Wyn Jones

This article is part of the Mining and Metals project of Spinwatch

This article is part of the Climate project of Spinwatch.

Wyn Jones is the former managing director of Alcan Aluminium UK (Now Rio Tinto Alcan UK) (2000-2010). He was also Vice President of the Aluminium Federation in 2010. In 2004 he was awarded an OBE for 30 years service in the Aluminium industry.

During his time as managing director of Alcan Aluminium UK he was head of Lynemouth primary smelter and its coal power station, as well as the Lochaber smelter in Fort William, Scotland, and its two associated hydro-power stations.

According to the Newcastle Journal:

The 54-year-old, who lives in Hexham, Northumberland, began his career in 1970 when he joined the British Aluminium Company.

He subsequently worked in most sectors of the aluminium industry before joining Alcan Smelting and Power UK [ASPUK] as finance and planning director in 1992. During his time at the company, he took the business through the privatisation of the electricity and coal industries and in 1996 he became the director responsible for the 420-megawatt coal-fired power station at Lynemouth in Northumberland.

Mr Jones was also commercial manager for a smelting and power project in central China. In 2001, he was appointed managing director of ASPUK, which contributes almost 10pc of aluminium giant Alcan's global smelting capacity. The father of two and grandfather of one also holds directorships at the Aluminium Federation, Primary Aluminium Association, Association of Electricity Producers and Northern Enterprises Ltd and is also chair of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) Energy Policy Committee.

Directorships

• British Alcan Aluminium plc (chair)
• Alcan Aluminium UK Ltd (MD)
• Alcan Farms Ltd (chair)
• Aluchemie (Holland)
• Aluminium Federation
• Association of Electricity Producers

Other involvements

• Chair of Materials Innovation and Growth Team (Department of Trade and Industry)
• Former chair of Confederation of British Industry Energy Policy Committee (six-year tenure)
• Expert contributor to European Commission High Level Group on Competitiveness, Energy and the Environment (2006)
• Member of Prime Minister’s G8 WEF/ Industry expert advisory panel on Climate Change, feeding into the Gleneagles summit in 2005.
• Member of Whitehall/Business Climate Change Policy Review Group
• Adviser to New and Renewable Energy Centre
• Founder member of UK Emissions Trading Steering Committee
• Member of Special Expert Group of NETA (1999-2000)

Aluminium for Argentinian weapons

A 2008 interview for The Journal states:

Jones recalls how they were supplying aluminium to the Argentinian military junta for their main strike aircraft when the Falklands conflict started.

“We had a shipment which was due for dispatch. Jonnie was in Australia, but I knew we couldn’t send it. I called the MoD, but as no embargo had yet been officially introduced they said we could.

“I knew I couldn’t do it, so I went to the airport where the shipment had already passed through Customs and was awaiting loading, so I went in and got it back.

“The following day The Times ran a piece with a picture of the cargo crates saying ‘this is a shipment of rifles to Argentina’. “Jonnie was furious because he wanted to know how we were going to sell the stock. But the funny thing is we got paid twice for the goods. Once during the conflict and then after the conflict we got a second cheque from the Argentinians.

An estimated 30% of aluminium production is used in military applications . This anecdote also exposes the fallacy of arms trading where Britain has several times armed its own opposition, and profited from it.

View on climate change and industry

Wyn Jones featured in a live Lloyds 360 debate on climate change with Trevor McDonald on 5th July 2006, where he gave his view that the aluminium industry must be 'part of the solution' to climate change. Some of his claims are examined here:

To Mr McDonald's question about whether industry wasn't part of the problem for climate change, Wyn Jones responded:

Industry accounts for approximately 21% of global emissions of CO2 gases, so therefore it is part of the problem...To the order of about 20%.

This is a fairly conservative estimate. In contrast, the IPCC 4th Assessment report states:

Total industrial sector GHG emissions were about 12 GtCO2-eq in 2004, about 25% of the global total.

The IPCC's pie chart of emissions by sector in this report attributes 19.4% of greenhouse gases (GHGs) to industry, but also 25.9% to energy supply, and 13.1% to transport, of which industry will be responsible for some share. This sectoral division of emissions also hides the role of industry in increasing demand for its products through advertising and lobbying, which in turn increase consumption, energy use and waste, all of which produce emissions. The role of industry in deforestation for power plants and mining is also not included and would raise this figure.

Jones goes on to argue that the solution to climate change will be primarily in innovation and technology and not reducing consumption. His rationale is that 'developing nations' have the right to raise their consumption in line with ours, and western nations just won't change:

In advanced countries I suppose the fundamental problem is that the people who consume things are also voters. So, it’s very difficult politically for people to address the question of conspicuous consumption. I would posit that innovation has to play a very major part in this and to that extent industry will be part of the solution in producing products that use less energy, that help with the adaptation to climate change, and assist with other issues that will come forward as populations age in some countries and which are increasingly affected by heat-waves and the like, but also more dramatically, with climate-related diseases in developing countries.

We need to redesign products so they’re more resource-efficient, while satisfying the needs of customers. It’s not a matter of saying to customers “you can’t have an iPod”, or “you can’t have a mobile phone”. We have to address the fundamentals of what people are looking for from products and to satisfy it.

Though Jones is right that politicians are pressured by the consumptive wishes of voters, he declines to mention the huge pressure they are also under from industry itself to increase consumption. The Aluminium Federation, of which Jones is Vice President, holds regular Parliamentary breakfast meetings during which they lobby the government to support the growth of the industry, making it exempt from carbon legislation, and therefore increasing demand for its product. In the March 2010 breakfast meeting, Aluminium Federation past president Henry Dickinson said:

I passionately believe we should continue to have a vibrant and successful manufacturing sector in the UK and that we – industry and politicians – should ensure that this is the case by creating the right infrastructure and legislative environment for such businesses to prosper. We must nurture them and listen to their needs. We must not sacrifice them on the altar of climate change or consign such industry to the scrap heap and put all our hopes on being the “world’s leading high-tech manufacturer”.

It is not clear what Mr Jones is referring to when he suggests industry will help with solutions to climate-related-diseases and ageing populations. However, given that the European Aluminium Association makes the argument that the aluminium industry contributes to societal welfare and health by preserving foods in foil packaging the justification may be fairly weak.

On reaching climate agreement targets Wyn says:

What we’re looking at [in the aluminium industry] is a reduction in CO2-equivalent emissions in absolute terms by 65%. The Kyoto target was 12.5%. Most people are now saying that over 60% would be needed by 2050, so I’m not presenting this as “resting on our laurels issue”, it’s a start. But I offer it as a hope that things are possible indeed, because in the time that we made that reduction, you can see that we increased our output on the right-hand axis by some 20%.

It is not clear what Jones is referring to by 65%. The European Aluminium industry usually claims to have reduced emissions by 45% since 1990, or 39% globally. These figures do not show that though technological advances have been made, emissions savings in the smelting process in recent decades have been overshadowed by considerable overall emissions increases. In fact, Alcoa predicts a 20% increase of CO2e emitted per year from ca.335 million tonnes of CO2e in 2000 to ca. 400 million tonnes in 2020, in line with the 20% increase in production which Jones mentions here. Aluminium production still accounts for ca. 1% of global greenhouse gas emissions, producing 13.1 tons of CO2 equivalent per ton of aluminium, and plans to expand the industry in coming years cannot lead to a greenhouse gas reduction overall.

The IPCC report specifically on the emissions from energy intensive industries, which are mainly steel, iron and aluminium. It does not record any decrease, and states:

CO2 emissions (including electricity use) from the industrial sector grew from 6.0 GtCO2 in 1971 to 9.9 GtCO2 in 2004. The projections for industrial CO2 emissions for 2030 under the SRES-B22 scenarios are around 14 GtCO2 (including electricity use)

Jones goes on to argue that the aluminium industry is also contributing to poverty reduction in the 'developing' world:

Many companies recognise that poverty and climate change are inter-related and indeed unless it’s changed recently, organizations like the G8 would put the alleviation of poverty at a higher level

than climate change. But that rather misses the link again I think, going forward. But that’s really where many governments are directing their policies at the moment, particularly in relation to Africa. Companies, like Alcan, can provide leadership on clean, fresh water provision, and indeed in fighting HIV and Aids in Africa, which is not necessarily climate change related, but it is certainly something that does divert policy attention away from climate change.

The claim that Alcan (now Rio Tinto Alcan) are helping the poor with water and medicine is really outrageous. In contrast, Alcan's smelter in Coega, South Africa, has caused price rises and electricity blackouts for resident's already in poverty, as it is demanding too much power from the grid, and paying such low prices for energy that the taxpayer is at times actually subsidising it. Rio Tinto was described by a motion in the British parliament in 1997 as “the most uncaring and ruthless company in the world”, for human rights, anti-unionising and total disregard for indigenous people, and was pulled up again in 2000, for war crimes, environmental destruction and racism. Producing aluminium uses 1350 tons of water for every ton of aluminium produced. This removes water from the domestic supply, which hits particularly hard in 'developing' nations. In India there is much evidence that poverty has actually increased wherever the aluminium industry is found, due to displacement, lack of jobs, drought, disease, and profit going abroad.

Jones goes on to advocate more recycling, reuse and Life Cycle Analysis of products. Life Cycle Analysis science has been heavily shaped by the aluminium industry through their research bodies and industry academics, and is used by them in an attempt to prove aluminium's environmental superiority to steel and other materials.

Wyn goes on:

So, we need recognition that stable economies and wealth creation are required if the effects of climate change are to be reduced and adaptation made possible.

There is much evidence that growth capitalism which we have experienced up til now is incompatible with wise use of resources as it depends on continual expansion of production, which necessarily has some environmental and resource impact. Ex World Bank economist Herman Daly has published much on this matter. The aluminium industry themselves admit that there is no intention to slow down primary extraction (and therefore impact), despite rising rates of recycling. The EAA's document "Life Cycle Assessment and Aluminium: What you need to know" (developed with the UK aluminium industry) states:

Nevertheless, whether aluminium is produced from bauxite or from scrap, these operations are not in competition with each other. They are both integrated and necessary parts of the aluminium material cycle.

He goes on to assert the importance of strong carbon targets which would create a steady environment for industry investment. Though it may seem contrary that heavily polluting industries would ask for tougher targets, the Carbon Trading mechanisms which have been agreed on (and criticised as ineffectual and industry-biased by many) have been kind to many energy intensive industries, who have received exemptions and free credits, but also been able to trade credits based claims to greenhouse gas reduction. These claims have been critiqued for not being additional (e.g installing new technologies which they would have done anyway), and not being quantifiable (e.g forest plantations which may be ripped up a few years later or in fact used for cash crops). The higher the target, the higher the price of these credits, and the stronger the market for carbon.

He claims some regulation on industry is needed to tackle climate change, but that this should be developed with industry and not simply by government. He goes on to pass the blame to the domestic sector and building which he claims should do more:

They will say there’s regulation coming, so I think we need to unpick this, working with government, and we set up by agreement the direction and challenges that we’re going to undertake, rather than have them emerging from some committee room in the bowels of Whitehall, as a regulation which hasn’t been fully thought through. I certainly think regulation has a major part to play in sectors that are not responsive, such as the domestic sector and the building sector.

The Aluminium Federation has so far worked hard to get close to government and develop policy with them, resulting in considerable exemptions from the Climate Change Levy and subsidised energy prices in British smelters.

Jones finishes by talking about 'competitiveness', suggesting that penalising industry for their greenhouse gas releases through financial mechanisms will harm Britain's economy as industry will move elsewhere. Instead we should rely on industry to come up with techno-fixes (innovation) which can deal with the climate change issue:

leadership isn’t really just defined by setting tough targets and beating people into the ground. The objective we should have is that innovation and competitiveness are seen as going together and I think that competitiveness issue still hasn’t been adequately addressed, as we stand at the moment. And I think this is an issue that we need to get tough on so that we encourage the spreading out of the realisations that we have in the UK into other countries.