Has Prince Charles’ Nature Pledge Become A Platform For BP To Greenwash Oil Spills?

The British heir to the throne, Prince Charles, made an announcement last week calling for large businesses to make a pledge toward climate and biodiversity.

He has called this the Terra Carta, or Earth’s charter, and named it after the 800 year old Magna Carta in England that first enshrined rights under a monarchy.

In a speech at the One Planet Summit being hosted by French President Emmanuel Macron on Monday, Prince Charles described the need for business to step up and protect the “unique treasure trove of species” on our planet.

However, the inclusion of one signatory in particular has raised a lot of eyebrows. That of British oil giant, BP, who has been earning an average of $300 billion a year for the past decade from selling fossil fuels.

BP has a new CEO, Bernard Looney, who announced a bold biodiversity strategy in June last year and promised to transform his organization.

However, controversy has since grown around BP’s involvement in the oil spill in Mauritius last August.

Last week, BP admitted the oil being carried on the Wakashio was supplied by it.  This revelation was only made by BP six months after the oil spill in Mauritius.

This is a surprisingly long delay, over which time there have been serious concerns raised with how unusually toxic the BP fuel was with the deaths of almost 100 whales and dolphins within days of coming into contact with the oil (estimates from the Mauritian Wildlife Foundation), the exposure of thousands of islanders exposed to the oil, and ongoing harmful algal blooms along a series of internationally protected coral reefs.

The oil spill occurred in one of the richest areas of biodiversity on the planet, amid a series of small island nature reserves that contained the last remaining specimens of certain species, and were being carefully nursed back to strength when the oil spill occurred. No image of Mauritius’ 1000 year old brain coral – the oldest in the Indian Ocean and the centerpiece of the Blue Bay Marine Park – has been released since the oil spill.

If BP truly cared about biodiversity, it would have ensure appropriate support for the conservationists struggling to understand what was in the oil and how it could affect these rare species.

BP ‘formally stonewalled’ investigation into Mauritius oil spill

Government memos have revealed that BP refused to collaborate with Australian authorities to provide them with a sample of this fuel that was needed to support the inquiry into the oil spill, or to help restoration efforts. Australian authorities also confirmed on Monday that they had still not received the sample of VLSFO fuel from BP that was on the Wakashio.

The ship fuel supplied by BP is particularly controversial. An investigation following the oil spill in Mauritius, uncovered reports by the German and Finnish Governments that this type of fuel produces higher carbon dioxide emissions, not less.

It has also been found to be responsible for a series of ship engine failures around the world.

Reports by Japanese shipping giant MOL and BP itself, appear to show the fuel supplied to the Wakashio was faulty and exceeded critical safety parameters. BP is refusing to hand over the sample of fuel it should still have from its Singapore refueling operations of the Wakashio and kept aside, so these claims can be independently verified.

BP issued a statement on Tuesday, saying that its fuel met UN regulator IMO standards (who have also been caught up in the ship fuel scandal), but BP did not deny that certain properties in its fuel exceeded safety standards.

By withholding critical evidence from the Mauritius oil spill investigation and impeding the cleanup and health assessment operation, serious questions are being asked about BP’s involvement in the cover up of the Shipping-Gate ship fuel scandal that was first revealed in December.

BP denies hindering or impeding the investigation, and yet the sample from Singapore has still not been passed to Mauritian or Australian scientific investigators for analysis.

The world’s leading oil spill analysis expert, Dr Chris Reddy from U.S. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, who was also involved in the BP-Mitsui Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, has instead been forced to analyze a sample that had been in the ocean for ten days, and yet has exhibited chemical signatures that are ‘surprising,’ ‘complex,’ ‘unusual,’ and ‘unlike anything seen before’ in an oil spill. Mitsui were the parent company of vessel operator MOL, who had chartered the Wakashio for the journey to and from Brazil and were responsible for planning the route of the vessel.

The Shipping-gate fuel scandal

The ship fuel being carried on the Japanese Bulk Carrier, the Wakashio was an experimental ship fuel that was being mixed with jet fuel. COVID-19 had complicated the situation and made the oil even more dangerous. The question is to what extent the industry were aware of these risks, as industry publications seemed to imply at the time.

This fuel had been rushed into the shipping industry without proper scrutiny and no regular monitoring. It was the fastest uptake of a fuel by any industry in history, moving from less than 5% of ships in September 2019, to over 70% by January 2020.

Global shipping is one of the worst climate polluters, producing more greenhouse gas emissions than Germany and France combined.  Each ship produces as much pollution as 1 million cars, and there are 60,000 large, ocean-bound ships in the world. If it were a country, it would be the sixth worst polluter, up there with Japan, and yet it has been attempting to avoid regulation by controversially opting out of the Paris Climate Agreement, and introducing this controversial VLSFO low-sulfur fuel instead.

Environmental NGOs have described this fuel as a super-pollutant ‘frankenstein fuel,’ and have called for it to be banned in the Arctic and other biodiversity sensitive regions, such as around the coast of Mauritius.

Ocean Rebellion accuse BP of greenwashing and breaking the law

Environmental NGO, Ocean Rebellion, has been leading a strong set of campaigns against pollution by the global shipping industry, after the shipping industry escaped scrutiny from most other environmental groups.

Spokesperson, Clive Russell, called from greater accountability by BP.

“We applaud Prince Charles in his attempt to begin change with the ‘Terra Carta.’ Ocean Rebellion does, however, implore him to speak out against the oil industry, especially BP for its continued law breaking and fudging of facts.

Not only has BP repeatedly blocked attempts to sample its ‘experimental’ low-sulphur oil spilled on the Mauritian coastline, it has also ignored the Mauritian pleas for help.

We ask Prince Charles to say ‘Shame on you BP, stop acting like colonialists of old, and start spilling truth not oil. In fact stop remixing petroleum, stop greenwashing, and tell the world the truth about what’s  in your oil.’”

Prince Charles’ Shipping Roundtable on 2 February

Prince Charles will have the opportunity to address these issues in a Shipping Industry Roundtable that he is hosting in two weeks on 2 February 2021.

Global shipping decided to break the Paris Agreement by pushing for a controversial set of measures that will see emissions rise 15% over the next decade rather than be halved. Environmental NGOs have accused the regulator, London-based IMO of regulatory capture by the shipping industry.

The IMO had taken the shipping industry out of the Paris Climate Agreement, and pushed forward a series of industry self-regulation measures. However, in each subsequent meeting, the Japan-chaired Environmental Committee has continued to break these agreements.

The shipping industry has been particularly adept of using a series of industry roundtables, white papers and talking shops to delay taking the actions that should have already been introduced last year, and could have saved the lives and environment of those lost with the Wakashio oil spill. Even the shipping industry’s proposal to use ‘ship efficiency ratings,’ similar to washing machines, has attracted criticism for not being linked to actual operations of the ship, which is the biggest driver of pollution.

Ocean Conservancy’s Dan Hubbell, said that “The climate crisis is already here and the shipping industry must do its part to transition away from fossil fuels now. A zero-carbon future for global shipping is possible, and electro-fuels can play a key role while also delivering powerful benefits for people, local economies and our planet.”

The European Union, United States and U.K. are now exploring regional approaches to regulate shipping emissions. However, this means that weaker pollution and safety standards are being pushed onto poorer island nations like Mauritius, which finds itself at the cross roads of major shipping lanes and defenseless against large shipping interests who insist on accessing the territorial waters of small islands, without proper protections in place.

In 2019, the nation of Solomon Islands suffered the same fate when a Hong Kong registered bulk carrier, Solomon Trader, ran aground and spilled its heavy bunker fuel in a UNESCO world heritage site. It has been over two years and the islanders are still waiting for justice.

The London-based organization greenwashing oil spills around the world

One of the most controversial statistics of all is produced by a little known London-based organization called ITOPF.

