|
|
Degrees of Involvement | |||||
|
Conclusions 1. Climate change - an imperative to phase out fossil fuels In May 1997, John Browne, the chief executive of BP, famously said in a speech at Stanford University (California) that "The time to consider the policy dimensions of climate change is not when the link between greenhouse gases and climate change is conclusively proven ... but when the possibility cannot be discounted and is taken seriously by the society of which we are part". Unfortunately, the immediate action he called for was further research, further debate and further technology development, but emphatically not the setting of a limit on hydrocarbon production and use. "Actions which sought, at a stroke, drastically to restrict carbon emissions or even to ban the use of fossil fuels would be unsustainable because they would crash into the realities of economic growth" [1]. He is correct that a sudden, drastic cut in fossil fuel consumption would be economically devastating; society is still heavily dependent on oil, as a commodity of both physical and economic importance. However, to delay dealing with the problem of phasing out and replacing fossil fuels as an energy source would necessitate exactly that drastic shock at some point in the future when climate change has to be stopped suddenly. What is needed is a planned programme which phases out fossil fuels and introduces alternatives over a timescale of a few decades, within which society could adapt in a less damaging manner. However the oil and gas industry continues to look to its future; it aims to continue growing. 2. The role of higher education As independent centres of study, HEIís have a vital role to play at the cutting edge of opinion-forming. They should be on the front line of the fight against climate change, through leading the debate about the necessary restructuring of energy economics, through enhancing our understanding of the potential impacts of climate change, and through developing new energy technologies. However, we actually find that the opposite is the case. HEIís in the UK serve as part of the intellectual infrastructure which supports the dominance and growth of the oil and gas industry, through provision of both technology and graduate recruits. The UK continental shelf contains just 0.5% of the worlds oil and gas reserves [2]. Meanwhile the UK consumes 2.4% of world oil [3] and 3.9% of gas (1997 figures) [4]. The real significance of the UK oil and gas industry lies not in the volumes of hydrocarbons, but in three main areas: Technology exporter's since the North Sea came on stream in the 1960s, the small and difficult fields could only be exploited using new production technologies, which were developed in the UK then exported around the world. The UK remains an important intellectual centre for the global industry, and its continental shelf continues to be used as the testing ground for new technology which is later exported. Corporate Centre - two of the worlds six biggest oil companies have bases in the UK (BP/Amoco is based in London and Royal Dutch Shell in London and the Hague). As a result the companies are controlled by British (or British and Dutch in Shellís case) managers and directors- these have mostly come as graduates from UK Universities. Capital provider ñ the City of London remains one of the worlds most important financial centres. The International Petroleum Exchange, one of three oil futures exchanges in the world, is also based in London. Thus in two of the UK's main areas of importance in the oil industry, the higher education sector plays an important role. A further role of the HE sector in the future of the oil industry is its involvement in the climate change debate - perhaps the biggest issue now facing the industry. 3. Research and development - supporting expansion of the oil and gas industry The oil and gas industry uses higher education establishments for research and development (R&D) both because they are generally cheaper than the private sector and because they give companies access to a vast wealth of experience, expertise and resources. R&D is geared almost entirely toward expansion of the industry. It has essentially three roles: to find new oil and gas fields, to enable more of the hydrocarbons in each field to be extracted, and to lower the industry's costs. By far the biggest area of research is geological. Exploration geology looks for more oil and gas fields, while production geology examines how to exploit those which have been found but are yet to come on stream. Thus the application of geological research occurs before any hydrocarbons are actually extracted from a field; in other words, it deals with 'new' resources. Carbon logic, as discussed in Box 6.1 tells us that we already have 'enough' oil and gas in the fields which are already being produced to provide for society's needs while the transition to other energy sources is made; indeed we have 'enough' to cause unacceptable levels of climate change. Thus geological research into hydrocarbons is at best redundant; and at worst (which is more likely, since the oil and gas companies are unlikely to write off their research investments) a serious threat to human life and livelihoods. Research is also carried out by mechanical, civil and electrical engineers, by materials scientists, by chemists, biochemists and chemical and process engineers, by mathematicians, physicists and computer scientists. This work enables fuller exploitation of each field (also maintaining the supply of petroleum) and lowering of costs. 