webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

SHELL 3 knew

see shell 2

THis is 3

see CEO Wael Sawan

SEE FF CEO (shell and BP,EUbased, not as bad as US exxon/chevron, but now shell walks back on grn

---

cci shell exxon and chev putting more $ into oil 10 23

Meanwhile, Shell — after one of its most profitable years on record — is reducing its low-carbon workforce by 200 positions just one month after Shell employees penned an open letter to CEO Wael Sawan expressing their concern with the company’s movement away from renewable energy investments.

---

---

an 5 26

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has been receiving criticism over his newly revealed reality television show, a road trip series that was filmed over the course of seven months when he was also presumably overseeing the entire U.S. transportation system. Critics have accused him not only of shirking his responsibilities while on the taxpayers’ dime, but of conflicts of interest with the corporations he’s supposed to be regulating. On Monday, his wife had an explosive response to one critic in particular: the husband of former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.

“Stand down, Chas,” Duffy’s wife Rachel Campos Duffy, who also happens to be a co-host of Fox & Friends, posted over a retweet of criticism from Chasten Buttigieg. “You and I both know that my husband has done more in one year to transform the [Department of Transportation] and [Air Traffic Control] than your husband did in over 4 years on the job.”

In the same post, she also claimed that the show —The Great American Road Trip —was funded by a non-profit organization, even though, according to the Daily Beast, “the show’s sponsors, including Boeing, Shell, Toyota and United Airlines, are all companies whose business Duffy regulates as transport secretary.” This has ethics experts sounding the alarm.

For his part, Chasten Buttigieg has a personal element to his criticism of the Duffys, posting, “The same Duffys who threw endless fits on national television when Pete was working from our son's ICU bedside are now bragging about their multi-month, taxpayer-funded family road trip while gas and grocery prices soar for American families because of Trump's war of choice. How much more unfocused, unserious, and out of touch can you be?”

The Duffys are a longtime TV couple. Sean Duffy came into the public eye in 1997 during the show The Real World: Boston, then met his wife on Road Rules: All Stars. He’s been filming his new series, he says, between “moments where I might be able to do some work” as a member of Trump’s Cabinet.

---

---

gmail icc 12 25

Plastic recycling has “largely failed” despite polluters’ claims otherwise, a new report from Greenpeace shows. The report adds to the growing evidence of petrochemical and oil companies’ deception around the viability of plastic recycling that the industry has used to avoid public scrutiny for fueling the plastic pollution crisis.

ExxonMobil is asking the Supreme Court to take up Boulder, Colorado’s, climate deception lawsuit, which seeks to hold Exxon and Suncor Energy liable for local climate damages. Escaping these cases is “a big priority not just for ExxonMobil, but for the entire industry,” a top Exxon lawyer recently said.

“If these cases are as frivolous as the oil companies’ briefs pretend, then why in the world are you busting your butt to get a declaration of immunity from Congress?”

Pat Parenteau, an environmental law professor and senior fellow at Vermont Law School

===

3 24

exxonknewS

y mail

Shell announced this week that it will once again scale back its stated climate targets. The oil giant now plans to lower the “carbon intensity” of its fossil fuel emissions from 20% to a less strict 15-20% by 2030, after reaping billions in profits last year and defending its intention to keep doubling down on oil and gas production.

As fossil fuel companies steadily backslide on their already-questionable climate and clean energy promises, governments, shareholders, and international agencies have continued to plead with the industry to step up its investments in a renewable energy transition. “What we need are company chief executives, looking to the future and investing in that future and accelerating the transition to that future," former U.S. climate envoy John Kerry said in July when oil majors dropped their climate plans in favor of more fossil fuels.

But if you ask Dario Kenner, a Visiting Research Fellow at the University of Sussex, governments and advocates should be looking at why our economies are so heavily dependent on fossil fuels — not pressuring oil companies to be part of the transition or debating the details of their climate plans. In new research first reported by The Guardianlast week, Kenner documented a trove of evidence showing that the fossil fuel industry has systematically lobbied to block the transition to clean energy.

Trying to get the industry to change its business model is “ridiculous” and “very likely to be a massive waste of time,” said Kenner. “They are the same industry that’s clearly tried to kill green technology for decades.”

Kenner combed through public statements from the American Petroleum Institute (API) and European oil and gas trade association FuelsEurope dating back to the 1960s and found a pattern of industry trade associations battling government support of wind, solar, and EV technologies on both sides of the Atlantic.

That dossier of evidence, reviewed by ExxonKnews, included repeated instances of the trade groups lobbying against tax credits and other forms of support for electric vehicles, wind, and solar panels, clean air and auto emissions standards, and government backing of research into green technologies.

In 1973, API — along with staff from member companies Shell and Exxon — pressured Congress to weaken auto emission standards that would have favored electric vehicles, arguing that it would impact “the oil industry’s continuing ability to meet its share of the Nation’s growing energy needs, not only for gasoline, but also for other petroleum products.”

Nearly a half a century later in 2018, the largest U.S. oil and gas trade group lobbied against tax credits for electric vehicles, claiming government support for EVs would “distort the free market and ultimately increase consumer costs,” and maintaining that “API opposes government intervention in the markets to pick winners and losers because it creates an un-level playing field.” API still uses free market talking points to fight clean energy today.

*Posted on X.

As The Guardian points out, fossil fuel companies have benefited from hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies each year while fighting action to address climate change.

“The market’s already rigged in favor of fossil fuels,” said Kenner, yet the industry embarked on a longstanding effort to “destroy the conditions under which renewables would have flourished.”

Today, the fossil fuel industry claims that renewable energy simply can’t supply the world’s energy needs on its own. Wind, solar, and electric vehicles are “not sufficient” to meet society’s energy demand despite climate concerns, said Exxon CEO Darren Woods in his recent interview with Fortune, claiming that society has “waited too long” to fund technology that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and “today’s technology will not solve this problem.” API chief executive Mike Sommers recently said he rejects the term “energy transition” because it “suggests we’re going to be moving from one thing to another — and very rarely has that happened in the history of energy.”

Those comments intentionally “hide the decades of lobbying they’ve done to shape the consumption options for the majority of the population and shape society’s needs to be based around fossil fuels,” said Kenner.

At the same time, major oil companies are promoting themselves as capable of leading the development of “low-carbon technologies” — as long as they don’t challenge the continued production of fossil fuels. “At our heart, we’re a technology company,” Woods told Fortune before touting the company’s carbon capture projects.

Exxon and other oil companies have invested heavily in carbon capture projects and expansion plans, claiming they’ll reduce carbon emissions without necessitating a shift away from their core business in fossil fuels. But experts and advocates have called CCS a “dangerous distraction” that’s eating up tax dollars (like Exxon’s 2021 ask of the federal government to help fund its $100 billion carbon capture hub in Texas) and heading us down the path of more oil and gas. According to a 2021 analysis by the Center for International Environmental Law, more than 80% of existing carbon capture technology has been used for “enhanced oil recovery” — or using captured carbon to extract otherwise inaccessible crude oil.

“Carbon capture and storage is, at its core, a technology for producing more oil,” wrote former Exxon scientist and whistleblower Lindsey Gulden in a recent LinkedIn post. “It requires more carbon to be expended to inject #co2 at pressure than it keeps out of the atmosphere. It is not and will not be a viable solution to climate change.”

Documents obtained by a House Oversight Committee investigation in 2022 show that major oil companies view carbon capture as a way to help them maintain their existing business models and social license to operate — and thus support government help in getting the technology off the ground. “API supports policy reforms to infrastructure permitting and development for CCUS [carbon capture use and storage] as well as research, development, and deployment funding to support technology breakthrough,” according to one internal document. “API also supports federal tax provisions incentivizing CCUS investment and deployment.”

“They’re against technology and progress when it’s a rival technology, and very happy to be leading technology companies in their own fossil fuel technologies,” said Kenner. “They’d like time to stop, and [for society] to just carry on using oil and gas. But you can’t stop time.”

---

---

reuters

LONDON, Sept 27 (Reuters) - Shell (SHEL.L) CEO Wael Sawan has come under pressure over his strategy from within the energy company after two employees issued a rare open letter urging him not to scale back investments in renewable energy, sparking an internal debate.

The open letter, posted earlier this month on Shell's internal web and seen by Reuters this week, comes after Sawan outlined at an investor day in June plans to slow investment in renewables and low-carbon business as part of a strategy to boost returns.

The company also split its low-carbon business and scrapped the role of global head of renewables, which was followed by the departure of the holder of that position Thomas Brostrom after less than two years in the role.

"For a long time, it has been Shell's ambition to be a leader in the energy transition. It is the reason we work here," said the letter which was addressed to Sawan and the Shell executive committee.

"The recent announcements at and after the capital markets day deeply concern us... We can only hope the optics of the CMD announcements are deceiving us and that Shell continues its path as a leader in the energy transition."

The letter was signed by Lisette de Heiden and Wouter Drinkwaard, who both work in Shell's low-carbon division. De Heiden and Drinkwaard did not respond to a request for comment.

The letter received more than 80,000 views and 1,000 likes, and sparked a long exchange of comments on the open platform, including from Sawan, according to company sources.

Shell shares were up nearly 1% by 1508GMT.

NO EASY ANSWERS

"For an organisation at the crux of the energy transition, there are no easy answers and no shortage of dilemmas or challenge," Sawan wrote in his response.

"We might not always agree on the way forward, but I feel good about the role Shell is, and will continue, to play. I am proud of how we provide affordable and secure energy to people every day, while we work hard to provide lower-carbon solutions to our customers, as we transition over time to a net-zero emissions business."

Sawan, who took office in January, has focused on improving Shell's operational performance and profitability by leaning more heavily on oil and gas operations, biofuels and electric vehicle charging.

Shell has in recent months exited offshore wind projects in Ireland and France, sold its UK power retail business and said it was seeking to sell stakes in renewable projects in India. It is also weighing selling all or part of the Sonnen battery storage company it acquired in 2019, industry sources said.

