Author Archives: angelo@percorso.net

Development and duplicity in the case of the Chepete and El Bala dams

The decades-old developmental fantasy of using Bolivia’s rapid altitude change from the Andes to the Amazon to generate electricity is about to be tested in reality.

Two proposed dams – Chepete and El Bala – are set to form the centre of the government’s dream to make Bolivia ‘The Energy Heart of South America’. 

Located on the Rio Bení north of La Paz, the dams would be the largest infrastructure projects in the country’s history, with total costs approaching $6billion to $8billion.

Critical ecosystem

The project was declared a national priority in 2007 and construction starts next year with the aim to have Chepete and El Bala in operation by 2025 and 2030, respectively.

In 2014, the government commissioned a feasibility study by Geodata, an Italian engineering firm. Both the process and the findings of the study have exposed many of the significant problems underlying the projects. 

The government tried to stifle publication of the Geodata study while commissioning another by the same company. In the meantime, they have persisted with plans to begin construction in 2019. 

Bolivian (and international) law guarantees indigenous groups an open, prior consultation, conducted in good faith, when a project is proposed in their territory. But locals described various instances of corrupt and conniving visits by government officials.

Çhepete and El Bala would sever the waterway intersecting Madidi National Park and Pilon Lajas Biosphere Reserve, which together constitute one of the most biodiverse and well-preserved stretches of Amazon rainforest.

Socio-ecological disaster

Their construction would inundate 771 km² of rainforest, an expanse five times greater than the La Paz urban area. The dams would have all of the wider effects typical of hydroelectric development (interruption of sediment flows and nutrient cycles, disruption of fish migration, elevated mercury content) in one of the most critical ecosystems on earth. 

For the people living in this region, this is not an exclusively environmental issue: their interdependence with the natural environment would make the dams a socio-ecological disaster.

Most directly, the inundations would displace over 4,000 people from the Mosetén, Leco Tacana, and San Jose de Uchupiamona groups – with no clear plan for their resettlement and no compensation for the disappearance of thousands of years of cultural patrimony.

A similar fate will befall those not directly inundated by the reservoirs, as the ecological destruction will deprive both local indigenous nations and the downstream towns of Rurrenabaque and San Buenaventura of their livelihoods.

Since the 1990s, the region has depended on a thriving eco-tourism industry. This sector, which respects the local environment and cultural heritage while providing sustainable incomes, would be crippled by the dams’ impacts.

Higher price

The area is geologically unstable, suggesting a possibility of dam failure caused by landslides or intense rainfall. Recent disasters in Colombia and Laos show just how easily this can unfold, especially in light of increasingly severe weather events due to climate change.

Perhaps most remarkably, though, the project does not appear to be economically viable.

Even the most favorable price estimate (55 USD/mgwhr) exceeds the current market price of energy in Brazil (52 USD/mgwhr), the supposed export market for electricity.

Significantly, these estimates consider neither the cost for the transmission line necessary to transport the electricity, nor the likely price decrease induced by Brazil’s domestic development of energy alternatives.

Executive power

President Evo Morales presents himself as an anti-capitalist advocate for indigenous rights and environmental protection.

Some people in the region have said that Evo’s administration began with honest intentions to support a radical leftist transition, while others have suggested that the rhetoric was only a ruse to gain office. 

All agreed that a systematic disregard for these values has been borne out of a desire to build, maintain, and consolidate executive power.

After nationalizing hydrocarbon resources early in his Presidency, Morales used this income to develop and expand social programs aimed at reducing poverty and improving the standard of living.

But as Morales’ popularity began to rely on these social investments, his dependence on the extractive industries that fund them has also deepened. 

Appeasing supporters

Fracking in Tarijalithium mining in Salar de Uyuni, and, most of all, the TIPNIS highway are all designed to appease Morales’ supporters and augment government bank accounts. And they have all created a wide spectrum of ecological conflicts and resistances.

With hydrocarbon reserves being depleted more rapidly than expected, Morales is turning to hydropower dams like Chepete and El Bala to maintain the income needed for social investments.

But rather than being the key to a sustainable and just future, Chepete and El Bala appear only to be the next step in a line of contradictory, exploitative, and authoritarian projects which disregard the interests and people Morales purports to represent in favor of those on which his power depends.

Fortunately, there is a vast network of selfless and determined people fighting against this potentially great social and environmental injustice. Their resistance is now the most crucial part of the story. 

Activism and resistance

La mancomunidad de las comunidades (commonwealth of communities) was founded to represent the indigenous groups who will be most affected by the dams. They have been the focal point for resistance and communications while representing interests abroad to raise awareness and build capacity. 

La Coordinadora para la Defensa de la Amazonia (Coordinator for the Defense of the Amazon), was formed by a conjunction of indigenous peoples living in the protected areas and local citizens in Rurrenabaque and San Buenaventura. They play a key role in providing supplies, finances, and organizational support.

In the urban centers of La Paz, Cochabamba, and Santa Cruz, larger networks of activists spread the message of the planned injustice amongst a wider and more detached populace.

Most significant among these are Fundación Solón and CEDIB. They have played a central role in disseminating information via several media to raise awareness about the injustices and incongruities inherent to current plans for Chepete and El Bala and speaking truth to power more directly in La Paz.

Great works

There’s a large sign standing outside the two-story, house-like airport building in Rurrenabaque. The right third is a picture of Morales in full presidential regalia, with the rest of the board announcing the details of an airport renovation project taking place this year.

Under the facts, figures, and timeframe it says, “Con grandes obras cambiamos la historia”: with great works we change history.

The activists, scholars, and leaders whom I had the humbling privilege of interviewing are some of the most dedicated, selfless, and inspiring people I have ever had the honor to know.

I was thinking of them as I left Rurrenabaque and once more saw Evo smiling on the sign. Con grandes obras cambiamos la historia. But with them in mind, I would suggest a different line: Con grandes resistencias cambiamos el futuro

With great resistances we change the future.

This Author

Jonathan Elwell is a political science student at Carleton College in the United States with experience researching and writing on issues related to climate change and development.

Dr James Hansen: ‘I thought there would be a rational response’

James Hansen was the first scientist to detect the current rise in global temperatures – but he certainly was not the first to understand the effect greenhouse gases have on global temperatures.

Read the Fakenomics series now!

It was well understood for centuries that without carbon dioxide, the Earth would be too cold to maintain life as we know it. Warnings about climate change in fact predate the discovery of oil.

In 1824, Joseph Fourier discovered the “greenhouse effect” and explained how heat from the sun is trapped in the Earth’s atmosphere. In 1861, the Irish scientist John Tyndall confirmed different gases in the atmosphere—such as carbon dioxide—could change the temperature of the planet.