4. Public subsidy to oil and gas industry - a conflict of policy Much of this research is subsidised, or even funded entirely by the public purse. This is led by the focus on enhancing competitiveness, built into the remits of Research Councils and other guiding bodies over recent years. Much of their funding now only provides a part of the cost of projects, with the rest to be met by industrial partners; and for sole funding the emphasis is on projects that will achieve industrial funding after an initial period of development - that is, the Research Councils provide 'start-up' funding. Thus there is a natural bias toward projects that support bigger industries, where there is more funding available. The renewable energy industries, being still small, have limited funds to devote to R&D; therefore the Research Councils will not provide substantial funding either. Public funds subsidise industry-related research indirectly as well as directly: in competing for valuable research contracts with industry, HEIs tend to under-bid, with the result that much of the overhead costs come from their core budgets, which are actually intended for more open-ended, 'curiosity-driven' research and for work which contributes to the overall development of the institution. At the Kyoto climate summit in December 1997a, the European Union (EU) entered a legally binding commitment to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 8% by 2010. The sharing of this cut between EU member states has yet to be agreed. And in its manifesto for the last General Election, the current government promised a 20% cut in carbon dioxide emissions by 2010 [5]. Therefore, it would seem appropriate to set the balance of R&D (or publicly-funded R&D, at the very least) so as to guide the energy market away from fossil fuels. Sadly, it seems the government's climate change mitigation policies receive lower priority than its policies of encouraging higher education to support business. 5. Renewable energy not given a chance The biggest barrier to replacement of fossil fuels with renewable energy sources is that the costs of the latter are simply not competitive against those of the former. While further R&D into renewable energy could reduce the cost, this effort is negated by the considerably larger amount of R&D into fossil fuels. In order to give renewable sources a chance to penetrate the energy market, it is necessary to stop, or at least drastically reduce oil and gas R&D. Yet although there are already vast amounts of R&D being carried out in the private sector (HEIs account only for 5% of it), this is supplemented by an R&D programme in higher education which dwarfs that of renewables. Hydrocarbon research, as we noted above, both lowers the cost of production through technology, and increases the supply of oil and gas, which also decreases their price. As long as this continues, renewable energy is not going to be able to penetrate beyond the low target given by government of 4% of energy use by 2010. With the threat of escalating climate change, and the latent potential of renewables,this is simply not enough. 6. Environmental research - science captured by industry interests Of 981 research projects in UK HEIs, listed in the International Petroleum Research Directory, only 66 projects relate to safety and environmental impact. In its public statements about its R&D efforts, however, the industry often gives heavy emphasis to these issues, as they present the publicly acceptable face of technology development. Furthermore, a disproportionate amount of public funding goes on research into safety - 77% of safety research projects are wholly funded by the public purse. That the industry does not itself pay for such research represents an externalising of costs. Four years ago, the situation was similar for research into the industry's environmental impact - 80% of this was wholly publicly funded. Since then however, this figure has fallen to 52%, as the industry has recognised the public relations value both of declaring that it supports environmental research and of being able to dominate the debate on its impacts. In this latter case, companies become able to refute environmental criticism of their operations by citing scientific studies they have sponsored, where they have set the questions to be asked and decided which scientist is to answer them. In Chapter 6 we looked at two examples of scientific debate being 'captured' by industry interests in this way. Sponsoring environmental research can also serve to justify ecologically challenged developments, simply by the research being carried out, whether or not it actually affects operations. 7. Graduate recruitment While research and development can also be carried out 'in-house' (and most of it is), the oil and gas industry is arguably more dependent on higher education for its recruits. Graduates are crucial to make up its top scientists and managers. The provision of these by higher education institutions constitutes another form of support for the industry - getting the best people serves to enhance its competitive position relative to alternative energy, especially given the very limited career paths into the latter. Furthermore, Dr Jeremy Leggett, a former geology lecturer at Imperial College, comments that "It isnít in the culture of a training for life in the oil industry - or within the industry itself, once you enter the fold - to deal with an integrated view of the atmosphere, the oceans, the biosphere, and the entirety of the climate system. You would need a more holistic view of science, and the world into which that science has to fit, than the practitioners - academic or industrial - generally consider relevant to the needs of the trainee technician. The degree course the Amerada Hess man took, in particular, fell short on the atmospheric component. I taught on that course, and the shameful truth is that I didnít even know the carbon-arithmetic figures myself - despite having done a PhD at Oxford on ancient oceans - until the mid 1980s.... Though primarily an academic, I was at that time part of the same culture as the oilmen. And my daughter owned two horses as a consequence." [6] The oil industry derives a substantial part of its graduate workforce from a fairly small number of HE institutions. The two universities in Aberdeen, Robert Gordon University and the