Hannah Melton: Fossil Fuels at COP and at Home

18/11/2016

Activists at COP22 protest coal power plants.

Student activists at Hopkins demonstrating in favor of divestment.

Fossil Fuels: At the COP
I want to take a moment and address the concerns about fossil fuel companies attending the UNFCCC. There has been a petition created by Corporate Accountability International and signed by many attendees--especially youth activists--to ban fossil fuel businesses from the COP. Dr. Jonathan Pershing, Special Envoy for Climate Change and head of the U.S. negotiation team, addressed this concern in his press conference for youth delegates yesterday afternoon.

When asked if he would support closing the door fossil fuel attendance at the COP, his response was a firm no. He candidly spoke to the importance of having these ‘dirty’ businesses in the room so he could keep tabs on their interest and learn how to change their mind. Edging them out of conversations in which they could become great allies in clean energy, an imminent transition by the looks of recent market trends, creates bad blood and might block future partnering for innovation. “If I paint them into a corner, I think I’m gonna lose,” Pershing said.

To clear things up--these energy companies? They’re here as observers. Much of the COP is closed-door meetings between party delegates. Anyone here from an energy company has just as much access to closed meetings as I do: and trust me, they’ve been pretty strict about “Party Only” rules. Yes, representatives can network and talk to party members, but delegates are extremely busy and barely have time for lunch: as evidenced by the lovely UK woman who sat next to me at the restaurant yesterday--poor thing practically inhaled her stirfry, exchanged a few nice words (I had to pester her, of course) and promptly left 8 minutes later.

As observers, the fossil fuel representatives actually stand to learn an immense array of things about climate change--its impact on indigenous people, the public health effects, the damage to the markets, and the great potential for improvements, innovation and economic growth. I challenge anyone to listen to the words of an indigenous woman from Chilé speak to the decimation of her homeland and not be at least a little moved.

Fossil Fuels: At Home
Moving toward green investments is a market-driven reality. Though I support the inclusion of energy companies at the conference, I do not stand behind the inclusion of fossil fuel companies in invest portfolios. Especially those owned by universities full of academic, socially and environmentally aware people who should know better.

That leaves me wondering why, in the face of blatant evidence that fossil fuels are archaic and destined to decline, some institutions continue fiscally supporting them. Many universities and businesses, like Microsoft and Harvard, have opted to reallocate parts of their endowments or investment portfolios from fossil fuels, often reinvesting in renewables.

I’m disappointed to say that my home institution, Johns Hopkins University, has failed to follow these examples of environmental responsibility. I love my school: it has its flaws, as any university does, but overall I can say that Hopkins is a huge part of who I am today. Hopkins informs and challenges my worldview through its diverse student body, nurtures and grows my mind through fantastic courses led by passionate professors, and feeds my soul through the extracurriculars I have been able to pursue. Without Hopkins, the road to Marrakech would have been much more of a struggle for me. I am able to attend the COP because of a grant Dean Martinez gave me (shoutout to the Parents’ Fund, and also to my own mother--the other big reason I was able to go!).

For all the forward thinking and progressive ideals the administration loves to embrace, I hope divestment would be one of them. Come on, Hopkins. Our endowment is meant to spur the education of future world leaders, not to bolster the bottom line of carbon-emitting fuel companies. I view the school's money as something that should be used to holistically address student and world well-being: fossil fuels do not align with this. We are leaders in public health, engineering, innovation: we should be leaders in fiscal responsiblity. It’s time to put our money where our mouth is.

Finally, a big shoutout to Refuel Our Future, the JHU student group working towards divestment at Hopkins. The photos featured in this post are from the recent sit-in they staged in our administrative building on campus. Student activism remains a strong force of change: the university represents us and is meant to act in our interest. Proud of my fellow Blue Jays for taking a stand to protect the planet.

Thanks to Christian Cayon for the photos!

13 Comments

Krysten Dema

20/11/2016 10:01:17 am

I find it interesting that fossil fuel companies were possibly going to be ban from COP. I can understand the reasoning for the idea; however, I do think allowing the fossil fuel companies, to attend COP would be beneficial for the same reason that Pershing stated. Allowing fossil fuel companies to attend COP, would potentially lead to a group collaboration and possible solutions.

Emily Miller

20/11/2016 04:30:15 pm

It surpises me that they tried to ban fossil fuel companies since they play such a sufficient role. These companies should hear all the negative impacts fossil fuels have in the environment and be willing to change to help the environment. Also, fossil fuel companies could have the biggest impact because they control the fossil fuel production and without them, there is no problem.

Daniel Kikel

29/11/2016 06:29:06 am

That's all true, but at the same time we still rely on fossil fuels so we can't quite get rid of them. Sure they can ban them, but that probably won't do very much.