Shell decline to comment on the Sonnen sale process.

A Shell spokesperson said: "We appreciate that our staff are engaged in and have passion for both the energy transition and Shell... Shell is playing a meaningful role in addressing the energy transition, and at our recent Capital Markets Day we set out those areas of the energy system of today and tomorrow where we are best placed to invest, compete and win."

Several senior Shell executives have left the low-carbon and renewables division since the strategy change.

Those include Oliver Bishop, who headed Shell's global hydrogen mobility business and who joined BP in September in the same role, Roberto Jimenez, who headed Shell's European onshore power, and Colin Crooks, senior vice president of renewables and energy solutions Europe, will leave at the end of the month, according to a company spokesperson.

Shell aims to be a net zero emissions company by 2050.

Reuters Graphics

Reporting by Ron Bousso; Editing by Sharon Singleton

---

[### Shell CEO calls it 'irresponsible' to cut oil production now

AP News

https://apnews.com › article › shell-oil-gas-climate-ch...](https://apnews.com/article/shell-oil-gas-climate-change-wael-sawan-23c95d455df55a7003bc32f262e5508f)

Jul 6, 2023 — In an interview with the BBC released Thursday, Shell CEO Wael Sawan also refused to rule out moving the company's headquarters and stock market ...

[### 'Disgraceful' Shell chief Sawan slammed over school ...

Latest renewable energy news

https://www.rechargenews.com › energy-transition › d...](https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/disgraceful-shell-chief-sawan-slammed-over-school-children-gas-claims/2-1-1482399)

Jul 6, 2023 — CEO Wael Sawan in an interview with the BBC claimed a shortage of liquified natural gas (LNG) had left children in Pakistan and Bangladesh ...

---

mma 7 23 no lnx twt

Campaigners rip Shell’s 'cynical case' against ditching Fossil fuels as world records hottest days — so far

[BERLIN, GERMANY - APRIL 16: Wael Sawan, managing director and chairman of Shell Qatar, speaks at the Qatar Business and Investment Forum 2013 on April 16, 2013 in Berlin, Germany. Through its oil and gas revenue, which have allowed Qatar to bring in the world's highest income per capita as well as have one of the lowest unemployment levels in the world, the Persian Gulf country is able to invest outside of Arab countries in industries as diverse as fashion, media, petrochemicals and banking. (Photo by Adam Berry/Getty Images)

Julia Conley

and 

Common Dreams

July 06, 2023

two days after scientists recorded the hottest day on record and warned that the milestone is the latest clear sign that all fossil fuel production must be urgently phased out, the CEO of multinational oil and gas giant Shell claimed that transitioning to renewable energy sources is what would endanger the world and expressed what campaigners called "cynical" concerns for the well-being of the Global South.

Wael Sawan, who took over the U.K.-based company last year, told the BBC Thursday that the world's energy system "continues to desperately need oil and gas," contrary to evidence put forward by the International Energy Agency, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, and other experts.

"I think what would be dangerous and irresponsible is actually cutting out the oil and gas production so that the cost of living—as we saw just last year—starts to shoot up again," said Sawan.

Cost-of-living increases have raised alarm in communities around the world following the coronavirus pandemic and Russia's invasion of Ukraine—but numerous analyses have pointed to corporate greed and price-gouging, not the decreasing supply of oil and gas, as primary drivers of financial hardship for working people.

Shell reported record-breaking profits of nearly $40 billionlast year, doubling its total for 2021.

"The only 'danger' Shell would see in cutting production is to their eye-watering profits," Alice Harrison of the international human rights group Global Witness told The GuardianThursday. "Whether blinded by the pound signs or simply willfully ignorant, Shell's CEO is wrong. Ending our dependence on fossil fuels and transitioning to green energy will serve both the planet and provide energy security for all. Shell [has] once again made their loyalties clear—profit over people and planet."

Guterres is among the critics who have warned that companies that continue to invest in fossil fuels will not continue to see enormous profits forever, and asCommon Dreamsreported last week, research from the University of Waterloo in Canada found that public pensions in the United States have lost tens of billions of dollars due to their refusal to pull out of the oil, gas, and coal sectors.

"Investing in new fossil fuels infrastructure is }_moral and economic madness_{," Guterres saidearlier this year. "Such investments will soon be stranded assets—a blot on the landscape and a blight on investment portfolios."

in his comments to the BBC, Sawan suggested his concern is not with his own company's future, but that of the Global South—where people aresuffering disproportionately from the effectsof the climate crisis and planetary heating, despite causing a tiny fraction of the fossil fuel pollution that originates in wealthier countries.

He said the distribution of benefits from the use of renewable energy must be "globally responsible" so the Global North doesn't hoard energy sources such as solar and wind power.

"Let's be clear, companies like Shell are fueling both the climate crisis and the soaring cost of energy," Jamie Peters of Friends of the Earth told TheGuardian. "They are profiting from the misery of ordinary people while destroying the planet, and they're making a cynical case to continue locking us into the volatile fossil fuel markets that are the root cause of the energy crisis."

As environmental journalist Harry Cockburn noted on social media, for all Sawan's claims of concern for people in the Global South, he made clear that Shell's profits are his top priority as the interview concluded. [twt]

"Cutting production is only dangerous in the kind of upside-down world where profit rules over everything," said the grassroots coalition Stop Cambo, which pressuredShell to pull out of the Cambo oil field off the coast of Scotland in 2021. "Even as the planet burns and people are forced to choose between heating and eating."

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

---

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/exxon-chevron-shell-conocophillips-record-profits-earnings-oil-companies-most-profitable-year/

see sen heating 6 23 kickass

global oil companies have rebounded since the pandemic to post their highest ever profits since people started using petroleum.

Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon and Shell all reported record profits in 2022 — a year in which Russia's war on Ukraine collided with the post-pandemic economic recovery to drive oil prices to their highest levels in history. 

Together, the four companies saw $1 trillion in sales last year, a sum greater than the total economic output of Colombia, South Africa or Switzerland. TotalEnergies and BP are set to report their 2022 financial results next week.

The record profits come after a year of skyrocketing gas prices. After slumping hard in 2020, global consumption of oil and gasoline bounced back far slower than production, putting pressure on gas prices. Russia's invasion of Ukraine a year ago further shrank the world's oil supplies, bringing the average price of gas in the U.S. above $5 a gallon in the spring and summer. [graph]

shell on Thursday reported a nearly $40 billion profit for last year. That's more than double the prior year's results and the most money Shell has ever made in its 115 years of existence. Chevron, the second-largest oil company in the U.S., posted record earnings of $36.5 billion last year, while refiner ConocoPhillips doubled its profits to $18.7 billion, the highest in the 10 years since it spun off its refining business.

Exxon, the largest U.S. oil producer, this week reported an epic $55 billion in profits for 2022. The oil giant's bottom line "clearly benefited from a favorable market," CEO Darren Woods told investors. He also touted Exxon's investments before and during the pandemic, which allowed it to increase production as demand was ramping up. 

"We leaned in when others leaned out, bucking conventional wisdom," Woods said.

The windfall makes Exxon the third-most-profitable company of 2022, behind only Apple and Microsoft, according to the Wall Street Journal.

In addition to high prices for crude oil, elevated natural-gas prices and high margins in the refining business also pushed up oil company profit, said Peter McNally, industrial and energy analyst at Third Bridge.

"Windfall" profits

The White House and environmentalists have condemned oil companies' ballooning profits. The White House has criticized fossil-fuel companies for not increasing production to help bring down gas prices, and last year floated a tax on oil and gas profits.

A White House spokesperson called Exxon's record profit "outrageous" in a statement to the BBC. The spokesperson, Abdullah Hasan, also blasted Chevron's announcement that it would spend $75 billion on buying back stock from investors.

"Companies clearly have everything they need — record profits and thousands of approved permits — to increase production. The only thing getting in the way is their own decision to keep plowing windfall profits into the pockets of executives," Hasan tweeted.

"A windfall tax on oil and gas profits is needed more than ever, to free up money that's desperately needed to help those struggling with the cost of energy, and as economies around the world face recession," Jonathan Noronha-Gant, senior campaigner with Global Witness, told the Associated Press.

Some jurisdictions, including the European Union and the U.K., have imposed such taxes on surplus energy-company profits, putting the proceeds toward covering citizens' skyrocketing energy costs. In December, Exxon sued to stop the EU's tax.

"We looked at what happened in the EU and said it both is not legal and it's the opposite of what is needed," Woods said Tuesday, calling the tax "a penalty on the broad energy sector."

Dramatic turnaround

Oil companies have seen a remarkable turnaround from 2020, a year when travel ground to a halt, demand for fuel evaporated, dozens of oil and gas companies filed for bankruptcy protection, and thousands of industry workers were laid off. Exxon lost $22 billion that year — the first year in decades that it had lost money.

In addition to oil-extracting operations that were taken offline in 2020, refining capacity also fell, contributing to higher gas prices and refinery profit margins.

"The refining business, particularly in the U.S., soared to record levels," McNally, the Third Bridge analyst, said. "The price of crude oil went up but the prices of refined products like gasoline and diesel went up even more. The largest U.S. independent refiner, Marathon Petroleum, delivered record profits, but ExxonMobil and Chevron also compete in refining."

---

---

shell-oil-gretchen-watkins

OCT 2021

Public reporting has shown that Shell knew about the dangers posed by its fossil fuel products for decades, but engaged in a widespread campaign of deception to protect its profits

Shell now faces lawsuits from 20 states and municipalities that are seeking to hold the corporation accountable for lying about its products’ role in the climate crisis.

