit even if we cut emissions tomorrow, the sooner we cease burning fossil fuels, the more catastrophic impacts we’ll avoid.
The message is urgent and dire, but there’s plenty that humans—especially those in power—can do, and there’s plenty journalists can do to make the public aware.
FEATURED IMAGE: NOAA photos of a coral before and after bleaching. (This particular coral recovered from the event.)
FAIR’s work is sustained by our generous contributors, who allow us to remain independent. Donate today to be a part of this important mission.
An ExxonMobil oil refinery is pictured in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. (Photo: Barry Lewis/InPictures via Getty Images)
“We cannot trust fossil fuel corporations to do anything but line the pockets of their CEOs and investors at the cost of our climate and communities,” one campaigner said.
The eight largest U.S. and Europe-based oil and gas producing companies are failing to align their plans with the Paris agreement goal of limiting global heating to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels and avoiding ever more catastrophic climate impacts.
Oil Change International’s Big Oil Reality Check report, released Tuesday, concludes that the plans of BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Eni, Equinor, ExxonMobil, Shell, and TotalEnergies would actually put the world on track for more than 2.4°C of warming and burn through nearly one-third of the global carbon budget for hitting the 1.5°C target.
“It’s clearer than ever that oil and gas companies—the climate arsonists fueling climate chaos—cannot be trusted to put out the fire,” David Tong, report author and global industry campaign manager at Oil Change International, said in a statement. “There is no evidence that big oil and gas companies are acting seriously to be part of the energy transition.”
“The Big Oil Reality Check report reveals that oil and gas corporations are more interested in looking like they are acting on climate change than actually acting on climate change.”
For its fourth annual Big Oil Reality Check, Oil Change International judged the oil companies’ climate plans and pledges against a set of minimum standards for alignment with the Paris agreement. The standards were divided into three main categories: ambition, integrity, and people-centered transitions.
Under ambition, the companies were assessed on whether they had plans to stop oil and gas exploration, stop approving new extraction projects, decrease production every year through 2030, and stop extraction on a certain date while outlining a long-term plan to end production.
Under integrity, the companies were assessed on whether their emissions-reduction plans included their entire supply chain, whether they relied on carbon capture or offsets, whether their methane-reduction plans were really in line with climate goals, and whether they lobbied or advertised against climate action.
For people-centered transitions, they were assessed on whether they had just transition plans for employees and members of frontline communities and whether they respected human rights overall and the rights of Indigenous peoples, including to free, prior, or informed consent to any fossil fuel activities.
The companies were then rated from “fully aligned” to “grossly insufficient” for how well their plans complied with the Paris goals within the assessment’s framework, but all eight companies scored “insufficient” or “grossly insufficient” for a majority of the criteria.
Only one company—Eni—scored above “insufficient” in any category, earning a ranking of “partially aligned” for having greenhouse gas-reduction plans that included its supply chains. The three U.S.-based companies—Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and ExxonMobil—scored “grossly insufficient” for all 10 criteria.
Big Oil & Gas companies spend a lot of time and effort on public relations. We're here with a dose of reality.
— Oil Change International (@PriceofOil) May 21, 2024
“American fossil fuel corporations are the worst of the worst,” Oil Change International’s U.S. program manager Allie Rosenbluth said. “Chevron, ExxonMobil, and ConocoPhillips perpetuate harm in frontline communities not only across the U.S. but worldwide.”
Oil Change found that six out of the eight companies have official plans to increase oil and gas production. The only two that did not were BP and Shell; however, these companies employ a misleading strategy. They compensate for new oil and gas projects by selling off polluting assets. While the emissions from the sold operations no longer count toward company emissions, they still count toward the planet’s total. This practice is out of line with the GHG Protocol on corporate emissions accounting and may violate the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
Four of the companies assessed in the report—BP, Shell, Exxon, and Chevron—were also the subject of a recent U.S. House investigation and Senate hearing detailing how the fossil fuel industry playbook has shifted from outright denial of climate science to greenwashing its activities by presenting itself as part of the solution to the climate crisis while its day-to-day operations continue to raise global temperatures.
“The efforts of climate and social movements have forced oil and gas companies to acknowledge that fossil fuels are dirty and dangerous, leading to a variety of climate pledges and ‘plans,'” said Oil Change campaigner Myriam Douo. “The Big Oil Reality Check report reveals that oil and gas corporations are more interested in looking like they are acting on climate change than actually acting on climate change.”
“They spend billions on smoke and mirrors to try to fool us into believing they have solutions for a livable planet when, in reality, they are perpetuating harm to the climate and local communities while trying to suck every last ounce of profit out of their dirty fossil fuel business,” Douo concluded.
All told, Rystand energy data suggests that the combined production of the eight companies will be 17% by 2030 than they were last year.
“Such an increase in production on a global scale would put the world on a path towards global heating well beyond 2°C, locking in destruction of vulnerable communities and ecosystems,” the report authors wrote.
The report finds that all of the companies intend to rely on unproven carbon capture technology or offsets schemes to meet their claimed emission-reduction goals and have continued to spend money on lobbying against climate action and greenwashing their own activities since the agreement in Paris.
Further, no company has plans consistent with ensuring a just transition or protecting human rights. In one recent and urgent example, ExxonMobil, Chevron, TotalEnergies, BP, Shell, and Eni all continue to provide Israel with crude oil despite “the Israeli military’s ongoing assault on Palestinian civilians, ecosystems, and infrastructure in Gaza and mounting evidence of war crimes,” a March Oil Change investigation found.
The report comes nearly half a year after world leaders agreed to contribute to “transitioning away from fossil fuels” at the COP28 U.N. climate change conference in Dubai. In light of its conclusions, Oil Change called on governments to take action to further a just transition:
Stop permitting or approving new fossil fuel projects or infrastructure;
Set a Paris-aligned date for phasing out fossil fuel production;
End subsidies and financing for fossil fuels and false solutions like carbon capture;
Use tax policy to incentivize against investing in fossil fuels;
Craft a just transition, including by making polluters pay for cleanup and reparations; and
Passing laws to protect human rights and Indigenous rights and giving communities a legal mechanism to seek redress from corporate polluters.
Oil Change also argued that governments in the Global North should hold companies headquartered within their borders accountable for harm abroad and put money into funds to enable the Global South to transition to renewable energy, adapt to climate change, and pay for inevitable loss and damage.
“This year’s Big Oil Reality Check makes it clearer than ever—we cannot trust fossil fuel corporations to do anything but line the pockets of their CEOs and investors at the cost of our climate and communities,” Rosenbluth said. “People around the world are rising up to end the era of fossil fuels and build a just energy system that puts climate and communities first.”
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak at the 2023 Policy Exchange summer reception. Credit: Policy Exchange / YouTube
Internal documents expose how oil and gas majors were given the chance to influence a report by the Policy Exchange think tank.
Fossil fuel giants BP and Shell were given “ample opportunity” to privately influence proposals for taxing oil and gas companies that were later backed by the government, new documents reveal.
Internal BP emails show that its UK executives were reassured by a controversial oil industry group that they could “shape [the] internal thinking” of a 2018 report on carbon taxes produced by the right-wing think tank Policy Exchange.
The emails were among hundreds of documents released by a powerful committee of U.S. politicians last week as part of its three year-long investigation into how the oil industry has worked to undermine efforts to tackle climate change.
Policy Exchange has been credited by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak for helping to draft laws that have cracked down on climate protests, and has in the past received money from the oil and gas major ExxonMobil.
The think tank was commissioned to produce a report on carbon pricing by the Climate Leadership Council (CLC), a controversial U.S. non-profit whose “founding members” include BP, Shell and TotalEnergies, car manufacturers Ford and General Motors as well as multinationals like Unilever and Microsoft.
The think tank’s recommendations largely mirrored the CLC’s proposal for a rising tax on carbon emissions, a controversial idea that has been accused of being a favoured policy of the fossil fuel industry. The report also proposed that several UK environmental regulations be phased out to reduce the “burden on business.”
The UK has taxed carbon emissions since 2005, first under an emissions trading scheme created by the European Union.
The scheme works by setting a maximum overall cap on the amount of carbon emissions that the energy and manufacturing industry can emit. Polluters are given allowances that allow them to emit only a set quota of carbon; if they exceed their allowances they can be fined. To avoid being fined, companies can buy additional allowances from other companies who have excess allowances because their emissions are lower than their quota.
Every year, the EU reduces the overall cap on emissions, meaning that the price of allowances – also known as a carbon price – rises, which the bloc says acts as an incentive to reduce emissions.
However, according to Bill McGuire, professor emeritus of geophysical and climate hazards at UCL, the policy is popular among oil and gas companies.
“Paying a carbon tax is preferable to stopping all exploration, keeping fossil fuels in the ground and changing business models to embrace renewables – which is what is required – and they have obviously come to the conclusion that, given their colossal profits, this is something they can easily handle,” he said.
After the UK left the EU in 2016, the UK government began devising its own replacement trading emissions scheme, which the Policy Exchange report sought to influence.
The report was cited last December in a policy paper for the government’s new, long-term emissions trading scheme, used to justify the claim that “Carbon pricing is an effective, market-based way of allowing businesses to make economically rational decarbonisation investment decisions.”
Policy Exchange acknowledged at the time that the report was financially supported by the CLC, which claimed to be a “strategic partner”. However, the think tank said it was “not intended to represent the views of the council or of its founding members on UK or EU matters.”
Internal BP emails reveal that the British oil company’s bosses were initially alarmed that the CLC had commissioned the report and sought a meeting with the council’s founder.
According to the emails, BP was able to use this meeting to lay out “various potential policy, political and commercial concerns” with the content of the report, given the firm’s “unique position in the UK and the timing.”
After the meeting, Paul Jefferiss, then BP’s head of group policy, reassured Andrew Mennear, BP’s director for UK government affairs, that “I don’t think there is immediate cause for concern.”
Jefferiss noted that, “There will be ample opportunity for UK-focused CLC members (BP, Shell, Unilever) to input perspectives and shape the internal thinking” of the report before it is published.
BP also appears to have been offered the chance to collaborate with the council on a communications strategy around its release.
Jolyon Maugham, director of the Good Law Project, said: “While the BBC launders Policy Exchange as ‘centre right’, and the charities so-called regulator sits on its hands, the revealed reality is that Policy Exchange is acting like a front for the oil and gas industry.”
Policy Exchange, the CLC, and BP have been approached for comment.
‘Another Form of Greenwashing’
Climate experts are divided over whether the policy of taxing carbon is effective, and past scandals have led to accusations that it is being used as a smokescreen by the fossil fuel industry.
McGuire believes that a carbon tax is “ultimately just another form of greenwashing and a sop to the [oil] sector’s critics”.
However, other experts, like Adam Bell, director of policy at consultancy firm Stonehaven and a former head of strategy at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, believe that carbon taxing can be effective.
“Carbon pricing can only be part of a policy approach to tackling climate change, it can’t be the solution by itself. Fossil fuel companies will survive while there is demand for what they produce. You’ve got to eliminate that demand if you want to eliminate them”.
To do that, you should “focus on getting renewables built and heat systems and transportation electrified,” he said.
The CLC has led calls for a federal carbon price in the U.S. and has attracted criticism in the past for attaching conditions to its proposals that would be favourable to the fossil fuel industry. It has previously proposed the repealing of federal emissions regulations, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) losing its authority to regulate carbon emissions, and legal immunity for companies from any prosecution over their role in climate change.
The CLC dropped the latter provision from its proposal in 2019 because it was “distracting focus away from the many economic and environmental upsides of the plan”, but critics have questioned whether it remains privately committed to the idea.
In 2021, the CLC “suspended” Exxon from its list of founding members after one of its lobbyists was caught on camera saying that the oil company had only pledged to support a carbon tax because it was unlikely to ever become law.
Policy Exchange’s report likewise proposed that some environmental regulations “be phased out thus reducing the regulatory burden on business” after the introduction of a carbon tax, though it claimed that “this will in no way reduce environmental protection”.
In an afterword to the report, CLC’s founder Ted Halstead, and Martin Feldstein and George P. Shultz, two economists who served under Ronald Reagan’s administration, wrote that the plan “will help free businesses from unnecessary regulation”.
Steve Tooze, a spokesperson for Extinction Rebellion said, “These emails are the smoking gun that blows fatal holes in Policy Exchange’s already-tattered and frankly laughable claims to be an independent research ‘think tank’”.
Policy Exchange
At the 2022 Conservative Party conference, Jacob Rees-Mogg, at the time serving as business, energy and industrial strategy secretary, said: “I believe that where Policy Exchange leads, governments have often followed.”
The think tank, which has charity status, chooses not to disclose its donors and was given the lowest possible rank by openDemocracy’s Who Funds You? project, which rates the funding transparency of think tanks.
OpenDemocracy previously uncovered that Exxon donated $30,000 to Policy Exchange’s American fundraising arm in 2017, the same year its UK carbon pricing report was being drafted.
The think tank would go on to author a report in 2019 that proposed tough new policing laws to crackdown on climate protestors. Rishi Sunak later credited Policy Exchange for helping the government draft what would become the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, which explicitly targeted groups like Extinction Rebellion.
Sunak is an alumni of Policy Exchange, having worked there before his 2015 election to Parliament, as is Claire Coutinho, his energy security and net zero secretary. The think tank has significant access to ministers, having held more than a hundred meetings with the government since 2012.
DeSmog revealed in August 2023 that Policy Exchange engaged in a high-level influencing campaign over the UK’s North Sea oil and gas policies, and echoed the fossil fuel lobby by emphasising the importance of hydrogen power and carbon capture utilisation and storage (CCUS) to the green transition.
The evidence unearthed by U.S. politicians has further demonstrated how fossil fuel giants have been downplaying the climate crisis and lobbying against green laws, despite being provided with academic research showing the scale of the problem.
BP was warned by Princeton University researchers in 2016 that climate change accelerated in part by new global supplies of shale gas could lead to catastrophic events such as “mass extinctions and unprecedented famine.”
Yet, despite acknowledging internally the concern that “gas doesn’t support climate goals,” the firm embarked on a marketing campaign to “advance and protect the role of gas – and BP – in the energy transition.”
Rishi Sunak on stopping Rosebank says that any chancellor can stop his huge 91% subsidy to build Rosebank, that Keir Starmer is as bad as him for sucking up to Murdoch and other plutocrats and that we (the plebs) need to get organised to elect MPs that will stop Rosebank.Image of InBedWithBigOil by Not Here To Be Liked + Hex Prints from Just Stop Oil’s You May Find Yourself… art auction. Featuring Rishi Sunak, Fossil Fuels and Rupert Murdoch.
