01/07/2004

Esso grilled by top House of Lords science committee

Peers on the cross party House of Lords science and technology committee yesterday urged the British government to redouble its efforts to get the American administration to rejoin the Kyoto protocol. In their report, Science and Treaties, published 30th June, the peers concluded that: global agreements are of little value without participation by all major international players; that climate change is disproportionately caused by the largest industrialised countries and that the consequences of inaction will be worldwide and potentially devastating. It was therefore vital, they concluded, that the U.S was persuaded to ratify the Kyoto protocol - especially considering its status as the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases. As Sir David King explained "the country that is the biggest emitter per person is the United States at about 21 tonnes per person per annum, this country is at nine tonnes per person per annum."

Examining what stood in the way of American ratification of the Kyoto protocol the committee all but singled out Esso as the major obstacle to America rejoining the Kyoto process. Discussing the Kyoto protocol on page 42 of the report it states:

‘In the US the arguments of industry against ratification are principally based on the economic cost to industry, but they also include assertions that there remains doubt about the scientific basis for the Kyoto Protocol. We took evidence from Mr Andrew Swiger, the Chairman and Production Director of ExxonMobil International Ltd…when asked whether ExxonMobil were content with the proposition that the accumulation of anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the atmosphere appeared to be leading to changes in the earth's climate, Mr Swiger said they "would perhaps not go that far"; in their view the science was "unsettled" (Question 315 in the minutes). ’

The report continues:

‘So long as major players in US industry are prepared to argue that the scientific basis for Kyoto is uncertain or unproven, there is little prospect of persuading the US Administration to ratify the Protocol. But the overwhelming body of evidence that we received was to the opposite effect. This evidence came from a very wide variety of sources. It was explained to us by both Professor Parry (Q34) and Sir John Houghton (Q35) that the IPCC itself, as an intergovernmental scientific organisation, is at pains to be entirely objective; yet it has since its 1990 report been firmly of the view that emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases which lead to global warming. ’

The committee went on to applaud the efforts made by Sir David King, the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, to explain in the United States the vital importance to the world of bringing the Kyoto Protocol into force at the earliest possible date. It also concluded that there are encouraging signs. Sir Crispin Tickell told the committee that the Global Climate Coalition, the group of corporations opposed to Kyoto (in which Esso had been a leading player), had more or less collapsed. The committee also recognised that there are sectors of the oil industry which now accept the scientific case for action on global warming. Mr Robin Aram, for Shell International, told the hearing that:

"Shell has shared the widespread concern over quite a considerable period that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are leading to changes in global climate and that action is needed now to try to lay the foundation for eventually stabilising greenhouse gas concentrations in an equitable and economically responsible way." (Q53)

Sir Charles Nicholson confirmed that BP shared this view. The representatives giving evidence on behalf of Esso however, still refused to acknowledge that there was a link between the accumulation of greenhouse gases and climate change.

Question 315.
Lord Oxburgh: You are content with the general position that the accumulation of anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the atmosphere appears to be associated with and leading to enhanced changes to the earth's climate in a way that is not entirely predictable.

Mr Swiger: We would perhaps not go that far. We say the science is unsettled. It has not been settled down yet.

Mr Swiger and his colleague Nick Thomas, head of public affairs for Esso U.K, also got a grilling on their companies efforts to influence the composition of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:

Q325
Chairman: You will be aware that we have been circulated a document by way of evidence from Greenpeace. The one question I want to ask you is whether Exxon have influenced the composition of the IPCC at any stage.

Mr Thomas: Greenpeace have made this accusation many times. To our mind, it is absolutely ridiculous to feel that any organisation could influence the chairmanship of an organisation like the IPCC. Over 100 governments are involved in the IPCC and they all have a vote on who is going to be the chair. How anybody could believe that we could actually influence that is just beyond us.

Q326
Lord Oxburgh: Put it another way, would you have sought or did you seek to influence?

Mr Thomas: We have never sought to influence the chairmanship of the IPCC. We have never had a position, indeed, at any time, on who should be the chairman of that group. We were asked by an agency within the US Government did we have any information and we did pass on a copy of a third-party letter which concerned the chairmanship, but it by no means represented our views because we have never had a formal company view on the position.

Q327
Chairman: You will be aware that there is a copy of a fax that was sent from Mr Randol of your company to John Howard. This was just when the new administration were coming in in Washington.

Mr Thomas: That is what I was referring to. We were asked by an agency of the US Government did we have any information which was relevant to this. That information came from a third party—it was not an Exxon Mobil letter or position—and we simply passed it on.

Q328
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: Could I ask who the third party was.

Mr Thomas: That information has never been published. I actually do not know.

Q329
Chairman: Maybe I am confused, but it seems to me, just to follow this through, that this memo did come from Mr Randol of Exxon and it was addressed—

Mr Thomas: He put a cover note on the front of it and sent it off. (Copy handed to the witness) That is what he did. . . . He put the fax cover on it.

Q330
Chairman: The subject was "Bush Team for IPCC Negotiations". If I may just read it: "Attached is a brief memo outlining the issues related to the ongoing IPPC negotiations on the Third Assessment Report. I have also attached other material that may be useful to you."

Mr Thomas: Yes.

Q331
Chairman: "I will call to discuss the recommendations regarding the team that can better represent the Bush Administration interests until key appointments and re-assessments are made."

Mr Thomas: But the information he was attaching was not from an Exxon Mobil source, it was third-party information which had come to him and he was responding to a request from the US Government for any information. What you have just read out is the fax cover sheet that he used to pass on that information from a third source. Could I just emphasise there are over 100 governments that are involved in the IPCC. The actual vote was 76:49 governments in terms of actually making a change to the chairmanship. How one company is able to influence that, I just do not know. And, as I emphasise again, we have never had an interest in—

Q332
Chairman: The cynic might say that the biggest company in the biggest country might have a degree of influence.

Mr Thomas: With 76 governments?

Q333
Chairman: Nevertheless, you might say that.

Mr Thomas: Well, Greenpeace do, yes.

Q334
Lord Oxburgh: If one looks perfectly innocently at this memo—and it is the first time that I have seen it—there is no indication in the cover note that what is attached is anything but totally endorsed. Effectively, what you are doing is disassociating the company from the contents of the attached memo. I do not think you can really do that on the face of this fax, can you?

Mr Thomas: What is a company position. I can tell you that Exxon Mobil has never had a position on who should chair the IPCC. That is the point. Our board of directors have never discussed it or any other group within the company as to who should be chairman. We were asked and did pass on some information which came from a third party. We can say no more than that.

Q335
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: If we could get back to climate change for a moment. You keep talking about the risk: you do not talk about the reality of climate change. I find that factor disturbing. When you talk about risk, do you mean that you do not believe in the reality of climate change? Sea levels are rising, climates are changing, glaciers are melting, why do you talk about the risk rather than the reality? Of course it brings risks with it, which is the uncertainty to which Lord Oxburgh referred, but it is a reality, surely.

Mr Swiger: When scientists look at it and looking at the detail of the IPCC's work and so forth, within the parameters of natural variability, it is difficult to establish what is happening. We do think it is a risk, and that is why we want to take action, but—

Q336
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: Have you looked at the graphs?

Mr Swiger: Pardon?

Mr Thomas: There is warming going on.

Q337
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: Have you looked at the scientific evidence? It is undeniable.

Mr Thomas: There is warming taking place. We can see that average temperatures, as measured, are increasing, yes. Where that is leading, of course, is where the science is in debate. Some very responsible and respected commentators, are questioning what the risk really is and what the long-term effects are going to be. We are saying that there are many questions still to be answered in that area. But that does not mean you should not take action now. I think we need to keep coming back to that. That is our position: we can see the potential for an impact on eco-systems, and therefore there is a need for action.

Q338
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I want to pursue the commentators. They are a tiny minority of scientists who are denying what is happening, are they not?

Mr Thomas: The National Academy of Sciences is a very responsible group. Indeed, as was said earlier, the IPCC themselves have talked about the "uncertain threat to society". They were words used by the IPCC. We are not the experts. Others are the experts they are putting the comments forward.

Q339.
Baroness Walmsley. Could I follow this up before you move on to another subject, with your permission, my Lord Chairman. May I be clear about the nature of your uncertainty about the scientific evidence. Is it that you feel it is uncertain as to what is the cause of the warming that is being demonstrated? Or are you uncertain as to whether this warming is part of a natural variation that happens as the millennia go by during the life of the earth? Or both?

Mr Thomas: Certainly that latter point is one of the points which has been raised as an area which needs better understanding. You ask if it is "our" position. It is the position of respected scientists.

Q340
Baroness Walmsley: The ones whom you believe in.

Mr Thomas: We are prepared to believe them all. But there is a range of views and, I will say again, the US National Academy of Science is a very, very respected group.

Q341
Lord Oxburgh: If I may comment on that. If you take the words you quoted, I have no doubt accurately—the "uncertain danger" which I think were the words you used, or the "uncertain risk"—they are better amplified as saying "the certain risk but we do not quite know what it is". It is not that there is any uncertainty about things happening, but we do not quite know what is going to happen.

Mr Thomas: I think I am just quoting what the report said, which is "uncertain threat".

Mr Swiger: It is certain that there are some things happening.

So Esso squirmed. Their representatives only able to fudge the whole issue by saying that Esso took climate change very seriously, that the science was still uncertain and Kyoto was flawed. A position that was repeatedly contradicted by the other witnesses and ultimately refuted by the overall conclusions of the report.

The full report can be dowloaded here: House of Lords science and technology committee: Science and Treaties

Read Esso representatives Andrew Swiger and Nick Thomas' testimony

You can also read how the Guardian reported the story here.

[Previous entry: "Respected American science association urges action to slow global warming..."] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Email Lee Raymond"]