There has been a mass of media reporting this morning of BP's supposed plan to become net carbon zero. The Guardian is amongst many to fall or the line and publish this image:
I smelt a rat. I was right to do so.
I went to the BP website and read the press release. It says the plan is:
Five aims to get BP to net zero:
1. Net zero across BP's operations on an absolute basis by 2050 or sooner.
2. Net zero on carbon in BP's oil and gas production on an absolute basis by 2050 or sooner.
3. 50% cut in the carbon intensity of products BP sells by 2050 or sooner.
4. Install methane measurement at all BP's major oil and gas processing sites by 2023 and reduce methane intensity of operations by 50%.
5. Increase the proportion of investment into non-oil and gas businesses over time.
So, what is clear is that BP will still sell carbon-based products that will still pollute the planet in 2050. In that case it will not be net-zero. It will in fact be the producer of a major continuing contributor to carbon pollution. It may just use a bit less carbon to produce that carbon.
What is clear is that BP, like so many companies, is relying on the new corporate cop-out, which is to claim they are not carbon neutral on the basis of their Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions. I have posted this definition, from the agency that defines emissions standards, before:
Scope 1 and 2 together cover the emissions created by a business within its own processes. Scope 3 is the emissions they are responsible for in their supply and customer chains and which would not happen without them, but which Mark Carney's Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures lets them ignore. BP is ignoring its Scope 3 emissions and as a result is making what I consider to be a false claim that it will be net carbon neutral. It won't be. It will be a major polluter.
It's time for these denials of responsibility to end. BP is responsible for the oil it sells. No one else is. And on that basis it is clear it has no intention of being a net-zero carbon company.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
So if I buy petrol to power a factory or run a fleet of lorries I have no responsibility for carbon emissions? Because the externality has already been picked up by BP?
No, not at all
You are responsible
So are they
That’s the nature of externalities
They exist on the world at large
And what might be there Scope 3 is your Scope 2
Yopu’re booth responsible for the decision and you both have a responsibility for addressing the issue
Why is that so very hard fro some who have never commented here before to understand? Could it be Tim Worstall thinks otherwise, maybe?
Isnt that double counting? Or are you saying the cost of the externality is shared in some way?
Unfortunately the world is still dependent on what BP produces and will be for sometime.
Oh and apologies for being an expert in this area!
No of course it is not double counting
They are in different categories
Next you’ll be saying double entry is double counting
And I have no idea if you are an expert in this area – why not publish your CV if that is what you are claiming
OK. So we force the international oil and gas companies (IOGCs) based in the advanced economies to phase out and shut-down their oil and gas production operations. What do you think will happen to the reserves they will be forced to abandon which are predominantly in developing countries? I’m no supporter of the gaming of rules that are designed to be gamed, but would it not be better to aim for a more rapid matching of production with certified abatement of the resulting CO2 emissions?
I sincerely hope those reserves stay in the ground
If not your grandchildren are in deep trouble
Don’t you realise that?
If not, why not?
Where have you been?
You may “sincerely hope those reserves stay in the ground”, but the developing countries will not be prepared to forgo the economic rents and the big national oil and gas companies from the BRICs and others with quasi-democratic and authoritarian regimes will pile in if the IOGCs from the advanced economies pull out. These quasi-democratic and authoritarian regimes that govern three-quarters of the world’s population will not take instruction from the advanced economies.
The IOGCs from the advanced economies control a declining share of global oil and gas reserves and the big national oil and gas companies from the BRICs and others are determined to push them out of the reserves they control. They just love the Extinction Rebellion and Green fantasists beating up on the IOGCs.
The focus for us in the advanced economies has to be on reducing the demand for fossil fuels and on abating emissions.
I do not share your cynicism Paul
Paul Hunt says:
“These quasi-democratic and authoritarian regimes that govern three-quarters of the world’s population will not take instruction from the advanced economies.”
Oh, I don’t know; the quasi-democratic authoritarian US regime seems to still have the upper hand, and a foreign policy which seems determined to control the ‘three quarters of the world’s population’ you refer to.
Quite how that power struggle will pan out remains to be seen.
I suspect that the developing countries are taking a very short term view.
Worldwide, developing countries have seen a billion of their people lifted out of the UN definition of absolute poverty in the last 20 years and recognise that this is down to the increased availability of energy and so probably think the increased C02 emissions is a price worth paying. Look at all those coal fired power stations in India and China! There simply isn’t the available technology available for a greener energy source at present which can provide the same benefit at the same cost and may not be for decades.
Is there a way you could work out the cost of returning those people to poverty, compare it to the value of saving the planet and show that the benefit outweighs the cost? After all, we in the west are doing our bit by being prepared to give up flying away on holiday. Then you might be able to convince those developing nations of the value of this?
