etc energy trans commission

=<div>wiki 9 22</div><div>
</div><div> Energy Transition Commission (ETC) is an international <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_tank" title="Think tank" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">think tank</a>, focusing on economic growth and climate change mitigation. It was created in September 2015 and is based in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London" title="London" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">London</a>. The commission currently contains 32 commissioners from a selection of individuals and company and government leaders.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Transitions_Commission#cite_note-:1-1" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[1]</a><div id="toc" class="toc" role="navigation" aria-labelledby="mw-toc-heading" style="border: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); background-color: rgb(248, 249, 250); padding: 7px; display: table;"><input type="checkbox" role="button" id="toctogglecheckbox" class="toctogglecheckbox" style="margin: 0px; position: absolute; opacity: 0; z-index: -1; display: none;" /><div class="toctitle" lang="en" dir="ltr" style="text-align: center; direction: ltr;">
</div><ul style="list-style: none; margin: 0.3em 0px; padding: 0px;"><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-1" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Transitions_Commission#Activities" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">1Activities</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-2" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Transitions_Commission#Publications" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">2Publications</a><ul style="list-style: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 2em; padding: 0px;"><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-3" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Transitions_Commission#Better_Energy,Greater_Prosperity" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">2.1Better Energy, Greater Prosperity</a></li><li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-4" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Transitions_Commission#Mission_Possible" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">2.2Mission Possible</a></li></ul></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-5" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Transitions_Commission#Funding" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">3Funding</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-6" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Transitions_Commission#List_of_commissioners" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">4List of commissioners</a></li><li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-7" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Transitions_Commission#References" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">5References</a></li></ul></div><h2 style="margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.3; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Activities[</h2>The primary activity of the commission is publishing reports and position papers. They are typically supported by a body of readily available or explicitly commissioned data sets provided by various independent or industry-related organizations. The findings of reports are then reviewed through a broad consultation process within and outside of the commission. Finally, the report or position paper is redacted and generally understood to constitute the collective view of the ETC commission. Although individual commissioners may disagree with particular findings or recommendations, the general direction of the arguments developed in the publications is guided by consensus.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Transitions_Commission#cite_note-2" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[2]</a><h2 style="margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.3; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Publications[</h2>Since its founding in 2015, the commission has published two extensive reports and half a dozen papers. For example, Pathways from Paris - Accessing the INDC Opportunity, is a 25-page study of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intended_nationally_determined_contributions" class="mw-redirect" title="Intended nationally determined contributions" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">INDCs</a> (i.e. the plans developed by individual countries and submitted at the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference" title="2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">2015 UN Climate Change Conference in Paris</a>). This investigation highlighted the mechanisms various countries utilize in order to reduce emissions and identify opportunities for further reductions.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Transitions_Commission#cite_note-3" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[3]</a> News outlets of general interest and the specialized press reported summaries of these reports. Both reports outlined below were cited as reference to several articles in a 2018 special report edition of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist" title="The Economist" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">The Economist</a> magazine.