To prevent severe climate catastrophe, a swift and comprehensive shift across our entire economy is essential.
Achieving the 2030 carbon goals requires the current Labour government to act with similar urgency as the one elected in 1945.
This article has been funded through the Ecologist Writers’ Fund. We invite readers to support by donating to pay some authors ÂŁ250 for their contributions. Please contribute now. For more details about the fund or to apply, please visit our website.
Yet, the Labour government is allowing its departments to be directed by corporate leaders whose primary expertise lies in maintaining the current system.
Reserves
The fossil fuel reserves of major corporations hold enough carbon to raise global temperatures well above accepted ‘safe’ levels. These resources must remain untouched.
However, these companies have leveraged their reserves as collateral. If these resources are not extracted and consumed, their debts cannot be settled. If the climate crisis were taken seriously, companies like Shell and BP would already be on the brink of insolvency.
Their continued operations indicate a lack of belief from accountants in governmental measures necessary to combat climate change.
And it’s not just the oil corporations.
If we genuinely intended to prevent climate disaster, the banks that have funded oil companies would also face challenges.
Fortunes
For instance, Barclays has been identified as the most exposed bank to fossil fuels in Europe. From 2016 to 2024, it extended $6.7 billion to Shell, $3.2 billion to TotalOil, and acted as the primary underwriter for India’s coal leviathan, Adani.
Even after committing to climate action last year, the bank subsequently raised nearly $2 billion for firms operating coal power facilities in the United States.
Should a US president take office in 2028 and enforce the closure of those plants—which is necessary for meaningful climate action—those loans would become high-risk.
Barclays has bet billions on the world failing to take substantial climate action. If serious measures are implemented, it risks losing that wager and its investments.
Are individuals deeply involved in the carbon economy exerting real pressure on departments to facilitate the green transition?
Similarly, the major professional service firms—Deloitte, EY, KPMG, PWC—all profit by supporting the fossil fuel sector. While they profess commitment to climate action, they are unlikely to jeopardize the business of their significant clients.
Extraction
Collectively, these enterprises represent a substantial financial interest in maintaining the status quo, wielding an influence that may outsize that of nearly any city globally.
The UK accommodates two of the world’s six oil ‘supermajors,’ all four of the Big Four consultancy firms, a primary oil exchange, and numerous banks that fund the oil sector—inclusive of Barclays.
It has been twelve years since Carbon Tracker unveiled its groundbreaking report on “Unburnable Carbon,” outlining how these entities own “stranded assets” that should render them insolvent.
A decade has passed since the Paris climate agreements, and our environment continues to warm uncontrollably while these firms persist in investing in and endorsing fossil fuel extraction.
Many, though not all, are still engaged in new fossil fuel discovery and extraction. In a world where the carbon in already identified reserves is sufficient to devastate the climate conditions necessary for civilization, they seek additional resources.
Corporate
For the government to genuinely achieve the transformation required for climate action, it must contend with this formidable lobby. Instead, it has become subservient to it.
Each UK government department is overseen by a board of directors, comprising ministers, senior civil servants, and a group of non-executive directors.
These boards establish departmental strategies and ensure accountability. The non-executive directors are ostensibly there to provide diverse viewpoints and independent insights. On average, each department has four.
However, in reviewing their backgrounds, a disheartening pattern emerges. Approximately two-thirds hail from corporate backgrounds, with some directly linked to significant polluters.
Dr. Brian Gilvary, former chairman of the petrochemical conglomerate Ineos and briefly associated with BP, is on the board of the Ministry of Defence.
Risk
An executive from British Airways, responsible for corporate communications—including lobbying efforts—is on the board of the Cabinet Office.
BA’s parent company has led lobbying initiatives against environmental regulations in the aviation sector.
Extending beyond government departments to other public entities reveals even more connections. The chair of Shell also leads UK Research and Innovation, the national agency focused on science and research funding.
More frequently, these non-executive directors come from an extensive network tied to the fossil fuel economy. Current or former personnel from major consultancy firms populate government boards.
For instance, the group risk officer, a senior advisor, and the senior independent director of Barclays serve as non-executive directors within various government departments.
Polluters
This situation poses challenges in how these individuals might oversee departmental operations. While there’s no evidence that anyone is personally gaining beyond their £15-20,000 stipend, the implications extend beyond personal profit.
A conflict of interest may not always manifest in what is voiced or even consciously acknowledged. It may emerge from silence or a failure to consider crucial points.
Are those entrenched in the carbon economy effectively applying the necessary pressure to facilitate a genuine transition over the coming years?
Doug Parr, chief scientist at Greenpeace, commented to The Ecologist: “It’s hard to trust the government’s commitment to reducing carbon and enhancing nature wherever there are so many individuals overseeing it who originate from the boardrooms of the largest polluters and financiers.”
“If ministers seek valid advice and constructive challenges on fulfilling their promises, they ought to engage climate scientists, independent experts, and representatives from the communities facing the climate crisis directly.”
Insights
“The preferential access granted to a cozy corporate club that benefits from delaying climate measures appears dubious, to say the least.”
The issues also arise from what non-executive directors glean from their roles.
For example, several government departments include members connected to PriceWaterhouseCooper on their boards.
PWC provides insights to the oil and gas sector, assisting in maintaining profitability. It’s reasonable to suspect certain insights are derived from its close ties to the government.
Excluded
In Australia, in 2022, PriceWaterhouseCooper faced backlash for sharing government secrets with clients to evade taxes. While there’s no indication of similar activities here, it’s unnecessary to disclose secrets to apply knowledge accumulated from board membership to client interactions.
The connections held by individuals who can navigate the complex corridors of power matter. Inviting major polluters into government ensures their agents are the ones who understand this landscape.
The cumulative effect, as observed by Zack Polanski, leader of the Green Party, is that regular citizens have been “largely excluded” from upper government echelons.
Oversee
The concept of departments having boards is already an odd aspect of Westminster’s democratic deficit. However, if this practice is to continue, it should serve to elevate the voices of underprivileged and marginalized groups—those often overlooked in democratic discourse—rather than amplify those who traditionally dominate the conversation.
Should the government genuinely prioritize the needs of impoverished and marginalized communities, it would make departments accountable to those groups or to individuals aware of their challenges.
For instance, the Scottish government appointed the Chair of Citizens’ Advice Bureau as a non-executive director. If decarbonization truly ranked as a priority, they would engage climate scientists and representatives from front-line communities most impacted by climate breakdown.
Instead, the majority of those appointed to oversee government functions are affiliated with the very industries harming the planet. Without a shift in this paradigm, substantial progress remains unlikely.
This Author
Adam Ramsay is an investigative journalist and authors the Abolish Westminster newsletter.
This article has been published through the Ecologist Writers’ Fund. We invite readers to support by donating to help pay some authors ÂŁ250 for their contributions. Please donate now. You can find more about the fund and apply on our website.
