Inside the Tent: Big Polluters Work to Shape Paris Agreement Rules at the UN Climate Talks

authordefault
on

Should fossil fuel companies that knew their products contributed to climate change for nearly 40 years and did nothing about it now be allowed to have theirย say inside the UN climateย talks?

For the Internationalย Emissions Trading Associationย (IETA), a business lobby comprised of some of the worldโ€™s largest fossil fuel producers and greenhouse gas emitters such as BP, Chevron, Rio Tinto, Eni, Total and Shell, the answer isย yes.

โ€œFundamentally,โ€ the IETA writes, โ€œwe believe that our businesses should be part of the climate negotiations โ€” because we intend to be part of theย solutionโ€.

IETA has already wielded much influence on the UN climate talks. This yearโ€™s climate conference โ€” known as COP24 โ€” is widely considered to be the most important climate meeting of the last three years, with countries aiming to finalise the rulebook to implement the Parisย Agreement.

And the business lobby is determined to have its voice heard on how its members should be involved in implementing the Parisย accord.

IETA president and CEO Dirk Forrister told DeSmog UK that proposals made by IETA on market approaches to implement the Paris Agreement had found their way into the negotiationย text.

โ€œI think most of the ideas that we think are important for the market credibility are in the [negotiating] text,โ€ heย said.

He added that IETA has been working for more than six years on pushing for carbon markets mechanisms inside the climate talks โ€” an issue which remains a priority for its members.ย ย 

Engagement orย obstruction?

Speaking at an event on the fringe of the conference, Shellโ€™s chief climate change adviser David Hone boasted about the fact Shell, through IETA, could โ€œtake some creditโ€ for the fact that carbon unit trading had been adopted in the Parisย Agreement.

Confidential documents have previously revealed that Shellโ€™s board of directors knew that its products contributed to climate change since 1988 โ€” but for years did nothing aboutย it.

For environmental activists, the idea that Shell could have influenced some of the outcomes of the Paris Agreement is unacceptable and have repeatedly campaigned to โ€œkick the polluters out of the COPโ€.

Speaking near IETAโ€™s large pavilion inside the conference centre, Nnimmo Bassey, from the Health of Mother Earth Foundation, read a poem about the devastating consequences of oil pollution in the Niger Delta, Nigeria, due to Shellโ€™s activities in theย region.ย ย 

โ€œIn Niger Delta where I come from, we have endured 60 years of oil pollution. Today the worldย has 12 short years to do the right thing about climate change,โ€ heย said.

โ€œWe donโ€™t want those who have contributed to climate change to be making the solutions. Today oil, coal and gas companies populate the corridors of the negotiations of COP24. These companies should be clearly kept away from the negotiations. We donโ€™t need themย here.โ€

But IETAโ€™s CEO Forrister is adamant: โ€œCompanies which are large emitters such as Shell need to be inside the tent and be part of formingย solutionsโ€.

Conflict ofย interests

IETA is open about its lobbying efforts. It publishes its priorities and proposals on its website and sets-out how it โ€œplays a valuable roleโ€ on behalf of its members at the talks โ€” a strategy IETAโ€™s CEO Forrister says is no different to what NGOs areย doing.

But for NGOs, the comparison has little credibility. โ€œThis is not a level playing field,โ€ said Gilles Dufrasne, policy research for NGO Carbon Market Watch, who pointed out that big companiesโ€™ lobbying efforts were backed by huge profits, with companies seeking bigger profitsย still.

Inside the conference, the involvement of big polluters is unabashed. One of Europeโ€™s largest coal companies is sponsoring the talks and a host of oil and gas companies are also wiedling influence behind the greenย veneer.

Meanwhile, dozens of country delegates from the US, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait โ€” four countries which blocked the โ€œwelcomingโ€ of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changโ€™s landmark 1.5 degree report โ€” have ties to the oil, gas and mining industries.

For campaigners, this underlines the imperative of dealing with conflicts of interests at the talks. โ€œThe real issue is when corporate lobbying is hidden behind official country representation,โ€ Dufrasneย said.

Jesse Bragg, spokesman at NGO Corporate Accountability, described the involvement of the fossil fuel industry in the negotiations as โ€œthe wildย westโ€.

โ€œThere is no transparency over what the industryโ€™s engagement in this process looks like,โ€ he said. โ€œThe fossil fuel industry needed to write themselves in a clause in order to beย engaged.โ€

Environmental activists demanding big polluters are โ€œkicked out of the COPโ€. Image Credit: Chloeย Farand

For Forrister, the assessment is โ€œunfairโ€. โ€œI think that everybody who comes to the [UN climate talks] with a badge is trying to influence the process, hopefully to the good,โ€ heย said.ย ย 

โ€œAt the end of the day, decisions are made by elected officials and governments that have that representative role. We are not at the microphones negotiating text, that is a government function,โ€ heย said.