University of Aberdeen, are the top providers of recruits. Aberdeen is the centre of the UK offshore industry, and this proximity obviously leads to a strong relationship between the industry and the universities. On top of this, students in Aberdeen have significant informal exposure to the industry. The other two key recruiting grounds are Imperial College (London) and Heriot-Watt university, both of which specialise in oil and gas in both research and (partly as a consequence) undergraduate curriculum. These four institutions between them provide 40% of the industry's graduate intake. Of 642 graduate recruits recorded by the Higher Education Statistics Agency in 1994/95, 212 (33%) studied in just 15 departments, 12 of which are located in these four HEIs. Many of the channels by which the career choice of students are influenced are quite informal, ranging from topics of discussion in lectures to advertising in departments, while others such as sandwich courses and donations to departments are not well recorded, so the mechanisms of recruitment are very difficult to quantify. It is worth noting however that the institutions and departments which provide oil and gas R&D are often the same ones which provide much of its staff - further evidence of a close relationship between those HEIs and the companies. All six of the institutions from which 20 or more graduates went to work for the oil and gas industry in 1994/95 also had 20 or more R&D projects listed in the 1997 International Petroleum Research Directory. The seventh largest recruiting ground was Nottingham, where the Shell Centre for Mathematical Education is sited. A further four provided more than 10 recruits, which had respectively 43, 19, 35 and 40 projects listed. These top 11 institutions accounted for 56% of recruitment. Recent years have seen course curricula increasingly tailored to meet the needs of industry. Sometimes this just involves the inclusion of industrially relevant modules in the courses; however some HEIs offer degree courses which entirely specialise in oil and gas. Often curricula are set in consultation with industry representatives. The strongest example of this is Robert Gordon University (see Appendix 1). 8. Maintaining the relationship The biggest driver of oil and gas industry involvement in higher education has been the government's push (especially since 1993) for greater industry / academia 'partnership' generally. However, the oil and gas industry specifically has been working to build this partnership in a number of ways. Firstly, in order to maintain their relationships with individual HEIs, oil and gas companies both provide them with staff and give generous donations. As government funding for higher education becomes increasingly inadequate, the institutions are keen to continue to receive support from the private sector, and in return gives companies influence over course curricula and research priorities, and access to careers advertising space. The biggest donation to date by the sector was BP's gift of £19.5m to Cambridge University for an institute specialising in petroleum studies. Aberdeen, Heriot-Watt and Robert Gordon Universities have also recieved large donations, including buildings, academic positions, lecture series and other awards, and other HEIs have received smaller donations. Personal connections are also fostered through secondment (which is encouraged by the Research Councils' Teaching Company Scheme and the Royal Society and EPSRC's Industry Fellowships), and through former industry personnel taking up academic positions. The highest level peronal connections are the Rector of Imperial College and the Chancellor of the University of Hull, both of whom are directors of Shell. Secondly, the petroleum / academia relationship is also maintained at the government level, with the industry well represented on a number of policy-making bodies. For example, in 1992 Sir John Cadogan left his position as research director of BP to become Director General of Research Councils; and BP director Sir Robin Nicholson is a member of the Council for Science and Technology. The oil and gas industry is well represented on the grant awarding boards of EPSRC and NERC, and on the government's Foresight Panels which set the overall research priorities. The renewable energy industry has a far smaller representation. It is unsurprising therefore that oil and gas continues to receive such favourable treatment in the public funding of R&D. 9. Bad news for higher education - the short-term approach Research into the expansion of fossil fuel production constitutes a substantial waste of universities' resources, developing knowledge and capabilities which will become redundant when policy makers eventually decide that climate change has gone too far. Academics use up time they might spend more usefully on other areas of research. This stems from the short-termist approach of the UK government to higher education, justifying research and teaching decisions only on their immediate commercial benefit, and neglecting work which could serve to build up useful long-term capabilities. We have seen how oil and gas industry involvement is concentrated in a small number of institutions. 60% of R&D is carried out in just eleven institutions, and 40% of recruitment is from just four. This heavy dependence on one industry (and particularly one of limited lifetime) is unhealthy, from a funding point of view, for the viability of the departments. It is these institutions which will suffer heavily when oil and gas takes its inevitable downturn. 