ITOPF was set up by oil tanker owners to reduce the amount of insurance they would have to pay in the event of an oil spill.

BP and the Wakashio’s insurer, Japan P&I Club, both sit on the Board of ITOPF, raising serious questions about conflicts of interests with ITOPF’s involvement in undermining the oil spill response in Mauritius. ITOPF has refused to answer any media question about its conduct in Mauritius, as further emails are released revealing ITOPF’s scientists were aware from the very early days of the oil spill that the fuel was from BP and was the controversial VLSFO fuel.

Ever since the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska in 1989, oil tankers have had to have double hulls (an additional layer of protection).

However, the shipping industry lobbied so that other types of ships would be exempt, such as bulk carriers, that consist of around half of the ships on the ocean and carry large industrial materials such as coal, iron ore, grain. The Wakashio was a bulk carrier – one of the biggest in the world, and as large as the largest U.S. nuclear powered aircraft carriers.

As ships have ballooned in size (doubled in the last decade), the amount of fuel they require has also increased. This means that if today’s giant cargo ships and bulk carriers spill oil, it could be much more devastating than oil tankers in the past. This is linked to the type of fuel powering ships – a heavier, thicker and more toxic fuel that spends decades contaminating the environment, rather than the lighter crude oil on oil tankers.

The London-based organization, ITOPF, should be collecting statistics on these type of spills (which are known as bunker spills). However, ITOPF refuse to collect or publish such data, even though such data can easily be compiled from a range of shipping and insurance databases.

They, instead, only publish data on oil spills from oil tankers.

Not only does ITOPF not publish bunker spills (which will show a significant increase in spills, especially in certain regions of the world), but it is also ignoring the major dirty secret of shipping – ship engine sludge.

What is ship engine sludge and why should Prince Charles be concerned?

The type of fuel being used in 70% of global shipping, such as BP-produced VLSFO fuel, causes several major issues with ship engines.

One of these issues is that this fuel clogs up the purifier and filters on the fuel lines that lead to the ship engines. This causes excess waste of fuel and for this fuel to become unusable.  So up to 10% of the fuel could end up being discarded as a result.

This wastage means that VLSFO fuel is leading to higher consumption of fossil fuels, and carbon dioxide emissions.

Even worse, rather than disposing this fuel safely at port, many ships are simply pouring this heavy sludge overboard and polluting the marine environment (as seen in the video above). This sludge accumulates in marine life, as eventually end up concentrated in apex predators such as tuna at the top of the biological food chain. 

In theory, such dumping of sludge overboard should be illegal. However, the way the London-based UN shipping regulators, the IMO, has drafted international ship inspection laws, means that this regulation is rarely monitored and enforced – almost as if by design.

Ship inspectors can easily find out whether ships have been using ‘magic pipes’ to pump fuel overboard by inspecting the oil record book that all ships are supposed to keep. A look through inspection records on the EU shipping database, called EQUASIS, reveals many discrepancies with oil record books.

In 2016, cruise ship giant, Princess Cruise Line (part of U.K. and U.S.-listed Carnival Cruises
CCL.U
) was fined $40 million from U.S. regulators for conducting such ‘magic pipe’ sludge operations across the world’s oceans.

What can Prince Charles do if he is serious about change in shipping?

With Prince Charles’ roundtable just two weeks away, there are several actions that he can insist on, if he wants to see real change in the industry. These are all changes that can begin today, and do not need to wait a decade (as the shipping industry likes to promise).

1. Insist that BP comply with the Mauritius oil spill investigation. BP urgently needs to supply the sample of oil it should have in Singapore to the Mauritian or Australia authorities who had requested this sample in August, and who were blocked by BP from receiving this. It is incredible that BP have to be shamed into do this, rather than support the inquiry, especially after what they had learnt with Deepwater Horizon in 2010. Why would BP not wish to release this sample?

2. Call for a full investigation into the carbon dioxide emissions of VLSFO fuels to make sure global shipping has not just introduced fuels that are increasing greenhouse gas emissions. No Government has been able to regularly test this fuel.

