THE CARBON WAR

168
The Winning of The Carbon War
We are not yet ready to set targets, Carl Svanberg says. It’s not that we
are unwilling. It’s just that it could be counter-productive. His example of
counter-productive is the additional coal burning that has been imposed on
Germany by shutting nuclear.
My question. I stand at the microphone for a moment surveying the
sixteen characters on the stage. Only four of them have said anything so far. The
CEO and Chairman have done most of the talking. I wonder what the rest are
thinking, how they are selected, how they are remunerated, the degree to which
they harbour any doubts at all as BP ploughs right on throwing gasoline on the
fire of global warming, despite all the transparent concern in the outside world.
The International Energy Agency has a global energy scenario for 450
parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, I say. It is very different
from the future energy scenario that you favour. It involves much more
renewable energy, much less fossil fuel. It offers some chance of a ceiling to
global warming below two degrees Celsius. Would you be willing to include a
portfolio stress test for the 450 scenario? If not, may we know why? And what
might the company’s contingency plan be if forced to follow the lead of others?
Carl Svanberg now waffles a little. This is his least impressive answer so
far. If I understand the gist of it, it goes like this. The IEA’s outlook for demand
is virtually the same as BP’s. The demand scenarios for the next five decades
don’t change dramatically. It is hard for the company to plan for anything other
than what we believe in at the time being.
The final questioner challenges BP about its lobbying. Despite all the
lip service to the climate problem, and its exhortations to government to do
something about it, the company remains a member of numerous European
lobbying groups which take positions against climate action, such as Business
Europe, CEFIC and Fuels Europe.
Svanberg says that they didn’t necessarily align with the lobbying position
of these groups. Membership doesn’t necessarily signify agreement.
Bob Dudley makes an observation on Paris that strikes me as potentially
encouraging, potentially ominous. BP got together with Shell, Total and Saudi
Aramco in Davos this year, he says.
This I didn’t hear about.
We decided we should form a common view for governments. We’re not
there yet, but will be by Paris.