10 Lack of accountability In each Chapter of this report, we have recounted our difficulties in acquiring the information, due to lack of registers of industry involvement in higher education, through confidentiality agreements, and through lack of cooperation from both companies and HEIs. However, whatever one's view of the fossil fuels industries, and on how higher education should be funded, the involvement of private interests in public institutions should at the very least be transparent. We have argued that the relationship is socially undesirable in terms of its effect on the energy market, that it can have an influence over scientific inquiry, that it compromises academic values, and that it is not in the best funding interests of HEIs. Since in their relationships with industry HEIs potentially compromise their interests, those of their students and staff, and those of wider society, at the very least these relationships should be open to inspection by those stakeholders. HEIs are institutions which exist in the public interest, and are largely funded by the public purse. It is therefore reasonable to expect that they should be publicly accountable. 11. A way forward? We have shown how the UK government's support, through higher education, for the oil and gas industry conflicts with its policies on mitigating climate change. Where such a conflict exists in research and technology direction, social and environmental objectives must be allowed to take priority over the uncritical acceptance of market-driven aims. In this particular case, we call for the public subsidy for fossil fuel technologies to immediately be ceased, and switched to renewable energy technologies. As long as higher education institutions serve to keep the oil price low, there is little hope for a meaningful shift in sources of energy production. Furthermore, there should be a full debate as to whether HEIs, as institutions which exist for the public good, should even be allowed to carry out privately funded R&D which is so clearly incompatible with social imperatives such as halting human-induced climate change. The need to contribute to the solution of such social and ecological problems (and not to exacerbate the problems) should be written into the mission statements of HEIs, as well as those of public funding bodies such as Research Councils, where it should take higher priority than the goal of wealth creation. Professor John Shepherd, Director of the Southampton Oceanography Centre, argues that "We should not forget the vital relevance of science and technology to Agenda 21, the outcome of the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, and all that that implies. An important requirement now is to stimulate a similar and equally prestigious exercise [to Technology Foresight] that considers how to improve our quality of life, lest the extra attention paid to the utilitarian applications of science take precedence over its social and (dare one say it) aesthetic value" [7]. HEIs should be required to publish registers of all industrial sponsorship, both of research contracts and of other aspects of academic life, with a recognition that the protection of the integrity of higher education institutions outweighs considerations of commercial confidentiality. Funding sources and business links should be declared on all academic and other departmental publications. Academics should report all external professional commitments. HEIs should be protected from all restrictions on academicsí free enquiry, and on publication of results. Research into the social and environmental impacts of a company or industry should be contracted and managed by an independent public sector body, and funded by a levy on the companies concerned, to ensure impartiality. There are many things that scientists could be doing with their time and resources that would arguably be far more useful to society than supporting the fossil fuels industries. For example, there is much work for geologists in studying climate variations of previous ages and their ecological impacts, ocean-atmosphere interactions and climate change positive feedback mechanisms such as the methane trappe in the arctic permafrost. Also, geologists could apply their skills in the search for water (the shortage of which is set to be a major environmental problem of the next century), instead of hydrocarbons, and in advice on appropriate land use [8]. In the field of renewable energy, there is research work for fluid engineers in modelling flow for the purposes of wind, hydro, tidal and wave power; for mechanical engineers (including offshore engineers) and materials scientists in designing infrastructure for power generation from these sources; for chemical engineers in developing photovoltaic films and fuel cells. Research councils should support this transfer of skills from hydrocarbon R&D to socially useful work. The application of science to solving the ecological crises of our time is perhaps the only hope we have of avoiding catastrophe. Footnotes: a Third Conference of Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change References: 1. J Browne (Chief Executive of BP), speech at Stanford University, California, 19/5/97; available on http://www.bp.com/speech_051997.html 2. Institute of Petroleum-Oil data sheet 13, 198- ëWorld estimated proved reserves of crude oil and natural gas liquidsí; and BP Statistical review of world energy, 1995, p.18- Distribution of gas reserves 1994 3. BP, Statistical Review of World Energy, Oil consumption page. Available on website HYPERLINK http://www.bp.com/bpstats/tables/oilpro1.htm http://www.bp.com/bpstats/tables/oilcon1.htm viewed 14/6/99 4. BP, Statistical Review of World Energy, Natural gas consumption pages. Available on website HYPERLINK http://www.bp.com/bpstats/tables/gaspro1.htm http://www.bp.com/bpstats/tables/gascon1.htm viewed 14/6/99 5. Labour Party, New Labour: because Britain deserves better, party manifesto, April 1997, p.39 6. Jeremy Leggett, The Fall of Oil, unpublished, chapter 10 7. John Shepherd, 'Technology Foresight: a Delphic experience?', in Science and Public Affairs, Autumn 1995, p.20 (pub. The Royal Society, London and British Association for the Advancement of Science, London) 8. see Nigel Woodcock, 'Geologists and global warming', Geoscientist vol.1 no.6, p.8 (pub. The Geological Society, Bath) |