Noah Kready

21/11/2016 12:10:53 pm

As I read the section on the possibly ban of fossil fuel companies from attending COP, I tried to see the argument from both sides. On one hand these companies are the reason this meeting is needed, as their actions have been irresponsible in the past. Even knowing this we can't just shut the door on these people, we must take this time to invite them in and let them learn the right way to do things. Everyone is at COP to learn how to make our world a cleaner, and overall better place for us to live in. Also knowing that Microsoft and Harvard are leading the way in supporting renewable energy is a comforting thought. This post also made me wonder what my school, York College of Pennsylvania, is doing to help?

Harrison Perring

21/11/2016 02:26:55 pm

The impact fossil fuel companies have on the ecosystem and world as a whole regarding fossil fuel production is a very interesting yet pertinent topic that must be recognized globally. After reading this entry, I was somewhat surprised that the fossil fuel companies were originally going to be banned from the COP. This idea seems counterintuitive to the purpose of these conferences. While I understand that these companies are viewed as the producers and arguably the origin of this nation-wide problem, I believe that they can also be the driving force behind achieving a solution that we so desperately need. With the cooperation of these commercial fossil fuel companies, we can educate them and change their influences for the better of the world. Together, we can make our planet a better place to live.

Jonathan Marin

21/11/2016 06:23:59 pm

I understand and respect Dr. Pershings decision to keep an open door toward fossil fuel attendance at the COP. This was a very wise decision, but one has to wonder if such attendees will even consider other sources of energy. Especially, when their source is not depleted. Hopefully their attendance influenced them to change for the better.

Daniel Kikel

29/11/2016 06:36:40 am

I do believe that the fossil fuel companies will have a hard time switching their uses because there is so much money in their companies now. They may not be very willing to give up that money, but hopefully they can make a difference and start using a product that promotes clean energy.

Alex Hoffmaster

22/11/2016 01:01:25 pm

When I first read about allowing these companies to the attend the first thing that entered my mind was the famous quote, keep your friends close and your enemies closer. I am not saying that these two parties are enemies by any stretch but instead see differently in certian topics than one another. I believe it is important to have as many people as possible attend this event, no matter who they are, because it can only grow its popularity and reach more people.

Sierra Pari

26/11/2016 11:56:20 am

I find it beyond shocking that they were going to ban fossil fuel company's. They should be able to see why the world needs and change and everyone would be able to have somewhat of input on these topics

Samantha Choi

27/11/2016 09:25:56 pm

Do you have plans to push for your university to become more environmentally responsible? If so how would you plan on going about this? What methods would you suggest to implement?

Brittny Aguiar

29/11/2016 06:40:38 am

I am glad to hear about how fossil fuels are falling out of favor and jobs in environmental fields are expanding more than coal jobs. Hopefully more schools and companies will get involved. There is really little reason for anyone to still be focusing on fossil fuels.

Madeleine King

29/11/2016 02:53:25 pm

very cool to see refuel our future get a shout out! Always good to see divestment getting the attention it deserves. But i wanted to say that i felt a little like the first and second parts of the article seemed a little contradictory to me. The point of divestment movements from my understanding is to trigger a cultural shift in how we see fossil fuel industries. By forcing a university to declare that the profits from and association with fossil fuel industries is incompatable with the values of the institutions, we hope that this moral delegitimization will resonate throughout our society, damaging the reputations politicians who associate with fossil fuel industries as uncredible, in order to reduce the power and influence these industries have over our political and economic system.

The presence of representatives of fossil fuel industries at the COP doesn’t bother me in that i fear that their presence could influence the outcome of the talks (especially considering there are many actual party delegates who represent countries for whom comprehensive climate action proves a conflict of interest to short term state goals), but i do think their presence promotes a false narrative that fossil fuel industries do not exist in diametric opposition to the goals of the climate movement.

Under our current economic system, fossil fuel industries simply cannot be partners in creating a just transition to a green economy. In 2008 and 2012 exxon mobil earned about 45 billion in profits, the highest yearly profit ever reported by a single company in US history. Fossil fuel industries are able to make such monumental profits because of their exploitative practices. Any limitations to that exploitation would limit their profits and explicitly go against their interests (you could argue that these industries could become allies if they were willing to redefine their purpose as a company and abandon the understanding of their purpose in terms of prioritizing the maximizing profits at all costs and, consequently, abandoning the driving ideology of market fundamentalism). There is no win-win solution to climate change in which fossil fuel industries to not suffer major economic losses. In this regard, we have to accept the fact that fossil fuel companies— as long as they continue to define their priority as the maximization of profits and total shareholder returns—will always define their interests in diametric opposition to comprehensive climate action.

For over a decade, fossil fuel companies have adjusted to increased concerns about the environment by promising to use profits to lead the transition away from dirty energy. In 2000, BP rebranded itself as “beyond petroleum” in an attempt to market themselves as “green” and environmentally responsible. In that same year they spent $45 million to acquire a solar energy company called Solarex and $26.5 billion to acquire ARCO to expand its oil drilling portfolio. In the last decade, fossil fuel companies have been investing an almost statistically insignificant amount of money relative to their portfolio into renewable energy (as well as selling the myth of natural gas as clean energy) to ensure the world that they’re business models are not incompatible with climate action, while simultaneously continuing to ramp up extraction and production of fossil fuels. There is nothing to indicate that this will change going forward. As i said before, the interests of the fossil fuel industries are dependent on practices that cause climate change. They will not support comprehensive climate action without radically changing their understanding of their purpose as a business, and will continue to greenwash their practices to appear like they're being accommodating.