It was forty years later, on 10 January 1901, that brothers Al and Curt Hammil used a rotary drill for the first time and sunk an oil well that produced a hundred thousand barrels a day—“the combined production of every other well on Earth”.

Guy Callender, a British scientist, came to the conclusion in 1961 that a contemporary rise in global temperatures was due to carbon dioxide, but his faith in the theory cooled when in 1963 Britain experienced the coldest winter in more than two centuries.

HOW CLIMATE SCIENCE BECAME A POLITICAL ISSUE

Part 1: James Hansen: How Climate Change Became Political

Part 2: James Hansen: I Thought There Would Be a Rational Response

Part 3: How Free Market Thatcher First Called for Climate Action

Pioneering climate science was initially welcomed and well understood in the White House. President Jimmy Carter, known as the “worrier-in-chief”, ordered his staff to draft the Global 2000 Report, which drew together all the potential risks to person and nation, which in turn posed the question about the sensitivity of the Earth’s temperatures to rising greenhouse gases.

Carter installed 32 solar panels in the White House in June 1979—at the height of the Middle Eastern oil embargo.

He said the solar heater might become “a small part of one of the greatest and most exciting adventures ever undertaken by the American people, harnessing the power of the sun to enrich our lives as we move away from our crippling dependence on foreign oil.”

Hansen would reflect years later: “Considering that Carter initiated and approved projects aimed at extracting oil and gas from coal, as well as cooking the Rocky Mountains to squeeze oil from tar shale, he had very good reason to worry.”

Exterminate all life

“These projects, if they had been carried to full fruition and spread to other nations, had the potential to exterminate all life on Earth.”

The term “global warming” was first used in a scientific paper by Hansen in 1981 when he published his article “Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide” in the journal Science.

He told the author: “That was the point where it was clear that this was going to happen in our lifetime.”

“I remember telling Andy Lassis, my colleague at Iowa University, that wow, by the end of this century we will definitely be able to see the effects that humans are having on this planet. And that was an eye opener.”

Hansen at first struggled to get the article published. The scientist resorted to cutting out graphs showing how coal, oil and gas burning correlated with the rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

The 1981 journal article prompted dire headlines on the front page of the New York Times. Hansen suffered no fear or trepidation back then.

A rational response

“We had coal phase-out scenarios. I wasn’t thinking, ‘oh, this is really gonna happen out in the twenty-first century’, because I thought there would be a rational response.”

“There has not been: it’s as if we didn’t know. We might as well not know. Our fossil fuel use wouldn’t be much different. By and large, the emissions have just continued to accelerate.”

Everything changed when Ronald Reagan, an avid reader of Hayek and exponent of the free markets, was elected president in 1981 and immediately ordered that the White House solar panels were to be removed.

Under the new leader of the free world, the department of energy cancelling funding to Hansen’s department at NASA.

“Other researchers were told their funding would be terminated if they used climate models developed in Hansen’s lab, and some of his researchers were laid off as other funding was arranged,” according to environmental author Mark Lynas.

“The pressure was so intense that Hansen sometimes asked to testify as a private citizen rather than as a federal employee.”

Climate change would be kept off the American policy agenda for a further seven years. After Hansen told the Senate in 1988 that America was experiencing its hottest year in modern human history, he was subjected to years of censorship.

Hansen, by demonstrating that climate change was already taking place, forced the issue. But, surprisingly, it was Reagan’s closest political ally and fellow advocate of the free market who would finally put the global crisis of climate change onto the international agenda.

This Author

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist, founder of Request Initiative and co-author of Impact of Market Forces on Addictive Substances and Behaviours: The web of influence of addictive industries (Oxford University Press)He tweets at @EcoMontague. This article first appeared at Desmog.uk.

Acquitted coal mine protester speaks out against UK legal system

One of the protesters acquitted last week of trespassing on a new coal mine site in County Durham has spoken out against the legal system that protects designated animal species but fails to protect the climate.

Sarah Johnson was found not guilty of aggravated trespass along with seven other protesters, after the group argued they had been fighting to prevent a wildlife crime against a newt species classified as endangered by European law.

“It’s really bittersweet,” Johnson said of the outcome, “because the law serves to protect this species as it should, but when it comes to the climate – that Banks Group is directly affecting by mining coal that will be burnt – that’s not protected. If we had argued for climate change, we probably wouldn’t have won.”

Residential camp

Banks Group, the company behind the mine, said it had found no great crested newts in ecological surveys taken over a number of years, but the protesters claimed to have found one of the protected amphibians on the site.

“Of course, the great crested newt is something I strongly care about and that’s why I was there, but it seems completely contradictory that the law will protect a species but it’s not going to protect the ecosystem that that species survives in. That goes across species,” Johnson said.

“If we are trying to protect these species then we should be trying to protect the climate even more so.”

Protect Pont Valley protesters after their acquittal
Protect Pont Valley members after the acquittal

Protesters, calling themselves the Protect Pont Valley group, set up a residential camp in February. Johnson, who graduated from the University of Sussex with a degree in history and philosophy last summer, got involved with the campaign after reflecting on how to put her ideas surrounding the environment into reality.

“I’ve been interested in environmentalism for a really long time, since I was a kid. I remember watching the news when they were talking about global warming and it terrified me,” she said.

Nature reserve

Her turn to direct action resulted from exasperation with other campaign methods. “I wrote letters, I signed petitions religiously, and nothing’s changing. Yes there’ve been some wins, but we’re still going in the direction of complete climate breakdown and ecocide.”

She added: “For me, if I can actually stop that act [of extracting coal] in reality, in that moment, that is so important. 

“I’ve lost a lot of faith in the possibilities of government bringing in the needed legislation, or companies actually taking responsibility for their actions and giving reparations to the countries or people they are affecting through fossil fuels, clothes or agriculture.”

Protect Pont Valley
The group handing in a petition to the then local government secretary, Sajid Javid

The protesters were evicted in April. Some, including Johnson, were arrested after locking themselves onto platforms, trees and equipment.

Banks Group plans to extract 500,000 tonnes of coal from the mine, which it says will bring 30 jobs to the area. The company has committed itself to planting a nature reserve on the site after finishing operations in 2021.

Restraining order

Johnson said she wasn’t feeling overly hopeful about what impact, if any, last week’s judgement would have on the future of the Bradley mine. She says the pond where the great crested newt was found has already been destroyed. Mining operations began at the start of summer.

“It’s a really funny feeling going through this whole very long process of getting arrested, waiting for the trial, and going through the trial.

“Then you get found not guilty and it feels like it should be a really amazing moment. But we don’t know how much it actually is going to change,” Johnson said.

“I’m always slightly overly pessimistic on these things, about how much we can change, especially when everything seems to be on the side of the extractivist industry.”

Despite this, she plans to carry on campaigning – although she doesn’t plan on breaking a restraining order imposed at the trial that prevents the acquitted eight from going near the site.

