An undated letter is circulating in the corridors of the Copenhagen climate conference, sent by the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) to the Clean Development Mechanism Executive Board.
IETA's membership includes many of the fossil fuel energy giants which have played such a disastrous role in the global high-carbon addiction economy of the last 50 years..
In the letter IETA complains about the Board's decision in September last year not to examine a proposal for a Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) project in Africa. The UN climate talks have not yet officially recognised CCS as part of the solution to climate change. Given how controversial CCS technology is, the decision of the CDM board makes complete sense. Nevertheless, IETA is pushing for CCS projects to be examined now on the basis of recommendations from some UN sub-bodies. This pressure comes in addition to industry's main lobbying goal: recognition of CCS in the Copenhagen deal.
At an event hosted by the Zero Emissions Platform (ZEP) in Copenhagen yesterday it became clear that the next five days are crucial in this regard. I asked the ZEP lobbyists two questions during the event and got revealing responses. Firstly, does it make sense that funding CCS moves faster than subsidies for renewable energy in the EU, when it is clear that CCS cannot contribute to the 2020 reduction goals?
ZEP's chairman, Shell executive Graeme Sweeney, responded that ZEP wants ”money to go the most appropriate projects” regardless of the technology used. In practice this means that CCS will get most of the funding since the European Commission admits a preference to large scale coal projects rather than small scale renewables, referring to administrative and other reasons. In practice, CCS has already won half of the funds in the EU's New Entrants Reserve (NER) and they are lobbying for more, leaving renewables struggling for funds.
My second question was if it is legitimate for the fossil fuel companies to be in Copenhagen lobbying with European tax payers money? For details on this, see CEO's new report on ZEP.
Sweeney replied that ZEP is a 'unique coalition of industry, governments, scientists and NGOs' and therefore it is appropriate for them to be here with public money.
Sweeney got assistance from ,Frederic Hauge, President of the Norway-based NGO Bellona, a tireless promoter of CCS. According to Hauge, CCS is necessary to combat climate change, therefore “we have the moral obligation to use all the resources availlable to make this option known”.
Bellona's European Director Paal Frisvold approached me to appease my concerns on this point. I told him that ZEP had moved far beyond its initial mission to advise on research policies and had become a fully-fledged lobbying campaign, so therefore the Commission should stop funding it. The response was that I should't be so dogmatic and that we're talking... only about 1 million euros after all
At the ZEP event, IPCC chairman R. K. Pachauri agreed that renewable energy is clearly more reliable since there is no concerns about leakage or durability as there is with CCS. He said that CCS would be a parallel project used until the onground renewable sources become more attractive economically. But he also believes 'coal will always be used'.
CCS, according to ZEP, will start contributing only after 2020. Shell's Sweeney said that history shows that energy technologies need at least 25 years between their conception and reaching 1% of the global energy mix. So, in reality it might be much longer untill CCS makes a substantial contribution to reducing CO2.
These long term scenarios do not fit with the need of urgent reduction before 2020 and would mean wasting money on an uncertain experiment. The only thing they will surely achieve is to preserve the dominant position of the old fossil fuel companies for another 40 or 50 years more.
Monday, 14 December 2009
Old polluting companies push like crazy for CCS
Thursday, 10 December 2009
“Danish text” leak yet another example of biased behaviour by COP15 host
Corporate Europe Observatory is in Copenhagen covering the UN climate talks and watching corporate lobbyists at work.
Yesterday the Danish hosts of the UN climate talks (COP15) had a draft agreement on the Copenhagen negotiations leaked to the public which once again emphasised the privileged access and influence given to the rich and the powerful by the (officially neutral) hosts.
The leaked draft breaks with the principle of "common but differentiated responsibility" as laid down in the Kyoto protocol, where rich countries are required to live up to their historic responsibility as major emitters by taking legally binding targets upon themselves, while the poor countries, least responsible for and most affected by climate change, aren't compelled to act.
It also transfers responsibility for mitigation funds to the World Bank, historically a front organisation for the interests of the rich countries, thus weakening the UN's role on this issue.
The draft presents no surprises in so far as it only constitutes yet another example of the Danish host government acting like anything but the neutral broker envisioned. This time around undue influence was giving to the rich countries trying to avoid strong legally binding targets, but also big business has experienced a very attentive host nation. In May, Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) reported how “big business was being given unprecedented access to the UN climate negotiations” at the World Business Summit on Climate Change.
CEO researcher Kenneth Haar commented that "The Danish Government appears to be under the impression that some of the world's most polluting companies are going to put forward tough measures to tackle climate change. But unfortunately, this doesn't seem likely to be the case."
Instead of reducing the damaging influence from big corporations trying to undermine effective action on climate change, the Danish government decided to give them direct access to the chief negotiators by distributing the conclusions from the Business Summit.
A Danish official has dismissed the criticism of the Danish hosts “it's no secret that there have been ongoing bilateral discussions for some time now." Whether a question of big business or rich countries, there is no way it is morally defensible nor constructive to the negotiations that the host itself doesn't seek to be inclusive and neutral in it's dealings.