Explore the #SlipperySix

The American people deserve answers, and as Shell’s President, Watkins must testify. Here is just some of the evidence that members of the House Oversight Committee should ask her to explain:

Shell Knew About the Dangers of Climate Change as Early as the 1980s

Shell Opposed Climate Action and Publicly Denied the Threat While Preparing Its Own Assets for a Warming Globe

Shell Continues to Expand Drilling and Refining While Falsely Depicting Itself as Committed to Climate Solutions

Shell Says Consumers Are Responsible For Lowering Emissions

Shell’s Net Zero Nature-Based Plans Are Astonishingly Unrealistic

Explore the #SlipperySix

---

---

BB

It might not come as a surprise that oil companies knew that energy consumption of fossil fuels negatively drives climate change and increases pollution on earth. Just like tobacco companies knew for years that their product caused cancer and other illnesses. Both industries invested in research that downplayed the dangers and risks to humans and the planet of smoking tobacco and consuming (extracting, refining, and distributing) oil.

Vatan Hüzeir, a doctoral student at Erasmus University Rotterdam, has just released a Twitter thread and article about an "in-depth research and analysis project of Changerism." Changerism is a "Think-and-do-tank in climate change, energy transition." The research, "Dirty Pearls: exposing Shell's hidden legacy of climate change accountability, 1970-1990,"highlights findings into Shell corporation's climate research and the denials that fossil fuels are dangerous for the earth and its inhabitants.

As explained by Mathew Green at De Smog, "Compiled by Dutch climate activist Vatan Hüzeir, and reviewed by DeSmog and Dutch investigative journalism platform Follow The Money, the documents show how Shell was actively supporting research that clearly underscored the dangers posed by burning its fossil fuel products from the mid-1970s — years earlier than previously thought.

Even as the company's awareness of the potentially devastating consequences of climate change grew, the documents show how Shell shaped a series of influential industry-backed publications that downplayed or omitted key risks; emphasized scientific uncertainties; and pushed for more fossil fuels, particularly coal. This impressive history shows for just how long climate issues were known by Shell personnel," said Ben Franta, senior research fellow in climate litigation at the University of Oxford. "Despite internal awareness, the company systematically downplayed the problem to the public, instead promoting more and more fossil fuel use despite the dangers. Now, five decades later, Shell continues to dawdle and delay."

You can check out the primary documents and files at Climate Files.

Green highlights one specific tool of Shell's propaganda campaign, the half-hour filmTime For Energy produced in 1981. "The 30-minute film makes no mention of the coal assets the Anglo-Dutch oil major had acquired in an effort to diversify in the wake of the 1973 oil shock. Nor does it refer to a topic that was of unequivocal scientific concern at the time: The "greenhouse effect," or what is now known as climate change."

For more on how the oil industry denies its practices are destroying the planet, check out PBS Frontline'sdocumentary "The Power of Big Oil Part One: Denial."

---

lawsuit Targets Shell’s Board of Directors Over Energy Transition Plans

Shell admits in internal documents it has “no immediate plans to move to a net-zero emissions portfolio.”

ByDana Drugmand

onFeb 9, 2023 

---

ffceo memo

examples of Redacted Documents Produced to the Committee by BP.111  SOLID BLK

Shell has also redacted documents and withheld information from the Committee without valid justification. For example, Shell withheld a summary of a meeting of the company’s Executive Committee without providing any rationale. 112 In at least one instance, the Committee was able to determine that Shell attempted— unsuccessfully—to hide information that should have been produced. In a January 20, 2020, email produced by Shell, Shell executives were preparing a presentation on an enhanced oil recovery project, and a company engineer provided a summary of updates from the Government and External Relations team. Shell redacted text in the document, but the document’s metadata shows that the redacted text included a discussion of implementation of the federal tax credit for carbon sequestration and the administration of carbon sequestration permits by EPA and a state government—information that does not appear to be subject to any valid privilege. 113

12 22 amy

petroganda: Shell Brings Back the Rational Middle  Back in 2012, Shell commissioned a film series that focused on the "rational" trade-offs required to make the energy transition work...for oil companies. Researchers Geoffrey Supran and Ben Franta were post-docs at the time and wrote about how shocked they wereto see the film screened on Harvard's campus.

"The university promoted the event as “Finding Energy’s Rational Middle” and described the film’s motivation as “a need and desire for a balanced discussion about today’s energy issues,” they wrote. "Who can argue with balance and rationality? And with Harvard’s stamp of approval, surely the information presented to students and the public would be credible and reliable. Right? Wrong. The event’s sponsor was Shell Oil Company. The producer of the film series was Shell. The film’s director is Vice President of a family-owned oil and gas company, and has taken approximately $300,000 from Shell. The host, Harvard Kennedy School, has received at least $3.75 million from Shell. And the event’s panel included a Shell Executive Vice President."

Shell had of course tasked its PR firm Edelman with creating the series. Now it's back with new episodes, (that debuted at SXSW?!) hosted on the Rational Middle's website. In a weird twist, half of the Rational Middle website is devoted to Shell's net zero by 2050 campaign while the other half is focused on Immigration, giving the whole package a vaguely ecofascist vibe.

---

https://www.alternet.org/2022/11/fossil-fuel-giants-reckless-expansion/

not BP?

an comm dr 11 22

Despite repeated warnings that new fossil fuel projects are incompatible with averting climate disaster, oil and gas corporations "are on a massive expansion course" to increase dirty energy production in the coming years, according to an analysis released Thursday at the United Nations COP27 meeting in Egypt.

The new report by the German nonprofit Urgewald and 50 NGO partners, which denounces "an industry willing to sacrifice a livable planet," found that the vast majority of the world's oil and gas companies intend to scale up the extraction of fossil fuels in the years ahead, having collectively dumped $160 billion into exploration since 2020.

None of this investment is consistent with the International Energy Agency's (IEA) blueprint for achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, a key component of meeting the Paris agreement's goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels—beyond which impacts will grow increasingly deadly for millions of people, particularly those residing in poor nations that have done the least to cause the crisis.

The IEA made clear in its May 2021 report that no new oil and gas fields can be exploited if the world is to avoid climate catastrophe. But according to Urgewald, 96% of upstream fossil fuel companies (655 out of 685) are planning to expand their operations, and short-term expansion plans have increased by 20% since last year.

According to Urgewald, 512 of these companies are currently "taking active steps to bring 230 billion barrels of oil equivalent (bboe) of untapped resources into production before 2030."

If these fossil fuels are removed from the ground and burned, an additional 115 billion tonnes of heat-trapping carbon dioxide equivalent will be pumped into the atmosphere by the end of the decade. That's 30 times more greenhouse gas pollution than Europe generates each year.

Urgewald's report comes one day after Climate Trace revealed in a separate analysis that global emissions from oil and gas production are up to three times higher than reported.

"The outcome of our calculations is truly frightening," Fiona Hauke, senior oil and gas researcher at Urgewald, said in a statement. "Oil and gas companies' short-term expansion plans are not in line with the net-zero emissions course put forward by the IEA. Keeping these oil and gas resources in the ground is the bare minimum of what is needed to keep 1.5°C attainable."

As the report points out, even "if the oil and gas industry simply maintained its 2021 production level of 56.3 bboe, it alone would exhaust our remaining carbon budget within 15.5 years."

Just over a dozen corporations—including Saudi Aramco, ExxonMobil, TotalEnergies, Chevron, and Shell—are responsible for more than half of the industry's short-term expansion efforts, Urgewald found....

---

---

omg

west va v epa

7 22 intercept

...Today’s Supreme Court decision marks perhaps the biggest payoff yet for Koch’s decades of plotting against environmental regulations — and the most devastating loss for everyone else. Three of the extremist judges who joined the decision — Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh — wound up on the Supreme Court in large part because of Koch’s activism and contributions.

Americans for Prosperity, an astroturf political group founded by CharlesKoch and his brother David, conducted extraordinary campaigns to put all three judges on the highest bench. To support Kavanaugh’s nomination, the group reached out to more than 1.2 million Americans through mail, phone calls, and knocking on doors, according to a flyer released by the organization. The group also pushed hard for Barrett, whose father worked for Shell and the American Petroleum Institute, a powerful trade group for the oil and gas industry. And it campaigned for Gorsuch, whose mother presided — disastrously — over the EPA under President Ronald Reagan. Charles Koch is also closely connected to Leonard Leo, co-chair of the Federalist Society, a conservative organization Koch has supported directly and through his family foundation.

The case itself can also be tied directly to Koch. The challengers are27 Republican attorneys general, who were supported by the Koch-funded Republican Attorneys General Association. At least four Koch-funded entities have filed amicus briefs in the case: the Cato Institute, which was co-founded by Charles Koch; the Competitive Enterprise Institute; the New Civil Liberties Alliance; and Americans for Prosperity. Another foundation that filed an amicus brief, the Landmark Legal Foundation, denied receiving Koch funding, though Jane Mayer reports in her book “Dark Money” that Koch helped subsidize it....

---

---

https://www.desmog.com/**2022/10/**18/new-jersey-sues-shell-exxon-api-oil-public-deception-climate/

the state of New Jersey filed a lawsuit on Tuesday against five oil companies and the oil industry’s most powerful lobbying group for covering up and misleading the public about climate change, the latest round of state and municipal-led climate litigation seeking accountability from the oil industry.

Thelawsuit, filed in the New Jersey Superior Court, states that the companies knew about climate change for decades and actively sought to conceal that information from the public. Instead, they funded PR campaigns aimed at confusing and misleading the public.

The oil companies “concealed and misrepresented the dangers of fossil fuels; disseminated false and misleading information about the existence, causes, and effects of climate change; and aggressively promoted the ever-increasing use of their products at ever-greater volumes,” the complaint states.

The lawsuit names ExxonMobil, Shell Oil Company, Chevron, BP, ConocoPhillips, and the American Petroleum Institute, the main lobbying group in which the five oil companies were members.

The case comes just ahead of the tenth anniversary of Hurricane Sandy, which devastated New Jersey and other parts of the eastern seaboard, and the storm “previews the grave climate-related consequences New Jersey faces as a direct result of Defendants’ tortious deception,” the lawsuit argues.

