The world is moving against renewable energy. As the FT has noted today:
BP has abandoned a radical attempt to reinvent itself as a green energy company, bowing to pressure from investors after its aggressive shift away from fossil fuels over the past five years backfired.
In a return to its roots, the FTSE 100 group said on Wednesday that it would increase oil and gas spending by a fifth to $10bn a year and cut expenditure on renewables by 70 per cent.
So, the plan is to burn the planet, destroy our human future here on earth and maximise short-term profit for the baby boomers who won't live to see the consequences for their children and grandchildren, all in the name of pursuing the neoliberal economic fantasy which suggests that the future does not exist because all consequences of future actions can always be financially discounted to the present.
Alongside the above assumptions, BP has also assumed it has the right to make such a decision without consulting the rest of us on planet Earth. Only the opinion of aggressive hedge fund and private equity managers who have demanded this course of action apparently matters to it. This is the definition of liberty and freedom to which Jeff Bezos also shows he subscribes this morning.
It has also not considered the planet itself, which will survive this onslaught even if we might not. The concept of externalities has now clearly passed BP by.
I always wondered if this might happen. The spread of the green agenda always had the feeling that it might be too good to be true, and the risk of backlash was real. And yet, what is clear is that renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuel energy now. BP is shackling itself to an energy source that will eventually cease to be used. And it is in denial of the economic reality that we have to go green, or there will be no economy to serve.
So, what is happening at BP? Is it being taken over by the political and dogmatic madness of the moment because, economically, this makes no sense? I think that is the best explanation. But in the meantime, the cost of this will be very high. The people running BP now are, quite literally, the enemies of humankind because their actions threaten our existence. I have no idea how they sleep at night.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
‘You dont have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing’
Clearly BP are not
🙂
Neoliberalism has always been the enemy of the people.
It has only one objective, profit.
Profit before people.
People are only a commodity to be exploited.
One question worth posing is: it will be in BP’s interest to resist the growth of renewables since this will mean a decline in fossil fule (sic) use. This begs the question how will it do this? I have no doubt that the company has easy access to ministers & thus great lobbying power. The counter to this is grass roots & I don’t mean demos, I mean action that accelerates the decline in fossil fuel use – i.e. hit “the man” where it hurts most – in his pocket. BP have made a tactical error confusing the ability in the short term to pay attractive dividends to survivability in the long term.
I agree
Feeling powerless in the face of climate change? Join Follow This and be part of a movement that makes real impact. Together we move Big Oil and the planet toward a greener future.
At this point there is a (trump) bump in the road. Things change…
BP’s attempt to reinvent itself as a green energy company was radical? Really?
That’s the “Anglo-Iranian Oil” corporation you’re talking about. The people who helped overthrow democracy in Persia, giving us the puppet Shah then the Ayatollah, the Iran-Iraq war, etc etc?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Iranian_Oil_Co._case
Leopards don’t change their spots, but wolves sometimes put on sheep’s or “green” grannies’ clothing for a while.
Thank you and well said, Robert.
Let’s not forget that BP was nationalised by Churchill in WW1, privatised as late as the 1980s and operated in SA throughout the days of apartheid.
The SA cricket team’s first series away, to the Caribbean, 1992, was sponsored and funded by BP SA. An early bit of greenwashing.
I did not know the last.
Thank you and well said, Richard.
It won’t surprise readers and you that there are links between Blair, his team and BP. There have been for three decades.
There are also investments by them, as individuals, in places that are not recognised by the UN and most of the world as belonging to that occupying power.
Interesting…
Thank you, Richard.
Blair’s former assistant, Anji Hunter, now Mrs Adam Boulton, is one of them. She left No 10 for BP.
Nice, using the word ironically.
Apparently Shell and Exxon have made much more profit than BP in recent years – and that is the supposed reason behind this uturn.
There must be data on how much renewable investment these rogue company-states have actually made – and why they claim it has not been profitable.
As Richard says – they are the enemies of mankind – and maybe no coincidence that it happens when the US rogue state has ditched ‘the scam’ of climate change – drill baby drill.
Its a mad mad mad world.
BP, Shell, TotalEnergies and others will ‘buy-in’ when they deem the time to be right. The delays in consents, grid connections and CfDs make it an unnecessarily expensive and slow process that projects are still going back years…making them look less investable.
This is not to support BP’s (or Shell, etc.) current approach but rather to point at what needs to be done to move the green agenda forward.
I also note the ridiculous situation we find ourselves in with DRAX (Guardian today) which – along with millions spent to shut-down electricity generation due to grid constraints – is making enormous profits on the back of government subsidies for a facility that simply isn’t a green energy source.
Simply, a holistic strategy based on actual technical knowledge – not a disjointed one largely formed by vested interests- is essential if we are to secure low cost, green energy…and encourage the oil and gas industry to invest in a greener future.
I used to have shares in BP largely because of its commitment to green energy, but I then came to the conclusion they had no such intentions a couple of years ago so I sold them. My suspicions appear to have been the case. Nothing to do with their dividends being somewhat lacklustre, honest.
I can only find comfort in philosophy. In this case, that of Thomas Hobbes.
The Hobbesian view is that we should try to understand the survival instinct of those who behave like this at a time when they should know better. It is that survival instinct that is being expressed now.
This is not to create an excuse. It is to unpick how we got here and hopefully in our reflection generate some learning.
Last night I went to a gig in my home town, Nottingham. I had to travel by car, the parking from 17:00 was free! The last train left before the gig ended (it was very good BTW – Chuck Prophet, the American alt-country singer song writer was playing and he was fantastic. He plays a means Telecaster). But on the way back to the car park, Nottingham – despite its tram network – was just full of cars. It’s a car city. And now it is also an electric bike city – where the riders don’t care for traffic lights or bike lights or PPE.
So, I saw two levels of stupidity.
1. The ‘Great Car Economy’ – an economy manufactured by destroying public transport and ignoring pollution issues; an economic model based on individual consumption of a good in order to generate profit at scale. An economy created because of political corruption and lobbying.
2. Electric bikes – can someone explain to me why anyone would want to create an electric bike when the concept of the mode has always been that its rider has powered its motion? I mean, WTF? So now the humble perambulator has to compete with cars and heating systems for rare materials to produce batteries in a world short of……….raw materials!!! Excellent!!! An economy that is all over the place, offering choices that are inappropriate.
All I see is a market confusing aims and objectives because of the profit motive and also the debt pay back motive and shareholder return motive. The objective is ‘green’ but the misuse of rare metals and technology is rampant.
All I see is governments thinking that all they have to do is create markets, not sustainable systems of living, withdrawing from management thereof.
All I see is markets abusing democracy, and becoming too powerful for our own good.
Ultimately therefore – and this is too brief an analysis I know, but all I see is the private sector fucking everything up because the private sector does not actually work maybe? It owes too much money to vested interests – it is indebted to shareholders and banks whose main concern is return on capital. And that is your Hobbesian survival instinct right there folks.
It makes government management and ownership and taxes look quaint and I would argue, desirable.
And, as I know that Richard advocates a mixed economy of private and state, it is essential to also look at how the private sector works, the mode of capitalism that we have. It seems to me to be all wrong. It is purpose that should govern – not profit, that only leads to power. Because that is who is legally empowered first – the investor; the bank whose debts must be paid. And that is a source of a lot of the abuse and the result of a survival instinct that will actually kill us all in a long run that is now actually getting shorter.
We can do better than this.
We can
Timely, given some other things I am musing in. Thanks
Electric bikes –
don’t get me started. Or indeed electric scooters. Or cycle super highways etc etc.
It is purpose that should govern – quite.
I am baffled by electric bikes and scooters
But I do live in the fens
Mike, Richard,
Are we talking about fully electric bikes/scooters here or about electric assist bikes, commonly known as e-bikes? There is a big difference. E-bikes only assist. If you stop pedalling the bike stops helping. Over 15mph it also stops helping, unless you have the hacking skills to turn off the governor, which I don’t. What my bike does for me is to increase the distance I can cycle, it makes hills easier and it enables me to get home more quickly if the weather turns nasty. I’m 70+ and I would like to be able to keep on cycling despite living in a hilly part of the country and beginning to have the health problems and drop in fitness and stamina that come with age. My e-bike lets me do that.
My alternative is to drive everywhere. Surely you wouldn’t have me do that?
It is fully electric bikes and scooters that I have a problem with.
Nottingham is a nice example, Stafford (where I am currently typing) is another. Cities and town with evolved designs that are largely organic and suffer limitations geographically. Banning cars from Nottingham, and Stafford, would make great sense as they are (despite Maid Marian Way) medieval market layouts. and attempts to negotiate these without banning cars create speedways and destroy the environments. But then, thinking and planning such is anathema to vested interests.
Purpose not profit. I’ll remember that.
As for e-bikes….. hopefully you’re referring to full electric bikes? Those that are basically mopeds and require a road license. Most e-bikes are pedelecs with a 250 watt electric motor that only assist up to 25kpm. These pedelecs are real boon for us oldies as they have enabled us to get out and about again. The market is massive here in Germany due to a combination of demographics, good pensions, a great cycle network and great weather! I personally don’t ride on the road and have e-MTB that enables me to access the local mountain and forest trails that my 73 year old bones and tired muscles just could not manage without a little help
My view is that we have to take a broader view than ‘the people running BP’.