Tuesday, 17 February 2009
Extracting influence at the heart of the EU
Oil industry lobbying at the heart of the EU has played a key role in influencing Europe's energy policy, according to a new report from Corporate Europe Observatory and PLATFORM. The report, BP - Extracting Influence at the Heart of the EU, reveals the oil giant's close relationship with decision makers and highlights how the company has convinced Commissioners and others that BP's interests are in the EU's interest - allowing it to promote profit-driven approaches to climate change through emissions trading as well as encouraging risky dependence on Russian gas.
Thursday, 11 December 2008
The allocation of space in Poznan
Compared to the 200 side events booked through the UN process, there are 201 events outside the UN process in the spaces framed with red colour.
Wednesday, 10 December 2008
Business Day in Poznan
Tuesday 9 December 2008 – A whole building in the Poznan International Fair was hired by WBCSD and the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) for the Poznan Business Day, co-organised with ten other trade associations.
Global industry's elite were all there: 150 business executives, almost exclusively from US, EU and Japan. There were also government representatives (USA, France, UK, Poland, Denmark, Japan, Mexico, South Africa) and representatives from international organisations (European Commission, OECD, IEA, UN). The meeting was addressed by the US, French (representing the EU), and Antiguan and Bermudan (representing the G77) ambassadors to the UNFCCC and Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UNFCC and chief of the negotiations.
It was quite a good turnout for a single day, especially considering that national youth delegations and NGOs are struggling to arrange meetings with governments who "don't have time".
What business wants
At the event the world's business elite made its basic demands:
- The reform and expansion of carbon markets through the CDM
- Public money - as a remedy for financial recession - for the deployment of existing 'law carbon' technologies and the development of new ones by business
- The inclusion of nuclear energy and 'clean' coal in the CDM and the public funding of their deployment
- Technology transfer for the developing world only through commercial channels, in the form of Foreign Direct Investment
- A 'sectoral approach' for the energy intensive sectors
Unstable moral grounds
The participants agreed that there was no common understanding of the term 'sectoral approach' among the different sectors of industry. Even though, this is clearly their new trick to avoid effective reductions from the energy intensive sectors. In the EU framework it was 'global competition' that meant these sectors needed special treatment. At the global level they still need to work out their arguments, but the message is the same: the biggest industrial polluters want special treatment.
The ICC's Guy Sebban's hackles were raised when the Chair of the UNFCC Expert Group on technology transfer implied that a certain amount of free licensing of patents to the developing world may be indispensable. "We should stop saying that because the discussion will end up pretty wrong," said Sebban.
This is typical of how business regards the third world. In the session dedicated to the adaptation to climate change - which mainly concerns thoseleast developed countries which are the most severely affected - most of the participants were networking outside.
Receptive ears
But political representatives were quite receptive to these demands and they all underlined the importance of dialogue with business and that this has to intensify in the run up to Copenhagen. "We will only be successful with the engagement of the business community; we need to find new ways to engage better and we are open to your ideas," said the US ambassador. The French/EU ambassador did suggest that dialogue with trade unions was also important (even when the presence of trade unions in Poznan is astonishingly low). But he added: "we have to use all technologies; I shall not name them, but you know what I mean." Nuclear - the unspoken energy source. Addressing the artificial nature of the carbon market, he added: "We have to learn from business how to design markets."
Yvo de Boer tried to comment on the main points of the meeting, after he had been 'briefed by a fly in the wall he had sent in the morning session'. He pointed out that there is "increasingly unclarity regarding what businees means with 'sectoral approach'". It remains to see wethere he will put it forward when it becomes clearer. He also said that 'there is no surprise' that business stated 'whatever the decisions are they should provide a clear margin for profit'. But, can the quest for profit that brought us to this climate mess, also save us for it?
Corprate takeover to intensify
At lunch, people discussed that in previous COPs business used to form a larger part of the national delegations but now it is more present 'outside'. Closing the meeting, WBCSD president asked for "a more direct dialogue than the one through flies on the wall" and set the aim of a more impressive business day in Copenhagen.
Yvo de Boer said there would be "many opportunities for a useful dialogue with business" over the coming year. A first draft of the Copenhagen agreement is expected to be agreed in Bonn in June 2009. How much will this be influenced by this dialogue?
An urgent task is designated for civil society: prevent the corporate take over of Copenhagen and the procedures up to then.
Tuesday, 9 December 2008
CJN! Press Conference on the 'Corporate takeover at Poznan'
Monday 8 December 2008 - The Climate Justice Now! network held a press conference on the privileged access that big corporations have to the UN negotiators and the exclusion of indigenous people and other groups.
The speakers were:
- Jorge Fugagaro, President of the Indigenous People's Organisation of the Colombian Amazon
- Ricardo Navarro, President of CESTA / Friends of the Earth El Salvador - You can listen to his comments here
- Yiorgos Vassalos, Researcher of CEO - Listen to an interview with him here
I was there to highlight the problem of corporate lobbyists also being part of government delegations in countries like Brazil (Shell, UNICA, Grupo Plantar), Italy (ENEL) or Finland (employers organisations).