Bragg recognised that IETA had its place in implementing of the Paris Agreement but that role should not involve having a say in the decision-makingย process.

โ€œThere are things that fossil fuel companies should be made to do but they should not be writing the rules. The danger is that they are going to skew the talks towards their agenda,โ€ heย said.

Dufrasne, from Carbon Market Watch, agreed: โ€œThere is a moral question here, which is about the involvement of the fossil fuel industry in contributing and influencing a deal [Paris Agreement] which is incompatible with the future of theirย industry.โ€

โ€œHow can they genuinely claim to support climate action when it is incompatible with their ownย future?โ€

Protesters taking part in the March for Climate in Katowice, where the UN climate talks are taking place. Image credit: Chloeย Farand

Carbon markets: Falseย solutions?

The private sectorโ€™s efforts to shape parts of the Paris Accord has focused around one specific area of the agreement, known as Article 6, which allows oil companies, major polluters and countries to reduce their emissions by buying credits for emissions reduction that are happeningย elsewhere.

Brad Schallert, deputy director of international climate cooperation at WWF, said industry was getting involved on the carbon market side of the negotiations because it was allowing them to reduce emissions at cheaper costs than they wouldย otherwise.

Schallert explained that in theory, these carbon market mechanisms allow countries to reinvest the money they saved by using the mechanism into other emission reduction measures, helping them to ramp upย ambitions.

Within Article 6, there is an effort to ensure that carbon markets go beyond a zero-sum game and actually contribute to โ€œoverall mitigation to globalย emissionsโ€.

How this applies in practice is yet to be defined but the idea is to ensure that not all carbon emissions reductions can be traded, and that some amount is set aside to ensure there is a realย reduction.

Schallert told DeSmog UK that industry had been pushing for voluntary cancellation of some carbon credits in the market โ€” which would allow them to โ€œlegitimise the claim that they are contributing to climate change mitigationโ€ without being answerable to specific rules on climateย action.

Dufrasne, from Carbon Market Watch, acknowledged that IETA had at times contributed positively to the negotiations on carbon markets. Yet, he warned that fossil fuel companies pushing for carbon markets was โ€œa way to reduce emissions and meet their target without doing anythingย elseโ€.

โ€œItโ€™s a kind of false commitment. It is used to replace climate action. What theyโ€™re saying is โ€˜put a price on carbon and we will find the cheapest way to deliver energyโ€™ without further regulation on their activities,โ€ heย said.

โ€˜They want to write the rules and get to be theย refereeโ€™

If IETA wants to be engaged in shaping the rules of the Paris Agreement within the UN process, it is less keen to have to follow the UNโ€™sย rules.

Rejecting current proposals for UN oversight of market approaches to implement the Paris Agreement, Forrister said โ€œthere are things that go too farโ€, adding that โ€œincluding UN level safeguards and restrictions might not be goodย ideasโ€.

โ€œWe think that should be a national matter rather than a UN one,โ€ heย said.

For Bragg, divorcing carbon market mechanisms from the UN process isย โ€œunacceptableโ€.

โ€œThey want to write the rules and get to be the referee,โ€ Bragg said. โ€œFor carbon markets to be effective in this process, it needs to be tightly regulated and have strongย standards.โ€

The level of influence of trade lobby groups such as IETA is difficult to assess and at time of writing, as the text on market approaches to implement the Paris Agreement remains on the negotiatingย table.

But the question about fossil fuel companies involvementย remains.

Citing the pro-climate action American group โ€œWe are still inโ€ which is largely backed by businesses, WWFโ€™s Schallert said that the private sector has a role to play in ramping up ambition and can โ€œfill a void where the UN process is not doingย enoughโ€.

On the other hand, Bragg, from Corporate Accountability, warned that one should remember โ€œwhat companies such as Shell and ExxonMobil have done to prove to us that they are in this for the right reasons versus what they have done to undermine climateย policyโ€.

Related Posts

on

For years, United, American, and other airlines have led massive lobbying efforts against regulations to prevent climate change.

For years, United, American, and other airlines have led massive lobbying efforts against regulations to prevent climate change.

The EU and many member states have set limits for how much manure farmers are allowed to apply in their fields, but crucial oversight is lacking.

The EU and many member states have set limits for how much manure farmers are allowed to apply in their fields, but crucial oversight is lacking.
on

Robert Wilkie was speaking at a conference co-hosted by the group behind the radical Project 2025 agenda.

Robert Wilkie was speaking at a conference co-hosted by the group behind the radical Project 2025 agenda.
on

Scope of corporate influence underscores concerns the technology will be used to prolong demand for planet-heating natural gas.

Scope of corporate influence underscores concerns the technology will be used to prolong demand for planet-heating natural gas.