3. Call for a coalition of the willing in shipping to commit to halve their emissions by 2030, and publish these results annually. Well publicized solutions exist today to achieve the efficiencies to meet these targets, so there should be no excuse why shipping is not held publicly accountable for meeting these annual efficiency goals.

4. Financial disclosure. Call for the global shipping industry to publish how much they are investing in alternative fuel technologies.  The reason the shipping industry complains there are no alternative fuel technologies is because the industry has strategically underinvested in fuel R&D, as other forms of transport have done (e.g., Tesla and electric vehicles). The UN regulator, the IMO, is not collecting these statistics, and a review of all major energy R&D hubs around the world reveal that the shipping industry only invests nominal marketing amounts, rather than showing it is serious about change.

5. End secretive offshore ‘Flags of Convenience.’ The reason that global shipping has gotten away with lower environmental standards is through the use of six ‘flags of convenience’ nations that dominate 70% of shipping (Panama, Marshall Islands, Liberia, Malta, Singapore, Hong Kong). The lower standards and inspection regimes that is used by multi-billion dollar shipping companies, have meant that most of the rules passed by the IMO are seldom enforced.

This also means that if Prince Charles and the Sustainability Markets Initiative that his office runs, is serious about change, he also needs to invite more diverse climate leaders to become part of the discussions, as President-elect Biden has done, rather than just industry insiders who are adept at employed sophisticated greenwashing strategies.

Prince Charles’ call for money misses the point

In Prince Charles’ announcement last week, he also made a pledge for $10 billion to fund the Natural Capital Alliance. This call for funding completely misses the point.

The issue in the environment community is not lack of funds.

The issue is the lack of performance management and transparency.

There are more than sufficient funds in sustainability to make the impact that is needed, but the environment movement is stuck in old ways of making change, and have themselves to blame for the lack of transparency where funds are going, how effectively these funds are being spent, and what is the criteria of success is.

The world will see a $60 trillion economic transformation over the next two decades toward sustainability by middle classes around the world. This is the potential pool of funding for those in the environmental movement. Just look at the market valuations of Tesla and alternative protein products. What is lacking is the high risk catalytic capital to accelerate this transition, which market forces are not providing. This is not what most funds in the environmental movement has been raised for.

It is well known that a lot of environmental funds goes toward environmental insiders, who excel at White Papers, Roundtables, Reports, Public-Private Partnership Coalition-forming without actually making the change that is needed. The world is in a race against the climate crisis, and such reports are delaying tactics used by industry to avoid making the changes they know they need to make.

Philanthropists have become the go-to funders for many climate and environmental initiatives as Governments have faced fiscal pressures and companies only invest in environmental solutions that offer the greatest marketing capital for them.

Billionaire Jeff Bezos missed the opportunity to revamp the environmental movement with by investing $800 million in very traditional environmental groups that are not on trajectory to disrupt carbon emissions at the rate needed. Linear thinking will not address an exponential problem.

Prince Charles can learn from lessons from what has not worked in philanthropy in how he shapes his Terra Carta, and the conditions upon which companies are invited to share his platform.

Does President Biden bring hope for change?

The intent for Terra Carta is the right one, but the way it is currently structured allows too much risk that this effort will be sabotaged by industry insiders.

Several major UN and international organizations have already been infiltrated by industry bodies seeking to greenwash their corporate commitments. This is how the VLSFO ship fuel scandal was allowed to materialize in the first place.

President Biden assumes office next week with a highly diverse climate science team and an electoral pledge for enforceable targets for global shipping. 

A combination of regulatory pressure from the coalition of the willing (initially comprised of the U.K., U.S., and EU), with support of the G20 and independent review of how the global shipping industry is governed and structured, is critical if any leader is serious about change.

If BP CEO Bernard Looney is serious about standing up to the global climate and biodiversity challenge, it means standing up to executives in his own organization, rather than attacking journalists who have highlighted serious flaws with BP’s operations.

That is what is called leadership.