Applying pressure

“We’ve had a series of setbacks but carry on going,” she said.

The Protect Pont Valley group have planned a skill-sharing event and a demonstration for September, but their work against the wider extraction industry may be cut out.

Banks is currently appealing a rejection by Sajid Javid, the former local government secretary, of planning permission for an open cast mine in Northumberland. Javid turned down the proposal due to the impact it would have on climate change.

Johnson’s experiences at the Bradley site do not seem to have put her off the challenge.

“I hope we can continue the campaign and continue applying pressure, and hopefully make sure no other open cast sites [go ahead]. Even if we can’t stop this one, it could be the last open cast coal site in the UK.” 

This Author

Alexandra Heal is a freelance journalist. She has written for the Guardian, the i, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and DeSmog UK. She tweets at @alexandraheal.

French farmers feel Dewayne Johnson’s pain

A San Francisco court has ordered Monsanto to award $289m to Dewayne Johnson for failing to warn that RoundUp causes cancer.

The news made headlines around the world that day. In France, where farming remains at the heart of national identity, it has been impossible to ignore. 

This is in part because France has its own Dewayne Johnson in grain-grower Paul François. Contrary to what some outlets asserted over the weekend, it was François, not Johnson, who earned the grim title of first successful plaintiff against the agrochemical giant Monsanto, after a Court in Lyon 2012 ruled that Monsanto had failed to warn of the dangers  of its herbicide, Lasso.

Life-changing consequences 

The circumstances under which the men were poisoned are very different.  Johnson, a school gardener in the suburbs of San Francisco, eventually fell ill after spraying RoundUp, the world’s best-selling weedkiller. 

By contrast,  Paul François’ poisoning can be traced back to a single moment in the summer 2004 when he checked the pesticide container of his tractor and inadvertently inhaled the residues of Lasso, a herbicide already banned in several countries. 

In both cases the consequences have been life changing. Johnson has been diagnosed with mycosis fungoides, a skin-based non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma that has left his body crippled with cancerous lesions; Paul François suffers from a serious neurological disorder, with symptoms including comas, violent headaches, mood swings, memory loss, and nausea.

Yet in spite of the outward differences, Monsanto’s playbook of obfuscation, dissemblance and outright deceit has remained the same. 

Scientific chicanery 

At the verdict on Friday, the San Francisco jury said that Monsanto had acted with deliberate “malice or oppression” by covering up the harmful effects of glyphosate, and that it had “fought science”. 

Internal company documents ordered for release by the Federal State, known otherwise as the Monsanto papers, have revealed that the Missouri-based firm was aware of the cancerogenic effects of glyphosate, the primary component of RoundUp, as early as 1982. 

Instead of redesigning their product, the firm paid employees to ghostwrite studies and cultivated a network of friendly scientists across the US and Europe. 

Alongside scientific chicanery, Monsanto have systematically denied victims’ suffering. Borrowing the tobacco industry’s favourite trick, Monsanto’s lawyers argued that Johnson’s cancer was inherited, citing a study that showed that there was a higher prevalence of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma among the African-American community.  

Similarly, when François naively called the company in 2004 to discuss his illness, Monsanto’s doctors dismissed it as unrelated to their product and offered a tidy settlement provided the farmer dropped his case. 

Protecting profits

Monsanto has appealed against both verdicts – and we can only hope for the terminally ill Johnson that the American justice serves him better than its French counterpart. Despite two condemnations in 2012 and 2015, François is still fighting the company’s appeal, and has yet to receive a cent of  compensation.

Meanwhile, Bayer AG, the conglomerate that bought Monsanto in June this year, has said it is “convinced that glyphosate is safe and does not cause cancer”.

On both sides of the Atlantic the agrochemical industry has persistently twisted science to protect its multibillion dollar-worth products. 

This is, of course, nothing new. Once released to the market the first instinct of chemical producers has been to protect profits against those who raise sanitary and environmental concerns. 

The US government has been aware for a century – literally since 1918 – of the premature deaths of workers from handling asbestos. Yet it took 80 years for the UK to ban it, and asbestos continues to be in use in the States. It took 10 years from the publication of Silent Spring by biologist Rachel Carson to the eventual ban of DDT in 1972.

Serious exposure

But what of the safety of the 10,000 odd commercial formulations apart from RoundUp, many of which can linger in the environment for years? 

Alerted by whistleblowers like Paul Francois, French society is fast losing patience with pesticide producers.  

In a 2016 poll 72% French people said that they believed pesticides posed an “important risk” to society. Pressured by victims and mounting scientific evidence, the agricultural branch of  French social security now recognizes that pesticides can cause Parkinsons disease and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. 

The French state has estimated no less than 10,000 farmers suffer the two illnesses, and that up to  a million people are seriously exposed to pesticides. 

Anger is mounting. Générations Futures (Future Generations), an influential NGO campaigning for alternatives to pesticides, has voiced hope that Johnson’s court battle will act as an “electroshock”, while the French environmental minister, Nicolas Hulot, said on Saturday the verdict signaled the “start of a war” against pesticides.

‘Day of reckoning’

With more than 4,000 similar cases scheduled across the US, Friday 10 August may well be remembered as what attorney Brent Wisner described as Monsanto’s “day of reckoning”. 

The UK’s corporate culture is so favourable to Monsanto that the firm chose to settle its European headquarters in Cambridge. But here’s to the wild hope that the UK join arms with pesticide victims worldwide and champion a truly sustainable agriculture. 

Over the Channel, France has pledged to reduce its pesticide use by half by 2025 and ban glyphosate by 2022. If Michael Gove is in any way serious about delivering a Green Brexit, he will follow suit. 

This Author 

Natalie Sauer is a French British journalist covering environmental and agricultural matters. She has recently completed an investigation into pesticide-related illnesses in France, and has written for publications such as Politico Europe, AFP, The World Weekly, and El Ecologista.

New generation of pesticides can reduce bumblebee reproduction

Sulfoxaflor, the first branded sulfoximine-based insecticide, is currently licensed for use in 47 countries around the world, and is under review for licensing in the UK.

PhD student Harry Siviter, alongside Professor Mark Brown, and Dr Ellouise Leadbeater, all from the School of Biological Sciences at Royal Holloway, tested the effects of the substance on bumblebee colonies.

In their experiment, sulfoxaflor reduced both the size of bumblebee colonies and the number of male offspring they produced, with a 54% reduction in the total number of sexual offspring produced in exposed colonies.

Likely successor 

Their study is pre-emptive, because sulfoxaflor is a new product and we currently have limited data about the levels to which bees are likely to be exposed in the pollen and nectar of sprayed crops.

However, such impacts identify that broad use of sulfoxaflor pesticides could have the potential to harm wild bumblebee populations, under certain conditions.  