As it happens, nearly 25 years ago, Shell predicted with remarkable accuracy the events that would broadly unfold.In a 1998 internal document that laid out future climate scenarios, Shell described a hypothetical catastrophic storm that would ravage the U.S. East Coast in 2010 — one that sounds unmistakably like Hurricane Sandy — which sets off a society-wide backlash that would engulf the oil industry. The result would be a legal and policy reckoning. From Shell’s 1998 forecast:

“Following the storms, a coalition of environmental NGOs brings aclass-action suit against the US government and fossil-fuel companies on the grounds of neglecting what scientists (including their own) have been saying for years: that something must be done. Asocial reaction to the use of fossil fuels grows, and individuals become ‘vigilante environmentalists’ in the same way, a generation earlier, they had become fiercely anti-tobacco. Direct-action campaigns against companies escalate. Young consumers, especially, demand action.”

Today, a long list of major climate accountability cases are proceeding in state courts, each with extensive documented evidence demonstrating that the oil industry, including Shell, covered up internal climate science and instead chose to fund climate denial and greenwashing campaigns.

“Based on their own research, these companies understood decades ago that their products were causing climate change and would have devastating environmental impacts down the road,”New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkinsaid in a statement. “They went to great lengths to hide the truth and mislead the people of New Jersey, and the world. In short, these companies put their profits ahead of our safety.”

Shell knew about the risks and reality of climate change at least as far back as the 1980s. A 1988 internal Shell document called “The Greenhouse Effect,” detailed Shell’s knowledge that climate change was real, that fossil fuels were a principal cause, and that 1.5 to 3.5 degrees Celsius warming was possible. The document also warned that society could turn against fossil fuels if they learned about how serious the threat was.

The New Jersey legal campaign, like the others, seeks compensation from the oil industry for the large and growing destructive cost of the worsening climate crisis.

“The lawsuit by New Jersey adds to growing momentum to hold Big Oil accountable for its decades of deception and harm,” Kathy Mulvey, the accountability campaign director at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement. “As the tobacco control movement has demonstrated, litigation is a powerful tool that can and should be used to hold bad actors accountable and protect people and the planet over profit" [twt]

in response to questions from DeSmog, Anna Arata, a spokesperson for Shell, stated: “The Shell Group’s position on climate change has been a matter of public record for decades. We agree that action is needed now on climate change, we fully support the need for society to transition to a lower-carbon future and we’re committed to playing our part by addressing our own emissions and helping customers to reduce theirs.”

Arata went on: “We do not believe the courtroom is the right venue to address climate change, but that smart policy from government, supported by action from all business sectors, including ours, and from civil society, is the appropriate way to reach solutions and drive progress.”

But Shell’s misdirection continues through to the present. The company, like its peers, heavily advertises its clean transition plans and investments in renewable energy, but analysts say Shell is expected to spend four times as much on oil and gas development compared to renewables. Indeed, despite the glossy ads and rhetoric, Shell’s plans to grow oil and gas production in the years ahead mean that it is on track to produce more greenhouse gas emissions in 2030 than it does today.

And as DeSmog reported last month, Shell is acutely aware of how its communications on the energy transition can open it up to further litigation, warning employees in internal emails and presentations not to confuse the oil major’s net-zero talk with the company’s actual business plan.

“It’s long overdue that the facts be aired in a New Jersey court, and the perpetrators of the disinformation campaign pay for the harms they’ve caused,” New Jersey Attorney General Platkin said.

==

---

5 22 no lnx

BERLIN (AP) — A longtime contractor for Shell has publicly called out the oil and gas company’s climate plans, accusing the company of “double talk” by saying it wants to cut greenhouse gas emissions while working on tapping new sources of fossil fuel.

Caroline Dennett, who says she consulted Shell on safety issues for more than a decade, said Monday that she was ending her links with the company and urged others in the fossil fuel industry to do likewise.

“I’m quitting because of Shell’s double talk on climate,” Dennet said in a public post on the business networking site LinkedIn.

“They know that continued oil and gas extraction causes extreme harms to our climate, to our environment, and to people,” she said. “And what ever they say, Shell is simply not winding down on fossil fuels.”

Shell, which is due to hold its annual general meeting for shareholders Tuesday, responded by saying it was committed to achieving net zero emissions by 2050.

“We have set targets for the short, medium and long term, and have every intention of hitting them,” the company said in a statement. “We’re already investing billions of dollars in low-carbon energy, although the world will still need oil and gas for decades to come in sectors that can’t be easily decarbonized.”

Dennett said her growing personal concerns about climate change made it increasingly difficult for her to work for Shell.

“It’s one thing to support a company to, hopefully, transition to alternative energy sources and making sure that they operate safely,” she told The Associated Press. “It’s another thing to actually be supporting new oil and gas projects.”

Dennett said climate change wasn’t a subject of discussion among front-line staff in the company.

“It’s probably happening in the PR team and the marketing and branding team, but it’s not happening in the operational divisions as far as I can see,” she said.

Dennet said she felt privileged to be able to sever her ties with Shell, and acknowledged others may not find it so easy.

“But the fossil fuel industry, it’s the past,” she said. “And if you can find a way out, then please walk away while there’s still time. Do it now.”

U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres last month accused some government and business leaders of saying one thing but doing another when it comes to tackling global warming.

:{:{}:

}:

“Simply put, they are lying. And the results will be catastrophic,” he said, calling for an end to all new fossil fuel infrastructure.

Guterres recently appointed an expert panel to scrutinize companies’ net zero claims amid concerns that they could be mere “greenwashing.”

Follow AP’s coverage of climate change at https://apnews.com/hub/climate

---

---

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/05/guardian-investigation-fossil-fuel-oil-gas-industry-plans-exploration-climate-disaster/

no lnx gfs

...The money

When BPreported its quarterly earnings in a presentation to financial institutions in February, one analyst said he “really enjoyed the camaraderie and the positivity that you’re generating,” before asking about the company’s cash position.

“We’ve given you a lovely little chart,” said Murray Auchincloss, BP’s chief financial officer. “Certainly, it’s possible that we’re getting more cash than we know what to do with. For now, I’m going to be conservative and manage the company as if it’s $40 [a barrel] oil. Anything we could get above that just helps, obviously.” At the time, the oil price exceeded $90; today it is $106.

The oil industry is awash with cash. The money companies have belongs to shareholders, including pension funds, or in the case of national oil companies, to governments and, in theory at least, citizens. But the investment plans of the biggest oil companies are sharply at odds with the goal of halting the climate crisis.

Data obtained by the Guardian from the think tank Carbon Tracker shows a dozen of the world’s biggest companies are on track to commit a collective $387 million dollars a day of capital expenditure to exploiting oil and gas fields through to 2030.

A significant portion of this is for maintaining production at existing projects—some oil and gas will still be needed as the world weans itself off fossil fuels—but the exact amount is not publicly available. Nonetheless, it is clear that at least a quarter of this investment—$103 million a day—is for oil and gas that cannot be burned if the worst impacts of the climate crisis are to be avoided, money that could instead be spent ramping up clean energy.

Even more worryingly, the companies have developed further project options that might lead them to spend an additional $84m a day that would not even be compatible with a devastating 2.7C of global heating.

The world’s governments agreed in the Paris climate accord to limit global heating to well below 2C, and pursue efforts to limit the temperature rise to 1.5C. For the latter, stricter goal, no new oil and gas projects are possible.

The Carbon Tracker data, compiled in September, uses a temperature of 1.65C to represent the well below 2C target and finds that 27 percent of the companies’ projected investments are incompatible with this.

ExxonMobil has the largest of these climate-busting investment plans at $21 million a day through to 2030, followed by Petrobras ($15 million), Chevron and ConocoPhillips (both $12 million), and Shell ($8 million).

In terms of the most dangerous investments—those that could help drive temperatures beyond 2.7C—Gazpromaccounts for $17 million a day of this, ExxonMobil $12 million, Shell $11 million and PetroChina $9 million.

“Companies that continue to develop projects based on business-as-usual demand are betting on the failure of policy action on climate.”

If governments act on the scientific advice to rapidly reduce carbon emissions by boosting clean energy and cutting fossil fuel burning, the companies would have to write off these colossal sums as losses, hitting shareholders, pension funds and public finances. If governments do not act, the companies could cash in as the world burns.

Overall, the international oil companies are making the biggest bets, with almost 40 percent of their projected investments incompatible with 1.65C. ExxonMobil is particularly high, at 56 percent.The national oil company average is 17 percent,although 56 percent of Petrobras’s planned capital expenditure is incompatible with 1.65C.

“Companies that continue to develop projects based on business-as-usual demand are betting on the failure of policy action on climate and underestimating the disruptive potential of new technologies, such as renewables and battery storage,” said Mike Coffin at Carbon Tracker. “Such projects are either not needed or they lead to warming well in excess of Paris goals.”

A separate recent analysis based on Rystad Energy data fromApril, after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, found that 20 of the world’s biggest oil and gas companies remained on course to spend huge sums—$932 billion—by the end of 2030 developing new oil and gas fields.

Freeing the world from the grip of fossil fuels is made far harder by huge ongoing subsidies for the fuels, making them far cheaper than their true cost when the damage they cause is included—especially air pollution, which kills 7 million people a year. The G20 group of leading economies pledged in 2009 to phase out the subsidies but little has been achieved.

Hundreds of billions of dollars in direct financial supportis received by the producers and consumers of fossil fuels every year—but they benefit from far larger subsidies by not paying for the harm burning fossil fuels causes. When the damage from the climate crisis and air pollution is accounted for, the fossil fuel subsidies reach $6 trillion a year, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).The Guardian analysis shows this is equivalent to $11 million a minute globally, $4 million a minute in China and more than $1 million in the US.

The Guardian analysis of more detailed IMF data shows drivers in the US, Canada, and Australia, along with Saudi Arabia, are the world’s biggest beneficiaries of subsidies for road fuels, with some governments under pressure to increase these during the current energy crisis.