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Transitions_Commission#cite_note-4" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">[</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Transitions_Commission#cite_note-4" style="background: none; text-decoration-line: none;">4]</a><h3 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 1.6; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Better Energy, Greater Prosperity[</h3>This 120-page report<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Transitions_Commission#cite_note-5" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[5]</a> recognized the opportunity to halve global carbon emissions by 2040. According to the report, it is possible to simultaneously ensure <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_development" title="Economic development" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">economic development</a> and access affordable, sustainable energy for all, while reducing <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_emissions" class="mw-redirect" title="Carbon emissions" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">carbon emissions</a> by half the current output.The report suggested four strategies to be concurrently implemented:<ul style="list-style-image: url(" w="w" skins="skins" vector="Vector" resources="resources" common="common" images="images" bullet-icon.svg="bullet-icon.svg" d4515="d4515" margin="margin" em="em" px="px" padding="padding" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Accelerate clean electricity access.</li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Decarbonize beyond power generation, using bioenergy, hydrogen, and carbon capture for industrial activities and transport modes which cannot be electrified in an economical fashion.</li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Improve energy productivity by targeting a 3% energy productivity per year (compared to 1.5% currently)</li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Optimize usage of remaining fossil fuel uses</li></ul>According to the report, the strategies listed above would have reduced fossil fuel consumption by 30%, but 50% of energy needs would have needed to be met with fossil fuels. This, the report explained, could be solved by optimizing usage of these sources by switching from coal to gas, by preventing methane leakages, and by stopping routine flaring. Another area of optimization would come from carbon capture or sequestration such as underground storage, and finally a decrease in fossil fuel use.The report suggested two solutions for energy policy:<ul style="list-style-image: url(" w="w" skins="skins" vector="Vector" resources="resources" common="common" images="images" bullet-icon.svg="bullet-icon.svg" d4515="d4515" margin="margin" em="em" px="px" padding="padding" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Increased investment, keeping in mind that the investment required by the transition is estimated to be between $300-600 billion USD annually. At this level, the cost would not cause a significant macroeconomic challenge, relative to the approximately $20 trillion in anticipated savings and investments annually. The issue is more one of a shift in the mix of investments: moving away from fossil fuels and toward low carbon technologies and energy-efficient equipment and infrastructure.</li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Public governance, with the introduction of coherent and predictable policies which favour the energetic transition, along with the phasing out of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_subsidies" title="Fossil fuel subsidies" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">fossil fuel subsidies</a> and the introduction of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_price" title="Carbon price" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">carbon pricing</a>.</li></ul><h3 style="margin: 0.3em 0px 0px; padding-top: 0.5em; padding-bottom: 0px; overflow: hidden; line-height: 1.6; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Mission Possible[</h3>This 172-page report<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Transitions_Commission#cite_note-6" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[6]</a> focused on the "hard to abate sectors", namely:<ul style="list-style-image: url(" w="w" skins="skins" vector="Vector" resources="resources" common="common" images="images" bullet-icon.svg="bullet-icon.svg" d4515="d4515" margin="margin" em="em" px="px" padding="padding" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb"><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Heavy industry: cement, steel and plastics</li><li style="margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Heavy duty transport: heavy road transport, maritime shipping, and aviation</li></ul>Collectively, these sectors currently represent approximately 30% of energy emissions, with the potential to increase to 60% by 2050 (due to the reduction of the share owed to other sectors, and to the demand growth in these hard to abate sectors).The report concluded that full decarbonization of these sectors is feasible and the cost to the global economy would be less than 0.5% of GDP by 2050. It also identifies cement, plastics and shipping as the most challenging sectors, due to process emissions, end-of-life emissions and the fragmented nature of the maritime industry respectively. The feasibility if not inevitability of some of these transitions, for example these concerning the industrial production of ammonia, are echoed (or in some cases originate from) the respective industry sectors.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Transitions_Commission#cite_note-7" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[7]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Transitions_Commission#cite_note-8" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[8]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Transitions_Commission#cite_note-9" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[9]</a><h2 style="margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.3; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Funding[</h2>The ETC is funded by various businesses and organizations, including major oil and gas companies - this was a source of concern from many observers.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Transitions_Commission#cite_note-10" style="text-decoration-line: none; background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">[10]</a> Current or past sponsors include Bank of America Merrill Lynch, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BHP" title="BHP" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">BHP Billiton</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Systems_Catapult" class="mw-redirect" title="Energy Systems Catapult" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">Energy Systems Catapult</a>, CO2 Sciences, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Climate_Foundation" title="European Climate Foundation" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">European Climate Foundation</a>, the Grantham Foundation and the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Foundation" title="United Nations Foundation" style="background-image: none; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; text-decoration-line: none;">UN Foundation</a>. Regardless of funding every Commissioner has an equal voice and participation in ETC activities.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Transitions_Commission#cite_note-:2-11" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[11]</a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Transitions_Commission#cite_note-:3-12" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">[12]</a>
<ol class="references" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 3.2em; padding: 0px; list-style-image: none; counter-reset: mw-ref-extends-parent 0 list-item 0; list-style-type: inherit;"><li id="cite_note-10" style="margin-bottom: 0.1em; break-inside: avoid-column; counter-increment: mw-ref-extends-parent 1; counter-reset: mw-ref-extends-child 0;"><cite class="citation web cs1" style="font-style: inherit; overflow-wrap: break-word; background-color: rgb(255, 153, 0);"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.carbontracker.org/shell-funded-energy-transitions-commission-lacks-credibility/" style="background-image: url(" w="w" skins="skins" vector="Vector" resources="resources" common="common" images="images" link-external-small-ltr-progressive.svg="link-external-small-ltr-progressive.svg" cd31="cd31" background-position="background-position" right="right" center="center" background-size="background-size" em="em" background-repeat="background-repeat" no-repeat="no-repeat" background-attachment="background-attachment" initial="initial" background-origin="background-origin" background-clip="background-clip" padding-right="padding-right">Shell-funded Energy Transitions Commission 'lacks credibility'"</a>.  Carbon Tracker. 28 September 2015. Retrieved 6 October 2019.</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Carbon+Tracker&rft.atitle=Shell-funded+Energy+Transitions+Commission+%27lacks+credibility%27&rft.date=2015-09-28&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.carbontracker.org%2Fshell-funded-energy-transitions-commission-lacks-credibility%2F&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AEnergy+Transitions+Commission" class="Z3988" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" /></li><li id="cite_note-:2-11" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin-bottom: 0.1em; break-inside: avoid-column; counter-increment: mw-ref-extends-parent 1; counter-reset: mw-ref-extends-child 0;">^ <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Transitions_Commission#cite_ref-:2_11-0" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;"><span class="cite-accessibility-label" style="user-select: none; top: -99999px; clip: rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px); overflow: hidden; position: absolute !important; padding: 0px !important; border: 0px !important; height: 1px !important; width: 1px !important;">Jump up to:a</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Transitions_Commission#cite_ref-:2_11-1" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">b</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Transitions_Commission#cite_ref-:2_11-2" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: none;">c</a> <cite class="citation web cs1" style="font-style: inherit; overflow-wrap: break-word;"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.energy-transitions.org/who-we-are" style="text-decoration-line: none; background: url(" w="w" skins="skins" vector="Vector" resources="resources" common="common" images="images" link-external-small-ltr-progressive.svg="link-external-small-ltr-progressive.svg" cd31="cd31" right="right" center="center" em="em" no-repeat="no-repeat" padding-right="padding-right">"About ETC"</a>. ETC. ETC. October 2015. Retrieved 1 October 2019.</cite></li></ol><h2 style="margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(162, 169, 177); font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.3; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">List of commissioner</h2></div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div>sept 2015</div><div>
</div><div>key research project proposal appears to put world on course for 4˚C of warmingLONDON/NEW YORK, 28 September 2015 – The new Shell-funded Energy Transitions Commission (ETC) to be unveiled on Monday lacks credibility and does not appear to be serious about limiting climate change to the UN 2˚C target, the London-based Carbon Tracker Initiative said today.One of the Commission’s first proposed projects, to study how to fuel only half the power sector with “zero-carbon energy” by 2050, would put the world on course for 4˚C of warming, according to analysis by the International Energy Agency (IEA).The ETC lists the following as one of its initial areas of research in the next year: “How to take zero-carbon energy sources to scale in the power sector? What would it really take for these sources to achieve 50% by 2050?”If we take zero-carbon to mean non-fossil fuels, then this level of ambition fits precisely with the trajectory of the IEA’s 4˚C pathway in its Energy Technology Pathways (ETP). A 2˚C power pathway, according to the IEA, would mean that fossil fuels would need to be reduced from 68% in 2012 to 50% by 2027 and to 20% by 2050.Anthony Hobley, CEO of Carbon Tracker, said: “We question the credibility and independence of an Energy Transitions Commission funded by fossil fuel incumbents. Shell’s track record on climate change does not inspire us with confidence and plans that would see half our power generated by fossil fuels in 2050 risk seeing us go way over the UN’s 2˚C climate change target.“The time for talking is past. Now is the time for action, based on genuinely independent quantitative analysis. Unless we start the radical transformation needed we are not going to achieve a climate-secure energy system in time. The proliferation of talking shops increases the risk that we continue to procrastinate by kicking the can down the road.“Carbon Tracker will be watching and will provide independent oversight to hold the incumbents to a clear 2˚C benchmark backed up with quantitative analysis.”The Commission, whose sponsors include Shell and BHP Billiton, has been set up to provide analysis on energy transitions, according to its website www.energy-transitions.org. Shell’s Chairman Chad Holliday and BHP’s Chief Commercial Officer Dean Dalla Valle are among the commissioners appointed and other energy incumbents have also been approached.The Commission states that one of its aims is “to limit climate change to the 2°C threshold agreed by the international community”. However, Shell has stated that “there is a high degree of confidence that global warming will exceed 2°C by the end of the 21st century.”Fossil fuel companies are sitting on huge resources of coal, oil and gas that cannot be burned without breaching the UN commitment of limiting climate change to 2°C. This gives them a vested interest in arguing for business as usual.James Leaton, Carbon Tracker’s Research Director, said: “The incumbents need to entertain a world where in a growing number of markets renewables are better and cheaper than fossil fuel options, resulting in demand destruction for their product. Analysis shows that this future is also better for our economies, meaning it is a false choice being offered between economic growth and tackling climate change.”Time for Action, New Voices and New Thinking<ul style="box-sizing: border-box; letter-spacing: 0.015em; line-height: 1.8em; background-color: rgba(108, 160, 201, 0.1); margin: 0px -3.75rem 2.875rem; padding: 3rem 3.75rem;"><li style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding-left: 0.5rem;">An Energy Transitions Commission, funded by the energy industry, lacks independence and credibility. There is a question of trust if we are asked to rely on data, analysis and views from a self-appointed, industry-backed group.</li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding-left: 0.5rem;">Incumbents seldom see the technological disruptions coming and neither do they see the consequences in climate terms. We should be wary of calls for an oil-and-gas-rich transition that may eventually end in low carbon industries but with a world well above two degrees.</li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding-left: 0.5rem;">Shell has been producing scenarios for decades and has had the knowledge and capital to drive an energy transition, but has never delivered. It continues to cycle capital back into ever more expensive and carbon intensive hydrocarbon options.</li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding-left: 0.5rem;">The 2⁰C UN target threatens business as usual for fossil fuel companies because they cannot explain how decarbonisation of the energy system fits with growing their businesses for decades to come.</li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding-left: 0.5rem;">The G7 committed this year to cutting global greenhouse gas emissions by 40% to 70% by 2050. At the December 2014 Lima Climate Summit around 100 governments called for a zero net carbon target by 2050.</li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding-left: 0.5rem;">Citibank recently published its Energy Darwinism II report, which concluded it is cheaper for the world to align with 2⁰C than continue business as usual. The Track0 initiative supported by a range of countries and companies, which has produced Deep Decarbonisation Pathways, as has Stanford University’s Solutions Project.</li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding-left: 0.5rem;">Given the increasing levels of response by the energy sector to the issues of ‘<a href="https://carbontracker.org/resources/terms-list/#unburnable-carbon" title="Unburnable Carbon" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; letter-spacing: 0.01875em; line-height: 1.5em; transition: color 250ms ease 0s; font-weight: 600;">unburnable carbon</a>’ and <a href="https://carbontracker.org/resources/terms-list/#stranded-assets" title="Stranded Assets" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; letter-spacing: 0.01875em; line-height: 1.5em; transition: color 250ms ease 0s; font-weight: 600;">stranded assets</a>, it’s critical that independent groups like Carbon Tracker continue to assess alignment with staying within the <a href="https://carbontracker.org/resources/terms-list/#carbon-budgets" title="Carbon Budgets" style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; letter-spacing: 0.01875em; line-height: 1.5em; transition: color 250ms ease 0s; font-weight: 600;">carbon budget</a>.</li></ul>Shell Positions<ul style="box-sizing: border-box; letter-spacing: 0.015em; line-height: 1.8em; margin: 0px -3.75rem 2.875rem; padding: 3rem 3.75rem;"><li style="background-color: rgba(108, 160, 201, 0.1); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding-left: 0.5rem;">Shell has acknowledged the need for urgent climate change, but has stated that the world will fail to meet the internationally agreed warming target of 2°C. In 2014 it stated “there is a high degree of confidence that global warming will exceed 2°C by the end of the 21st century”. (See Shell’s letter to shareholders about stranded assets May 16, 2014)</li><li style="background-color: rgba(108, 160, 201, 0.1); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding-left: 0.5rem;">Our risk analyses to date have shown that many oil companies, including Shell, are betting on high demand and price scenarios. Having analysed Shell’s capital expenditure plans we believe its approach is based on dismissing potentially weaker demand for its oil due to tougher climate policies, technological advances and slower economic growth.</li><li style="background-color: rgba(108, 160, 201, 0.1); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding-left: 0.5rem;">After spending $7bn on offshore exploration in Arctic Alaska Shell announced a halt “for the foreseeable future” citing high costs and “challenging” regulation.</li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding-left: 0.5rem;">In 2014, Carbon Tracker found that over the next decade Shell could invest some $77 billion in high-risk, high-cost projects (needing over $95 per barrel to give investors a decent return).</li><li style="background-color: rgba(108, 160, 201, 0.1); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding-left: 0.5rem;">Shell’s CEO Ben van Beurden defended drilling in the Arctic by saying that the company expects demand for energy to double by 2050. He said he could foresee a transition to a carbon neutral energy system but it would be a “multi-decade transition.” (Sources BBC and Daily Mail)</li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding-left: 0.5rem;">Shell has dismissed the likelihood of political action on climate change, ignoring the growing list of national and regional emissions measures being legislated and the growing calls and potential for greater energy efficiency worldwide (See <a href="http://carbontracker.wpengine.com/report/responding-to-shell-an-analytical-perspective/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: inherit; letter-spacing: 0.01875em; line-height: 1.5em; transition: color 250ms ease 0s; font-weight: 600;">Carbon Tracker’s 2014 response to Shell</a>’s statement on stranded assets)</li><li style="background-color: rgba(108, 160, 201, 0.1); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding-left: 0.5rem;">In an open letter to Shell’s chief executive this year, John Ashton, the UK’s former top climate envoy said the company’s strategy was not serious about transition, pointing out that it “foresaw no change ‘in the longer term’ in the drivers of supply and demand for oil”; and that it would therefore be a transition that involved “no structural consequences for the energy system itself, or at least for the markets on which your business model depends.”</li><li style="background-color: rgba(108, 160, 201, 0.1); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding-left: 0.5rem;">Shell’s Oceans & Mountains scenarios and its current outlook see fossil fuel’s share of the energy supply remaining above 70% in 2040 – meaning less than a 10% market share shift from 2010 levels over three decades.</li><li style="background-color: rgba(108, 160, 201, 0.1); box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding-left: 0.5rem;">Shell prefers to focus on ‘today’s energy realities’, but relies on Carbon Capture & Storage as a panacea to combat climate change. Carbon Tracker’s 2013 research showed this can only provide a limited extension (14% at the time of writing) of the carbon budget to 2050, if it is implemented at scale post-2030.</li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding-left: 0.5rem;">We note that Shell recently parted ways with the influential climate change body, the Prince of Wales Corporate Leaders Group it helped co-found.</li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 1.5rem; padding-left: 0.5rem;">We note that Shell only recently cut ties with far-right American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec) because of the body’s continuing denial of the science of climate change. But why did it take so long?</li></ul></div><div>=</div><div><a href="https://rmi.org/people/energy-transitions-commission/">https://rmi.org/people/energy-transitions-commission/</a></div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>=</div>