Jubilant scenes across New York as mass flag-waving breaks out to celebrate.

Are they congratulating Wills and Kate ? The Americans probably reviewed the TV ratings for the right royal wedding and decided they too needed something to boost the morale of the nation. So they went and killed Osama Bin Laden.

Or not. He could have been dead for days, because the plans were made weeks ago. Was he killed pre-emptively ahead of the collective British regal marital hysteria ? Why did the young newlyweds ship out to an “undisclosed location” instead of jetting off on honeymoon, pronto ? Was there a “credible threat” made on their lives in retaliation at the death of the Al Qaeda spiritual leader ? Or was an unarmed Osama bin Laden murdered by a surprise military attack at night at his family home after an Al Qaeda threat was made on Prince William and his new wife ? You have to admit the timing of the news is interesting…

Bin Laden “buried at sea” ? Yeah, right. If his body was dumped at sea, that could cause considerable affront to his supporters, but at least it would cover the fact that he had been dead for well over 24 hours, which would be an even worse affront according to Muslim burial traditions. If the body was no longer fresh enough for a photo shoot a hypothetical burial is necessary, one that can obscure the facts from international cameras and mobile phones. The Americans sent in a hit squad rather than dropping bombs from drones. Why go in person ? To make sure they have video and photographic evidence of the killing to show to Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama a few days later ? And by what moral and legal justification did Barack Hussein Obama issue a kill order instead of capturing Osama bin Laden for trial for his alleged crimes against humanity ?

Meanwhile, back in Libya, several other funerals have taken place after a NATO bombing raid in Tripoli, at night, targeting the Gaddafi family home, the victims of which included a son and some grandchildren of Colonel Gaddafi (and possibly even Muammar Gaddafi, the Brother Leader, himself, was killed too, although we don’t know that for sure yet) and sparked massive protest, which may lead to foreign troops “on the ground” to “finish off” the war – maybe disguised by gas masks, or under cover of enacting war crimes warrants. Various world leaders have declared they want to see the end of the current regime in Libya. NATO might be used to protect energy supplies. It could get a whole lot nastier now. What had Libya and Libya’s leader done to deserve this ? Declare energy independence ? :-

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/67d1d02a-5314-11e0-86e6-00144feab49a.html#axzz1LD4mxQ1w
“Oil companies fear nationalisation in Libya : By Sylvia Pfeifer and Javier Blas in London : Published: March 20 2011 : Western oil companies operating in Libya have privately warned that their operations in the country may be nationalised if Colonel Muammer Gaddafi’s regime prevails. Executives, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the rapidly moving situation, believe their companies could be targeted, especially if their home countries are taking part in air strikes against Mr Gaddafi. Allied forces from France, the UK and the US on Saturday unleashed a series of strikes against military targets in Libya…”

Osama bin Laden was arguing for a end to foreign interference in Arab territories, which naturally would have involved reasserting national control of oil and gas resources, and retaining wealth in the countries of origin. And many western strategists believe that this “threat” should never be allowed to happen. Osama bin Laden, in poor health, had probably negotiated a deal where he was allowed to live peacefully in retirement, but things changed, and the American Navy stormed his house at night and killed him and attacked his family. If the United States go after a sick man, and nearly murder his wife just because she happened to be in the way when they shot him (no taking prisoners, then), what will they do now ? Take out Pakistan for harbouring him (even though they agreed to host Osama bin Laden’s retirement in the first place) ? Or cut international aid intended for disaster relief in Pakistan ? It is now a distinct possibility that by encouraging universal joy over the death of the “sinner” bin Laden, a great piece of media entertainment, the world audience is being warmed up for overpowering violence against Libya, whipped up by American hawks. The deal breakers. All the wrong actions for all the wrong reasons.

And what did Barack Hussein Obama say ? “No Americans were harmed“, whilst “bringing Osama bin Laden to justice…Justice has been done“. Internal moral compasses may flinch at these words. Justice normally involves a court of law, not the President of the United States watching an “enemy of America” being liquidated on a secure webcam. Two victims of extensive and enduring negative American propaganda have been attacked with full military might whilst tucked up in bed at home. Who’s next ? Julian Assange ? Hugo Chavez ? Some other man made out to be a demon ? And while Ed Miliband, Labour Party leader in the United Kingdom says the world is now a “safer place”, Americans are being issued with travel advisories.

I met several people in the finance-with-conscience crowd the other week, when I went for a spot of champers and Marmite soldiers at the House of Commons for National Ethical Investment Week.

I learned about various views on social and positive impact investment, and about elements of the Coalition Government’s “Big Society” and the proposed Green Investment Bank.

Ethical Investment appears to have come a long way since I put some money into a Fair Trade company many moons ago, where I knew I would never see a dividend, or even be able to sell the shares at some point.

Grown up people in sharp suits and big name frocks now do moral banking, and often reap a healthy return on their investment – “doing well” as well as “doing good”, as Adam Ognall of UK Sustainable Investment and Finance says.

I was challenged to think about what faith communities do with their money around a month ago, all precipitated by a conversation I had with Martin Palmer of the Alliance of Conservation and Religions, and then I heard something at a recent meeting that caused me to investigate a little…

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

from: Jo Abbess
to: Adam Ognall, UK Sustainable Investment and Finance (UKSIF)
date: 19 November 2010
subject: When can this rumour be confirmed or denied ?

Dear Adam,

Good to meet you again at the ECCR [Ecumenical Council for Corporate Responsibility] meeting this afternoon.

I overheard something interesting, and I would like your advice about when and where and by whom this rumour could be confirmed or denied.

Somebody who shall remain nameless was talking to somebody else I shall not name, and I overheard the first person claim something that the second person appeared unaware of : that the Church of England have been compelled to review their policies on fiduciary duty as regards the management of the Church’s investment portfolio, and that this would be happening in the very near future.

If the Church of England Commissioners will be obliged to consider a different screening process on their holdings than they have up until now, this would be a very big deal indeed, and highly newsworthy.

So, who do you think could be approached to confirm or deny this rumour, in your expert opinion ?

Many thanks,

jo.

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

from: Adam Ognall, UKSIF
to: Jo Abbess
date: 19 November 2010
subject: Re: When can this rumour be confirmed or denied ?

Jo

Good to see you last night. This I not something I am aware of. Can I suggest you contact Edward Mason who is Secretary to the church’s Ethical Investment Advisory Group. He is based in Church House. If there is such a discussion Edward will be aware.

Adam

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

from: Jo Abbess
to: Edard Mason
date: 19 November 2010
subject: Question regarding the Church of England’s investment portfolio

Dear Edward,

Adam Ognall has offered me your name and e-mail address, to contact you regarding the Church of England’s investment portfolio.

The central question surrounds sustainability screening.

I have been attempting to understand the dichotomy displayed by, on the one hand, the Anglican Communion undertaking a commitment to environmental protection with the Fifth Mark of Mission, and yet, on the other hand, the Church Commissioners maintaining an investment portfolio that includes holdings in energy and mining companies.

There are two angles to sustainability – the sustainability of the environment and the sustainability of the business model for each company.

As an example of the latter, as my fellow students and I attempted to research at the beginning of this year, BP shows a reticence to admit areas of stress in its engineering programme, and projects the end of the “Oil Era” to be several decades into the future, and cannot seem to face the possibility that this might be brought forward by several factors, including potentially emerging global policies on Carbon pricing.

The question is : does it make investment sense to hold BP stock, given that the company appears to be in denial about its long-term survivability ?

Naturally, one would expect investment fund managers to have reached behind the glossy corporate presentations to pick out the risks, but it seems that many “ethical” investment funds are not including business survival risks in their screening.

Does the Church of England intend to alter its guidance on fiduciary duty for the work of the Church Commissioners to embed all issues of sustainability into their remit and directive ?

Is there a timetable for reform of the screening that is applied to Church of England investments ? How are holdings included or barred ? And will this be reviewed ?

Some in [my Christian organisation] are mulling advice to be offered to our members on the subject of ethical investment, and how our members could bring the subject up in their local and national church structures. It would be of great interest to hear of any suggestions of change in the stance that the Church of England takes towards balancing environmental sustainability and business sustainability in their investment.

Obviously, a failed energy company would not be able to offer any return on investment. However the rates of return that an emerging energy company can offer will still be some years off. Investment always implies a fallow period in “payback” times, yet the long-term prospects in cleantech and clean energy are looking more in focus and solid as time passes. The general economy is in the doldrums, so it will be hard to make lasting returns from any sector currently. While there is general lowered expectation, it would seem a good time to divest from fossil fuels and minerals mining into start up “ambient” clean energy companies, pending the economic recovery. In fact, this move could precipitate recovery by itself.

Thank you for any and every opinion on this matter.

Regards,

Jo Abbess

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

from: Edward Mason
to: Jo Abbess
date: 24 November 2010
subject: RE: Question regarding the Church of England’s investment portfolio

Dear Jo

Thank you for your e-mail.

At the moment the Ethical Investment Advisory Group (EIAG) is reviewing its long-standing ethical investment exclusions relating to military products and services (now completed), pornography, tobacco, alcohol, gambling, human embryonic cloning and doorstep lending. There is no current intention to introduce other kinds of screening, although the EIAG may recommend disinvestment from individual companies that are not responding to engagement on serious ethical concerns – hence the Vedanta Resources disinvestment earlier this year.

The EIAG does not take the view that investing in oil companies is unethical. When the EIAG has reflected on the oil industry we have come to the view that it would be very damaging to the billions of people who rely on fossil fuels for energy and the functioning of the economy precipitously to starve the oil industry of investment. Declining oil production now would impact us all and would have the biggest impact on poorer people in developing countries.

The EIAG only advises the investing bodies on ethical issues rather than fiduciary issues, although the investing bodies are naturally very sensitive to their fiduciary responsibilities, short term (pensions and support for the Church have to be paid now) and long term (the Commissioners’ endowment is for perpetuity).

The EIAG and investing bodies are very much involved in the process of transition to a low carbon economy. All the national investing bodies are members of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC). This is a group of investors taking a lead on integrating climate change considerations into investments. We lobby for appropriate public policy, share good practice, and complete an annual questionnaire process. See http://www.iigcc.org/ and, for the IIGCC Investor Statement of which all the national investing bodies are signatories, http://www.iigcc.org/iigcc-investor-statement.

In its engagement activities on behalf of the investing bodies, the EIAG asks oil companies to prepare for and contribute to the transition to a low carbon economy including through investment in renewable energy. We also discuss sustainability with a wide range of companies including supermarkets and consumer products manufacturers.

In their diversified portfolios, the investing bodies hold investments in renewable energy – see for example Impax Environmental Markets which is held by the Church Commissioners (http://www.impax.co.uk/funds/listed-equity-funds/impax-environmental-markets-plc). The Commissioners also invest with Generation Investment Management, the investment fund co-founded by Al Gore to invest in only the most sustainable companies (http://www.generationim.com/).

In case you have not seen the ethical investment policies on the environment and climate change, they can be found on the following links:

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/ethical/policystatements/environment.pdf

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/ethical/policystatements/policyclimatechange.pdf

The investing bodies are also members of the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment which is about the integration environmental, social and governance issues into investment practice – http://www.unpri.org/.

I hope this is helpful.

Best regards

Edward

Edward Mason
Secretary to the Church of England Ethical Investment Advisory Group
Web: http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/ethical/

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

from: Jo Abbess
to: 24 November 2010
date: 24 November 2010

Dear Edward,

Thank you for taking the trouble to reply in detail to my questions.

The information was very helpful.

May I be permitted to share your words with my colleagues, some of whom are in the energy industry ?

Our conversation is currently centring on the recent International Energy Agency 2010 World Energy Outlook and the UK Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security, both of which indicate that oil and gas companies have a business model that is at risk from resource depletion, and therefore highly unsustainable :-

http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/
http://peakoiltaskforce.net/

It may not yet be considered “unethical” by the EIAG to invest in potentially collapsing energy companies, but it could become considered unsustainable, and a risk to future returns on investment. I suppose this will not become generally accepted until the next oil shock, but I suspect that within a few years the question will be well-established.

It is interesting to me that the EIAG considers disinvestment from the oil and gas majors as being a social development risk. It is true that there is high dependency on fossil fuels in the global economy, but if depletion is going to cause serious issues of scarcity and high prices in the next decade, as the IEA and others consider is possible, it would surely be better to switch horses to ambient energy sooner rather than later, for the good of all. Investment in a full range of renewable energy technologies, at all scales, can be appropriate for any economy, at whatever stage of development and of whatever wealth levels.

The oil and gas companies are not showing signs of planning to make major shifts to renewable energy, despite a few percent here and there for wind power, solar power and green diesel (wherever that is these days). It is therefore highly likely that they will be tied to their heavy carbon liabilities, which will weigh them down, and they will become progressively submerged. Even higher prices for liquid fossil fuels will probably not be high enough to justify large numbers of drilling platforms in the Arctic Ocean; and making liquid fuels from gas or coal is energy and carbon inefficient, and besides, natural gas also has depletion issues, that are particularly sharp in the shale gas provinces.There is likely to be a global convention on stabilising the price of fossil fuels, as both buyers and sellers have an interest in keeping prices manageable. However, if there are standard prices for fossil fuels, further exploration will be ruled out, as this is becoming progressively more expensive. High prices will create general inflation because of high economy dependency, and thereby rule out exploration. Low prices will rule out exploration. Either way, in a scenario of depletion, if you consider this a valid scenario, new fossil fuel resources are unlikely to be added to reserves. The oil and gas companies operate on rather slim margins – if they cannot pass on costs, they will not develop their reserves. To me this indicates that the future of oil and gas companies is poor, and that investing in them holds risks.

The decline in oil resources that you mention is coming regardless of whether funds invest in oil and gas companies, it seems, so those at the “bottom of the pyramid”, the poorer people of the world are bound to suffer anyway, particularly if they are encouraged to take up the use of fossil fuels, even as the scenario of depletion looms.

I congratulate the EIAG for your wisdom, foresight and ethics for the exclusions that are in place, and for the counsel on divestment from Vedanta. I understand that issues of child labour may have also been discussed, and Chinese working conditions.

I applaud the EIAG involvement in the IIGC and UNPRI processes and Generation.

It is to be hoped that increasing levels of investment into clean energy become a priority for the Church of England, not just on our own church roofs as in the case of St Silas and others, but also in our funds grown for the future.

I note with irony a conversation I had with a churchman (naming no names) in late Spring, who I had met through a Diocesan Environmental Group. Even though he was very much involved in local environmental matters, he regretted to admit that he had lost a lot of his retirement fund from having held shares in BP. I trust that the Church of England as a whole stays aware of the risks of continued high levels of investment in oil, gas, coal and uranium.

Best wishes,

jo.

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

from: Edward Mason
to: Jo Abbess
date: 25 November 2010

Dear Jo

Do feel free to share my e-mail with colleagues.

Thank you also for elaborating your views further. We could clearly debate these issues for some time! However the key question you raise about the risk/return profile of oil companies is an investment issue and beyond the remit of the EIAG. All I can say is that from my knowledge of the national investing bodies, future energy issues are discussed by trustees, including peak oil.

I’d be happy to meet if you are ever in or near Church House.

Best wishes

Edward

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

from: Jo Abbess
to: Edward Mason
date: 25 November 2010

Dear Edward,

Thank you for your summary.

I suppose, from my point of view, investment issues are ethical issues, as every financial transaction has the potential to do good or harm, cause growth or damage. For example, Fair Trade is good, but the degrading exploitation of labour and resources is not. Where the rate of return on investment is high, but environments and peoples are left poorer, that is an ethical question; but so also is the risk of the collapse of the very engines of trade. If, as the former chief of BP, Tony Hayward, said, we have four more decades of good oil and gas, at which point can we expect the economic edifice built on hydrocarbons to begin to crumble ? Is it ethical to continue to make investments into combustion energies when they cannot sustain the future ?

As you say, we could continue to discuss this at length, but I think your summary indicates that you believe that a programme of divestment out of carbon liabilities is SEP – somebody else’s problem. For me, there are ethical dimensions to the question of how the decarbonisation of our energy supplies gets started if, in the short-term, the fossil fuel sector continues to be attractive to investment. As depletion begins to be more noticeable, however, and prices start to rise, as production costs start to rise, and returns start to fall, the risk/return equation will tip towards liability, I’m sure, and it could be rapid, and many could suffer extensive losses. The instability that would bring, I believe, is a scenario that contains a moral imperative to address beforehand, in a preventative fashion.

Thank you for your invitation to meet at Church House.

Blessings and abundance,

jo.

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

from: Edward Mason
to: Jo Abbess
date: Fri, Nov 26, 2010

Thanks Jo

I think it would be best to discuss face to face! It is neither my nor the EIAG’s – nor the investing bodies’ – position that the low carbon transition is someone else’s problem, just that the integration of changing energy futures into ethical investment and investment generally is not a big bang. Do let me know when you want to meet.

Best wishes

Edward

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

from: Jo Abbess
to: Edward Mason
date: 2 December 2010

Dear Edward,

Thanks for your suggestion of a meeting.

I am conducting a piece of research and it could be useful to take a sounding from you as part of my study, if you could spare the time to answer 20 minutes of questions.

This would have to be in the New Year.

I would contend that “…the integration of changing energy futures into ethical investment and investment generally is not a big bang…yet.”

How exactly is human civilisation going to go cold turkey on our fossil fuel addiction when major investment continues to support itself on oil and gas platforms ?

How will major investors react, and what will happen to the economy, when the G20 gets serious about abolishing global fossil fuel (and maybe nuclear power) subsidies ?

The deliberations at Cancun this month are chasing a few percentage points of real change without firm commitments to emissions reductions by industrialised countries and the emerging economies.

Firm commitments to emissions reductions would necessarily involve major change for the energy companies. Will they comply ?

To take just one oil and gas major example – BP boasts it has shaved emissions from its production facilities and business processes – but not in the products that it sells, which is where the significant changes could come from.

Many people have joined 10:10 this year and pledged to cut back on emissions. What will the net result be, given that the commitment has not been universal in society ?

At the moment “sustainability” is merely a mass exercise in tinkering, it seems to me, unless we substitute the resources that we use for our energy.

When I say “we”, I mean the large energy supply and production companies, of course, as the lowly end consumer of energy bears no responsibility.

I would expect the eurocent to drop within the next five years, as it becomes clear that the trade in Carbon is not working, that green taxes are not stimulating change, and that the climate is continuing to worsen.

What could then ensue would rock the economic system, and cause major financial and political fallout. If sustained social stability is an ethical objective, maybe chaos prevention is better than cure ?

These are questions of right and wrong, to my mind. The climate doesn’t do compromise.

Regards,

jo.

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

http://www.crudeawakening.org.uk/

Just what are they brewing ?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gt9FazoUMIDxODUKwX2TF5LxndsQ

“Protesters condemn ‘dirty oil’ at World Energy Congress : (AFP) : 14 September 2010 : MONTREAL — Hundreds of protesters demonstrated in the streets of Montreal Sunday, calling for an end to “dirty, risky” oil exploration, ahead of a global gathering of energy experts. A dozen protesters covered in molasses staged a “Black Tide Beach Party,” while dozens of others carried banners that read “Too dirty, too risky, go beyond oil.” A blond baby boy smeared in brown sticky molasses wailed in his activist father’s arms, while protesters used megaphones to slam the provincial Quebec government of Jean Charest for inviting oil companies to the five-day World Energy Congress at the sprawling Palais de Congres. Some 5,000 participants from industry, government and academia, were expected to attend the conference, slated to officially open Sunday evening. The event is expected to tackle global energy issues, such as improving access to energy in the world’s poorer regions and the role of new technologies in ensuring a sustainable energy future. Many protesters directed their anger at BP over a devastating oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico earlier this year. But Julien Vincent, a campaigner for Greenpeace International, said BP was only part of the problem. “British Petroleum is one part of a big industry that’s got an abysmal safety record and an abysmal record in terms of its obligations toward protecting communities,” he told AFP. “You also have oil from Shell dripping out over Nigeria right now. You have oil spills that have taken place in China that have flooded ports,” he added. “The entire industry needs to be told to sit back and listen up.” …”

http://www.wecmontreal2010.ca/en.html

http://www.gobeyondoil.org/about.php

“About Go Beyond Oil : Go Beyond Oil is a call to action. It’s a response to the BP oil spill and the prospect of rising global temperatures. It’s also necessary, if we want to have healthy lives and a healthy planet we’ve got to get ourselves off oil. It’s a journey that’s already started, but we need you to join us if we are going to get the world off oil. The BP spill in the Gulf was a wake up call for many people, now we must take this opportunity to put an end to our oil addiction which is poisoning our oceans, our lands, the air we breathe as well as destroying our climate. This is a massive challenge. Oil is a part of all our lives and the oil industry makes huge profits from our dependency on it. Oil companies are going to extremes and taking ever greater risks to squeeze the planet of its oil all the while they’re blocking the solutions that would free us from fossil fuels. The technologies already exist to wean the world off oil and we all deserve a future free of pollution – it s our choice and we can move beyond oil if we want to. It won’t be easy, but we know what needs to be done – we need to stop risky oil exploration, end subsidies for the oil industry and invest in clean energy. There will be many trials along the way as we remove the barriers to clean energy – that’s why we need your help…”

Got oil in your pension? from Greenpeace UK on Vimeo.

We all love the inputs, but what about the outputs ?

Fossil Fuels have been providing an easy life and easy pickings for the citizens and enterprises of the industrialised world for some time.

People love their jet-fuelled lives. One man will move one kilometre from his home to a restaurant in two and a half metric tonnes of steel and glass believing he is admired for his larger-than-car-sized car. He will wear sunshades, and oil-slicked hair (if he has any) and sport a tan from his recent holiday over the ocean. A life of glory and feeling good about himself.

But what about the emissions ? What, indeed, about the environmental devastation at the places the Fossil Fuels (and metal and glass) were mined and refined and manufactured ?

What do we leave behind ?

The oil fields of Azerbaijan :-

Image Credit : Edward Burtynsky

The coal mine tailings of The Philippines :-

The duck-killing Tar Sands tailings ponds of Alberta, Canada :-

Coal sludge, Tennessee :-

Fish-killing Bay Shore :-

Airborne Uranium dust from the outback in Australia (Uranium is a “fossil” element – there’s only so much on Earth) :-

And of course, the BP Gulf of Mexico slicktastic :-

I could go on. But I won’t just now.

One dilemma – we will probably need to dig up the Earth a bit more for all the metal ores we need to build new Renewable Energy technologies. Or not. We could just comb through the world’s abandoned energy production sites, open-air garbage bins, scavenging for iron, steel and suchlike.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TINzvWrtjYI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyutuErxPo8

Carol Browner, Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy in the United States of America, has been all over the Media, announcing the policy to “kill kill kill this” BP nightmare story, telling the world that a turning milestone point has been reached :-

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/PDFs/OilBudget_description_%2083final.pdf

Have they decided that BP have been punished enough now for the Gulf of Mexico oil gusher, and the reputation of the company needs to be rehabilitated sharply in order to protect the Economy ?

I made the mistake of taking in a BBC TV news bulletin on the matter. I heard several talking heads say it’s “good news” that roughly three quarters of the accountable oil from the spill has “disappeared” :-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10870159

Breaking this story is “good news” for the stability of pension funds, maybe. But what is the real extent of the real damage to the real world, the world of oceans and fish and plankton ? Will the world be watching as the researchers scavenge data and clues to the marine ecotastrophe that is still unfolding ?

Barack Obama hopes there’s nothing left to see of this car crash, and that we can all move along. It leaves a number of unanswered questions. Pre-eminent in my mind is the question “how likely is it that another deepwater drilling oil spill could happen ?”

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Business/BP-Oil-Spill-US-President-Barack-Obama-Says-Gulf-Of-Mexico-Battle-Finally-Coming-To-An-End/Article/201008115676765

I bet Barack Obama is slightly regretting announcing more “unconventional” oil drilling in March, and he’s attempting to patch up his own reputation, possibly why he’s pushing so hard to get this “good news” out now about BP’s clean-up operation :-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APOMoS0s7xI

Of course the White House want to clear the trouble from peoples’ minds and move on to other matters because the administration of the United States of America is peppered with oil-made men (and women). Plus, there’s heaps of fossil fuel lobbyists on every carpet, in every corridor, in every chat, in every consultation :-

At some point this difficult question will have to be answered : if oil spills and other hydrocarbon problems are going to become more frequent in future, as exploration, discovery and production become more and more “unconventional”, how is this going to impact on the profitability of oil and gas companies ?

Will there come a time when “growth” is no longer possible in fossil fuels, as the profit margin between production costs and sales revenues tightens to a thin wafer ?

Who is paying for the BP spill clean-up, by the way ? The American Government are all over it. Has the work been partly paid for by the taxpayers ?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/25/bae-green-energy-project

“BAE to assist green energy project : Britain’s biggest arms manufacturer will contribute its marine engineering expertise to a wave-power project off Orkney : Terry Macalister, guardian.co.uk, Sunday 25 July 2010″

Isaiah 2:4 (New International Version) : “He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.”

The great energy revival could contribute to world peace, after the fading of a Century of competition and conflict over Fossil Fuel resources.

And is he really leaving, or is he being hounded out by propaganda ?

The reports of his demise may be premature, but the clock is probably ticking on his tenure anyway.

You know as soon as the board of a company, or a central government expresses “full support” for an executive or a minister, their job is at risk.

At least BP didn’t have to invent a scandal about his private life to get shot of him, like the (I think, despicable) way they ousted John Browne, the “sun king”.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10753573

“25 July 2010 : BP chief Tony Hayward ‘negotiating exit deal’ : Mr Hayward has been with the company for 28 years BP’s chief executive Tony Hayward has been negotiating the terms of his exit, with a formal announcement likely within 24 hours, the BBC has learned. Mr Hayward has been widely criticised over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. An official statement issued by BP in response said he had the “full support of the board and senior management”. BBC business editor Robert Peston says Mr Hayward is likely to be replaced by his American colleague, Bob Dudley, who is in charge of the clean-up operation…”

Is Bob Dudley a fan of solar and wind power ? Only asking…

And will a change of figurehead on the prow stop the BP vessel sinking ?

http://www.tni.org/article/bp-style-extreme-energy-nightmares-come-four-scenarios-next-energy-mega-disaster

“BP-Style Extreme Energy Nightmares to Come: Four Scenarios for the Next Energy Mega-Disaster…Michael Klare : The Huffington Post : July 2010 : The BP Gulf oil spill is not an anomaly but the result of industry-wide recklessness, as companies employ more and more risky methods to reach inaccessible reserves as the conventional ones run dry. On June 15th, in their testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the chief executives of America’s leading oil companies argued that BP’s Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico was an aberration – something that would not have occurred with proper corporate oversight and will not happen again once proper safeguards are put in place. This is fallacious, if not an outright lie. The Deep Horizon explosion was the inevitable result of a relentless effort to extract oil from ever deeper and more hazardous locations. In fact, as long as the industry continues its relentless, reckless pursuit of “extreme energy” – oil, natural gas, coal, and uranium obtained from geologically, environmentally, and politically unsafe areas – more such calamities are destined to occur…Until then, prepare yourselves. The disaster in the Gulf is no anomaly. It’s an arrow pointing toward future nightmares. [ Michael Klare is a professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire University, a renowned analyst on oil politics and US defence policy and was TNI's first Phd graduate when TNI used to run an academic programme through a virtual US university. ]”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-t-klare/bp-style-extreme-energy-n_b_621407.html

“…Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, TomDispatch.com regular, and the author, most recently, of Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet. A documentary movie version of his previous book, Blood and Oil, is available from the Media Education Foundation…”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/24/opinion/main6614336.shtml

“Scenario 4: East China Sea — A Clash Over Subsea Gas : At one time, most wars between states were fought over disputed borders or contested pieces of land. Today, most boundaries are fixed by international treaty and few wars are fought over territory. But a new type of conflict is arising: contests over disputed maritime boundaries in areas that harbor valuable subsea resources, particularly oil and natural gas deposits. Such disputes have already occurred in the Persian Gulf, the Caspian Sea, the East and South China Seas, and other circumscribed bodies of water. In each case, the surrounding states claim vast offshore tracts that overlap, producing — in a world that may be increasingly starved for energy — potentially explosive disputes. One of them is between China and Japan over their mutual boundary in the East China Sea. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which both countries have signed, each is allowed to exercise control over an “exclusive economic zone” (EEZ) extending 200 nautical miles (about 230 standard miles) from its coastline. But the East China Sea is only about 360 miles across at its widest point between the two countries. You see the problem…”

Image Credit : Gilbert & George, “Nettle Dance”, White Cube

I’m in the Climate Union. Are You ?

Soon we could all be, if the expansionist plans of a group of social campaigners come to fruition.

Taking in the unions, faith communities and the usual rag-tag bunch of issues activists, the Climate Union aims to establish itself as a political force for Low Carbon.

First of all, however, it has to tackle the uneasy and prickly problem of the exact name of the movement, and the principles under which it will operate.

The flag has been flown : a set of principles has been circulated for discussion amongst the “Climate Forum”. I cannot show you the finalised document yet, but I can offer you my comments (see below).

If you want to comment on the development of this emerging entity, please contact : Peter Robinson, Campaign against Climate Change, mobile/cell telephone in the UK : 07876595993.

Comments on the Climate Forum Principles
Jo Abbess
28 June 2010

I am aware that my comments are going to be a little challenging. I made similar comments during the review of the ClimateSafety briefing, which were highly criticised.

I expect you to be negative in response to what I say, but I think it is necessary to make sure the Climate Forum does not become watered-down, sectorally imprisoned and politically neutered, like so many other campaigns.

Comments on paragraph :-
“While there is an increasing awareness of the climate science, many governments are in practice opposed to implementing radical measure[s] to combat climate change [largely] because…such measures would appear to be in conflict with the interests of business, but also because they are uncertain if they would carry the majority of the public with them. The problem is that those in power do not necessarily have the will to bring about the legislation and the required actions.”

I would contest the assumption that “governments are in practice opposed to implementing radical measure[s]“.

My reasons are that I think that the reality of the situation is that governments are a little bit like mushrooms – kept in the dark and fed rotten sewage.

Although the governments do have access to the best Scientific information about Climate Change, they don’t always absorb it. On the other hand, they often do not have access to the best Economic information.

Governments often listen to some of the best Scientific information, and invest trust in the Scientific institutions. However, they have both a demon and an angel on their shoulder when it comes to Economic information.

The European Union is a classic example, of attempting to mesh together the best of Socialism and the worst of Neoliberalism. There are agents of Capitalism whispering into the ears of the inner circle policymakers the whole time, as evidenced by the work of such organisations as the Corporate Europe Observatory.

In the United Kingdom, when the “Recession”, sorry “Downturn” hit, Keynes and his pluralism was resurrected, but he has now been slain once more by the “Emergency Cuts Budget”.

The fight in Government is not over the Science. The anti-science crowd have picked off a few Members of Parliament with their vulture media tactics, but most MPs are on the ball as regards the Science of Climate Change, as are most of the Government Civil Services and Departments.

The synaptic gap is in translating that knowledge into effective Economic Policy, in my view. Pricing Carbon is not the solution, and even if it has an impact, it will not be a very large part of the solution. Public Finance for such things as Carbon Capture and Storage and New Nuclear will not achieve much – they are classic money pits schemes (or “boondoggle”, another American expression).

I think that the emphasis should be on educating the Government about the need to totally reform the Energy systems, the sourcing of Energy, and the use of Energy.

The reason why I think this is important can be seen in the approach taken to tobacco control. Since there was an enormous amount of money, both public and private, invested in the tobacco industry, it was not politically possible to close down the corporations that produced cigarettes.

Yet a total ban on cigarette smoking was indicated as necessary to the maintenance of public health.

Instead of shutting down the industry, the European governments began a two-pronged campaign, to outlaw smoking in various environments, and also to educate people.

After about 10 years, the tobacco industry saw the way things were going and went off to kill teenagers in China instead, in pursuit of the profit they continue to owe their shareholders.

I don’t think we have 10 years to effect a proper Climate Policy, and we certainly cannot continue to outsource Carbon Dioxide emissions to China through globalisation.

We need something more radical. For example, I suggest that we should call for a ban on the use of Coal to generate Electricity.

The other strand of the current situation is what the public appear to think when they answer opinion polls. Firstly, and importantly, their views don’t actually count towards setting Policy, as the Government is responsible to enact the Climate Change Act, not follow the whims of anti-wind farm lobby groups, pro-Carbon and anti-tax groups (for example).

Climate Change is not an issue about which people are entitled to vote. The cross-party imperative for Policy action is there, regardless of what Nigel Lawson, Christopher Booker, Steve McIntyre and James Delingpole think.

The Government has a mandate from the Climate Change Science, not from the people. However, it would be helpful if the people were more educated about the Science, and I would urge that the Climate Forum addresses directly the anti-science problems in the Media, where most people get their beliefs from.

Also, if would be helpful if the public could be asked to rally behind a basket of sensible, inclusive Policy measures – not taxation – but targeted spending and selective subsidies.

This is where the “One Million Green Jobs” initiative from the Campaign against Climate Change and the unions is so pertinent. A common, progressive agenda would help public debates to have better cohesion and less acrimony.

As for the phrase, “uncertain if they would carry the majority of the public with them”, I don’t believe that the public need to be encouraged to give the Government a “mandate”.

I believe it is naive, foolish and a waste of time and personal energy to suggest that the public need to be rallied to give the Government “a message”.

The Government already have the necessary information to act. What is needed is a general education of both Government and public about what is likely to work in terms of Social and Economic “engineering”.

It’s not about “voluntary behaviour change”. The Act on CO2 campaign asked everyone to drive 5 miles less a week. But over 50% of the population of driving age don’t have access to a car.

Public guilt-tripping is not only irrelevant, it’s unproductive. People who care are already doing the 10:10 initiative, or gave up flying and most home heating years ago.

People who know the problems and have decided to take personal action have already started their journey. The travel that needs to happen is in the field of those who provide us with our energy and fuel.

There has to be a new understanding that the Energy corporates must change – that BP, for example, must turn its production to Renewables or face corporate extinction.

There has to be massive disinvestment away from Carbon Energy and investment into Renewable Energy.

That can start with each one of us expressing a consumer “preference” in the way that we use our money, but it has to be carried higher and wider, with such activities of those of FairPensions.

In the end, it’s not the way we are taxed, but the way the whole Society uses money that determines our survival.

The Church of England, for example, has recently reported that their Commissioners have made a handsome profit on their investments. Which companies are in the top 20 shares held ? BP is one of those companies.

Yet the Church of England, in their Fifth Mark of Mission, say they want “To strive to safeguard the integrity of creation, and sustain and renew the life of the earth”. They can’t do that if they continue to invest in BP.

It is this kind of dilemma that needs to be addressed, not the debate about whether it is more energy efficient to use paper towels or hand dryers in public toilets.

If all the energy supplied to our homes and all the energy used in our transport systems were green, then it would not matter if we left the porch light on overnight by mistake.

There has to be a major shift in campaigning perception in my view. The energy system itself needs to be overhauled, not public opinion.

And anyway, what counts in Government is not public opinion, but the usual tendency of political views to be compromised by whichever business lobby is in the ascendance.

If the Government could be encouraged to make a clear statement about complete energy transition, a step far, far beyond the work of the Low Carbon Transition plan set out last year, then the tipping point might be near at hand.

It’s true that tackling the belief system of the Government would be helped by seeding the right ideas into the “Twittering classes”, who are strongly networked to the Government, but the major thrust of the Climate Forum surely has to be Government-facing, not public-facing.

I don’t want the Climate Forum to be a Government stooge. I don’t want the Climate Forum to end up as an outsourced public relations exercise – the Government have been using the NGOs to propagandise their plans for years. Gordon Brown and his Office were famously behind the Make Poverty History campaign from its inception.

I’m not against the whole concept of Government. In fact, I think organised government is the only way forward out of the Carbon mess. However, I think the Climate Forum needs to pitch itself as being opposed to lax regulation and weak thinking in Government, more than simply being a Social tool for change.

Reply from Ruth :-

=x=x=x=x=x=x=

“Jo, really interesting stuff – thank you. I can’t quite see how the Climate Forum could be “government-facing”, with any clout without a huge supporter base, demonstrated by ralleys, lobbying post cards etc?”

=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Reply to Ruth :-

=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Hi Ruth,

The current “campaign” mechanism has its focus on what individuals should be doing. The central theory is about how to change the behaviour of citizens and consumers. Even the 10:10 campaign is a glorified “Are you doing your bit ?”, “Lights Off” or “Save It” campaign.

When campaigns want people to act politically, the message is all about how the people have to mobilise, the people have to carry placards, write postcards, write to their MP, lobby Parliament, e-mail the media. The people have to take all this action. And for what ? To get our million man marches ignored by the political elite, or our petitions fobbed off by the Secretary of State.

Taking the message to Government doesn’t need to be backed up by getting 2 million people on the streets. In fact, in 2003 we managed to get 2 million people on the streets against the scheduled assault on Iraq. Did it make any difference ? No. Because the Government are not obliged to listen to “campaigners” and “protesters”, or act on what they demand.

The Government has to be analysed and critiqued within its own walls, using its own language, deploying its own policies. What level of authority do we need to accumulate to make a real difference ? Do we need maximum “bums on seats” in a campaign, or maximum political crowbars ?

Christian Aid and Oxfam love postcard campaigns. It means the paid staff need to do little work to respond to peoples’ concerns. Worried about Climate Change ? Fill in one of our postcards, then. I have heard an Oxfam campaigns worker recently say that much of their campaigns activity is “outsourced” to local activists, implying that it gave people something to do, even though it was ineffective.

Not cynical, just observant.

jo.

=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Reply from Tony :-

=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Dear Jo

Could you suggest a specific rewording of that paragraph that you referred to (and any others) based on your considered arguments? That is what Peter and Ann are looking for.

…

Regards

Tony

=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Reply to Tony :-

=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Dear Tony,

Thanks for asking for my wording.

What I was trying to explain in my comments is that I disagree pretty fundamentally with some of the theories the principles document is based on.

My comments are therefore in relation to the whole document.

My re-wording would take in an entire re-write of the document to place emphasis on effective political engagement with all those who have genuine decision-making authority, particularly and especially in regard to the energy companies.

Those mostly private organisations that provide us with energy and fuel need to be changing their behaviour, not our neighbours in our streets.

Those citizens who care are already committed. We don’t need another “campaign”. We need a networked research and response unit, continuously analysing the state of play in policy and corporate activities and feeding this back to everyone involved in a common, plain language.

I think that the focus of the Climate Forum should be holding the government and corporations genuinely and concretely accountable. And that is not going to be done by the normal “campaign” methods.

I have no idea whether other people feel the same way, so I don’t know if it’s worth trying to put in the energy to do another re-write of the document now, myself.

All I know is, if views like mine are not taken into consideration, then the membership of the movement risks being confined to “the usual suspects”.

Peter and Ann are looking for a re-wording of some of the paragraphs. Unfortunately, I question the whole of the document and the theories on which is is based.

If we want the same-old same-old piecemeal campaigning, then by all means, go ahead on the basis of the social theory that you need to “mobilise” people in order to have political change.

If you want a really different kind of organisation, with urgency and scope, you need a really different kind of movement tool.

Regards,

jo.

=x=x=x=x=x=x=