To what extent is business a positive force for good in a world
undergoing potentially devastating human-induced climate change? In the
week that government leaders met in Bonn to discuss the
rapidly-crumbling Kyoto Protocol, The Guardian took a look at the
climate debate ('Melt Down', July 18, 2001). Environment correspondent
Paul Brown did a fine job of marshalling the evidence and reiterating
the conclusion of authoritative climate scientists that 'we should cut
greenhouse gas emissions by 60 to 80% by the middle of the century to
stabilise the climate before things get out of hand.' But, without
supporting evidence, he then praised big business for an 'extraordinary
turnaround' in responding to the threat of global warming.
Paul Brown made the remarkable statement that 'perhaps the brightest
spot in a gloomy picture has been the extraordinary turnaround in the
views of big business.' Brown continued, 'With the exception of some US
oil companies with Exxon/ Mobil (Esso in Europe) top of the list, the
business community is reacting rapidly to the threat of global warming.'
The supporting statement for this rapid reaction and 'extraordinary
turnaround' is the following: 'In the last five years companies like
Ford, oil companies like BP and Shell have begun to pour billions into
research in new technologies.' This is a partial picture, at best, of
what has been happening.
Simply put, oil company green rhetoric is not matched by green actions.
BP - now merged with Amoco and Arco - aims to increase the sales of its
solar energy technology to $1 billion a year by 2010. Shell
International - in an attempt to catch up with BP's solar power
initiatives - finally made a significant move into the market for
renewable energy sources in October 1997. The Anglo-Dutch group
announced that it would be investing $500 million over the following 5
years with the aim of capturing at least 10 per cent of the world market
for solar and photovoltaic cells by 2005.
However, these initiatives from corporate giants wishing to capitalise
on potential future market winners in renewables barely dent the
'business as usual' motorcade. Shell's investment in renewables is only
10 per cent of the oil giant's spending on hydrocarbon exploration ($1
billion annually), 0.8 per cent of its global investment ($12 billion)
and only 0.06 per cent of its global sales ($171 billion) - a drop in
the barrel, in other words. In 1999, Shell's renewable division and BP
Solar closed down headquarter operations in the UK and moved abroad,
highlighting their lack of commitment to job creation in Britain's
renewable energy sector.
The US subsidiaries of BP and Shell were members of the Global Climate
Coalition, the infamous fossil fuel lobby group that denies the reality
of global warming, until October 1996 and April 1998, respectively. They
withdrew from the GCC only following massive public pressure on them to
do so.
However, both BP and Shell remain members of the American Petroleum
Institute, which has lobbied the US government not to ratify the Kyoto
Protocol. Indeed, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM),
comprising much of mainstream US industry, is forthright in its
opposition: 'The NAM strongly opposes the accord. Heeding NAM advice, in
1997 the Senate approved a Byrd (D-WV)/Hagel (R-NE) resolution opposing
any global climate accord that excludes developing nations and/or
threatens serious damage to the U.S. economy. The Kyoto Protocol fails
on both counts. President Bush also opposes Kyoto and is now pursuing a
more reasonable approach to climate change that is based on sound
science, research and technology' ( www.nam.org , 19 July, 2001).
The other great voice of US business, the US Chamber of Commerce, is
similarly bent on the destruction of the Kyoto Protocol. In a letter to
the new US president, the US Chamber wrote: 'Global warming is an
important issue that must be addressed - but the Kyoto Protocol is a
flawed treaty that is not in the U.S. interest. The U.S. Chamber agrees
with your Administration's assessment - greater scientific understanding
of global warming is necessary to resolve uncertainty concerning the
potential affect of human activity on this phenomenon. Further research
is needed to develop the best strategies to tackle this problem'
(www.uschamber.org 19 July, 2001).On its website, the U.S. Chamber
proudly declares that it is the world's largest business federation
representing more than three million businesses and organisations of
every size, sector and region. So much for environment correspondent
Paul Brown's 'brightest spot in a gloomy picture'!
The election of George W. Bush, himself an oilman by trade, was achieved
through the application of massive big business financial power. Bush's
opposition to the Kyoto Protocol merely reflects the interests of his
backers. Julian Borger of the Guardian writes, 'In the Bush
administration, business is the only voice... This is as close as it is
possible to get in a democracy to a government of business, by business
and for business.' (Borger, 'All the president's businessmen', The
Guardian, 27 April, 2001) Robert Reich, Clinton's former labour
secretary adds, 'There's no longer any countervailing power in
Washington. Business is in complete control of the machinery of
government.' (ibid)
In reality big business is passionately committed to obstructing even
trivial action to combat global warming - the short-term costs are
simply perceived to be too high. The spending of $100 billion on the
National Missile Defence system is favoured for related reasons -
responding to the 'threat' of 'rogue states' involves pouring billions
of tax dollars into the bank accounts of high-tech big business.
Likewise, the entire business-driven globalisation project is an attempt
to generate ever-increasing sales and profits - restraint and
responsibility are not on the agenda.
Last year, BP had a brand relaunch as 'Beyond Petroleum' featuring its
new 'Helios' sunburst logo. Critics retorted that BP really should stand
for 'Burning the Planet'. BP has portrayed itself as an environmentally
responsible energy company, but this is deceptive. As Greenpeace UK
reported last year, 'BP's increase in oil production is wiping out its
commitment to carbon savings many times over. It may claim to be the
leading solar company, but it has the least ambitious investment plans
of the top six solar companies. BP not only has no strategy for getting
out of oil, it is actually speeding up its search for fossil fuels.'
(Frontier News, Volume 2 Issue 9, email bulletin, 20 April, 2000).
As Andrew Rowell revealed in 'Green Backlash' (Routledge, London, 1996)
and Sharon Beder in 'Global Spin' (Green Books, Totnes, 1997), it has
become the norm for business to adopt a green veneer, courtesy of
expensive public relations, without actually replacing damaging business
practices with ecologically sustainable activities. US business spends
an estimated $500 million every year in greenwashing. Shell and BP
'spend seven times more on advertising their green credentials than they
spend on environmental projects' (Alasdair Clayre of the Oxford-based
lobby group Millennium Energy Debate, quoted in The Guardian, 12
November, 1999).
The respected London-based Global Commons Institute estimates that there
will be more than two million deaths from climate change-related
disasters worldwide over the next ten years. Damage to property will
amount to hundreds of billions of dollars (Global Commons Institute,
letter to The Guardian, 14 March, 2000. Full text of letter available at
www.gci.org.uk/guardlet.html). As Andrew Rowell concludes, 'The only
moral and rational reaction to global warming is disinvestment in the
processing of all fossil fuels. (The Big Issue, 15-21 February, 1999).
David Cromwell and David Edwards are Associate Directors of Media Lens
(www.MediaLens.org).
David Cromwell is the author of Private Planet (www.private-planet.com),
published by Jon Carpenter. David Edwards is the author of Free To Be
Human (Burning All Illusions in the U.S.) and The Compassionate
Revolution (both Green Books).