Harry Siviter said: “Neonicotinoids are the most commonly used insecticide in the world, but the evolution of resistance by pests, as well as bans and restrictions on their usage has resulted in a demand for alternative pesticides”.

“Sulfoximine-based insecticides are a likely successor and are being registered for use globally.

“Our results show that sulfoxaflor can have a negative impact on the reproductive output of bumblebee colonies under certain conditions.”

Risk assessment 

Dr Elli Leadbeater added: “Our study highlights that stressors that do not directly kill bees can still have damaging effects further down the line, because the health of the colony depends on the health of its workforce.”

The results of this research highlight the need to incorporate the sub-lethal consequences of novel insecticides on bumblebees and other wild bees into the risk assessment process.

Professor Mark Brown said: “We need to know much more about what levels of emerging insecticides wild bees will be exposed to in the field – only with realistic and publicly available exposure data for a range of crops can we determine the true risk of these insecticides to wild bees and other important pollinators.”

This Author

Marianne Brooker is a contributing editor for The Ecologist. This story is based on a press release from Royal Holloway, University of London. The full title of the paper is ‘Sulfoxaflor exposure reduces bumblebee reproductive success’. It was published in Nature on 15 August 2018. 

 

Oil and tobacco explain funding of neoliberalism

Friedrich von Hayek, the architect of a Thatcherism defined by its the privatisation, tax breaks and strike breaking, would be officially recognised in December 1984. He had already received the Nobel Prize for Economics—but this was the real highlight.

Read the Fakenomics series now!

Hayek was made a member of the Order of the Companions of Honour by the Queen, on the prime minister’s recommendation, for “services to the study of economics”.

The audience with the Queen was followed by a jubilant dinner with family and friends at the Institute of Economic Affairs. “I’ve just had the happiest day of my life,” Hayek said.

Margaret Thatcher in turn thanked Fisher, Harris, and her sponsors at the IEA during its 30th anniversary dinner at Grosvenor House in April 1987.

Fisher flew over from the United States for the auspicious occasion. He was at this point 72 years old, and finally considering retirement.

He had recently hired John Blundell, a childhood admirer of the IEA and a friend of Thatcher’s, to take over as president of his US-based Atlas Economic Research Foundation.

Effective fundraiser

Blundell was then head of the Institute of Humane Studies, with a reputation as “a highly effective manager and fundraiser”.

Fisher had a lot to celebrate. Thirty years ago his ideas were at the very margins of respectability, and the free market seemed like an economist’s shameful fantasy.

Yet, during the previous year alone, the government had implemented the “Big Bang”, with regulations for the savings and investment industry torn asunder. Then, in December 1986, British Gas was sold off in its entirety for £5.6 billion.

The anniversary dinner was held. Lord Blake told the dinner guests: “No single body has contributed more than the IEA to the long overdue destruction of étatisme and to the recovery of Britain.”

Finally, it was Thatcher’s turn to speak. “Anyone who dared to challenge the conventional wisdom of the post-war consensus was derided, pilloried, criticised, frowned upon, and looked down upon as being either reactionary, pitiful, or ignorant,” she said.

“The IEA dared to challenge that. You did not say, as so many others did so, ‘what can a few people do among so many’.”

“You set out to challenge, to change public sentiment… once you, with your courage, gave expression to other views, others followed… what we have achieved could never have been done without the leadership of the Institute of Economic Affairs.”

John Blundell was in the United States at the time, but soon got hold of the gossip from the night. “I heard she was infuriated at how long the 10 men ahead of her spoke,” he told the author.

Bleeding heart

“She tried to convince Fisher that evening to allow the Tory party to take over the IEA, and he was appalled at the idea, and said ‘no way!’” Lawson, it appears, did not attend.

He was, at that time, working on a project to tie aide to developing countries to Thatcherite economic reforms. As he himself said, “I was not known, for good reason, as a bleeding heart.”

Harris, the indefatigable fundraiser, made good use of Thatcher’s kind words. He wrote to British American Tobacco, British Petroleum, and Esso (later to become part of ExxonMobil), asking for an increase in contributions.

“If you had been at the anniversary dinner and heard the PM say ‘what has been achieved would never have been done without the leadership of the IEA, you would agree we should do all we can to strengthen its work in the decisive years ahead,” he wrote in a note to Patrick Sheehy, the non-smoking BAT chairman.

“You have been among our strongest supporters over the years, and are already entitled to share the tributes paid to our success. I question whether I dare address a further appeal to you for the fund of £600,000, to acquire the freehold of 2 Lord North Street or an alternative permanent address. Before going public, I’d like to collect pledges for at least £200,000 from a dozen or so special friends.” 

Internal documents released after legal action show that BAT agreed to pay £10,000 to the appeal. “We didn’t get anything out of it except we got some ideas, and we talked about free enterprise and the market economy and things like that.”

Capitalist environment

“They got a lot of support from us,” Sheehy told the author. “The benefit to shareholders is that, in a capitalist company, you would want a capitalist environment to thrive… The less regulation the better. Although there’s obviously got to be some, but it’s got to be a minimum.”

British Petroleum, then 31 per cent owned by the state, agreed to donate £20,000 on top of its annual subscription of £10,000 a year. Esso paid considerably more, according to Clive Wright, who was the director of corporate affairs at the time.

The chairman, Norman Foster, attended Malborough Grammar with Harris, and the two were lifelong friends. “When I was there, we were big supporters of Hayek. We gave them a major donation when they wanted to buy the premises at Lord North Street,” Wright recalled.

“I met Ralph quite a lot at a lunch couple of times in the House of Lords. Very interesting man, very lively and in depth, very much a free thinker. The last thing I want to give you is an impression of anything improper.”

He went on to add: “We had a very strict policy that we did not get involved politically… of course we are free market company, so naturally we believe in the free market. Yes, we didn’t like state control, particularly in something as sensitive as oil.”

The IEA, at the height of its influence and long before climate change was an issue, was bankrolled by Big Oil and Big Tobacco as both industries fought regulation and taxation.

This Author

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist, founder of Request Initiative and co-author of Impact of Market Forces on Addictive Substances and Behaviours: The web of influence of addictive industries (Oxford University Press)He tweets at @EcoMontague. This article first appeared at Desmog.uk

Burned up: wood-fueled electricity could be more damaging than coal

Drax Power, the country’s largest utility, began converting its old coal-fired boilers into ones that run on wood a decade ago, with the financial support of the UK Government. 

In 2017, subsidies to Drax cost Britons £729million, or nearly £2million pounds per dayThese subsidies fueled a voracious demand: the UK is now the world’s top importer of wood pellets.

This has put the country out of step with the realities of climate science, economics, and the needs of the electricity grid. 

Increased awareness

Scientists do not see largescale use of biomass for electricity as the preferred de-carbonization approach. But that didn’t stop the Department of Energy, Business & Industrial Strategy from approving another biomass conversion at Drax Power Station this year.

The public is now becoming more aware that burning trees is not good for the environment, and voices against biomass are growing louder. 

In April 2018, Channel 4’s Dispatchesaired a hard-hitting investigative report exposing the destruction behind the UK’s move to replace dirty coal with wood fuel. 

As Dispatches journalists uncovered, in parts of the Southern US, unique hardwood forests that are massive storehouses of carbon are being clear cut, manufactured into wood pellets, and loaded on ships destined for Drax’s boilers.

Back in January 2019, researchers at MIT found that when plants switch to biomass, “the first impact is an increase in carbon dioxide, worsening global warming over the critical period through to 2100, even if the wood offsets coal, the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel”

They weren’t alone. At the same time, a whopping 800 scientists wrote to the European Commission to say biomass electricity is a false climate solution.

Recommended reforms 

The European Academies of Science Advisory Council (EASAC) agreed. They warned that, “forest biomass with long carbon payback periods could increase atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, putting Paris Agreement targets at risk”. 

The EASAC urged policymakers to reconsider their approach to using forest biomass for energy. 

In May 2018, in a first-ever statement from a conservative institution of its kind, the right-leaning think tank Bright Blue published a report on strengthening the UK’s 2008 Climate Change Act.

They stated plainly that, “some sources of bioenergy, such as woody biomass in the power sector, do not deliver genuine greenhouse gas emission savings relative to fossil fuels”.

Amongst the recommended reforms was complete accounting for biomass carbon emissions, including at the smokestack, to prevent an expansion in the use of bioenergy that sets the UK back in its climate goals. 

If this happened, the jig would be up. Woody biomass would account for more carbon emissions per watt of electricity than coal, and no policymaker could justify subsidizing it.  

‘Missing emissions’

Unfortunately for Britons who care about climate change, a June report from the venerable think tank Chatham House showed the UK Government to be increasingly isolated on this controversial fuel: “Only the UK has seen a substantial increase in the generation of electricity from biomass both in absolute terms and as a proportion of electricity from renewable sources”.  

Chatham House also identified the UK as top importer of wood fuel from countries that do not completely or uniformly account for carbon losses in forests when trees are cut down to be burned for energy. 

The result? Massive quantities of “missing emissions”: there is carbon dioxide going up into the atmosphere that the UK simply pretends doesn’t exist.    

Unlike some other EU countries, the UK is in the enviable position of having affordable and low-risk alternatives to burning wood in old coal plants. 

In fact, its solar and wind projects are cheap and getting cheaper, and its offshore wind prices have set records. 

Diverse technologies

The UK’s Committee on Climate Change lamented that the clean energy solutions the UK needs do exist, but those in charge don’t back them. The committee concluded that: “Low-cost, low-risk options to reduce emissions,” such as onshore wind, “are not being supported by Government.” 

New analysis from Vivid Economics and Imperial College supports this critique. It suggests that not only is biomass more expensive than solar and wind, but unnecessary to ensure the reliability of a smart, low-carbon UK electricity grid. 

In place of burning wood, the UK could de-carbonize electricity sector emissions by 2030 relying almost entirely on new investments in wind, solar, and smart resources, such as battery storage, demand response, and interconnection with Europe. 

The government should focus on delivering this mix of technologies, not on delivering biomass. 

Public outrage

The devastation of forests portrayed by Dispatchesshows the toll to our planet from the UK Government’s recklessdecision to subsidize this fake clean energy. 

The program was particularly powerful because the biomass industry’s ability to traffic on a “green” image depends on people remaining in the dark about its true costs. 

Duncan Brack, a former energy official and author of the Chatham House’s biomass report, told Dispatches:“If the public understood that we are using public money raised from electricity bill payers to subsidize the clear-cutting of American forests and increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere, then they would be outraged”.

As more people speak out against biomass, pressure builds for policymakers to pull their head out of the sand, acknowledge the mistake they have made, and correct their course.

There have been glimmers of good news, such as a recent decision to increase efficiency requirements for combined heat and power plants burning biomass. 

Destructive policies

Claire Perry, minister for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, would still prefer we believe industry fabrications instead of our own lying eyes. 

Perry’s complicity in this scam is particularly troubling. She presents the UK as a global “leader” in tackling climate change by substituting dirty coal with equally dirty biomass. 

The reality of these destructive policies can no longer be ignored. It’s time for UK citizens to demand that Theresa May’s government become the climate leader it claims to be and end payouts to this dirty industry. 

Choosing to ignore the overwhelming evidence will leave the UK isolated, while other countries scale-up genuine low-carbon energy solutions, like energy efficiency, storage, solar power and wind power. 

This Author

Sasha Stashwick is a senior advocate at the Natural Resources Defense Council. 

Fossil fuel giant Shell to sponsor exhibition at Manchester Science Festival

They’re at it again.

Despite campaigners’ repeated calls for publicly-funded museums to drop controversial commercial deals, the Museum of Science and Industry has agreed a deal with fossil fuel giant Shell to sponsor a new exhibition, DeSmog UK can reveal.

The exhibition, Electricity: The Spark of Life will run for six months, as part of the Manchester Science Festival. It will be sponsored by Shell UK, North West Electricity, and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.

Campaigners said they were “hugely disappointed” at the museum’s decision.

Undermining integrity

Shell’s sponsorship of the exhibition is controversial, but not unusual. The company has corporate partnerships with the Science Museum, Southbank Centre and National Theatre.

Email correspondence previously published by DeSmog UK showed how cosy these partnerships can be, with Shell using its sponsorship of the National Gallery to obtain private tours and ticketing privileges.

Documents released earlier this year analysed by DeSmog UK show that Shell has known about the dangers of climate change for decades. Shell recently announced it would increase its investment in clean energy technology, from $1 billion a year to $1-2 billion. But that works out as less than 6 percent of its $25-30 billion total annual investment.

In July, a group of leading climate scientists, academics and environmentalists lodged a formal complaint with the Science Museum over their partnerships with big oil companies. They accused the museum of “undermining its integrity as a scientific institution” by partnering with BP, Shell and Statoil despite the companies’ contribution to climate change.  

Carbon Co-op, an NGO that was partnered with the Manchester Science Festival, have today announced their withdrawal from the event.

Big challenge

Jonathan Atkinson Carbon Co-op said: “Our core mission is around developing ways to address the causes and effects of climate change. It is hugely disappointing that Manchester Science Museum have chosen to align themselves with a company that holds significant carbon reserves, with a historic position in denying climate change and a responsibility for tackling the issue.”