It is simply not true to say that there are no alternative technologies in developing countries
At that point you make a claim that is wrong
Why are you doing that? Who are you lobbying for?
One person’s perception of cynicism, may be another’s cold-eyed assessment of reality. Just look at how and by whom three-quarters of the world’s population is governed. The post-war international rules-based system with the UN as its fundamental basis was not reformed at the end of the Cold War. It was profoundly damaged by the Bush/Blair Iraqi invasion and the rise of China and the neo-Stalinist reconstruction of Russia (combined with Trump’s antics) have weakened it further.
We are in a period similar to that before WW I when the then great powers jostled and bristled. I’m not saying it will end up in the same conflagration, but there are huge risks. Climate change will have a global impact – we have only one atmosphere – but each country will have to chart its own course in response.
And I disagree with your cynical assessment that they will choose not to do so
Hello Richard
I am not ‘lobbying’ for anyone. I have no interest other than as a concerned citizen and I am disappointed in your cynical and dismissive response. You seem to do that with any point of view different from your own and any question you can’t answer.
That developing countries can’t currently afford the cost of converting to green technologies must be patently obvious. The coal fired power stations are THERE. They have been built. The money has been spent. Are you seriously suggesting China and India should tear down power stations built a few years ago and build nice new……nice new what? Hydro plants where there are not the geological conditions to support them? Wind farms in places with not enough wind? These are vast countries. They cannot find a nice suitable place for solar panels and then power the whole country from it.
In the west we have the luxury of choice because we can afford it. In the developing world millions have better lives but the cost has been increased CO2. We in the west seem to be saying it isn’t a cost worth paying. If you are saying that, you’d better have a good plan to convince those developing nations.
It is easy to make sweeping statements “let’s all go green” but the devil is in the practical detail and I fear from your response that practical detail is not your strong point. Am I now being cynical? I’d be delighted to be proved wrong!
With respect, research simply suggests that you are wrong on these claims
I suggest looking at what Jeremy Leggett does
And why am I cynical? years of blogging have taught me it is wise to be so when those appearing to promote a hard line status quo that is dangerous to universal well-being appear on this blog
With respect, you appear to be in that category
“I suggest looking at what Jeremy Leggett does”
Jeremy Leggett’s firm makes small solar lights for home use to replace kerosene lamps. Worthy for sure but are you seriously suggesting this is an immediate replacement for the gigawatt power stations Ms Birks is referring to?
Without actually giving references (other than Mr Leggett’s torches) you claim that it is possible to switch away from fossil fuels. Germany has tried that. They have run down coal and gas fired stations and switched to wind & solar (although still only 19%). They have the highest energy prices in the world. They are plagued by blackouts (from virtually zero per year 20 years ago to now 172,000 a year). Germany’s carbon footprint is virtually unchanged. When the sun is shining and the wind is blowing, they end up exporting their energy – mainly to Denmark. When it sin’t they have blackouts.
Theses are real world actual examples. Go look them up.
But I am NOT saying we shouldn’t continue to try to develop alternatives, only that they are decades away and to pretend otherwise shows you do not understand this topic. Billions in developing countries are dependent on fossil fuels TODAY. You’d better be 100% certain that this can be replaced before dismissing their needs.
Elsewhere you challenged someone to publish their CV. What’s yours like on wind & solar technology and energy in the third world?
Jeremy does not say he personally, or his company, has all the answers
He is also a researcher in this area
He suggests that these issues can be solved and makes many references as to research that shows that
I referred to that research
And your claims on Germany don’t stack….not according to the evidence I see
I am not claiming to be an expert
But I do rely on those who are
And I know, that’s so uncool
I’m sorry, Richard, but what part of “each country will have to chart its own course in response [to climate change]” do you not understand?
For example, the deployment of solar and wind power in China is simply mind-boggling, as is the extent of the switch from coal to gas in electricity generation. Many other developing and middle-income countries are making concerted efforts. But those in power have to address the immediate demands of their people in terms of deepening and widening economic prosperity. And there are hundreds of millions globally who don’t have access to it, but want electricity for lighting and to power a fridge, a television, (possibly a fan) and to charge their mobile phones. Micro-grids will serve only so many.
It’s a tad unfair to label those of us who take climate change seriously but who highlight the challenges as being cynics and defenders of the status quo.
And to Andy..
Oh Andy, the Two Camp Theory is sooo last century. These things go in cycles. “…there is nothing new under the sun..”. The US is reverting to its mercantlism and isolationism of the 1930s, the EU is encountering another existential crisis and the rest of the OECD countries have their own hassles. The balance of global political and economic power is shifting in favour of quasi-democratic and authoritarian regimes. Capitalism is mutating once again. And so it goes.
I have referred to research by named people that shows coal is not the way to solve these issues
That is all I am saying
I am not sure what part of that is hard to understand
I get the desire for electricity, of course
But I also think people across the globe realise climate change is a threat
Anna Birks says:
“After all, we in the west are doing our bit by being prepared to give up flying away on holiday”
Are we really ? Are you ? And do you think that will be enough ?
AFAIK neither lorries nor factories run on petrol. BP simply plans to offset by eg planting trees etc. So no overall reduction which is what is needed. Or they could end that Faustian pact and fund the GND.
[…] Cross-posted from Tax Research UK […]
Is this really as cynical of BP as it sounds ?
Are they actually saying that because their extractive industry processes meet the terms of carbon neutrality, what we do with the emissions from using their product is somebody else’s business ?
That sounds like the logic of the arms producers: We only make the weapons we don’t use them (?)
Precisely
They appear to be saying that their internal operations and production will be on a “zero carbon” basis, and they will cut their carbon sales by 50%.
Not exactly “neutral”, and 2050 is too late, but better than nothing, no?
Better than nothing
But a false claim
BP is merely taking a leaf from the Boris Johnson political instruction book. Make grand assurances with no intention of fulfilling them. The unthinking masses will be placated and not notice when nothing is done. This must really **ss off Jeremy Corbyn who made lots of promises with the full intention of keeping them and the public preferred the devious, deviant Johnson – apparently.
I’m finding it very difficult to think through how BP and other oil majors will run down their Industry as global demand for their products declines. However much the industry deserves what it gets, I doubt that it’s in anyone’s best interests that the industry just collapses under the weight of stranded assets. The following is a three part tweet I made lat night in response to a tweet by Kevin Anderson. It’s followed by a single response (not from Kevin) it’s received so far. I’d be very interested to receive other views.
1. If as you point out, BP’s plans are dependant on unproven CCS technology applied at massive scale, they have not paid sufficient regard to the precautionary principle. To expose themselves and their stakeholders to the inherent risks of this position is deeply irresponsible.
2. Though fully deserving criticism for concealing what they knew about global warming and being so slow in modifying their outlook, we will be dependent on the oil industry until all that’s needed to replace it is in place.
3. Is advocating disinvestment a good strategy? Shareholders will anyway lose confidence in an industry that has a limited future. How will the end game play out? How do we ensure that the industry survives long enough and scales down at a rate that meets a reducing demand?
………
By running it under a not for profit global body rather than for profit during this emergency period? Else it is an unsteerable and dangerously slow transition…
BP cannot survive on this strategy: it is creating products, and intends to continue to make products that will help kill the planet. Of course it cannot survive as it is.
That is a reason for disinvestment
At the same time, state aid to make the transition to new technology – including CCS (if there is a hope it will work) – may be necessary. The Green New Deal says this.
We are not going to make this transition by relying on market forces is the message.
3. 50% cut in the carbon intensity of products BP sells by 2050 or sooner.
difficult not to laugh out loud at that one. CCS (carbon caputre and storage) here we come. I would not be surprised if BP used CO2 for enhanced oil recovery (inject CO2 into oil wells to get even more oil out). & of course, the oil majors will claim that they need “help” to implement CCS. & the politicos & bureaucrats for the most part will swallow the nonesense & give them the “help” (money) they want.
I’m not being cycnical – I am seeing a rising tide of “give us the money or the bunny gets it” from both the oil & gas fan boys & their wholly owned subsidiaries – example: the European Gas Regulator Forum (the clue as to who they are is in the name) last year published a report saying that CCS should receive state aid. Gas Regulator or Sooty or Sweep? – leaving the open question – do the oil & gas guys take turns being harry Corbett.
I have to agree with you Mike
Unfortunately I’m hearing from my petroleum engineering pals that the sector is expecting big bucks for some sort of retarded carbon capture nonsense. Literally billions to squirt an inert trace gas into subterranean rocks instead of creating anything productive. We’d be better off using old school weather-appeasance techniques, involving stone circles and the Wicker Man.
What’s the economic term for the opposite of value-add?
steve pesenti says:
“What’s the economic term for the opposite of value-add?”
Neoliberalism ?
Hi everyone,
It’s greenwashing. I see it everyday:
Everyday I bring my kids to school and on the way (11 km) there are 4 gas stations (2 of them BP) no sign of fotovoltaic on the roof whatsoever. Should this not be enough they are building two new ones (1 of them BP) on the same strip.
What’s the message? Am I biased? No, hell. They are having me on. And those of us who need air to live.
Javier
@JavierM.S.
I reckon the ‘greenest’ thing BP have done to date is change their logo to that silly flower emblem.