The fear of growing restrictions by governments on the production and distribution of fossil fuels and public support for mandated blending of biofuels with fossil fuels form another set of factors impelling oil oligopolies to grudgingly embrace biofuels. If biofuels become a viable source of energy without their participation, the biofuel sector could become a competitor with, rather than complementary to, black energy, potentially cutting deep into the market share of fossil fuels. The U.S. Department of Energy projects that the availability of biofuels in the United States alone will rise from half a million barrels a day in 2007 to 2.3 million barrels a day by 2030; for oligopolies that bank on speculations, every projection matters.17 This potential growth could represent a significant market share loss for fossil fuel corporations. Furthermore, biofuels are heavily subsidized, courtesy of the taxpayer. None is better positioned in the corporate world than oil oligopolies to capture a lion’s share of the generous public subsidies to accelerate commodifying the Commons.
There is also the issue of control. By actively participating in the biofuel sector, oil oligopolies could control the pace at which the biofuel sector grows without jeopardizing the established hegemony of fossil fuels. Therefore, oil oligopolies are establishing research centers to investigate the potential of biofuels. In June 2006, BP made the first move to establish a bioscience energy research center closely associated with the universities of California and Illinois with a $500 million initial allocation to serve its biobusiness unit. The center’s primary mission has been to look at how plants could supply feedstocks for ethanol production. Three areas of investigation have been identified for the center: developing bio-based fuel additives, developing new technologies to speed up the conversion of plants into fuels, and deploying advanced plant science to develop bioenergy crops capable of producing a higher yield of energy molecules, supposedly grown on marginal land.18
Moreover, enticed by the potential of the genetic engineering of plants, BP has partnered with DuPont to collaborate in research on bioenergy crops. BP sees huge dividends in this partnership, as DuPont is the second-largest seed company, the sixth-largest chemical company, and the sixth-largest pesticide company in the world, and is exceptionally well positioned to be a key player in biotech, biofuels, bio-plastics, synthetic biology, and enzymes development.19 This explains why BP became the first major oil company to join the Biotechnology Industry Organization (the trade association of biotech companies), which includes Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont, and BASF.20 After eyeing the potential of the Agrilife Research high-biomass energy program, BP also entered into an alliance in 2012 with Texas A&M University, the parent institution of Agrilife Research, to accelerate research into the potential of grasses for cellulosic ethanol production, specifically focusing on plant breeding and agronomics. From BP’s viewpoint, this partnership with Texas A&M would strengthen its ambitious trial project in Louisiana where it has planted 100,000 acres of miscanthus to generate lignocellulosic material (dry plant matter composed of carbohydrates and polymers) for road transport fuel. BP and Texas A&M hope that the integration of plant breeding and agronomic production will allow for developing an elite genetics and agronomic production system, considered critical to continuous production of lignocellulosic ethanol. Excited by the prospect of the partnership, Tom Campbell, BP Biofuels technology officer, offered a rosy commercial scenario: “Developing new varieties of energy grass is essential for commercializing a cellulosic biofuels industry that will enhance domestic energy security, create jobs for Americans, and improve rural economies. Working with Texas AgriLife Research is an important step in the process of bringing clean transport fuels to scale and to market.” Craig Nessler, Agrilife Research director, was equally bullish about the partnership’s prospects: “The opportunity to collaborate with BP Biofuels is an excellent opportunity for Texas AgriLife Research to perform market-driven, scientific research that will create future value to the producers of the state of Texas and beyond with an industry leader. Renewable energy produced from dedicated energy crops will play a vital role for the 21st century economy.”21
Following BP’s example, Chevron also announced an investment of $400 million in biofuels research and development. To this end, it contributed $12 million to Georgia Institute of Technology to develop technology to produce biofuels from biomass. This involves examination of the properties of biofuel feedstocks and the biology and chemistry of certain plants considered conducive to ethanol production from cellulose.22
The urgency to green-wash the fossil fuel industry is still another consideration for oil oligopolies to look at biofuels as a convenient hideout. The black carbon–based economy has long been in deep crisis resulting from the public outcry about its climate consequences. So a “green” carbon-based post-petroleum economy is necessary to put people at ease, and thereby ensure the continuous reproduction of capitalism. In the view of corporate managers, the transition from a fossil-based to a biofuels-run economy can be easily defended, as the bio-based economy can be marketed as green and clean. This allows the oil oligopolies to put in place enabling environments for converting more grain into bioethanol and biodiesel or more biotic resources into biofuels. As of now, however, oil oligopolies are determined to hang on to black carbon, because it is still the lowest hanging fruit, exemplified by the fact that the oil sector continues to enjoy heavy subsidies. In 2011, for example, the global pre-tax and post-tax subsidies for fossil fuels stood at around $5 trillion. The leading oil consumption subsidizers in 2011 were Iran and Saudi Arabia, while the United States, China, and Russia were the leading fossil fuel production subsidizers.23
Since 1918, oil companies in the United States received $446 billion in federal government subsidies. Even though the big five oil oligopolies—Exxon, Chevron, BP, Shell, and ConocoPhillips—together made $900 billion during the first decade of this century, and another $255 billion in profits in 2011 and 2012, they continued to sustain their addiction to the subsidies and tax breaks for the production and distribution of dirty black energy. In 2011, the effective tax rates for Exxon, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips were 13, 19, and 18 percent, respectively. Corporate managers and their congressional allies contend that the companies need public financial support to bring petroleum products to the market, even though in 2012 the oligopolies were sitting on $70 billion of idle cash.24 In truth, the subsidies are given not because the oil and gas corporations cannot profitably operate without financial support from the state but because they control the political process. The way they do this is by controlling the electoral and legislative processes.
Between January 2009 and June 2010, for example, the oil and gas industry spent $250 million on lobbying the U.S. Congress. Trade associations spent another $290 million on lobbying Congress to squash clean energy bills, and the Chamber of Commerce spent $190 million to defeat global warming legislation during the same period. Between 1999 and 2009, oil and gas, coal, and utility companies together spent over $2 billion lobbying Congress to defeat proposed legislation whose aim was to mitigate the effects of climate change.25 Even after a bipartisan commission recommended phasing out the subsidies to black-carbon companies in order to save $120 billion in ten years toward deficit reduction, the U.S. Congress balked at the suggestion.26 By defeating legislation that was meant to close tax loopholes, oil and gas companies saved $45 billion. They even decisively defeated proposed legislation requiring shale gas producers to inform communities of the potential danger posed by hydraulic fracturing operations (fracking), and of the potential consequences of chemicals used in it.27 What this type of corporate behavior suggests is that the oil oligopolies are not going to abandon fossil fuels until every available drop of black carbon is exhausted. The perils for nature and society now stem from the parallel expansion of biofuel production and the further exploration and drilling of fossil fuels. Alongside the ferocious