The broadcaster Chris Packham was a signatory to a letter organised by Carbon Coop opposing the sponsorship. He said in a statement: “As the world swelters and wildlife struggles in this unprecedented heatwave, MSI has decided to partner with Shell, one of the corporations responsible for fuelling climate change.

A museum dedicated to science education should not be helping promote any company that is actively exacerbating this planetary emergency until they show a serious proactive drive to switch to renewables. And thus far this is not happening.”

A spokesperson for Shell said: “Shell has long recognised both the importance of climate change and the critical role energy must play in enabling a decent quality of life for people across the world.

“The big challenge, for society and for a company like Shell, is how to provide much more energy while at the same time significantly reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. 

Prospective funders

“Sponsorship of this exhibition is part of the long standing relationship between Shell and the Science Museum, based on shared interests such as the need to inspire young people about science.”

A spokesperson for the Museum of Science and Industry told DeSmog UK: “We work with a range of funders to support our mission to ignite curiosity in science.

“At a time when Government funding is declining in real terms, we are only in a position to be able to do this because of the strong support of a range of individual philanthropists, corporate partners and charitable trusts.

“We apply the same thought and consideration to all prospective funders, whether corporate, charitable trusts or individual philanthropists, and any partner that wishes to work with us must accept that editorial control sits firmly with the museum.”

This Article

This article first appeared at Desmog.uk.

Living walls: a resilient trend

At this summer’s Chelsea Flower Show, Tony Woods, Director of Garden Club London, incorporated a Royal Horticultural Society trend into his award-winning Urban Flow Garden for Thames Water: a living wall, or vertical garden.

Woods created an edible living wall, inspiring gardeners to grow food in a small space while monitoring their water usage.

Woods said: “For edible walls, our system uses individual units that clip in and out of the main framework; you can replace plants and experiment with a range of evergreen and annual edibles.”

Vertical gardening 

Since Chelsea ended, many countries including the UK and the USA have faced prolonged heatwaves and drought conditions, creating added pressure for gardeners to restrict water usage whilst keeping plants healthy.

Living walls tend to require less water than similar ground-based displays, and the option of built-in hydroponic watering systems mean that potential hosepipe bans pose no threat. Whilst the living wall trend has flourished for several years for businesses and individuals, the Royal Horticultural Society’s approval and the persistent heatwave increase its appeal.

In contrast, Woods said: “Ground level planters are often specified by designers and architects with no form of watering, using crazy materials like stainless steel, which speeds the drought in tough conditions.” 

In her book, Grow a Living Wall, Chicago-based organic garden designer, author and social media influencer Shawna Coronado proves how accessible vertical gardening can be, whatever your space. Many of the living walls she creates are freestanding – the simplest are based on “layers of window boxes to hold 35-40 plants” – and affordable. 

Coronado recommends her own organic soil recipe to maximise efficiency: “One-third organic soil, one-third rotted manure, and one-third leaf mould or kitchen compost, and a scoopful of organic fertiliser when planting. This means watering twice a week, or every three days, not every day.”

Business sense

By 2015, living walls had become hugely popular for UK businesses, signposting their eco credentials and better assimilating their sites into the local area. There’s a certain amount of camouflage, even in built-up shopping streets or soulless retail parks, but less maintenance required than with flowerbeds or window boxes. 

The Village Bakery Baking Academy in Wrexham, Wales, is a perfect example: its 72m² LivePanel wall is a focal point, fed by a hydroponic rainwater system that reflects the bakery’s eco-friendly stance.

High street retailer Marks & Spencer was an early living wall adopter at branches like Cheshire Oaks, as part of its Plan A sustainability initiative in 2015. 

In the same year, living wall specialists ANS Global built the UK’s largest living wall, over 1000m², for the National Grid car park façade in Warwick, featuring strawberries and mentha. More recently, at the Postal Museum in London, a once-blank wall holds nearly 3,500 primarily evergreen plants, with five antique post-boxes interspersed. 

A vast living wall earns its keep at the Hotel Rubens at the Palace, in central London. Harriet Rowlinson, of the hotel, said: “The Rubens is kept cooler in summer and warmer in winter, lowering our carbon footprint, and it has encouraged birds, bees and butterflies, which was one of our main aims. We capture rainwater from the roof of the building in dedicated 10,000 litre storage tanks, which ultimately reduces urban flooding.”

Reducing pollution

It’s handy marketing fodder, too: a new Go Green hotel package, complete with vegan afternoon tea, imparts secrets of the living wall. Rowlinson said: “gardeners have to abseil down to reach the flowerbeds.”

The most tangible benefits of living walls are a reduction in air pollution and a habitat for bees, butterflies and other insects. Coronado noted they provide pollinator trails for migrating pollinators, “such as monarch butterflies”. 

Steve McIntyre, of ANS Global, knows pollution absorption rates vary by location, season, weather and plant varieties – he cited Hedera Helix as an efficient COabsorber – but biodiversity results are rapid:

“We recently built an 800m² wall in the Barbican, and already it’s attracting honey bees and butterflies. We also try to plant local species and bulbs that were there before construction.”

McIntyre emphasised that living walls help developers reach the green space targets attached to building regulations, especially in cities, where every inch on the ground comes at a premium. According to the Land Atlas of the UK, 98% of land in the City of London is built on. Unsurprisingly, the only way is up. 

International excellence 

Milan’s photogenic Bosco Verticale (or Vertical Forest), is a world-famous development. Its two plant-covered tower blocks designed by Boeri Studio won the RIBA Award for International Excellence in 2018.

With almost 17,000 plants and trees in just 1,500m² of ground space, Bosco Verticale comes highly praised by Biophilic Cities Journal, edited by Tim Beatley, Professor of Sustainable Communities at the University of Virginia and founder of the Biophilic Cities Network. 

External living walls are also popular at universities. ANS Global installed them in Cambridge, Edinburgh and York, whilst volunteers and students at the University of Texas at Austin built their own honeycomb design as a habitat for hummingbirds, lizards and owls.

The University of Ottawa’s six-storey indoor living wall biofilter, the largest of its kind in North America, reduces noise pollution and filters an incredible 80-85% of volatile compounds from the surrounding air; find smaller-scale begonia-studded walls at the University of Malmö, Sweden. 

Glasgow University’s new student accommodation at a former printworks, and Nottingham Trent’s University Hall extension, both set for completion in 2019, will feature living walls. 

Attainable and Sustainable

The American Farmland Trust reported losing 175 acres of farmland per hour to developers. 

Meanwhile, an indoor vertical farm at Princeton University tests the optimal ways to grow everything from kale and strawberries to basil and spearmint which, when successfully harnessed, will help combat the reduction in arable land for traditional farming. 

Whether growing food, flowers or an array of evergreens, a living wall is an attainable and sustainable way to support the environment, regardless of budget or scale.

This Author

Polly Allen is a journalist and travel blogger. 

How Lawson sold BP – and how an Arab state almost got control

Lord Lawson is a  leading member of the ‘take back control’ Brexit brigade, and a vocal climate denier. He believes himself to be a very wise man indeed.

But his sale of BP to the private sector nearly handed the oil company to an Arab state and this means that today, governments cannot control carbon emissions.

Read the Fakenomics series now!

The Hayek-inspired revolution was about to become a reality as British Petroleum (BP) would be sold into private ownership.

BP had long been a sponsor of the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) which was crucial in raising Thatcher and Lawson to the crowning heights of the British state. Lawson would return the favour by now selling off the company, loosening it from the control of the bureaucrats.

Ironically, the way Lawson conducted the sale would prove so controversial that even BP itself would object – and accuse the government of failing to get the best deal for the taxpayer.

Sir Peter Walters, the chairman of the oil major, now believes that if Lawson was in fact trying to act in the interests of the British public, then he showed extraordinary poor judgement, putting the ideological need for a successful sale ahead of ensuring the best price, and ultimately acting out of “panic”.

When the Conservatives came into power in 1979, the British state still owned 51 per cent of the company.

Geoffrey Howe, on becoming chancellor, began the sale of over 80 million shares, or a five per cent stake. It was Lawson who began planning the complete sell off. “It was the largest share sale the world had ever seen,” he would recall.

Largest Flotation

The chancellor opted for a fire sale; the shares would be sold over three years, but a single price would be set at just £3.30.

The price was suggested by Michael Richardson, the head of of corporate finance at the merchant bankers who advised the government on the sale.

Lawson recalls in his autobiography: “I astonished both Michael Richardson and my officials by crying ‘Done!’ as soon as the price, for which Richardson apologised, was put to me. It was the shortest pricing meeting in which I ever participated.”

Walters met with Lawson’s treasury official at BP’s head office in St James’s Street. “What sort of period are you going to make this sale,” he asked.

“This is by far the largest flotation in human history. I assume we’re going to do it over a number of years.”

The official replied: “Oh, we’re going to do it over three years,” before adding, “but we’re going to price it immediately for the whole of the three years and we will just collect a third, a third, a third of the money.”

Walters was stunned. “So you’re actually selling it one lump?” The official nodded. “I think that’s risking failure. Anything can go wrong. It’s the biggest share offering ever made in this market.

“You might find that the market had gone up to a point where you get a pound a share more for the second tranche.”

Walters advised a staged sale, with a new price set each year. But the official was not negotiating. “Oh no, we’ve got so many other privatisations,” he said. Walters concluded: “That is tremendously risky.”

The BP boss was so concerned about the method of sale that he insisted on speaking to Lawson directly. He outlined his fears that the share price might collapse, allowing a rival foreign controlled firm to take over Britain’s biggest energy company.

Lawson recalls the warning: “There will be the possibility that an unwelcome buyer could obtain a major stake in BP for a very low initial cost,” Lawson quoted Walters as saying. “Twenty percent of the company may be procured from desperate sellers for around £1 billion.”

Brushed aside

Lawson was, however, adamant that the sale should be rapid.  

The government was set on a course of massive privatisation, and the budget had been drawn up on the basis of billions in profits from the sale of the oil company.

The chancellor would not countenance any arguments to stagger the sale, even if this would mean greater profits for the government, to the benefit of the taxpayer. Walters had delivered his warning, but “Lawson rather brushed it aside.”

On Thursday 15 October 1987, the government announced the share price of BP to the general public, amid much fanfare and costly advertising.

Lawson spoke in front of a vast crowd in front of the Old Botanic House in the City of London. Paratroopers abseiled down the front of the headquarters of BP unrolling a huge banner.

“The price was all rolled up like a enormous curtain, so paratroopers came down over the side of the building on ropes and rolled it and rolled it and rolled it and there it was: 3-3-0. The government’s share offering of 330 pence was open for three weeks, or 21 days”, recalls Walters.

That evening the weatherman Michael Fish told BBC viewers that “earlier on today, apparently, a woman rang the BBC and said she’d heard there was a hurricane on the way.”

He smiled: “Well, if you’re watching, don’t worry, there isn’t.”

Overnight, a freak hurricane crossed the Atlantic and tore through country, destroying England’s oldest and most beautiful trees.  

When City traders arrived for work the following morning, they found the markets had been closed.

By happenstance, Monday 19 October 1987, witnessed an international stock market crash, causing pandemonium in Wall Street—and the City of London.

Black Monday, as it was immediately named, was the worst day of trading since the 1929 Wall Street crash. Shares in Britain’s 100 biggest companies lost almost a third of their value over the following days.

Awful carnage

Some traders were paralysed by the shock, and stood staring into space, “sweat running down their faces”.

Richard Oldfield, a City fund manager at the time, told The Guardian newspaper: “We had returned early from a holiday to deal with the fallen trees, when somebody called me at home to tell me that the Dow had fallen by 500 points.

“Looking at the awful carnage outside, I can remember thinking how [the trees were] so much more important and how [the Wall Street crash] was an unjustified fall. “I then went into the office, which was a mistake. I was overwhelmed by the sense of panic.”

Lawson himself recalled. “At the time it seemed to many the end of financial civilisation as we had known it…for a few days, sheer panic reigned.”

The free market revealed itself to be red in blood and claw.

Black Monday would not create the lasting devastation of 1929. But it could not have come at a worse time for our chancellor. “By a malign coincidence,” Lawson would reflect later, “the world’s largest ever share sale collided with the world’s most dramatic stock market crash.”

Walters recalled 30 years later: “That was the wipeout”. The crash left Lawson with an almighty dilemma: he could forge ahead and sell BP in one of the worst markets conceivable, or he could pull the sale and risk embarrassing Thatcher, her government, and its privatisation agenda.

A decision had to be made in a matter of days. He cancelled the government’s expensive advertising. Jim Baker, the US secretary of the treasury under Ronald Reagan, called on 27 October “to urge me, in the strongest possible terms, to call off the issue.”

Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the federal reserve, wrote to the governor of the Bank of England in a similar vein.

Walters wrote a long, detailed letter to Lawson on 28 October “pleading directly for the issue to be withdrawn” despite the fact that BP would automatically get a huge payout.

The chancellor was told by his officials he could not protect the 270,000 small investors who had applied for shares and would now have to pay a high price.

The banks, including Goldman Sachs, Shearson Lehman and Morgan Stanley, faced collective losses of £330 million.

Heavy pressure

Lawson addressed the Stock Exchange Conference for Industry on what was meant to be a celebration of the first anniversary of his Big Bang. “I cannot recall a time when I was under heavier pressure,” he would reflect.

The country expected a decision. Lawson appeared after a day of negotiations and legal advice at 10pm on 29 October 1987 before a “packed, noisy and expectant” House of Commons. He rose to the dispatch box once more.

The tension among the MPs was palpable. “To cheers from the benches behind me, I told the House that I had decided the offer should go ahead.”

Five years later, he would explain that it would have been “inconvenient” to delay the sale of BP until the market recovered, as this would blow “an enormous hole” in the budget he wrote when assuming the sale would make billions.

“Most worrying of all, it might have seriously damaged the credibility of the rest of the government’s privatisation programme,” he would add. “Last, but by no means least, pulling the issue would, in my judgement, have badly damaged the reputation of the City of London.”

The Bank of England, acting in the interests of the government, was forced to spend £27 million intervening in the markets to prevent the shares losing even more value.

Lawson had, in the moment of crisis, revealed his loyalties: not the British taxpayer, nor his own enrichment, but his ideological commitment to Hayek-inspired privatisation, and the City of London. But the share flop was, it soon transpired, only the beginning of the impending disaster.

Walters received a call at BP from David Scholey, of the merchant bank Warburgs, which confirmed that the warnings Lawson had received—that a hostile foreign power may seize the British oil —were about to come to pass.

“Peter, I’m in Kuwait,” he said: “I’ve just heard that the Kuwait Investment Authority, have just bought ten per cent of BP.” Walters replied: “My god.”  

He immediately called the treasury. The Kuwait Investment Office (KIO) announced on 18 November that it had, in fact, snapped up 10 per cent of BP.

The KIO was owned by the Kuwait Investment Agency, which in turn acted in the interests of Kuwait’s government.

Classified documents

Thatcher was forced into the humiliating position of having to tell the House of Commons it “was a straightforward commercial matter, and no cause for concern”, when it very clearly was of very serious concern.

For the Conservative party nationalists, this was nothing short of humiliation. The fortunes of the oil company and the British state had, since the birth of the twentieth century, been intimately linked.

William Knox D’Arcy, who had made a fortune in gold mining, was granted a consession by the British to search for oil in Persia, in what became Iran, in 1901. Seven years later he discovered oil and formed the company that would later become British Petroleum.

The company was founded, and, in 1914, Winston Churchill persuaded the government to buy a 51 per cent stake to bail out the company [Bergin, 2012]. Churchill converted the navy from coal to oil on the eve of the Second World War.

In 1923, the company hired Churchill as a lobbyist and consultant, where he secured exclusive rights to Persian oil resources. Iran nationalised its oil industry following the assassination of its prime minister in March 1951, including BP and its American rivals, and a decade later they formed the oil cartel OPEC.

Churchill then called on Britain’s secret services, MI6, to work alongside America’s Central Intelligence Services (CIA) to launch a coup d’état in Iran.

“Classified documents show British intelligence officials played a pivotal role in initiating and planning the coup, and that Washington and London shared an interest in maintaining control over Iranian oil,” according to the New York Times.

An oil consortium, including BP, returned to take control of Iranian oil. The prospect of an Arab state taking control of the company was unthinkable to Thatcher’s government.

Walters wrote again to Lawson on 17 December warning that KIO could demand representation on the board.

The two men met face to face and, during a heated exchange, the chairman of BP told the chancellor: “Look, I can’t have this, because, under the BP statutes, if you own 10 per cent plus one share you can call an extraordinary general meeting and you can dictate more or less.”

“The usual shareholder apathy means probably only about 15 per cent of shareholders bother to vote, so with a block vote of 18 per cent the Kuwaiti’s could basically run BP. They could get rid of me!”

“They could put four of their own people on the board! We are in the process then of buying Gulf Oil in the United States. They could stop that!” He paused.

Then he panicked

“Listen, you’ve got to take me seriously!” Lawson did take him seriously. He summoned the Kuwaiti ambassador and Ali Khalifa, the Kuwaiti oil minister.

“Her majesty’s government regard your taking of 18 per cent of BP as a hostile action,” the chancellor told them.

Lawson would dismiss Kuwait as a “pocket handkerchief of a country”, but the Middle Eastern oil minister was not in anyway intimidated. The following day the Kuwaiti shareholding rose to 22 percent.

Walters demanded an audience with the chancellor, and during the meeting told Lawson to refer the Kuwaitis to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, a statutory public body set up to investigate mergers, markets and regulation to ensure fair competition between companies.

The commission ruled that the KIO would have to reduce its shares to a maximum of 9.9 per cent, or the British government would unilaterally buy back the disputed shares and cancel them. The company obliged.

I asked Walker if the Kuwaitis were really trying to gain control of BP. “Oh, absolutely. I’d have been out on my ear within a week you know. I wasn’t panicking; I was telling Lawson what to do, telling him he should have already have taken his bloody finger out, otherwise the future of Britain’s biggest company is at risk.”

Lawson would recall: “On 3 May, David Young referred the KIO shareholding in BP to the MMC. He explained ‘the implication of BP coming under the influence or control of a government with substantial oil interests, and which is a member of OPEC, raises issues of public interest which warrant investigation by the MMC.”

“To my relief, and some surprise, the MMC reported in September 1988 that the KIO should be required to reduce its shareholding in BP to below 10 per cent within twelve months.”

“It was a much tougher ruling than I had expected […] there is a high degree of probability that sooner or later situations will arise in which Kuwait’s national and international interests will come sharply into conflict with BP’s and HMG’s interests.”

The newly privatised BP was then forced to spend £2 billion, hurriedly buying up its own shares at a higher price to prevent a “predator” gaining a controlling stake.

The former state asset in effect transferred billions directly to the Kuwaiti state agency. “The KIO had made a useful profit on the deal.”

Due to Lawson’s decision to press ahead with the sale, and despite a global stock market crash, BP was about to become part-owned and controlled by a member of the OPEC cartel.

It was the intervention of the state, in the form of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, that prevented what for most Conservatives could only be viewed as a national calamity.

Walters still believes that the chancellor showed “poor judgement” when insisting BP should have been sold at one price. Then the worst thing happened—“Lawson panicked.”

The sale price and the method of sale would echo through the ages when, 30 years later, George Osborne as chancellor would be fiercely criticised for flogging Royal Mail for 330p in a single parcel.

This low price cost taxpayers £750m in lost revenue, and the Tory government would act as though this accident was unavoidable.

The cruelest of historical ironies is, however, that Lawson had put the energy industry beyond the control of the state just months before his ally Thatcher would announce to the world that governments must take action to reduce emissions and prevent the catastrophe of climate change.

This Author

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist, founder of Request Initiative and co-author of Impact of Market Forces on Addictive Substances and Behaviours: The web of influence of addictive industries (Oxford University Press)He tweets at @EcoMontague. This article first appeared at Desmog.uk