Climate change
done to reach the net-zero target. Consequently, the Glasgow Climate Pact will not radically alter the global landscape on climate change. The main failure of the climate pact was coal. On the final day of negotiations, a heavily contested clause to ‘phase - out’ coal and end fossil fuel subsidies was changed. Instead, at the insistence of India, the parties reluctantly agreed on the ‘phase - down’ of coal. India’s minister argued that developing countries still had to deal with their poverty reduction agenda and phasing out coal would make the developing countries poorer. What stood out during the negotiations was the leaders’ inability to co -operate to maximize change and showed that our current leaders cannot drive the correct level of change to avert the climate crisis. To tackle climate change, I believe we will need new leadership to introduce brave and bold policies. One country that has taken the initiative is Norway. Norway has the earliest targeted date for the phaseout of new petrol vehicles sales in the world in 2025. Norway’s head start is down to strong tax incentives for electric vehicles. Petrol vehicles are subject to significant tax and electric vehicles are exempt from tax. As a result, it is possible to get a much better deal on any electric vehicle. Electric vehicles used to have benefits such as free parking and toll road fee exemptions, but in recent years these benefits have disappeared and people in Norway are still buying electric vehicles. The Norwegian government, a good example of successful leadership, is clearly well respected by the Norwegians. Not only do we need brave and bold leadership from governments; companies need to step up too. The compulsory TCFD (Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures) reporting is forcing companies to report on the impact climate change will have on their future performance. Those with business models that are more exposed to climate change are finding it harder to raise finance and this greater transparency is helping accelerate change. Companies now have to show how they are going to adapt their business to counter the impacts of climate change, as well as how they will change what they do to mitigate climate change. An example of a company seemingly trying to do this is BP. Recently, BP announced its new strategy. 3 Firstly, they are going to deliver on their net-zero ambition by lowering emissions by 30-35% or lower by 2030, as well as lowering emissions associated with carbon in upstream oil and gas production by 40% or lower by 2030. Secondly, they are pledging to pivot to low carbon energy and customer focus by participating with 10-15 cities and three core industries in decarbonization efforts, all by 2030. Within 10 years, BP aims to have increased its annual low carbon investment 10-fold to around $5 billion a year, building a portfolio of low carbon technologies including renewables, bio-energy and early positions in hydrogen. Despite all of these promises, Shell is the company in BP’s sector that will spend the most on low -carbon investments with $12 billion of spending. This makes BP’s investments of $5 billion seem quite small. Furthermore, Shell is also targeting the highest portion of its spending on low carbon investments at 50% whereas BP is targeting 40% by 2025. The changes BP are making help our planet but they can and need to do more. Governments are trying but failing to act quickly enough and companies are moving in the right direction but are also not doing enough. So, who else can drive the change required? I believe in the ‘power of 1’; the collective effect of every person taking individual action. We can all make slight changes that collectively can have a significant impact on our planet. Let us take a simple example of the issue. A jar of Nutella can be found in most households because it is tasty and fairly cheap. However, palm oil is used in Nutella. In 1970, the world was producing only two million
3 BP 4 th August 2020 press release; see references.
255
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs