Sir

A recent leading article1 states that “BP was not only within its rights but well advised to sue Greenpeace UK for sums that might well have extinguished the organization”.

Whereas it was disturbing for BP to take such a Machiavellian approach, it is quite alarming for this approach to be actively supported by Nature. It concurs with BP's stated objective at the time — not the recouping of financial damages from Greenpeace's occupation of the Stena Dee oil platform but the prevention of Greenpeace's campaigning efforts, allowing BP to continue oil exploration on the Atlantic frontier.

Your applause for BP fails to recognize BP's contribution to the climate change problem, Greenpeace's campaign or our continuing ‘constructive engagement’ with oil companies and the climate debate.

As you point out, BP has at last to some degree distanced itself from what has, over the past decade, been a marauding pack of oil companies determined to destroy the credibility of climate change science and to attack any scientists who supported efforts to deal with the problem. BP's conversion has, however, so far been limited to a cautious few words, whereas its actions contradict even these first few steps.

BP leads the oil industry in areas including the Atlantic and the Arctic in finding and developing new resources of oil. BP's actions, far from dealing with the climate change problem, seem likely to extend the life of the fossil-fuel age for decades, at a time when we should be deciding to leave fossil fuels in the ground and working towards that end.

In relation to BP's solar business, you state that BP has “shown strong support for photovoltaic [PV] energy research”. A recent study2 coordinated by BP Solar found that the building of a £350-million 500-MW factory to produce solar panels would reduce solar costs by 80 per cent, making solar competitive with electricity supplied by fossil fuels.

Commenting on the BP report, Paul Maycock, editor of PV News, was quoted in the August 1997 edition as saying that “at these costs solar will be fully economic throughout the world”. And Allen Barnett, president of Astropower, a US solar manufacturer, has indicated that reduction in solar costs to the level shown in the BP study would generate an annual global market of $100 billion.

It is not research into PVs, therefore, that is now required from BP but rather a commitment to expand an established solar market. In this case the commitment requires about half the investment that the Foinaven oilfield has so far cost BP.

From our attendance at every United Nations climate negotiation to our production of Jeremy Leggett's ground-breaking book on global warming in 1990, as well as our climate impact research trips to the Antarctic and the Arctic this year, Greenpeace has been “constructively engaged” in the climate change debate from the beginning.

So while climate negotiations continue to proceed in fits and starts, part of this engagement for Greenpeace must also be taking direct action to try to prevent the causes of the problem.