The per capita-subsidy for petrol and diesel across the population of Saudi Arabia was more than $1,000 a year in 2020. In the US, the road fuel subsidy per capita is $644 and about $500 in both Canada and Australia.

Japan and Germany also appear in the top 10 of the road fuel analysis, which focused on the 54 large countries with more than 25 million people and that account for 90 percent of global population and subsidies. The UK per capita subsidy for road fuels was only $10 a year, indicating taxes on petrol and diesel in 2020 were close to the level of the damage burning the fuels causes.

The US is also high on the list of the biggest per capita subsidies for all fossil fuels with $2,000 a year, behind only Saudi Arabia ($4,550) and Russia ($3,560). After these countries, only Iran ($1,815) is ahead of Australia ($1,730) and Canada ($1,690).

“Taking the Paris agreement seriously requires a rapid shift away from fossil fuels,” said Simon Black, a climate economist at the IMF. “Getting fossil fuel prices right will help enormously in accelerating this transition.”

The transition

The shift from burning oil and gas cannot happen overnight, and a declining amount will still need to be burned during the transition to a net zero emissions global economy in 2050. The question is whether companies and governments are moving fast enough.

The Guardian wrote to the oil and gas companies named in its analysis and asked for their response.

“Under the IEA net zero emissions scenario, and all Paris-aligned scenarios, all energy sources remain important through 2050, and oil and natural gas remain essential components of the energy mix,” said a spokesperson for ExxonMobil.

However, the role of oil and gas would be vastly reduced in 2050, and the IEA said: “Beyond projects already committed as of 2021, there are no new oil and gas fields approved for development [in our net zero scenario].”

ExxonMobilplanned to invest more than $15 billion on initiatives to lower greenhouse gas emissions over the next six years, the spokesperson said, including carbon capture and storage, hydrogen and biofuels. The company aimed to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 but only from its own operations, not the fuels it sold, therefore covering only a small fraction of the emissions from the oil and gas it sells.

A spokesperson for Shell cited recent company statements: “As a result of [our] planned level of capital investment, we expect a gradual decline of about 1-2 percent a year in total oil production through to 2030, including divestments.

“By 2025,Shellexpects its expenditure on [low and zero-carbon] products and services across its businesses will have increased to around 50 percent of its total expenditure,” a recent report by the firm states. In 2022, the proportion is expected to be more than 35 percent. In 2021, “Shell achieved its annual investment targets in renewables and energy solutions of $2bn-3bn,” the report says.

“Our goal is to support an orderly transition that matches supply to demand and focuses on [financial] returns.”

ConocoPhillips also cited a recently published net zero emissions plan:“Our goal is to support an orderly transition that matches supply to demand and focuses on returns on, and of, capital while safely and responsibly delivering affordable energy.”

The document states that profits from oil and gas projects are significantly higher than from investments in renewable energy.

ConocoPhillips has allocated $200 million in 2022 to reduce emissions from its operations. To reduce emissions from the burning of the fossil fuels it supplies, the company advocates an “economy-wide price on carbon that would help shift consumer demand from high-carbon to low-carbon energy sources”.

“Petrobras plans its investments considering that the Paris agreement will be successful and global temperature will be kept below 2°C,” a spokesperson for the company said. “Oil will remain important in the coming decades, even in accelerated transition scenarios.”

The spokesperson said the IEA’s scenario for 1.65C indicated some investment in upstream projects was needed. “We are planning for highly resilient assets competitive in scenarios aligned with Paris due to their low production cost and low emissions. Petrobras is following its strategy of maximizing the value of its portfolio, [with 99 percent of the investment on exploration] focusing on deepwater and ultra-deepwater assets.”

TotalEnergies pointed to its recent sustainability report, which it said “showed our stakeholders that we are already on the right track.” The company has a target of a 30 percent cut in emissions from oil and gas sales by 2030 and to increase the proportion of its energy sales that are renewable from 9 percent in 2021 to 20 percent in 2030.

Saudi Aramco and Eni responded to the Guardian but declined to comment. The other companies did not respond to the Guardian’s request....

---

---

https://payupclimatepolluters.org/blog/shell-oil-gretchen-watkins

...Public reporting has shown that Shell knew about the dangers posed by its fossil fuel products for decades, but engaged in a widespread campaign of deception to protect its profits

Shell now faces lawsuits from 20 states and municipalities that are seeking to hold the corporation accountable for lying about its products’ role in the climate crisis.

The American people deserve answers, and as Shell’s President, Watkins must testify. Here is just some of the evidence that members of the House Oversight Committee should ask her to explain:

Shell Knew About the Dangers of Climate Change as Early as the 1980s

Shell Opposed Climate Action and Publicly Denied the Threat While Preparing Its Own Assets for a Warming Globe

Shell Continues to Expand Drilling and Refining While  Falsely Depicting Itself as Committed to Climate Solutions

Shell Says Consumers Are Responsible For Lowering Emissions   

Shell’s Net Zero Nature-Based Plans Are Astonishingly Unrealistic 

---

---

https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/how-exxon-chevron-and-their-buddies-58986784/

fOOTNOTES:

==

---

https://www.desmog.com/2019/03/22/paris-oil-exxon-chevron-bp-total-shell-billion-climate-lobbying-advertising-influencemap/

NO LNX grfx

‘All Rhetoric and No Action’: Oil Giants Spent $1 Billion on Climate Lobbying and Ads Since Paris Pact, Says Report

By Sharon Kelly on Mar 22, 2019

A new report by a British think tank estimates that since the 2015 Paris Agreement, the world’s five largest listed oil and gas companies spent more than $1 billion lobbying to prevent climate change regulations while also running public relations campaigns aimed at maintaining public support for climate action.

Combined, the companies spend roughly $200 million a year pushing to delay or alter climate and energy rules, particularly in the U.S. — while spending $195 million a year “on branding campaigns that suggest they support an ambitious climate agenda,” according to InfluenceMap, a UK-based non-profit that researches how corporations influence climate policy.

InfluenceMap cites as an example ExxonMobil’s heavily-touted algae-biofuels research, which the oil giant says “offers some of the greatest promise for next-generation biofuels” with significant climate benefits and has made it the focus of its “The Tiny Organism” ad campaign.

InfluenceMap notes that “detailed disclosures from the company show its goal of 10,000 barrels of bio-fuel a day would equate to only0.2 percent of its current refinery capacity.”

“Oil majors are projecting themselves as key players in the energy transition while lobbying to delay, weaken, or oppose meaningful climate policy,” Edward Collins, author of the new report, said in a statement. “They advocate gradual implementation of market-based and technological climate solutions, but the latest [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report makes clear that urgent policy action and limitations on fossil fuel use are needed to avoid dangerous climate change.”

Today’s report updates the group’s 2016 report that estimated these companies spent $115 million a year lobbying against climate regulations — even policies companies said they supported.

“Say one thing,” said SenatorSheldon Whitehouse, as he described InfluenceMap’s 2016 research on the floor of the U.S. Senate, “do another.”

The new estimates suggest that spending to influence climate policy by the five oil giants has increased sharply over the last two years.

It also comes as global banks are investing more in fossil fuel projects since the Paris Agreement. In addition, the five oil companies are spending heavily on finding and producing more fossil fuels — and putting only a tiny fraction of their budgets into efforts to transition away from climate-altering fuels.

“This spending accompanies the expansion of the companies’ operations with combined annual sales of over $1 [trillion] and profits of $55 [billion in] 2018, the vast majority of which is oil and gas related,” InfluenceMap wrote. “Combined capital investment will increase to $115 [billion] in 2019 but only about 3 percent of this will go to low carbon investments, according to company disclosures.”

Lobbying One Message While Advertising Another

The report focuses on the world’s five largest listed oil and gas companies, ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, Total, and Chevron, leaving out state-controlled oil giants like Saudi Aramco and China’s Sinopec.

InfluenceMap examined the extent to which each company’s branding efforts and advertising campaigns focused on climate change.

Shell's branded content about its emissions scenario in The New York Times

Shell’s branded content about its “Sky” emissions scenario in The New York Times.

“The research suggests that Total maintains the highest proportion of its branding activities on climate (29 percent),” the new report finds. “Following this, ExxonMobil, which has faced significant negative media attention in 2018, allocates 19 percent. Shell and BP followed with 16 percent and 14 percent respectively. Chevron appears far less concerned, using approximately 2 percent of its branding budget on climate issues in 2018.”

The think tank’s research also looked at what the companies were saying to government regulators, either directly or through industry groups funded by the oil majors.

“Since Paris, Chevron, BP andExxonMobil have led in opposition to a range of climate-motivated policy stands,” InfluenceMap wrote. “For example, in 2018 both BP and Chevron have directly lobbied U.S. policymakers for a rollback on U.S. methane requirements.” (Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas and the major constituent in natural gas.)

The report credits Shell and Total for becoming “more positive on a number of climate policy issues” since 2015, but adds that they “continue to support policies that will extend the role for fossil fuels in the energy mix and remain part of highly climate-oppositional trade associations.”

Mixed Messages and Industry Trade Groups

At times, the public stances of a corporation’s leadership stand starkly at odds with the messages from industry groups funded by that same corporation.

For example, on electric vehicles, Shell’s CEO Ben Van Beurden had a very direct and simple message in July 2018. “We need battery electric vehicles,” he said. And a year earlier, at the oil industry conference, CERAWeek, in 2017, he expressed support for “regulations that speed up investment in low carbon technologies and ? at the same time ? move consumer demand.”

Oil and gas lobbying on climate policies through trade associations. Credit: InfluenceMap, 2019

In May 2018, the American Petroleum Institute, the largest U.S. trade group for oil and gas, pushed the U.S. Congress to move in the opposite direction by rolling back incentives for electric vehicles.

“American Petroleum Institute (API) opposes mandates and subsidies,” API testified before the U.S. House of Representatives, according to InfluenceMap’s new report. The fossil fuel trade group voiced its opposition for subsidies for electric vehicles, adding that “the level of market penetration achieved by electric vehicles should not rely on government interference.”

