Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
LAST UPDATE | 21 Jan
THE FOSSIL FUEL industry has spent decades lying to and misleading the public and policymakers about climate change. Multiple investigations have revealed that Exxon’s own scientists had by the late 1970s and early ’80s with eerie accuracy predicted the devastating climatic consequences of continued fossil fuel burning by the early to mid-21st century.
Back then, senior industry executives faced a tough choice: on the one hand, they could own up to their own scientific findings and begin the long-term process of pivoting their business model towards a safer, cleaner future powered by renewable energy.
On the other hand, they could cover up the evidence and instead spend hundreds of millions of dollars funding climate denial. They could buy up media space to run hit-piece editorials and mendacious adverts while pouring money into bogus think tanks designed to misrepresent the science and engage in character assassination of leading climate scientists.
You will by now have worked out which path this industry followed. Even though they knew that, in their own words, their products would trigger “globally catastrophic” climate breakdown, still they lied, deceived and covered up.
Fossil fuel companies have been “killing members of the public at an accelerating rate”, according to a paper in the Harvard Environmental Law Review last year. It argues that oil giants’ awareness that their pollution could have lethal consequences fits within the definition of homicide, which, in its basic form, is causing death with a “culpable mental state.”
Let’s be frank: these are some of the worst criminals in human history. “The scope of the lethality is so vast that, in the annals of crime, it may eventually dwarf all other homicide cases in the United States, combined”, according to a separate paper. It is likely that by the middle to late 21st century, hundreds of millions of people will have died and countless millions more forced to become refugees as a direct result of the boundless greed and duplicity of these industrial racketeers.
You will by now have heard how the industry was changing, had learned from its mistakes, was on board with the green transition and is fully committed to being net zero carbon (whatever that means) by 2050, or some other date in the distant future.
Don’t be deceived. Energy giant BP in recent years solemnly pledged to make aggressive cuts to its oil and gas output by 2030, then late last year quietly scrapped these plans. Shell also made a huge PR fuss over its plans to sharply phase back on fossil energy by 2035, then it too walked away from this commitment.
But wait, maybe we’ve all just rushed to judgment? An article in this weekend’s Business Post, headed ‘Fossil fuel lobbyists really have the good of the planet, not profit, at heart’ was at first widely mistaken for a headline from Waterford Whispers, but no, there it was, in black and white in a broadsheet newspaper. It now appears online as ‘Lobbying is vital to good government – the fuels industry can’t be excluded’ and the piece has been the focus of much attention in recent days.
It was penned by Kevin McPartlan, CEO of a group called Fuels for Ireland (FFI), having rebranded in recent years from the rather more honest ‘Irish Petroleum Industry Association’. FFI represents many companies that operate petrol stations and suppliers of home heating oil. McPartlan is aghast at efforts to limit the ability of fossil fuel lobbyists to, well, lobby. He is worried that critics of his sector dismiss it, “based solely on false assumptions about their objectives, rather than on the merits of their contributions”.
It turns out that FFI is “fully committed” to the woolly and nebulous aim of net carbon neutrality by 2050, so that is certainly reassuring. We must, McPartlan added, “judge ideas and arguments on their merit, not on the identity of the person or group presenting them”. Apparently, the key to a low-carbon future is “through inclusive and constructive dialogue” with the very industry doing everything in its power to burn down that future.
While you and I may have thought that lobbying was a way for the powerful commercial interests to ride roughshod over the public interest by buying politicians and corrupting the political process with dirty money, nothing could be further from the truth, explains McPartlan. “Lobbying is at its core a democratic process. It ensures a diversity of voices are heard and considered in policymaking”.
I suppose the $219 million the fossil fuel industry just pumped into the 2023-24 US election cycle buys an awful lot of democracy. All you have to do is look at Trump’s actions in the past 24 hours and his mantra of “drill baby, drill” to see the power of lobbying play out in real time.
So committed are the tree-huggers at FFI to a safer, low-carbon future that in 2021 it threatened legal action against the Irish state over efforts to redirect a 2 cent per litre fuel levy to the Climate Action Fund. The same FFI has a vision for petrol station forecourts to become, wait for it, “dynamic community hubs” selling something called “transformational liquid fuels” (biofuel-blended petrol and hydrotreated vegetable oil). The verbal gymnastics involved here are a sight to behold.
The fossil fuel industry is about as useful as a chocolate teapot in transitioning Ireland towards a near-future where all sectors of our economy, from home heating to transport and industry are powered by clean, domestically-produced renewable electricity direct from wind and solar.
Lobbyists around the world are engaged in a game called extend-and-pretend, using a variety of ploys to create the impression that fossil fuels can play some part in our decarbonised future. Perhaps pushing the idea that the future really will be bright with renewable diesel, or pretending we can fuel aircraft with used cooking oil. Remember the old saying: fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
John Gibbons is an environmental journalist and commentator.
Unsure of what exactly is happening with the earth’s climate? Check out our FactCheck Knowledge Bank for essential reads and guides to finding good information online.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
The funniest part is where it says “should Chinese export approval be achieved “ do they know what they are getting. They should be begging us to deal with them. We are leagues ahead of everyone for the quality beef and lamb we produce. In a starving world for the huge nation of China to think they can come in and see if we meet their standards is insulting. They should come in and we tell them what to pay take it or leave it. The farmers should also be able to say how much and not Kepak. Brexit is on our doorsteps. We don’t want to be in a crappy deal after that lands.
@Martin McFly: The Chineese are good at making chips but I am not sure if they could eat them
@Martin McFly: The Chinese population is 1.4 billion people. We have 5 million. It’s not a good idea to tell the country that could hover up the entire production of sheep meat in Ireland in one fell swoop as to how to go about their business.
China is the worlds 3rd largest importer of sheep meat and we are the worlds 5th largest exporter. The UK is 2nd in that category. With Brexit, we need other markets to rely on. If we were relying on your attitude the Chinese would turn around and tell us to piss off.
BTW what country buys any goods form anyone else without first seeing how they are produced. A lot of retailers over the years did this and it came back to bite them in the ass when it emerged that the £50 shirts they were selling were made by workers in sweatshops on £1 an hour.
@CBD HeavenSent: Hitherto, China have a model of producing at minimal cost without any regard for human rights, animal rights or the environment. This has been proven true in their past envoys. They often copy production systems and just make products themselves at home or elsewhere. With the ridiculously high standards we have in beef and dairy farms in europe, why do we even entertain the Chinese? Leave it to the US, UK, etc.
@Monty Donotno: Well why don’t you go up to the farmers and their families whose livelihoods depend on Chinese exports and tell them that they shouldn’t be selling their product to the Chinese.
There’s a bunch of farmers outside that meat plant in Roscommon so wander up there and tell them that they should stop feeding the Chinese lads and find another way to earn an income for their families.
Let me know how you get on.
@CBD HeavenSent: most sensible arguement I have heard on this topic in a long time. This is the real world after all.
@CBD HeavenSent: what do you think they’ll say? The way the Irish produce their beef is below standard. We’ll have to go somewhere else. Nope son. They need every bit. As cheap as they can get it, and all of Britain’s too post Brexit. That doesn’t put us in the weaker position at the table. They don’t get to make the call on how much. They need the product, we can always find and will always find new customers. Having been in business for over 20 years , dealt with, and been to China they do things their way. Sub-standard, few regulations,and massive greed at the top. Companies working for a communist regime and give peanuts back to the people. So yes, tell them what we want for our rare, superior product … or get the boat.
@Martin McFly: Depending in how low the GBP goes, it might be very hard to compete with Britain on price. China doesn’t ‘need’ beef/lamb, they ‘want’ beef/lamb. If British standards equal ours (as they probably do thanks to the EU), and the Yen ends up with more purchasing power in Britain than Ireland it’ll get pretty hard to convince them to buy our meat, never mind getting to demand a price.
@CBD HeavenSent: no need for the small minded “why don’t you go up there and tell them..” Why would I? I’m making the point, we produce a high cost product, and the Chinese in general want a race to the bottom like much of the world in price and ultimately quality. I’m not an anti-trade communist or something.
A great bunch of lads.
Irish meat is v.expensive in the shops now. I was trying out chicken for a long while but you get tired of that. I try to mimimize meat intake partly because i feel it is over-priced. Meat is expensive and farmers have a point….
@Aire Dezamba: If you think that it’s too expensive then try producing it yourself and see how you get on, looking forward to hearing from you.
@John Mc Donagh: why would she try to produce it?
@Cormac Ó Braonáin: Yes, producing a chicken of your own would be terribly expensive.
@Kieran Woods: you did catch that she was using the chicken example as an expense relief, yeah!?
have your say