The Press Release
Corporate takeover at Poznan: the facts
Poznan, Monday 6 December. For immediate release. The UN Climate Conference in Poznan is systematically privileging business lobby groups over public interest organisations, according to members of the Climate Justice Now! Coalition.1 In addition, Indigenous Peoples´ representatives do not get formal access to the negotiations, despite the fact that they are amongst the most affected by climate change.
* Who is the biggest non-governmental organisation (NGO) in Poznan? According to the official participants list, the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) has the largest NGO delegation, with 254 registered delegates at the UN Climate Conference. It is a business lobby group and not a public interest organisation.
* The space for side events at UN talks in Poznan is substantially ´privatised´, with more than half of the conference space sold off for events organised outside of the UN process. Compared to the 200 side events booked through the UN process, there are 201 events outside the UN process.2
* The Poznan Business Day offers major polluters privileged access to negotiators. This event, co-organised by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and International Chamber of Commerce with cooperation from the UNFCCC and Polish government, offers companies privileged access to senior officials, ministers and negotiators. No such spaces have been offered to Indigenous Peoples´ or other civil society organisations.
“Private sector interests have an undue influence over UN climate talks,” says Ricardo Navarro from CESTA / Friends of the Earth El Salvador. “ We are witnessing corporate delegations getting larger, while at the same time the negotiations are being watered down. The UN negotiations should focus on people´s interests, not on private sector interests.”
“Indigenous Peoples have been asking for official party status at these talks since 2001, but this has still not been granted” says Jorge Furagaro, President of the Indigenous Peoples´ Organisation of the Colombian Amazon.
The Indigenous Peoples´ delegates have lodged a complaint to the UNFCCC about the lack of an official Indigenous Peoples body within the UN climate talks process.
Further information
Juana Camacho, CENSAT AGUA VIVA / Friends of the Earth Colombia + 48 698 33 31 31 (Polish mobile number valid until Dec.11 only)
Oscar Reyes, Communications Officer, Transnational Institute + 44 7739 827 208, oscar@tni.org
Notes
1. Climate Justice Now! is a new coalition of over 160 civil society organisations committed to socially just solutions to the climate crisis. Its statement of principles can be found here: http://www.tni.org/detail_page.phtml?act_id=18992
2. These comprise: 50 that form part of the International Emissions Trading Association programme; 75 hosted by the European Union; 42 hosted by Econcern, an energy company/ consultancy. Some additional side event slots have been offered by the UNFCCC following the re-arrangement of its agenda in relation to the Eid holiday, but it is unclear how many of these are new and how many in response to cancellations.
Monday, 8 December 2008
The International Emission Trading Association: Diverting focus from environment to markets
Saturday, 6 December 2008 - IETA has the biggest representation in Poznan with 254 lobbyists registered in the official (provisional) participants' list under the category 'Non-governmental organizations'. It represents some of the biggest energy corporations of the world, some other industrial giants and many banks and assurance companies.
IETA was the biggest lobby group also in the previous UN climate conference in Bali, but the corporate take over of the climate talks has moved one step further in Poznan; half of the space of the Poznan International Fair is available to rent, while the official procedure is taking place in the other half. IETA has hired a whole building where it holds up to 12 events per day. A real parallel conference!
But IETA is also holding meetings inside the official space. One of those took place at Saturday evening in a crowded room under the title: 'Post-2012 international action supporting local action'.
The panelist used very sophisticated business language provoking to most of the attendees a rather bamboozled expression. 
They want the CDM to be reformed because they consider that "its current architecture doesn't match with current challenges". This is where we should look for the reason why CDM has failed to reduce global emissions so far. The solution will come from "a new CDM with more flexible mechanisms." Even some of the panellists said that it had to be not too complicated because "politicians already have problems understanding it."
When you go to such event, you start to feel as if only business people know the details about how to reduce emissions and save the climate. The rest of us just grumble, since these are the people that "will make it happen."
However, it doesn't take a genius to see that the demand to continue offsetting emissions in the non-developed world that count as reductions for the developed one (currently 66% of the EU reductions) is not the most rational way of eradicating the causes of climate change.
Responding to a question from a World Development Movement campaigner, a panelist said: "You've got a point. The issue is environment. We tend to forget it and focus to discussions about markets." Tell us about it Mister!
Having said that they quietly returned to their discussion about how to create the most effective market solution to climate change with the right proportion of flexibility. "Market solutions are not optimal," they said, "because the market is not perfect, but it is the best system we have."
So let's pray that they find the best market solution, otherwise bye bye climate. There is one thing in their logic that can't be touched: profit. No solution is acceptable if it doesn't permit their profits to continue to rise. And go find how that is compatible with 'the acceptance of the responsibility of climate change' that developed world corporations 'recognize' each time they're asked.
