BY KYLA MANDEL AND BRENDAN MONTAGUE IN PARIS

French energy giant Engie is perhaps the most prominent and most promoted corporate sponsor of the COP21 climate talks in Paris.

Engie, formerly known as GDF Suez, can be seen everywhere from the launch of India’s Solar Alliance on Monday to a ‘wind tree’ outside the COP21 venue at Le Bourget and the white lock-boxes spread throughout the halls where attendees can charge their devices.

And today the company will lead the charge at the opening of Solutions COP21 where corporates are gathering in central Paris to promote their various climate solutions. Here, Engie will be discussing opportunities for start-ups as well as showcasing a solar-powered race car and an air purifying robot.

But as the energy giant continues to boast of its COP21 sponsorship, DeSmog UK takes a closer look at its climate track record.

Energy Lobbying

Engie is one of France’s two largest electricity and gas providers (the other being EDF) and the French government owns 33 percent of the company.

According to the EU transparency register Engie spent between €2.25 million and €2.49 million in 2014 lobbying the European Commission on energy and the environment.

The company is also a member of BUSINESSEUROPE – an umbrella lobby organisation that is notorious for trying to weaken environmental and climate policies. In fact, just yesterday on December 3 the lobby group held a seven hour meeting in the EU Commission headquarters between Jean-Claude Junker, head of the commission, and several big energy companies.

It is no surprise then that Engie’s chief executive Gérard Mestrallet frequently appears at official events here at the climate summit.

As Olivier Petitjean of Multinationals Observatory explained: “There has been a growing trend, especially when you listen to what the French government says, to suggest that corporations have all the solutions to deal with the climate crisis, and that they are the ones that will deliver on the objectives set in Paris.”

“This is particularly the case in the energy sector,” he continued. “The French government has always been very explicit about its intention to use COP21 to promote the French ‘national champions’, Engie and EDF.”

In September for example Mestrallet spoke alongside French President Holland at a pre-COP21 event. And then in November Engie celebrated the launch of internal discussions  to discuss ‘climate and energy’ with French environment minister Ségolène Royal.

As the company’s website reads: “Under the discussions, ENGIE employees will express their views on key points to be taken up at the annual Conference of the Parties (COP21) climate talk event.”

Over the course of the two weeks at COP21 Mastrallet will also be speaking on issues such as access to energy in Africa and on the Paris deal itself.

But as a report released this week shows, Engie has a poor track record in reporting its greenhouse gas emission transparently and taking into account emissions along its value chain – from sourcing raw materials to waste disposal.

Corporate Sway

Asad Rehman of Friends of the Earth International addressed a press conference about corporate influence at the climate summit.

He told DeSmog UK: “Of course we recognise in terms of tackling the climate crisis we need all sectors to play their part, but the question is of course in terms of who determines the role of each of those sectors.

“Is it the state and government acting in the interest of its citizens or are the solutions packages being put forward in the interest of business and corporations?”

“Not only [have] they got a grip on our policy but now we want to put them in the driving seat?” he questioned not just of Engie’s involvement in the COP but of corporate presence generally. “It’s like putting Dracula in charge of a blood bank.”

Engie has been working to promote its clean energy initiatives in the lead up to and throughout the climate talks. But the fact is that still only 4 percent of its power is generated from renewables. If you include nuclear and hydro power this comes closer to 22 percent.

Natural gas on the other hand forms the majority of its generating capacity along with coal and nuclear. And just outside of Paris in Saint Ouen – less than 10km away from the COP21 climate summit – there is a coal plant operated by CPCU, a subsidiary of Engie.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Some corporate sponsors of the COP21 Paris climate talks are failing to properly report their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions a new report reveals.

The Paris climate conference is sponsored by over 60 companies including big polluters EDF, Engie and BNP Paribas. And while countries continue to negotiate a deal on tackling climate change, what have these corporate sponsors brought to the table?

A new study published this week by French social research group BASIC and the Multinationals Observatory shows that very few of the COP21 sponsors are declaring their GHG emissions in a transparent way.

The report looked at the GHG emission reduction policies of ten COP21 sponsors: Accor, BNP Paribas, Carrefour, EDF, Engie, Kering, LVMH, L’Oréal, Micheline and Renault.

Of these, only one company – EDF – has actually reduced its overall carbon footprint in line with EU targets.

Corporate Transparency

Olivier Petitjean of Multinationals Observatory told DeSmog UK: “There has been a growing trend, especially when you listen to what the French government says, to suggest that corporations have all the solutions to deal with the climate crisis, and that they are the ones that will deliver on the objectives set in Paris.”

“But as we show in our report, private companies are not as exemplary as they'd like to pretend. Only a minority of them report on their emissions in a transparent, accessible way,” Petitjean said.

Only four of the ten companies examined actually publish their GHG emissions data: BNP Paribas, Carrefour, Kering and LVMH. However, none of these companies take into consideration the full impact of its business’ value chain – from raw materials to waste disposal.

And while half of the companies in the study – Accor, Kering, L’Oréal, Michelin and Renault – did commission a full assessment of their emissions over the value chain, none of them have shown any GHG emission cuts at this scale.

The failure to address a companies’ upstream and downstream emissions is troubling given that for these COP21 sponsors, the majority of their emissions are located in these areas which represent up to 85 percent of their global GHG footprint.

Where companies do make GHG reductions, many times this is done through carbon offsets elsewhere rather than investing in emission cuts at their home-operations in Europe.

EDF and Engie

In particular, Petitjean highlighted the contradiction between EDF and Engie’s prominence at the climate talks compared to their environmental performance.

“The French government has always been very explicit about its intention to use COP21 to promote the French ‘national champions’, Engie and EDF,” said Petitjean, noting that both companies have large-scale advertising campaigns going on which highlight their sponsorship of the climate talks.”

He continued: “When you look at the reality of their investments and their portfolio, the share of renewables is still really minimal, and it mostly comes from gobbling up smaller companies.”

Both also continue to invest in coal and have also just signed contracts with Cheniere to import liquefied natural gas from the U.S. starting in 2017.

Photo: UNFCCC via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The Public Accountability Initiative (PAI) has published a timely "back to school" report concluding that "frackademia" is alive and well at U.S. universities. 

While only focusing on the people and money behind five recent studies, PAI's report sits within a much broader universe of research in its Frackademia Guide. The new report serves as an update of its February 2015 report titled, "Frackademia in Depth," a title poking fun at hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") front group Energy in Depth (which did not react kindly to its report).

As PAI points out in the new report's introduction, the results of many recent science studies (some funded by the industry) have tarnished the reputation the industry spends so much money aiming to keep shiny. These include studies on fracking's climate impacts and health impacts, environmental justice issues associated with fracking, among others.

Given that backdrop, the oil and gas industry has swept in and funded fresh studies whose outcomes were more favorable — aka "frackademia" — on topics ranging from fracking's groundwater impacts, environmental impacts and economics. 

Rick Berman, Tim Considine

Among the most compelling findings in the PAI investigation is that Rick "Dr. Evil" Berman, infamous for creating industry-funded front groups in many policy arenas via his consulting company Berman & Company, has gotten into the frackademia game.

The Berman connection becomes clear when investigating the men behind the curtain of a study published in September 2014 titled, “Economic and Environmental Impacts of Oil and Gas Development Offshore the Delmarva, Carolinas, and Georgia,” which makes the case for offshore drilling in the Atlantic. As PAI explained, it was funded by Interstate Policy Alliance, "a project of the Employment Policies Institute."

What's Employment Policies Institute? A Berman & Company front group.  

"Though Berman and Company does not disclose the identities of its clients, the firm and its network of front groups have recently begun attacking fracking opponents and climate change regulations, suggesting it has been retained by the oil and gas industry," explained PAI.

view this map on LittleSis

Just as important as Berman, in this case, was the author: Timothy Considine. Considine has been embroiled in other frackademia scandals, including a 2010 study eventually retracted and reissued by Penn State University after it was revealed that he didn't disclose its funder, the Marcellus Shale Coalition lobbying organization.

He's actually featured twice in the PAI report. The other recent Considine frackademia example came in the form of a study titled, “The Economics Impacts of the Proposed Natural Gas Severance Tax in Pennsylvania," funded by the American Petroleum Institute. 

That report predicted brutal impacts for Pennsylvania's economy if its legislature adopts a severance tax for those fracking in the state's Marcellus Shale. 

Harvard, Syracuse

Harvard Business School and Syracuse University also feature prominently in PAI's report. The Harvard Business School example, in particular, serves as almost a perfect case study of how frackademia works in action. 

“America’s Unconventional Energy Opportunity,” the title of Harvard's report published jointly with Boston Consulting Group in June 2015, was featured in an opinion article by The New York Times writer David Brooks and in an uncritical article distributed to newspaper wires worldwide by Reuters.  

Like a prominent 2013 Environmental Defense Fund-convened study on the climate change impacts of fracking, the steering committee of the Harvard study was a who's-who of people with industry ties. 

Image Credit: Public Accountability Initiative

As PAI pointed out, co-author "David Gee, a [Boston Consulting Group] managing partner, has worked for the energy industry for more than 30 years, with stints at Baker Hughes, PG&E, and AES Corporation."

Another co-author not mentioned in PAI's report is Michael Porter, a faculty member of the Harvard Business School and formerly of the Monitor Group, a prominent consulting firm that went out of business in November 2012. Monitor Group has been involved in undisclosed pay-for-play before, conducting de facto shadow public relations work for former Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi.  

Energy in Depth also stars in PAI's report in the form of a Syracuse University study on fracking and groundwater contamination that served as a counter of sorts to earlier Duke University fracking groundwater contamination studies. 

That study was promoted by both EID and Natural Gas Now, the latter often featuring the work of Tom Shepstone, a former EID employee and current industry consultant. As it turns out, the study was covertly funded by Chesapeake Energy, though the co-authors claimed they had “no competing financial interest” in any entities potentially impacted by the study's results. 

Lead author Donald Siegel "had failed to disclose that, in addition to providing the data upon which his conclusions were based, oil and gas driller Chesapeake Energy had also funded the study and paid Siegel directly," wrote PAI.

"Further, one of Siegel’s co-authors, Bert Smith, is a former Chesapeake employee who now works for Enviro Clean, a firm that consults for Chesapeake Energy. While Smith’s employment at Enviro Clean was noted when the study was published, the fact that his employer works for Chesapeake Energy was not."

On at least one instance, PAI pointed out, Siegel actually wrote an article on EID's website.

Tobacco, Climate Denier Playbook

As highlighted many times in the report, journalists often take press releases from universities and write stories about these studies without following the money.

"Since the tobacco industry pioneered the use of compromised scientists to sow doubt about the harmful effects of smoking, corporations have employed a complex of industry-funded academic institutes, public relations outfits, lobbying firms, and independent consultants to provide seemingly independent support for their lines of business," explained PAI.

PAI has done a great public service by naming names and doing the work journalists all too often fail to do to reveal conflicts of interest.  

Photo Credit: Jannis Tobias Werner | Shutterstock

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.