Bishop Hill Faking it
Jun 1, 2015 Climate: WG3 The news that a group of European oil majors wants to open negotiations with governments about the creation of a global carbon tax has all the hallmarks of a public relations campaign.
In a sign of the rising pressure on fossil fuel companies ahead of a UN meeting in Paris to seal an international climate deal, the chief executives of groups including Royal Dutch Shell and Britain’s BP have sought direct talks with governments on creating a global carbon pricing system.
“We owe it to future generations to seek realistic, workable solutions to the challenge of providing more energy while tackling climate change,” the executives say in a letter to the FT revealing their plan.
In the crony capitalist European capitals, kudos can be won by playing along with the green agenda, in the clear knowledge that the costs of doing so will be nil. The chances of the developing world shunning fossil fuels in favour of letting their people continue to die prematurely are slim to say the least.
Stateside, meanwhile, they are built of sterner stuff.
Rex Tillerson, chairman and chief executive of Exxon, said the company would not “fake it” on climate policy.
“We’re not going to be disingenuous about it. We’re not going to fake it,” he told shareholders at the company’s annual meeting last week.
Which is the wiser course of action for an oil company CEO is hard to tell, but at the end of the day we are only talking about public relations.
Reader Comments (27)
Multinational energy companies are tired of (a) frequently changing climate policy that is (b) different in the countries in which they operate. A stable, internationally agreed climate policy is much better for them than the current hodgepodge.
Only public relations, maybe. But effective PR can start wars (think of the Ems telegram or the War of Jenkins' Ear) and even change the world in more subtle ways.
And talking about PR, are you sure you're on the right track banging on about mortality in the third world? I know you're sincere, but (looking at it from a PR point of view) no one's going to believe that a rightwing accountant (or a Viscount) cares about respiratory diseases among African housewives. It's unfair, but that's the way it is.
Oil companies volunteering for a carbon tax? As absurd as tobacco or alcohol companies demanding higher duty. Those guys are in the ENERGY business, whatever source that is from. This has all the hallmarks of keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.
geoffchambers,
It is possible that the suffering of the poor is more important than PR.
Western economies already do tax oil heavily. Car drivers see it at the pumps and governments see money gush into their exchequers, despite what the greenery thinks.
And, as is often pointed out, the Western oil companies do not represent the whole market. They are quite small compared to Saudi Aramco and other national oil companies.
The US has fared poorly in all these affairs but always better than everyone else... take notice.
cheshirered, no, not really. Put pressure on cigarette prices and people stop smoking. Once they stop, they stop. For oil companies they know that oil useage isn't going to stop.It just makes it more expensive. Sure, people might reduce how much they use but oil companies will just up their price so their profits don't suffer. It will be us plebs and other businesses that pay. Those who favour a carbon tax say that they expect the money to be returned to tax payers. a) Sure it is /sarc and b) if it was, what do you think consumers are going to spend their rebate on? Fossil fuels.
Big business including Big Oil has been avoiding finger pointing from interest groups for decades by pretending to care about the issues at hand. This issue is like every other. Smile for the cameras and carry on as usual. It's us that suffers.
MCourtney (Jun 1, 2015 at 9:54 AM)
Of course I agree with you (and His Grace) that the suffering of the poor is more important than PR. But from the point of view of influencing policy, I'm not sure that sympathising with Africans who have to cook on fires made of cowpats is the way to go.
Montford and Newbery made an excellent representation to the BBC's report on science coverage protesting about the “28gate” affair of the false experts, only to be dismissed with a sneer by Professor Jones. They can do that because they're on top and we're nobody. And in “we” I include Matt Ridley, Lord Lawson, Richard Tol - everyone whose access to the media is controlled by the Bob Wards with their billions of the Green stuff.
His Grace does a fantastic job, but I feel his current policy of insisting on the sufferings of the poor in the Third World is unconvincing for reasons that have nothing to do with rational argument. And I'm genuinely sorry to sound a sour note.
When is somebody going to stand up and reply to that piece of unreconstructed cant by yelling: "You owe f*** all to future generations except creating them!"
Our children will be just as capable of sorting out the mess we leave them as we were at sorting out the mess we inherited.
And for their information our grandparents left us the detritus of WWI and our parents the detritus of WWII. Beside which anything we are passing on doesn't even register.
@ TinyCO2
I don't see any material difference in our views. We agree it's a charade designed to a) polish their public / NGO image and b) maintain influence at government level as and when required. Cynical? - yeah of course, but they're just doing their job.
geoffchamberss
I take your point but the alarmists argument is that AGW is going to hit the poor hardest and especially the poor of the undeveloped world. The counter argument is "not half as badly as the 'cure' for AGW is going to hit them".
It probably won't win the argument but it's another avenue to be blocked off no matter how temporarily.
And anyway, who knows which will finally be what gets through to the man in the street?
But the oil price was for years twice the current price and we didn't stop using it. We didn't stop when it was even higher. The plain fact is that there is no replacement for oil yet and until there is a replacement then another carbon tax (on top of all those already) just reduces global growth a bit, provides some extra money for technology subsidies and further cuts back the shale gas industry that was the only thing that reduced CO2 output in the US. So this pointless greenwashing produces less growth, more poverty & less emissions reduction. A typical green policy, iow!
Oil companies don't care about any tax that is across-the-board and doesn't offer an advantage to competitors, who are other oil companies. The customers pay.
If there is zero production and consumption of oil, and hence zero tax revenue, where will governments get the money from, to subsidise all of the Unreliables?
"A stable, internationally agreed climate policy is much better for them than the current hodgepodge."
Jun 1, 2015 at 9:39 AM Richard Tol
Good luck with that one in Paris.
Exactly so, MJ.
Currently, we are leaving future generations a more benign and prosperous environment. And we shook off the threat of mutual nuclear annihilation. We shouldn't stop now, or deprive the poor of the world the same tools we used.
When they reach Western levels of comfort then environmental concerns will become
a) Affordable and
b) More desirable
and
c) Population increase can be expected to further slow to replacement levels.
Having said that, it's been a long time since 1966. Future generations owe us, and need to pull their fingers out.
JamesG, I have asked enviros how big carbon tax would have be to make a substantial difference but all I got was bluster. I use the difference between the UK and the US. The main reason we use less per household is because we have a shortage of land, not a shortage of cash to pay for the more expensive fuel.
'“We owe it to future generations to seek realistic, workable solutions to the challenge of providing more energy while tackling climate change,” the executives say in a letter to the FT revealing their plan.'
It's just a tax. It won't tackle anything but the economy.
They give us glorious words to get us to accept a new tax, but it is just a tax.
Richard, the climate talks won't come to any conclusion for one more reason that the international negotiating bureaucrat machinery would have to then cease to exist.
Reuters on Christiana Figueres:
See, she's planning ahead, 15 years.
As someone up-thread pointed out, the supposedly massive MNOCs control a small portion of the oil business when compared to the nationally-owned giants in the middle-East and Russia. A global policy would look very attractive to the MNOCs if it truly was global and levelled the playing field.
Besides, didn't Richard Tol point out that most CO2 pricing schemes put a tax on emissions that was lower than the taxes currently levied?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3105818/How-raised-green-taxes-DOUBLED-20-years-44-6billion.html
The amount raised in green taxes has more than doubled in two decades, a new report revealed today.
Taxes on fuel, flights, cars, landfill and energy bills netted £44.6billion for Chancellor George Osborne last year, a rise of more than 150 per cent on 1993.
Ministers say they are committed to using the levies on families and businesses to 'encourage positive behaviour change'.
"...no one's going to believe that a rightwing accountant (or a Viscount) cares about respiratory diseases among African housewives. It's unfair, but that's the way it is."
And yet, people seem completely willing to believe that Bob Geldof, Bono, etc. really do care about poor Africans. Which seems just as implausible to me, if not more so. Perhaps if the Bish let his hair grow out a bit, he would be perceived as "more compassionate"?
The oil companies want a global carbon tax to stick the knife in so that $11.55/per short ton coal from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming doesn't get a look in.
The US mines more than 1 gigaton of coal per annum, even now.
Shell and other companies need to get the oil price up to make the Alberta Oil Sands profitable again.
They are not giong to fake it this time. They really mean it. Honestly.
Suncor doing the same...
http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/carbon-tax-should-apply-to-companies-and-consumers-says-suncor-energy-incs-ceo?__lsa=10f6-1d91
I think that any agreement in Paris will be along the lines of all those pledges of money in the past. They will get "promises but no cheques delivered". The average voter hasn't heard any thing about these wild dreams, YET.
When they do they will vote the way the Swiss voters went a few months ago.
Well at least I hope that is how it works out. The only problem is vast amounts of money will be wasted in the mean time. Figueres and co will keep milking it !!!
A reminder of the hypocrisy. This is what Patchy was doing while telling us about the nasty fossil fuels. Cut and pasted from another site
" He (Pachauri ) had been on the Board of Directors of the Indian Oil Corporation (1999-2003), GAIL (India) Ltd. (largest gas transmission and marketing company in India), 2003-2004 and National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd (includes coal and gas generation) - 2002-2005.
http://www.iddri.org/Iddri/Intervenants-auteurs/Rajendra-K.-Pachauri "
Exxon has never really played along with the anti-hydrocarbon lobby like BP and Shell have. Their attitude is: "We already employ the best scientists. Why should we listen to you?"