Climate denying Tories Lord Nigel Lawson and Peter Lilley MP have close associations with the oil industry. The grandees have 13 years of Cabinet experience.
Left Foot Forward can reveal that two Tory grandees who have consistently criticised domestic and international efforts to abate climate change – Lord Nigel Lawson and Peter Lilley MP – have close associations with the oil industry. The duo, with 13 years of Cabinet experience between them under Margaret Thatcher and John Major are on the payroll of companies directly engaged in, or associated with, the lucrative oil and gas industry.
On Monday, Nigel Lawson wrote an article in the Times titled, “Copenhagen will fail and quite right too”. Lawson said:
“The greatest error in the current conventional wisdom is that, if you accept the (present) majority scientific view that most of the modest global warming in the last quarter of the last century — about half a degree centigrade — was caused by man-made carbon emissions, then you must also accept that we have to decarbonise our economies.”
This blog has shown the errors and falsehoods of that article in a point-by-point motivations but Lord Lawson’s true motivations are now becoming clear. The Register of Lords’ Interests details that Lord Lawson chairs and has “significant shareholdings” in the Central Europe Trust (CET). He is described as a “senior advisor to clients on strategy and politics“. CET boast on their website to being, according to a quote in Forbes, “the company to call when you want to do business in Eastern Europe.” Their clients include oil and gas giants Total Fina Elf, Royal Dutch/Shell Group, Texaco, and BP Amaco.
Lawson is also Chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a group who’s “primary purpose is to help restore balance and trust in the climate debate that is frequently distorted by prejudice and exaggeration.” They are based at 1 Carlton House Terrace SW1Y 5DB and share premises with the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining who have a Petroleum and Drilling Engineering Division, which includes two employees of the BP Exploration Operating Company Ltd.
Peter Lilley is a vocal opponent of the UK Climate Change Act 2008 and was one of only five MPs to vote against it. But as the Register of Members Interests claims to show, he is also a paid non-executive director of Tethys Petroleum Limited – a giant oil and gas exploration “focused on Central Asia“. But a look at his profile on the website reveals he’s also the Vice Chairman and – according to his biography – “was a Director of Greenwell Montagu Securities (1986-87) where he headed the oil investment department and which he joined in 1972.” Mr Lilley receives £40,000 “annual retainer” (p.94) from the company.
The Tethys website also states that he was an election observer for the 2005 Kazakhstan presidential elections, which is handy given that Tethys is “proud to be the first non-Kazakh oil and gas company listed on the new RFCA exchange in Almaty”. In 2005, the Times reported that Lilley’s British team were accused of a “Kazakh poll whitewash“:
The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which sent 460 observers, said that the election did not meet international democratic standards. Flaws included restrictions on campaigning, interference at polling stations, multiple voting, pressure on students to vote, media bias and restrictions on freedom of expression, it said.
“There was harassment, intimidation and detentions of campaign staff and supporters of opposition candidates, including cases of beatings of campaign staff,” said the OSCE mission, led by Bruce George, the British Labour MP.
But Lord Parkinson’s seven-strong team, calling itself a “British parliamentary group”, pre-empted the OSCE report with a much more positive assessment. “The presidential election of 4 December represents a very significant advance,” said the report by his team, which also included Peter Lilley, the former Tory Trade Secretary. “The election was genuinely competitive and voters were given a real choice between candidates. We found no reason to doubt the integrity of the election process.”
70 Responses to “Oil links of Tory climate denial grandees”
Henry
And the answer to Anon’s question about the government & Heathrow? They were almost certainly nobbled by industry lobbyists. Unfortunately, lobbying in this country is shrouded in secrecy (unlike, say the US), so you never know quite what is going on…
Anon E Mouse
Will – I never suggested that you personally had attacked my character – you haven’t but to have Shamik call me “a denier” when he knows I’m not and “an extremist” when I share the majority view in the country on the matter is quite ridiculous and not exactly a mature way to run a blog.
When someone disagrees with your minority opinion to then start name calling them is hardly a healthy way to debate an issue.
Couple that with the fact that quite ludicrous and certainly personal attacks are made on a repeated basis and seemingly without challenge by Climate Cooling Deniers such as Rupert Read, makes the blog seem both biased and unfair.
This blog looks great but you moderators need to be less dogmatic in your approach to the topics you feature. One could argue it is very ‘New Labour’, all style and no substance but I think it’s more than that.
Research your topics guys and have less of them – if you are not willing to accept dissenting opinion and provide robust rebuttal then don’t post the items.
Your scattergun approach may or may not hit a target but the right wing successful blogs, Guido, Iain Dale, Dizzy etc have fewer but more important topics and they are more forensic in their targeting.
You feature too many articles, seem unable to substantiate them and the majority are really not stories. One example was that “Tory cuts would hit the eldest”. And Labour abolishing 10p tax for the poorest in our society didn’t hit the poorest? It’s an own goal Will and there is no story. Pots and kettles.
People should be entitled to post different views on your blog and reasonably expect a response to the questions and preferably one that is not rude.
I personally think that the moderators here should be more like Charles Clarke or Frank Field intellectually (not their leanings but the way they present) and less like Gordon Brown. These guys not only ‘get’ the mood of this nation but are able to articulate why they make the statements they do.
If the intention of LFF is to be an ‘Evidence Based’ blog then base the blog on evidence and aim at a wider audience. If you want to be a poster boy blog for New Labour then you are succeeding but I certainly wouldn’t want to support this dishonest fag end bunch no matter what my political leanings.
Anon E Mouse
Dave Cole – Your initial point about how difficult it is eg earths mass and gravity etc show exactly why it is not an exact science and my point on the solar effects was in cloud generation and the further effects on the climate that has.
I haven’t had time to look at your links yet but unlike seemingly the majority of posters on this blog, I have a an open mind and am realistic so if the information shows you are correct “I’ll be back”…
Oh and I make no apology for my “lack of knowledge” on the subject. I also have a lack of knowledge on Bigfoot, the faked moon landings and aliens landing in Roswell… 😉
Dave Cole
Anon E Mouse,
I agree that is not an exact science; that doesn’t mean it can’t make useful predictions.
You repeatedly make an implicit assertion of knowledge on the subject by calling people ‘climate cooling deniers’, which suggests that you have at least made a brief survey of the available evidence. Not being even familiar with what heats the earth suggests that you have not actually done that.
There is a big difference between climate change and the conspiracy theories you mention. I’ll ask again – why do you think all the organisations I listed have come out and said that anthropogenic climate change is a reality with serious implications for humanity?
xD.
willstraw
Anon,
Thanks for coming back. I think you make some fair points here – we’re a young blog (barely in our 3rd month) and finding our feet so it’s always useful to have this kind of feedback.
Personally, I think we have just about the right number of topics. We focus heavily on climate change, economics, migration, and local/devolved government. We then have a range of contributors and guests who write about a range of other topics. I don’t think we’ve got much wrong in our coverage although we have always amended and clarified when things weren’t quite right the first time. We don’t pre-moderate comments like on many blogs so readers can have their say in the comments.
On a couple of your specific points. I think that tempers have got a bit frayed between you, Rupert Read & Shamik at various points. I have judged that you crossed the line on one occasion for unnecessary comments made to Shamik. But I hope we can draw a line under all that now. Climate change is, of course, a controversial issue and opinions are deeply held but we are confident that the science supports our argument and will continue to write stories about many aspects of climate change. You are welcome to, and I’m sure will, continue to comment on these stories.
On 10p tax, I agree with you but the decision was announced over two years ago. If it happened today, we would cover it. But it has not and so we instead cover other examples of policy decisions that harm the poor like the Tory marriage tax plan or what is happening in Nottingham. If we have missed significant Labour policies in the last 3 months that have been regressive then do point them out and we will make amends.
Glad to have you on here and please continue to keep us honest.
All the best,
Will