The report also notes the difficulty in tracking corporate lobbying in the U.S. given the rise of so-called “dark money” groups and the lack of transparency surrounding political contributions in the U.S. “Political contributions that were made without full disclosure of their ultimate source totaled $539 [million] in the 2018 election cycle according to OpenSecrets.org,” the report says.

Social Influencers

InfluenceMap also dives deep into how companies usedsocial media to influence Americans during the mid-term elections last year.

“During this time ExxonMobil was by far the most prolific spender, racking up over $400Kin four weeks on over 360 individual political ads,” InfluenceMap wrote. “The ads urge rejecting specific ballot initiatives whilst promoting the benefits of increased fossil fuel production. Facebook’s data indicates that ExxonMobil’s ads made over 10 million ‘impressions’ in this time with users in Colorado, Texas, and Louisiana.”

Oil industry spending on Facebook and Instagram ads leading up to the 2018 U.S. midterm elections. Credit: InfluenceMap, 2019

All of this spending has implications for shareholders, InfluenceMap observed — and some shareholder groups appear to be listening.

“InfluenceMap’s research confirms a widely held suspicion that Big Oil’s glossy sustainability reports and shiny climate statements are all rhetoric and no action,” Catherine Howarth, Chief Executive of ShareAction, a UK charity focused on responsible investment, said in a statement accompanying the report. “These companies have mastered the art of corporate doublespeak — by boasting about their climate credentials while quietly using their lobbying firepower to sabotage the implementation of sensible climate policy and pouring millions into groups that engage in dirty lobbying on their behalf.”

DeSmog has reached out to ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, Total, and Chevron for comment.

“We firmly reject the premise of this report. We are very clear about our support for the Paris agreement, and the steps that we are taking to help meet society’s needs for more and cleaner energy,” Shell said in a statement provided to The Guardian. “We make no apology for talking to policymakers and regulators around the world to make our voice heard on crucial topics such as climate change and how to address it.”

“We have not been afforded the opportunity to review the data but we disagree with the assertion that Chevron has engaged in ‘climate-related branding and lobbying’ that is ‘overwhelmingly in conflict’ with the Paris Agreement,” Chevron said in a statement provided to DeSmog, adding that the company was taking “prudent, cost-effective actions” and seeking “balanced and transparent” policies to reduce greenhouse gas pollution. “We believe climate change is real and human activity contributes to it. We accept the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

---

---

320

https://www.ecowatch.com/shell-annual-report-2645549099.html

Dana Drugmand

Two years afterinternal documents surfaced showing that Royal Dutch Shell, like ExxonMobil, knew about climate dangers decades ago, the oil giant released its latest annual report outlining its business strategy and approach to addressing climate change. Despite clear warnings from scientists, global health experts and even central banks of impending climate-driven crises, Shell's report largely sends a message that everything is fine and the company's "business strategy is sound."

That is not to say that Shell is ignoring the challenges facing it and other oil majors. But overall Shell appears to be toeing the line between saying it is responding to the climate challenge and inevitable energy transition on the one hand, and maintaining its core oil and gas business model on the other.

Shell's 2019 Annual Report is filled with statements that reveal the company's perspective on the Paris agreement, the energy transition, and climate litigation and regulatory risk to its business. A few of these statements seem contradictory, and it is important to keep in mind the context of #ShellKnew when the company says now, in 2020, that it is committed to being part of the solution.

Shell’s Strategy

According to the report, there are three parts to Shell's overall strategy going forward: to thrive in the energy transition, to provide a world-class investment case, and to sustain a strong societal license to operate. That may sound good on paper, but in reality significant challenges are mounting for each of these pillars.

In terms of the energy transition, Shell appears to be paying lip service to it more than actually revamping its portfolio or overhauling its business model. Its core business remains oil and gas. Period.

The company may be ahead of some other oil giants like Exxon and Chevron in terms of adding alternative energies to its energy mix, but overall its commitment to clean energy is minimal.

Shell notes in its report that it spends "$1-2 billion a year until 2020 in different services and products from a range of cleaner sources," and "investments in power could grow to $2-3 billion a year on average" from 2021 to 2025. The vast majority of the company's capital expenditure ($24bn to $29bn in 2020) goes into oil and gas, and failure to replace proved reserves could have a "material adverse effect." Instead of aligning with the energy transition, Shell's business model is based on continual hydrocarbon exploitation.

In terms of a "world-class investment," the oil and gas sector is particularly vulnerable at the moment to financial pressure and investors are increasingly turning away from fossil fuels. Jim Cramer infamously dubbed fossil fuels "in the death knell phase." Shell acknowledges this risk. It notes in its report that fossil fuel divestment "could have a material adverse effect on the price of our securities and our ability to access capital markets."

Shell also recognizes its vulnerability to an eroding social license as the public and particularly younger generations start to scorn Big Oil.

"In 2019, many protested about climate change, sometimes directly targeting Shell," Shell CEO Ben Van Beurden wrote in the report. The company includes challenges to its reputation as a risk factor, noting, "There is increasing focus on the role of oil and gas in the context of climate change and energy transition. This could negatively affect our brand, reputation and licence to operate."

Shell did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the risk to its social license.

Shell Claims to Support Paris Agreement, Plans for Gradual Energy Transition

In its report, Shell says it fully supports the Paris agreement goal to limit warming well below 2 degrees C, and supports "the vision of a transition towards a net-zero emissions energy system." But, in contrast to fellow European oil major BP, Shell is not committing its own business to net zero emissions.

Shell says it has "no immediate plans to move to a net-zero emissions portfolio over our investment horizon of 10-20 years." Instead, Shell's Net Carbon Footprint "ambition" is to reduce emissions (including its customers' and suppliers' emissions) of its energy production and products by 20 percent by 2035 and by 50 percent by 2050. This is not aligned with climate science guidelines that say complete decarbonization or "net zero" is necessary by 2050 at the latest.

Shell's own business is therefore not aligned with the goal of the Paris agreement, and the company is facing a lawsuit over this in its home country of the Netherlands. Current emissions reduction plans or "Nationally Determined Contributions" (NDCs) submitted by countries under the Paris agreement are also inadequate. As Shell notes in its report, current NDCs amount to about 3 degrees C of warming. "In coming decades, we expect countries to tighten these NDCs to meet the goals of the Paris agreement," the report states. Shell's view appears to be that the world has decades to get its act together.

In that view, Shell says it is fully on board with the energy transition and plans to transform its own business "over time." The report includes statements like "Shell aims to become an integrated power player and grow, over time, a material new business", and, "for us, protecting the environment also means working to transform our product mix over time, for example, by expanding the choice of lower-carbon products we offer customers."

Yet, in a seeming contradiction to these statements, Shell says it "agrees with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 1.5°C special report," which clearly warned that limiting warming to 1.5°C would require, as Shell notes, "an even more rapid escalation in the scale and pace of change."

While Shell claims to fully support the Paris agreement, in another seeming contradiction, the company states in its report that the government action necessary to meet Paris targets could harm its business: "Policies and regulations designed to limit the increase in global temperatures to well below 2°C could have a material adverse effect on Shell – through higher operating costs and reduced demand for some of our products."

Shell also says it is wary of governments actually taking climate action: "we believe measures taken by governments to control national energy transitions may also have unintended consequences."

Yet, at the same time, Shell says it expects to be subject to increasing regulation. "We also expect that GHG regulation, as well as emission reduction actions by customers, will continue to result in suppression of demand for fossil fuels, either through taxes, fees and/or incentives to promote the sale of lower-carbon electric vehicles or even through the future prohibition of sales of new diesel or gasoline vehicles, such as the prohibition in the United Kingdom (UK) beginning in 2035. This could result in lower revenue and, in the long term, potential impairment of certain assets," the report states.

Climate Litigation Risk

Shell, like other fossil fuel companies, has long been concerned about governments imposing climate policies or regulations that would affect its business. Shell and its industry peers are already facing climate lawsuits, and Shell is explicitly identifying climate litigation as part of a broader risk factor associated with "rising climate change concern."

In its report, Shell acknowledged the lawsuits could negatively impact its financial condition: "In some countries, governments, regulators, organisations and individuals have filed lawsuits seeking to hold fossil fuel companies liable for costs associated with climate change. While we believe these lawsuits to be without merit, losing any of these lawsuits could have a material adverse effect on our earnings, cash flows and financial condition."

Shell actually foresaw climate-related lawsuits as a possibility more than 20 years ago. One of the internal documents that a Dutch news organization first uncovered (and published on the site Climate Files) is a 1998 document of Shell planning scenarios where the company hypothetically envisions a series of violent storms battering the eastern U.S., which then spur environmental NGOs to bring "a class-action suit against the US government and fossil-fuel companies on the grounds of neglecting what scientists (including their own) have been saying for years: that something must be done."

Shell Knew    

One statement from Shell's annual report rings particularly true: "Shell has long recognised that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the use of fossil fuels are contributing to the warming of the climate system."

Indeed, Shell has long known that fossil fuels are warming the planet and that the consequences would be of a huge magnitude.

One internal Shell document from 1988 called "The Greenhouse Effect" warned that GHG emissions would lead to warming over the next century, likely ranging from 1.5 C to 3.5 C. According to that document, "The changes may be the greatest in recorded history." Some parts of the planet may become uninhabitable, and there may be "significant changes in sea level, ocean currents, precipitation patterns, regional temperature and weather," it says. Impacts could be severe and "could have major social, economic, and political consequences."

What did Shell do with that knowledge? It started introducing doubt and giving weight to a 'significant minority' of 'alternative viewpoints' as the full implications for the company's business model became clear.

Shell was a member of the Global Climate Coalition, a fossil fuel industry-funded group that worked to undermine climate science and block climate policy internationally. The group formed in 1988 and Shell was a member throughout much of the 1990s.

During that time Shell was not exactly upfront with its own shareholders about potential risks climate change posed to its business. The first time Shell even mentioned climate change was in a 1991 annual report. But it wasn't until 2004 that Shell made a clear warning in its annual report about financial risk associated with fossil fuel investment.

Critics have for many years accused Shell's of greenwashing — acknowledging the climate threat and touting its "commitment" to being part of the solution, despite continuing to spend heavily on oil and gas with only minimal investment in alternative energy. Shell's latest annual report suggests the company isn't deviating far from that strategy.

Reposted with permission from DeSmog.

:{:{}:

shell business oil exxonmobil paris agreement

---

https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/04/16/polly-higgins-lawyer-taking-big-oil-s-crimes-against-humanity

Polly Higgins is a woman on the hunt. And you get the sense that, after decades of working towards holding powerful polluters to account, her prey may finally be in sight.

“When you're looking at any crime, you're looking at who are your suspects,” she tells me in a soft Scottish accent that belies the hard truths she regularly delivers. “Within a corporate context, you're looking at CEOs and directors. Within a state context, it is ministers and Heads of State.”

“They're the ones where final responsibility rests for making the decisions that can adversely impact many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, and indeed — in the case of climate crime — billions of people.”

Climate activism is surging, with the school strikers chastising older generations for failing them, and Extinction Rebellion hitting headlines with its creative direct actions in the name of “climate justice”.

But Higgins has her own, more institutional approach to what she agrees is a looming climate crisis: making it illegal to deliberately destroy the environment. She is calling for the International Criminal Court in the Hague to recognise ‘ecocide’ as a crime against humanity, alongside genocide and war crimes. She explains:

“There's a growing recognition that a lot of campaigning is not getting us where we need to go, and just saying fossil fuel extraction should stop is not enough. It has to be criminalised.”

That’s why, in 2010, Higgins proposed an amendment to the Rome Statute — the treaty that established the International Criminal Court. It defined ecocide as “the extensive damage to, destruction of or loss of ecosystem(s) of a given territory, whether by human agency or by other causes, to such an extent that peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants of that territory has been or will be severely diminished.”

Some countries, such as the UK, have national climate change laws that set legally-binding emissions reduction targets. And many have regulations that are meant to protect the environment from corporate activities that could destroy ecosystems.

But none currently have sufficient legislation to allow companies to be taken to court, and treated as criminals, for damaging the environment purely for profit.

As Higgins points out: “We have laws that are protecting dangerous industrial activities, such as fracking, despite the fact that there is an abundance of evidence that it is hugely harmful in terms of carbon emissions, biodiversity loss, and the catastrophic trauma it can cause communities that are impacted by it.”

But if there was an ecocide law, it would allow lawyers and campaigners to argue that such polluting activities were “a potential crime against humanity.”

---

Watch[DeSmog's interview with Polly Higgins video]

Shell Knew

That may seem like a lofty ambition, particularly when the charge is being led by a small team from a one-room office in the quaint, pastoral and pleasant surroundings of Stroud. But renewed activism has shown there is a growing appetite to hold to account those responsible for the current and future impacts of climate change.

A recent report from thinktank InfluenceMap showed the world’s five largest listed oil and gas companies spent more than $1 billion lobbying to prevent climate change regulations — all while running public relations campaigns aimed at maintaining public support for climate action.

And the European Parliament last month held a hearing into Exxon’s decades-long support of climate science denial and lobbying, which followed fresh media revelations around Shell’s decades-old and hidden knowledge of the harm its products cause the climate.

Higgins is currently targeting Shell in particular. At the end of last year, her NGO, Mission Lifeforce, went to The Hague to announce that it would be undertaking an initial legal analysis to establish whether Shell could be guilty of ecocide.

She concedes that making that case won’t be easy.

“For us to establish that Shell — and indeed a whole industry — has undertaken a modus operandi that constitutes an inhumane act, there are a number of elements that we have to satisfy legally, one of them being intent.”

While the task will be difficult, Shell’s own actions could help to take it down. Citing the work of De Correspondent, the Climate Accountability Institute, and DeSmog, she says there are “a number of key points over time that suggest that Shell has decided to move forward with their industrial activities in the full knowledge of just how dangerous they are.”

She highlights recently-released documents that show Shell’s own internal scientific analysis revealed the dangers its products posed to the climate in the 1980s. Despite this, the company continued to fund groups that pushed climate science denial and failed to warn shareholders of the risks for decades.

---

Read DeSmog's ShellKnew investigation in full]

---

Motivation

It has taken years to get to what Higgins describes as “the first step” of holding these multi-billion dollar corporations to account. So what drives her to keep going — to keep taking on these hugely powerful opponents?

“I grew up in the countryside. I grew up loving the beauty of the wilderness of the west coast of Scotland. I spent my childhood holidaying in Wales. So I think it greatly informed what I'm doing now,” she says.

“It's just part and parcel of who I am, and I think if you fundamentally care about people and the planet then it's something you're just not going to be able to walk away from.”

She’s motivated by protecting the people affected by major polluters, just as much as she’s driven to protect the planet itself. That means facing up to some big political powers as well as Big Oil.

An international ecocide law “is not something that most western world governments will sign off on,” she admits. “This is something that small islands that are most adversely impacted will want to have legal redress for, which kind of plays into the David and Goliath aspect of it.”

“Although it will impact the whole of humanity, those on the frontline tend to be the small island states such as Tuvalu and Vanuatu. And, for them, climate collapse is an existential humanitarian crisis. So they're seeking ways to significantly abate the primary drivers of climate breakdown.”

That’s why she’s targeting the International Criminal Court, where each member has one vote, rather than more cumbersome and potentially unjust institutions like the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, where small countries can find themselves crowded out or bullied. Higgins sees a more permanent law, rather than delicate political solutions, as the best way to give calls for climate action some teeth.

Legacy

A few weeks after we speak, Higgins is diagnosed with aggressive terminal cancer. It makes her efforts to create something more solid — a law, rather than a political solution — seem all the more pertinent.

Pushing for ecocide to be acknowledged as a crime is her way of “recognising that there's a current absence of proper political leadership on this issue,” and “where political will fails then the law can prevail.”

“Ultimately all of this is preventable and that's really what ecocide law is about.”

“It is fundamentally unjust to sit back and watch the destruction occurring,” she says.

Higgins is very good at explaining why an ecocide law could be effective, in theory. But there remain few mainstream campaign groups or political parties that back her cause. The UK’s Green Party in 2012 passed a resolution giving “wholehearted support for an international law of ecocide”. No other party has yet followed the Greens’ lead.

Higgins says that’s in part because hers is a movement that doesn’t wholly rely on public awareness “because it's not the number one issue of concern,” she says.

Instead, she has worked on “discerning who are my allies in this, and how to take this forward working with them behind the scenes.”

That doesn’t mean public support for the idea isn’t useful — “it does help to have public support without a doubt,” she acknowledges — it just may not be necessary. If the International Criminal Court agrees with her, her job is done.

That’s why her focus is on forging a new tool for campaigners — an ecocide law — rather than courting them.

As she says: “Where do you go when NGO campaigns have failed? Where do you go when countless petitions to governments get you nowhere?”

Her work has laid the groundwork for a new answer to those questions: For decades, people have taken to the streets. Thanks to Higgins’ work, perhaps one day, they will be able to take the prime suspects in climate atrocities to the criminal courts.

==

==

shell knew desmog UK

https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/08/20/exclusive-company-docs-show-shell-secretly-studied-climate-risks-10-years-warning-investors

It took oil company Shell more than 16 years to directly warn its shareholders that climate policy posed a financial risk to the company's business model despite knowing — in private and for decades — about the relationship between its products and climate change.

Shell started commissioning confidential work about the impact of burning fossil fuels on the global climate as early as 1981. However, analysis by DeSmog UK and DeSmog found that Shell did not start mentioning the possibility of climate change to shareholders in annual reports before 1991 — 10 years after the company started a research stream to study climate change.

Analysis of Shell’s annual reports and financial records at the time show the company did not give a clear warning to its shareholders about the financial risks “related to the impact of climate change” and attached to their investments until 2004.

DeSmog UK and DeSmog have worked through Shell companies’ annual reports submitted to the UK’s Companies House and 10-K’s and 20-F forms filed under the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) throughout the 1990s and early 2000s to compare what the company knew in private at the end of the 1980s and what it told its shareholders about the environmental and financial risks attached to their investment during the following decade.

Early Days

What Shell knew about climate change at the end of the 1980s is well-established and revealed in a confidential report commissioned by and for Shell called “The Greenhouse Effect”.

The report was dated 1988 and made public for the first time this year after being uncovered byJelmer Mommers ofDe Correspondent and published onClimate Files. It reveals the company’s examination of climate change had already been ongoing for at least seven years.

The 87-page report warned Shell that its own products were responsible for global warming and that “there is reasonable scientific agreement that increased levels of greenhouse gases would cause a global warming”.

...

---

https://kpfa.org/episode/upfront-june-13-2018/

==

https://www.desmog.co.uk/shellknew

Shell knew climate change was going to be big, was going to be bad, and that its products were responsible for global warming all the way back in the 1980s, a tranche of new documents reveal.

Documents unearthed by Jelmer Mommers of De Correspondent, published today on Climate Files, a project of the Climate Investigations Center, show intense interest in climate change internally at Shell.

A “CONFIDENTIAL” 1988 document titled, “The Greenhouse Effect”, details Shell’s extensive knowledge of climate change impacts and implications. It also reveals an internal Shell climate science program dating back to 1981, well before the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was founded.

Royal Dutch Shell is jointly registered in the UK and the Netherlands. It is currently facing court action unless it brings its business model in-line with the Paris Agreement's two degrees goal.

---

Doing one thing while knowing another is pretty much par for the course these days. Speaking of which, we've just published the next in our series about what #ShellKnew about climate changesince the 1980s. This time, on climate migration.

A tranche of documents show that despite private briefings thirty years ago on how climate impacts could force people to leave their homes, the big oil company continued to tell the public that burning fossil fuels was the best way out of poverty.

This ability to tell a compelling story to its own profitable ends might explain why the industry has been so succesful in securing government subsidies all these years. In a new report, the UK was ranked first on its commitment to end fossil fuel subsidies but last on transparency. The government claims it gives no "inefficient subisidies to the industry, but refuses to share any analysis that shows this — all the while giving fossil fuel companies millions in tax breaks and foreign credit.

==

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/05042018/shell-knew-scientists-climate-change-risks-fossil-fuels-global-warming-company-documents-netherlands-lawsuits

Internal company documents uncovered by a Dutch news organization show that the oil giant Shell had a deep understanding, dating at least to the 1980s, of the science and risks of global warming caused by fossil fuel emissions.

They show that as the company pondered its responsibility to act, Shell's scientists urged it to heed the early warnings, even if, as they said, it might take until the 2000s for the mounting evidence to prove greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were causing unnatural climate change.

"With the very long time scales involved, it would be tempting for society to wait until then before doing anything," company researchers wrote in a 1988 report based on studies completed in 1986. "The potential implications for the world are, however, so large that policy options need to be considered much earlier. And the energy industry needs to consider how it should play its part."

Otherwise, a team of Shell experts said, "it could be too late to take effective countermeasures to reduce the effects or even to stabilize the situation."

For the next decade—as the emerging science was becoming increasingly robust, and as international efforts to curb heat-trapping emissions gained steam and calls for action grew more urgent—the company persisted in emphasizing the lingering uncertainties of climate science and the costs of ambitious policies, the documents show.

Shell's own "review of the scientific uncertainty and the evolution of energy systems indicates that policies to curb greenhouse gases beyond 'no regrets' measures could be premature, divert economic resources from more pressing needs and further distort markets," a February 1995 management brief advised.

The documents were unearthed by the journalist Jelmer Mommers of De Correspondent, whose investigative article was published on Thursday in Dutch. Many of the documents, along with explanatory notes, were released on the Climate Files website, where researcher and climate advocate Kert Davies maintains extensive archives. To get their work before a broader audience, they shared embargoed copies of the documents.

What Shell Knew & What It Means for Lawsuits

Just like researchers at other oil and gas companies, notably Exxon, Shell's scientists and managers understood, before the general public, that uncontrolled greenhouse gas emissions could eventually put its core businesses at risk—and alter ecosystems and put much of the world's population in peril.

The accretion of evidence complicates the industry's position as Big Oil defends itself in a broadening array of climate-related litigation.

On Wednesday, Dutch environmentalists said they plan to sue Royal Dutch Shell to force it to cut its oil and gas investments and production. Donald Pols, director of Friends of the Earth Netherlands/Milieudefensie, said the company "should take its responsibility to stop wrecking the climate."

Responding to the litigation, Shell said that it has long embraced climate change science and strongly supports the Paris climate agreement aimed at limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius or less. But it said that meeting that target is a complex social challenge, that energy is important to the global quality of life, and that the issues should not be tackled in court. Rather, it called for sound government policy and a cultural shift toward green energy.

Shell is already a defendant in other court cases.

The key legal question in much of the litigation is whether the companies understood risks of global warming well enough, and early enough, to be held accountable for damages that are already occurring and are likely to grow.

'Major Social, Economic, Political Consequences'

The Shell documents released so far don't address in significant detail questions of liability or whether Shell was properly disclosing risks to shareholders.

Litigators are sure to note a brief, but telling, remark in the 1988 document: The fossil fuels Shell consumed and sold at the time "account for the production of 4 percent of the CO2 emitted worldwide from combustion." Two tables broke the data down.

"In the light of the possible effects of an increase in greenhouse gases, it is important to examine the likely political responses to expressions of environmental concern," Shell's report said.

The emerging problem "could have major social, economic and political consequences," it said—a powerful enough upheaval to be "the greatest in human history."

By then, Shell had to be acutely aware of the growing political repercussions of its contribution to the climate problem. After all, the 1988 document was circulated just as NASA scientist James Hansen testified in Congress that global warming had already arrived and had to be dealt with urgently.

Shell's What-If Scenario: East Coast Hurricanes

Over the decades, Shell spent considerable effort generating what-if scenarios to help it grope its way forward.

In one, a 1998 planning document carrying the acronym TINA (for "there is no alternative"), the company even imagined events in the year 2010 after violent and damaging storms wreaked havoc on the East Coast of the U.S.

"Although it is not clear whether the storms are caused by climate change, people are not willing to take further chances," the document speculates. "After all, two successive IPCC reports since 1995 have reinforced the human connection to climate change."

"Following the storms, a coalition of environmental NGO's brings a class-action sit against the U.S. government and fossil-fuel companies on the grounds of neglecting what scientists (including their own) have been saying for years: that something must be done," the scenario states.

How Shell's Thinking on Climate Changed

Shell's documents of the era, like papers from Exxon at the time that were published in 2015 by InsideClimate News, are full of passages about the uncertainties that surrounded the emerging science. A nuanced reading suggests that Shell, then as now, gave more attention to the need for global action on climate, and did so earlier, than Exxon.

To this day, the company opens the door a bit wider to a more responsive approach to the climate crisis. But its current thinking continues to generate debate over whether its vision is ambitious enough.

The Dutch archives trace the evolution of the company's thinking over years of considerable climate policy turmoil.

For example, Shell participated in the work of the Global Climate Coalition, founded in 1989 to fight the Kyoto Protocol, only to leave it 10 years later over irreconcilable differences over the protocol's emissions targets, which Shell embraced.

All the while, concentrations of carbon dioxide moved inexorably upward. Children born since that time have never lived through a year in which the world's climate was cooler than the previous average.

One passage from 1988, even though written in a dry corporate style, reads now like an evocation of this perspective across the generations.

"The changes in climate, being considered here, are at an unaccustomed distance in time for future planning, even beyond the lifetime of most of the present decision makers but not beyond intimate (family) association," it said.

In other words, it said you might not see the results of your decisions, but your children and grandchildren might.

In the Mid-1990s, Straddling the Line

In a 1995 "management brief" on climate change that stressed its "major business implications for the fossil fuel industry," Shell conceded the "general consensus" of its human causes while making a nod to what it called "well-grounded scepticism." It said "a definitive, unequivocal position on the science of global warming ... quite simply is beyond current capabilities."

Still, it suggested that "over the next decades, renewable forms of energy can gradually become competitive," and it projected that "CO2 emissions could peak at about 10 gigatonnes of carbon (GtC) a year before the middle of the next century and decline." (The figure Shell predicted for the eventual emissions peak is equivalent to 36.4 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO2e). Global emissions from energy and cement reached 32.5 GtCO2 last year.)

The next year, as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was publishing its second major assessment of climate science, Shell found itself in a delicate balancing act between accepting the scientific consensus and arguing that there was still too much uncertainty to dictate aggressive action.

"Although climate change is a long term issue, today's responses do not have to be long term," Shell argued. "'Irreversible' actions need to be avoided."

'An Evolutionary, Not a Revolutionary Process'

In hindsight, it's possible to say that this ambivalence would prove costly.

And the litigation over who should pay these costs will hinge on how jurists today read this kind of document from the past—along with any more evidence yet to emerge from these lawsuits.

It's not so much that any one document contains a smoking gun. It's rather that the steady accumulation of documents, which is bound to continue, will build up the weight of the evidence.

In that way, the legal question resembles the scientific question Shell addressed in a 1995 document called "Is Climate Change Occurring Already?"

"Detection of a human induced change in the earth's climate will be an evolutionary and not a revolutionary process," it said. "It is likely that a slow accumulation of evidence, rather than a 'smoking gun,' will indicate man-made emissions as the cause of some part of the observed climate change."

==

==

https://www.desmog.co.uk/2018/04/04/here-what-shellknew-about-climate-change-way-back-1980s

Shell knew climate change was going to be big, was going to be bad, and that its products were responsible for global warming all the way back in the 1980s, a tranche of new documents reveal.

Documents unearthed by Jelmer Mommers of De Correspondent, published today on Climate Files, a project of the Climate Investigations Center, show intense interest in climate change internally at Shell.

The documents date back to 1988, meaning Shell was doing climate change research before the UN’s scientific authority on the issue, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was established.

Here’s a quick run through of a 1988 document entitled, ‘The Greenhouse Effect’.

Climate Change Was Going to be Big

Shell’s internal document acknowledge that increased greenhouse gas emissions could lead to 1.5 degrees to 3.5 degrees of warming:

Shell was worried that should the issue of climate change become better known, public opinion may shift against fossil fuels and towards renewables, putting Shell’s business model at risk:

Shell acknowledged that climate change could lead to changes that were “the greatest in recorded history”. But the company also said that it may have recognised the problem “early enough for man to be able to anticipate and to adapt in time”:

Climate Change Was Going to be Bad

Shell knew that climate change could have “major” and “dramatic” changes. The document said climate change could lead to “major social, political, and economic changes”:

Shell also knew climate change was going have major impacts on the environment, anticipating that there could be “even local disappearance of specific ecosystems”:

Shell lists a number of areas that could be specifically affected by climate change, including:

Shell’s Products were Responsible for Climate Change

Shell’s document acknowledges that greenhouse gas emissions have significantly risen “mainly due to fossil fuel burning and deforestation”:

The document also shows that Shell knew all of its products including coal, oil and gas significantly contributed to the problem:

There is even a table that outlines how much of global carbon dioxide emissions Shell's products were responsible for in 1984:

Shell and the Fossil Fuel Industry Needed to be Part of the Solution

Shell was quick to push most responsibility for dealing with climate change onto governments. But the company did acknowledge that the fossil fuel industry would have to be part of the solution.

In one paragraph, Shell calls for “a forward looking approach by the energy industry”:

Shell also says the industry must “work out the part it should play”, and that the fossil fuel industry “has very strong interests at stake and much expertise to contribute” to addressing climate change:

You can read the full document with annotated highlights by De Correspondent and the Climate Investigation Centre here.

==

}: