position:tackle global warming

  • Top oil firms spending millions lobbying to block climate change policies, says report

    Ad campaigns hide investment in a huge expansion of oil and gas extraction, says InfluenceMap.

    The largest five stock market listed oil and gas companies spend nearly $200m (£153m) a year lobbying to delay, control or block policies to tackle climate change, according to a new report.

    #Chevron, #BP and #ExxonMobil were the main companies leading the field in direct lobbying to push against a climate policy to tackle global warming, the report said.

    Increasingly they are using social media to successfully push their agenda to weaken and oppose any meaningful legislation to tackle global warming.

    In the run-up to the US midterm elections last year $2m was spent on targeted Facebook and Instagram ads by global oil giants and their industry bodies, promoting the benefits of increased fossil fuel production, according to the report published on Friday by InfluenceMap (https://influencemap.org/report/How-Big-Oil-Continues-to-Oppose-the-Paris-Agreement-38212275958aa21196).

    Separately, BP donated $13m to a campaign, also supported by Chevron, that successfully stopped a carbon tax in Washington state – $1m of which was spent on social media ads, the research shows.
    Sign up to the Green Light email to get the planet’s most important stories
    Read more

    Edward Collins, the report’s author, analysed corporate spending on lobbying, briefing and advertising, and assessed what proportion was dedicated to climate issues.

    He said: “Oil majors’ climate branding sounds increasingly hollow and their credibility is on the line. They publicly support climate action while lobbying against binding policy. They advocate low-carbon solutions but such investments are dwarfed by spending on expanding their fossil fuel business.”

    After the Paris climate agreement in 2015 the large integrated oil and gas companies said they supported a price on carbon and formed groups like the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative which promote voluntary measures.

    But, the report states, there is a glaring gap between their words and their actions.

    The five publicly listed oil majors – ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, BP and Total – now spend about $195m a year on branding campaigns suggesting they support action against climate change.

    But the report said these campaigns were misleading the public about the extent of the oil companies’ actions because while publicly endorsing the need to act, they are massively increasing investment in a huge expansion of oil and gas extraction. In 2019 their spending will increase to $115bn, with just 3% of that directed at low carbon projects.

    Shell said in a statement: “We firmly reject the premise of this report. We are very clear about our support for the Paris agreement, and the steps that we are taking to help meet society’s needs for more and cleaner energy.

    “We make no apology for talking to policymakers and regulators around the world to make our voice heard on crucial topics such as climate change and how to address it.”

    Chevron said it disagreed with the report’s findings. “Chevron is taking prudent, cost-effective actions and is committed to working with policymakers to design balanced and transparent greenhouse gas emissions reductions policies that address environmental goals and ensure consumers have access to affordable, reliable and ever cleaner energy.”

    The successful lobbying and direct opposition to policy measures to tackle global warming have hindered governments globally in their efforts to implement policies after the Paris agreement to meet climate targets and keep warming below 1.5C.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/mar/22/top-oil-firms-spending-millions-lobbying-to-block-climate-change-polici
    #lobby #climat #changement_climatique #pétrole #industrie_du_pétrole #rapport

  • ANALYSIS-Nicaragua climate politics in hot water over canal plan
    http://af.reuters.com/article/africaTech/idAFL5N1NC4S4

    Shaking off its climate change “pariah” status alongside the United States and war-torn Syria, Central American nation Nicaragua took the plunge and joined the Paris Agreement to tackle global warming before U.N. climate talks began on Monday.

    But environmentalists say Nicaragua’s lecturing of big polluters and ambitious renewable energy goals contrast with its slack environmental protection and a controversial plan to carve out a $50 billion Chinese-backed shipping canal from coast to coast with potentially severe impacts.

    The government talks a lot about respect for ‘Mother Earth’ and care of the environment. But that is just political rhetoric - in practice, the government is too lenient on environmental contamination,” said Jorge Huete-Pérez, University of Central America professor and vice president of Nicaragua’s Academy of Sciences.

    In 2015, Nicaragua was the only one of about 195 countries to reject outright the Paris deal, which it deemed too weak to keep global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times, as well as unfair for holding poorer nations to account in the same way as developed countries.
    […]
    The decision by President Daniel Ortega, a former Marxist guerrilla leader, to join the Paris Agreement could help funnel more cash into green energy and other development projects in Nicaragua which once received subsidised Venezuelan oil.

    Lauded by the World Bank as a “renewable energy paradise”, Nicaragua generates over 50 percent of its power from geothermal, wind and other clean sources, with plans to reach 90 percent.

    Raul Delgado, lead climate change specialist at the Inter-American Development Bank, said joining the Paris accord could open the door for Nicaragua to access money from the Green Climate Fund and other international pots. “It’s a good time for them to join,” he added.

    Some said the timing fits with the expected appointment next year of Nicaragua’s chief climate negotiator Paul Oquist to the influential co-chair position at the multi-billion-dollar Green Climate Fund, where he is now an alternate board member.

    Je ne me prononce pas sur le bien-fondé des contestations écologiques, mais une chose est sûre, les opposants écologistes à un canal chinois en Amérique centrale ne devraient pas avoir trop de mal à trouver des financements…

  • Climate funds for coal highlight lack of UN rules
    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/07b1724c91604b0d8a3d272424912580/climate-funds-coal-highlight-lack-un-rules

    About $1 billion in loans under a U.N. initiative for poor countries to tackle global warming is going toward the construction of power plants fired by coal, the biggest human source of carbon pollution.

    Japan gave the money to help its companies build three such plants in Indonesia and listed it with the United Nations as climate finance, The Associated Press has found. Japan says these plants burn coal more efficiently and are therefore cleaner than old coal plants.

    [...] Japan’s coal projects highlight the lack of rules to steer the flow of climate finance from rich to poor countries — a critical part of U.N. talks on global warming, which resume Monday in Lima, Peru. There is no watchdog agency that ensures the money is spent in the most effective way, and no definition of what climate finance is.

    [...] Even the newly launched Green Climate Fund, a key channel for climate finance in the future, still only has vague guidelines on how to spend the money. Board member Jan Cedergren said he didn’t believe the fund would support fossil fuels but acknowledged no decision has so far been made.

    #climat #ONU #charbon #fonds_vert_pour_le_climat