Four years ago, the progressive CEO of the huge French multinational Danone, Emmanuel Faber, was ousted by shareholders because he “did not manage to strike the right balance between shareholder value creation and sustainability”.
“Danone is perceived to have cared more about people, the planet and social responsibility than its shareholders” – https://theconversation.com/danones-ceo-has-been-ousted-for-being-progressive-blame-society-not-activist-shareholders-157383
I thought about this when I read that BP is cutting 5% of its staff “to cut costs amid shareholder worries over green energy strategy” – https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jan/16/bp-to-cut-4700-jobs-3000-contractor-roles-costs “BP has fallen out of favour with investors since [the CEO] set out a plan to slash its oil and gas production in favour of spending billions on green energy projects.”
It’s systemic, isn’t it? Even if senior managers see the problem and try to do the right thing (and Danone did – for example establishing US subsidiaries as ‘B-Corps’, and the Grameen-Danone joint venture – https://www.grameendanone.net/who-we-are/ – they can’t, because the multinational corporation remote shareholder organisational model won’t let them.
Thank you, Geof.
I don’t know about Danone* and to what extent US investors are prominent in France**, but do know that they are bigger than domestic players in the UK and Germany and getting more aggressive, including rolling back on ESG related matters. This precedes Trump’s reelection.
*I’m old and francophone enough to remember it as BSN.
**I think US institutions are probably bigger than domestic investors in France, too. In Italy, Meloni is giving them Italy on a platter. Starmer is just getting going. Europe is America’s new colony, so we can expect the standards and practices that operate in the likes of West Virginia.
Have you read Krugman on West Virginia today?
Going off the subject but I have just read one of Trumps advisors has said they should redraw the Canadian Border.Are these people in The White House serious or have they totally lost the plot?I hope we can rely on Canada as allies.
Snuggling up to Putin , saying they want Greenland and the Suez Cana, brandishing chainsaws…l…it’s scary and I just hope Trumps house of cards will come tumbling down. Insane nrcissists.
What will Starmer say? Precisely nothing, I expect, but it is a Commonwealth country of which the King is sovereign.
Redrawing a border would be a declaration of war. How can it not be? Unless, it’s a petty game of simply getting maps redrawn and places renamed because they can — i.e. Gulf of Mexico, now renamed Gulf of America for some, but thankfully not recognised by many.
Given the Trump video on the holiday resort he plans to build on the Gaza Strip, Trump is mad enough to do it. Next he will be offering Hamas and Hezbollah jobs as bellboys and waiters.
It appears that the global billionaire class have determined that climate change is not a problem, at least not as big a problem as democracy, equality, or any kind of justice or accountability, or god forbid, rules and laws limiting their god(sic) appointed powers. (the invisible hand of the market – ie, their god) In any case, the nuclear winter to follow the next world war they will drive us into through their unwavering support of fascists everywhere will no doubt mitigate any risks of global warming, won’t it?
I like your dark humour.
It is not just BP that is bad (evil?). There are plenty in the renewable space that are only there for the money filled trough.
https://www.4coffshore.com/news/newsItem.aspx?nid=30795
Bute Energy – has plans for loads of big wind farms in Wales and has decided to build its own transmission lines to get the power to..??? Souith East? (https://greengencymru.com/)
So its OK to disfigure Wales with wind farms – whilst failing to help locals develop & build their own local energy systems. Bute by the way blathers about funding locals. Here is a flavour of what they say from their web site (note the “up to” phrase … like supermarkets and “savings of up to …70%).
“Every year, we will invest up to £7,500 per megawatt of generating capacity into a Community Benefit Fund. That means that up to £800million will be given back to the community where it matters most, over the lifetime of our turbines” – let me put this in perspective – each & every year 1MW of wind will get Bute £140,000 or over 20 years £2.8m. You will notice that Bute don’t offer the locals a piece of the action. If I was the locals I would resist these parasite to my last breath.
Wales needs to control its own energy, as does Scotland. They are being fleeced.
A situation that zonal pricing suggests it can tackle. Interesting that current (and future) generators are vehemently opposed to. Maybe something for Richard and followers to consider / comment on?
It has been discussed here
Thank you, Richard, re Krugman and West Virginia.
I have met people from Appalachia. They despair of the Democrats putting up candidates who talk about identity, not class, politics in the region, some from NYC even.
I completely understand that
Weren’t BP and Shell (and others probably) let off windfall taxes on the grotesque profits they made around covid time, on the understanding they would shift to greener production and policies? Now they’re rowing back on those commitments, retrospective windfall taxes should be applied immediately.
Perhaps they are waiting for others, including the government, to invest in and build the green infrastructure before crying “free market” and simply buying all the assets. They can then ring fence it and sell us the energy at slowly increasing rates, citing infrastructure maintenance costs.
Every electric bike I saw had pedals on it on my visit to Nottingham. There were a lot Deliveroo/Just Eat delivery boys/girls out and about on poorly lit streets, with barely effectual bike lights, going through red lights and cutting across even from the left or right. So much for regulation.
Electric bikes and scooters on pavements are also a problem – they go too fast on shared footpaths and should be limited to 5 mph, not 15 mph.
For me, it is a question of resource allocation. Which is more polluting – the fuel car or the push bike? It is the car obviously, so why create a competitive market for battery resources when it the petrol car that must come first? Resource allocation should prioritise cars, battery resources should be as cheap as possible, help to reduce the cost of electric vehicles.
As for riding bikes, why not put more money into better bike lanes in Britain? Prioritising battery cars would also mean the air that cyclists breath – as well as everyone else – might have less carbon in it over time.
As for those of you who like to take your bikes off trail, please don’t? All you do is churn up the foot path with your MTBs and also think that you have a right of way over foot passengers, you also go too fast. Freedom eh? At whose expense? These issues need managing more effectively that is all.
Traditional cycling is good for circulation and aerobic exercise. The attraction of electric bikes is because of a reduction in effort (marketing is very cunning you know) as well a desire to do what transport has already done – reduce, compress time over distance.
If you are that old and you are on a bike, maybe you actually have more time to get from one place to another on a traditional bike than you think? Maybe you need to adjust to that. But ‘adjusting’ by anyone it seems is not required is it? No, the market thinks that it can solve that for us. And with that comes other problems.
Just some thoughts……………..
I understand your frustrations with ebikes and scooters, as were the people of Paris, whom, in a referendum last year, opted to ban e-scooters. I think however your thoughts are very much a response to the underinvestment in cycling infrastructure in the UK. Here in Germany it really is a different story. There are dedicated cycle routes pretty much everywhere, both rural and urban. Yes most cities still have a few roads where cycle lanes are denoted by white dotted lines but they are gradually being replaced but dedicated cycle paths that are not accessible to either cars or pedestrians. As for the rural areas, including forest trails, think farm tracks or 2 meter wide canal paths. The other thing that makes a massive difference is Germans have the right to roam pretty much anywhere and everywhere. Allemansrätten gives a person the right to access, walk, cycle, ride, ski, and camp on any land—with the exception of private gardens, the immediate vicinity of a dwelling house and land under cultivation. Restrictions apply for nature reserves and other protected areas.
A bit of a read and off the original topic but you may find this interesting
https://bmdv.bund.de/SharedDocs/DE/Anlage/StV/nationaler-radverkehrsplan-3-0-en.pdf?__blob=publicationFile
Thanks
I like cycling, but in the UK there is a real problem with cyclists not respecting pedestrians. What is wrong with ringing a bell?
Typical German one might say but it is not only illegal not to have both lights and a bell on a bike, it is also illegal for a retailer to sell one without them fitted!
As it should be!
In response to PSR and Simon Slade –
I went to a local police “meet the public” initiative recently and complained about cyclists using the pavements. Now I am retired I do much more walking, and I am regularly being nearly knocked over by youngsters (mostly) wizzing past at speeds not much less than the traffic. Amazingly, I was informed that the police are no longer responsible for enforcement of that as it has now been handed to the local authority. I know for a fact that mine doesn’t even enforce restricted parking to much effect. For example I noticed a car parked outside my flats for several days on a 30 minute zone and checked that it did not even have an MoT.
I believe I am correct to say that all new bikes have to be fitted with bells, but it looks like people immediately remove them because they are not required in actual use. Baffling as to why they do that. It’s also baffling that I regularly see people cycling at night with no lights and wearing dark clothing.
Much to agree with
We are five people driving in a car towards a cliff face. We’re already going 80mph and the maniac behind the wheel has his foot firmly mashed on the accelerator. Problematically, we are now so near the cliff face that even were we to somehow dislodge the driver and take control of the car and mash the brakes, we’re carrying such speed that most people in the car will be killed. But that is the least worst option, and that is what we have to do, because should we not act and the madman accelerates us to 100mph everyone will perish.
Excuse my clumsy metaphor, but I am trying to convey the need for urgent system change and whichever way one cuts it that means some manner of revolution.