BP's Hayward: Urging a middle path
Copenhagen marked “the end of the beginning” of the effort to curb carbon emissions; it was the first time countries agreed to act, regardless of whether there is a global treaty, BP CEO Tony Hayward said yesterday.
In a speech that repeatedly evoked Churchill, Hayward argued for a middle road in energy policy: he urged carbon pricing to encourage investment in renewables but largely dismissed “headline-grabbing” but costly projects such as offshore wind.
The speech, at the London School of Business, was effectively Hayward’s “State of the Union” address, where he laid out his agenda and analysis of the global energy climate.
It comes several days after the company announced its earnings and talked about scaling down its renewables business to focus on commercially viable areas such as biofuels and solar.
In his talk, Hayward consigned gains in renewable energy technology and production to the future and argued for realism in energy policy
He listed a series of opposing concepts – energy security vs. energy independence, hydrocarbons vs. renewables – and each time came down on the side of a moderate approach.
Energy security is “legitimate and desirable” while independence is “likely unattainable” and Hydrocarbons will “remain dominant” even in low carbon scenarios.
Hayward said that the U.K. need to confront climate change through “the lowest-cost energy pathways” and added
Today we say ‘there are no silver bullets.’ A century ago Churchill said the same thing in the language of his time when he declared that ‘Safety and certainty in oil lie in variety and variety alone.’
He stressed efficiency as the most effective way to achieve carbon reduction and again pushed natural gas – of which BP has plenty – as an effective way to curb greenhouse gas reductions using available technology.
He also issued what sounded like a warning to politicians for the upcoming election, saying,
Equally, for those inclined to propose more radical action to wean Britain off imported hydrocarbons, there is an important distinction between energy security and energy independence. The former is a legitimate and desirable goal; the latter is costly and probably unattainable.
Photo: © BP p.l.c.