This brings me to my main issue with the article, the assertion that its important for fossil fuel industries to be present at COP not just because they’re potential future allies (which i disagree with), but because they might learn something that will convince them to change they’re practices. This is preposterous. Exxon knew about climate change almost 40 years ago, years before the general public. Knowledge of the problem did not prevent them from increasing fossil fuel extraction over the following decades. Instead, they helped create the Global Climate Coalition to manufacture doubt on the science of climate change in the public sphere while privately protecting their bottom line and ensuring these companies are still profitable when the effects of climate change accelerate. These companies are fully aware of the existence of climate change and that knowledge alone will not force them to change their practices.

You speculate that fossil fuel representatives might be moved when they hear about all the negative effects of climate change on public health, indigenous peoples, and the economy. What makes you think they would they care that the unintended con

Madeleine King

29/11/2016 02:54:20 pm

What makes you think they would they care that the unintended consequences of their practices are decimating the communities of indigenous people when they engage with practices that actively and intentionally destroy indgegenous communities? Across the globe, fossil fuel industries have seized the lands of indigenous people, made them uninhabitable through environmental degradation, and funded the violent suppression of those who resist or ask these companies to pay for damages. Take just one example, the struggle of the Ogoni people in the Niger Delta. Shell began oil production on Ogoni land in 1958. Since then, oil production has displaced 80,000 people. A 2011 assessment of over 200 locations of Ogoniland by the UNEP found that because of oil spills, oil flaring and waste discharge much of the soil is no longer viable for agriculture and groundwater was found to be contaminated with benzene, a carcinogen, at 900 levels above WHO guidelines. Oil production in this region destroyed the local economy and dangerously impacted health through air and water quality. As the Ogoni people mobilized to oppose the exploitation and destruction of their communities, Shell requested, backed, and financed terror campaigns against the Ognoi people. In 2009, Shell agreed to a settlement payout to the Ogoni people after human rights attorneys brought a series of a cases to hold shell accountable for human rights violations in nigeria including summary execution, crimes against humanity, torture, inhuman treatment and arbitrary arrest and detention.

This is not an isolated occurrence. The interests of the fossil fuel industries are contingent on destructive practices which are enforced through wide scale human rights abuses— gang rape, torture, murder and false arrest have all been used as control methods to suppress resistance. Just a few weeks ago a Williams graduate almost lost her arm due to government violence in North Dakota in order to protect the interests of ETP to illegally build a pipeline on treaty protected lands. The profitability of fossil fuel companies depends on finding new sites for extraction, and many of these previously untapped resources are located in indigenous communities. The rights of indigenous communities are again, diametrically opposed to the interests of fossil fuel industries, who are able to maintain their high profits by extracting resources from the land of people who have been historically oppressed and denied basic rights and protections. Fossil fuel industries capitalize on the oppression of indigenous communities in order to ensure oil production is as inexpensive as possible— indigenous communities are more easily silenced, and often don’t have the resources to demand payment for the destruction of their communitites.

Fossil fuel companies had accepted the negative effects of their industry on public health, indigenous peoples and the economy long before climate change entered the public dialogue, and they continue to perpetuate practices that endanger their workers, create to health risks from contaminated water and polluted air, contribute to regional and global economic instability, displace people, destroy traditional sites of spiritual or cultural significance, and encourage or are complicit in violent suppression of local opposition.

We shouldn’t be afraid of “creating bad blood” as you say, with the fossil fuel industries. You included a quote from Pershing in which he argues that “If i paint them into a corner, I think I’m gonna lose.” This is a sentiment I could not disagree with more fervently. The fear of antagonizing big polluters, the pursuit of climate solutions that will not hurt the bottom line of neoliberal institutions, the lack of solidarity with people who are suffering due to extractivism, this is how we’ll lose. Fossil fuel industries have supported the assassination of environmental activists across the globe, yet by daring to tell them they don’t deserve a seat at the table at COP, we’re creating “bad blood”? We shouldn’t waste our energy coddling fossil fuel industries. There’s no way to create comprehensive climate action that would allow fossil fuel companies to maintain their levels of profitability, and instead of trying to sugarcoat that message by pretending these two ideas are compatibile, we should be proclaiming that message proudly. We should be uncompromising in our assertion that fossil fuel companies shouldn’t be allowed to continue to profit off of destroying communities and the planet. We should be resolute in our desire to create a political and economic system that will hold polluters accountable, instead of trying to water down our message so that its palpable to those who profit off environmental degradation. Any environmentalism that doesn’t call for major economic and political change, in my book, is far too weak to be effec

Climate Conversations