Fossil fuel industry can’t answer why they should be allowed in climate negotiation

Do the fossil fuel companies think themselves as the rightful participant in international negotiations to reduce emissions and fight climate change? Do they have any solution to climate change? If yes, why I cannot find any news report, where an International Oil Company has responded to specific questions on it?

These were the questions in my head last month when I was working for a story on the upcoming 22nd conference of the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The demand of not allowing fossil fuel in any climate negotiation drew my attention.

Since the Rio+20 United Nations sustainable development summit in 2012, a large and growing number of countries and environmental bodies are demanding to ‘outlaw’ fossil fuel industry from climate negotiations.

Particularly, the 21st conference of the parties to the UNFCCC in Paris last year was largely marked by this demand. And, of course, I’ve strong opinion about fighting climate change. Nevertheless, we should not carry a commitment to any cause into our journalism, as ‘the most trusted man in America’ already warned us.

Therefore, I have talked with insiders in many major IOCs about their perspective and got back to the climate activists to see how they rebut the arguments supporting fossil fuel companies’ role in climate negotiations. Then I have formally approached the top IOCs with specific questions.

‘We would not turn to tobacco companies to quit smoking’

This catchphrase by Pascoe Sabido underlies the ‘conflict of interest’ argument against the fossil fuel companies’ role in climate negotiations. Mr. Pascoe, a researcher, and campaigner at Corporate Europe Observatory was at forefront of civil society mobilization during Paris summit.

I was reminding him that, the insiders in IOCs say, gradual phase-out to low-carbon and renewable needs to be acknowledged and included in the climate negotiations, hence they need to have their voice at the COP 22 and all other future forums.

So, why Corporate Europe Observatory does not think so?

‘‘Firstly, the COP is a place for governments and policymakers to decide how we tackle climate change. It is not a place for those very same industries responsible for causing the problem. We would not turn to tobacco companies to quit smoking, and having their voice represented would only make it harder to quit smoking,’’ Mr. Pascoe says.

‘‘We need a similar measure not just within the UNFCCC but also at national level, as that is where most of the influencing takes place,’’ he says.

Secondly, the problem with gradual phase-out, Mr. Pascoe says, it is just contrary to the science of climate change. ‘‘The solutions proposed by the fossil fuel industry are at complete odds with what science is demanding: that we need to leave more than 80% of known recoverable fossil fuel reserves in the ground if we want to stay under 2c, let alone 1.5c, i.e. not gradual phase-out.’’

However, during the surge of anti-tobacco legislations in the late nineties when public health advocates began winning policy victories, the tobacco companies never said that they‘d ditch the very product gradually. But the IOCs now are claiming that they are working for a major shift to low carbon fossil fuel and renewable alternatives. So does not the tobacco precedence loose a bit of merit in the case of ‘conflict of interest’ by IOCs in climate negotiation?

‘No’, says Pascoe Sabido, because similar to the tobacco companies the fossil fuel companies are keeping their traditional business models as such. ‘‘The fossil fuel industries have consistently been shown to lobby against tougher climate legislation and measures which would move us towards a zero carbon society. The current approach is to claim that there is such thing as ‘low-carbon’ fossil fuels, through either gas or carbon capture or storage. Both are ways to keep their traditional business models but give the impression of being part of the solution,’’ he says.

So, then I have asked a large number of fossil fuel companies some specific questions to get the other side of the story, formally. Maybe some people will say, in spite of having all the strong argument, evidence, and rationale for fossil-fuel free climate negotiation, it is a ‘false balance’ what I am trying to maintain. Then let it be, I should say.

If the arguments of climate experts and environmentalists are really convincing, then the future of our planet is at stake because of non-effective climate negotiations owing mainly due to ‘undue’ influence of the fossil fuel companies. So, I have found myself intrigued about exactly what these companies, their officials are thinking. Do they really have any argument to put forward?

Another climate summit to distribute Press-kit?

My questions to Saudi Aramco, top five European IOCs, Chevron, and a newly formed ‘climate group’ by fossil fuel companies were as follows, more or less;

1. Since the Paris summit, a number of developing countries and environmental bodies are saying, implementation of the Paris Agreement means reducing emissions from fossil fuel, which is directly in conflict with the interest of fossil fuel companies. So, they are calling for not accepting fossil fuel companies as stakeholders in climate negotiations. How would you like to respond to this argument?

2. Many major climate groups and environmental bodies urge that fossil fuel industry has no interest in ambitious climate policy as outlined in UNFCCC. They say, without any act or initiative, what the companies are now doing is just PR campaign. Are the climate activists wrong? How?

3. Is your company willing to align its polluting business with the agreed goal of keeping global warming below 1.5°C? How have you planned to do it?

4. Climate groups say that they do not trust fossil fuel companies about their willingness to fight climate change. Because, for decades, fossil fuel companies have undermined attempts to find solutions to emission and global warming, although the companies knew of the existence of climate change for so long. How have you planned to build the trust?

During a two-week long quest to get elaborate and engaging response from the IOCs, what I have noticed as most interesting is, the companies love to pretend that they were not asked about anything specific.

Rather, in response, most of the companies prefer to cite some paragraphs from their ‘climate policy’, which are already available on their website along with photos of soothing greenery or deep blue horizon to the Ocean.

The case was same with the US-based giant Chevron, which has business in at least 180 countries. It’s corporate media advisor Melissa Ritchie replied that Chevron ‘‘shares the concerns of governments and the public about climate change risks and recognizes that the use of fossil fuels to meet the world’s energy needs is a contributor to rising greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the Earth’s atmosphere.’’ Then came two paragraphs on technology innovation and effective climate change mitigation, but nothing specific about the questions.

Eni, the European oil giant with the presence in more than 79 countries and world’s 11th largest industrial company, informed that they are working on to deliver responses. However, after several correspondences and extended deadlines, it informed that they are postponing ‘comments on the occasion of COP 22’.

Other European companies were briefer in response. However, Saudi Aramco, the company with both the world’s largest proven crude oil reserves and largest daily oil production, was clearly ahead. After several requests to respond, Saudi Aramco said, ‘Our team will be at COP22 and will provide you with the necessary press kit material during the event.’

But I’m already done with all the press kits which actually says nothing. The argument is that you should not be allowed at COP22 or other climate negotiations. Could you please respond  to that? I asked again.

Chairman of Saudi Aramco, Mr. Khalid A. Al-Falih, who is also Saudi Arabia’s Minister of Health, has delivered a much-praised speech at the 2014 UN Climate Summit. Former CEO of Aramco, Mr. Khalid announced the launching of a ‘climate group’ comprising CEOs of 10 oil and gas companies in that summit.

Combined, this Oil and Gas Climate Initiative companies produce over one-fifth of global oil and gas. Are they ready to keep it on the ground, as required for reducing emissions to achieve agreed goal of keeping global warming below 1.5°C? Are they willing to change their polluting business? Why exactly they think they are entitled to be in climate negotiations? Do they really have a plan?

After repeated correspondence, OGCI says ‘we are unable to respond to your specific questions right now’.

With hope and Walter Conkrite on my mind, I am looking forward. I really want to explore based on what rationale the fossil fuel companies consider themselves as rightful stakeholders in climate negotiations.

(This piece was originally published by Daily Sun on October 3, 2017)

Photo courtesy:

Bangladesh’s southernmost community hopes there are more fish in the sea

When entering Teknaf from Ukhiya sub-district, the landscape remains similar on both sides; high and low hill ranges in the east, a narrow strip of tidal floodplain and beach ridges in the west. Communities living in hills and lower plain has a distinctively different socio-cultural structure based on their ethnicity, rights over land and other natural resource uses and religion; their options for livelihoods varies accordingly.  Refugee flow from neighboring Myanmar is a source of social and economic tension. As a border-region refugee crisis, human trafficking and undocumented trans-border business have impact on about every aspect of life and livelihoods in the localities.

Communities living on the western side are largely affected by degradation of beach and dune system, coastal erosion and in the struggle to adapt to agricultural practices in the face of dwindling fish stock in the bay. In the Hnila Union where Naf river enters Teknaf sub-district, a narrow strip of tidal floodplain runs along the river bank towards the bay of Bengal, which was totally covered by mangroves once. On the other side, hill ranges end nearly at the border of Sabrang Union, just before the southernmost settlements of mainland Bangladesh. About half of the areas of the Sadar Union and most of  Sabrang Union remains intermittently flooded throughout the year. The inter-tidal zone provides ground for crab fishing to hundreds of families here. Overall Sadar and Sabrang Union communities are most vulnerable to floods, rising level of tide, increased salinity and other extreme weather events.

Two fishers in Naf Estuary
Nurul Hasan (left) younger brother is still in Malaysia working as an undocumented and illegal worker. The two brothers took the boat to ‘seek a nice job’ and crossed the bay of Bengal as he describes it ‘by evading Bangladeshi border guard’s reluctant eyes and then with help from Burmese and Thai security personnel’. Nurul found the job of gardener as comfortable but returned to the home several months later as he recalls it; ‘I felt like I’m not at home, then took the chance of Malaysian government clemency and took the flight to Dhaka with travel documents issued by them ’. Now he is struggling to cope with very limited income from daily fishing and his family mostly depends on money his younger brothers sending home regularly.

In northern parts of the Sub-district shrub, coarse grasses and bamboos have taken place of degraded hill forests. These hills originally were covered by Dipterocarp forest. Deforestation continues, mainly due to illegal logging and agriculture. Some hills are designated as legally protected forests (read, ‘plantations’). Though illegal, but communities largely depend on agriculture in the forest and highlands. Farming for betel-leaf, betel-nut, and banana is dominant in the hills and forest lands. Farming increases the risk of soil erosion on the hill slopes. The hills are extensively drained by creeks and small waterfalls, but during monsoon when heavy rainfall continues the saturated hill soils are prone to landslides causing deaths and damage to properties.

In north-western communities, dependence on marine-fishing has decreased rapidly. People say that, with increased costs of operating motorized boats and fallen stocks of fish in the sea, fishing is not considered as a trusted option for livelihoods anymore. They are accustomed to going fishing in August-September and January-March periods only when a number of brackish water small-sized species is found in abundance.

Shah Parir Dweep
Due to intermittent floods and salinity intrusion, agriculture, aquaculture or salt farming is difficult now. This portion of Teknaf, from Sabrang to Shah Parir Dweep remains underwater round the year, apparently due to rise of high tide’s level, as the local elders suggest. They use mechanized boats to ferry the essential goods and passenger across this newly created ‘wetland’.

Bombay duck (Harpadon neherues), Greenback mullet (Chelon subvirdis), Gold-spotted grenadier anchovy (Coilia Dussumieri), Ramcarat grenadier anchovy (Coilia ramcarati), Tongue soles (family Cynoglossidae), Bigeye ilisha (Ilisha megalopetra) and Pama croaker (Otolithoides pama) traditionally formed the main catch. Fishers say it seems that these fishes aren’t available now in near-shore shallow areas they usually fish in. They now need to go in the deeper area which they can’t due to lack of the sea-worthy boat.

The case for fishing almost same in the lower parts ( the , southernmost part of mainland Bangladesh) also. This tidal floodplain at the mouth of Naf river is exposed to storm surges and floods.

Fishing Boat
Fishers s it seems that these fishes aren’t available now in near-shore shallow areas they usually fish in. They now need to go in the deeper area which they can’t due to lack of the sea-worthy boat.

What adds to the fishing scenario for southern and south-western Teknaf is the lack of an alternative. Due to intermittent floods and salinity intrusion, agriculture, aquaculture or salt farming is difficult now. So the communities of Teknaf Sadar and Sabrang who are dependent on Tidal Floodplains, Naf river, Mangroves and Intertidal Zones always struggle to cope with difficulties in fishing.

Mangroves are largely degraded and deforested, but the bare mudflats provide them the opportunity for crab fishing. Mud crabs are also being harvested from inter-tidal zones and intermittently flooded areas between Sabrang and Shah Parir Dwip. Mud crabs have a relatively high price in the market. Export-oriented crab ‘softening’ farms buy the live crabs from the fishers on daily basis.

Families in Sabrang and Shah Parir Dwip manage the right to operate Estuarine Set Bag Nets in the lower parts of Naf river and river mouth on shared basis. They own and operate the boats in groups, and in some cases, they work as labor with a share in the profit. Whatever small is the size of the catch, they continue the operation around the season, because no other alternative is available. Post-harvest processing such as fish drying is almost absent. They sell the fishes in the local market, sometimes suppliers from the urban market by the catch from local collectors.

Abdur Rahman
Abdur Rahman, a shopkeeper and occasional fisher in his early 30s is one of some 40 men encouraging the youth for trying something hard at home for livelihoods, rather than taking an ‘easy’ boat-ride to Malaysia. He organizes villagers in Sabrang to rehabilitate Mangroves, to sustain it ecosystem services mainly ‘fishes and flood-free life’ in his terms. Their group cooperates with the government and the NGO-run program usually, but sometimes he is pessimistic about ‘reporting and run’ approach to the conservation programs. He says, rather than time-bound funded projects, if the government agencies, NGOs and greater civil society based in Dhaka give only moral support to them and little regular financial aid, they can mitigate the problems created by land grabbers restore the Mangrove ecosystems. The case of degraded hill forest in the upper Teknaf is more or less same, he thinks.

Lastly, one important thing; at least one in every six families here have a member currently working in ‘Melesia’ (as they pronounce ‘Malaysia) as an ‘undocumented’ and illegal migrant worker. And off-course they traveled to Malaysia by mechanized boats evading the reluctant eye of Bangladeshi border guards and with the help of Burmese and Thai corps in most cases. Most of the family I’ve encountered is happy in this regard because they say migrant workers are sending home a good amount of money.

How they use the money from Malaysia? They can afford their school going kids now and they invest in activities based on natural resources. Given all the adversities, before taking a boat to Malaysia the young guys just hope that there are more fish in the sea!

Though the tides are too high to farm salt- some of the families are trying, though the land is saline- effort to cultivate them is not so rare, and though the marine fish stock is declining apparently- desperate families sometimes build their own boats till now.

Teknaf, Cox’s Bazar
21st January, 2015

Photos: © Mohammad Arju