Undue Influence at Copenhagen

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a United Nations body set up under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change to research and advise the global Climate Change negotiations.

Climate Change deniers and sceptics accuse the IPCC of being under government control. That is not the case. All parties and sectors are involved in the IPCC, and the research is adopted by governments, not dictated by them.

There is however a significant Trojan Horse effect from allowing the large Energy, Engineering and Mining corporations to be involved.

As just one example, how many people realise the process that directed the IPCC to commission a Special Report on Carbon Capture and Storage ? Who drove this process ? Who instigated it ? Why was the final report written in large part by the Oil and Gas industry ?

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/srccs_annex4.pdf

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports_carbon_dioxide.htm

This process amounts to co-option of the IPCC institution for the financial benefit of transnational Energy companies, so much so that they can claim that the : “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change fully supports CCS technology as does the International Energy Agency.” :-

http://oilsands.alberta.ca/documents/CCS.pdf

There was a bold, innovative idea that Enhanced Oil Recovery would finance Carbon Capture and Storage projects in several parts of the world. That appears to have been a pipedream, or rather a “pipeline dream” :-

http://www.joabbess.com/2009/05/17/the-weyburn-warning-carbon-capture-and-enhanced-oil-recovery/

Now, however, Enhanced Oil Recovery is being sold to governments as a hint of the financial returns of offering subsidies and incentives to Carbon Capture and Storage projects. Why do you think so much public money is being thrown at CCS ?

http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/ccsi/pdf/CO2_Russia_ENG_final.pdf

“CCS-equipped plants that can sell the CO2 for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) have an additional revenue stream, at E20/tonne”

The CCS people were very keen to have CCS as part of the prospective Copenhagen Treaty :-

http://ccsassociation.org.uk/docs/2009/CCSA%20Post%202012%20paper_FINAL%20VERSION.pdf

Thankfully, for now, this idea has been rejected :-

http://www.climaticoanalysis.org/post/cdm-and-ccs-the-question-of-whether-clean-development-should-be-achieved-through-carbon-sequestration/

http://www.prwatch.org/node/8780

It’s probably time to set limitations on corporate influence in the IPCC and UNFCCC process, and demand limitations on how much state money, particularly in Europe, is being committed to Carbon Capture and Storage :-

http://www.corporateeurope.org/climate-and-energy/content/2009/12/eu-money-ccs-lobby-copenhagen

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *