Petrochemical giant Shell accused of strategy risking catastrophic climate change
Royal Dutch Shell has been accused of pursuing a strategy
that would lead to potentially catastrophic climate change after an internal
document acknowledged a global
temperature rise of 4C, twice the level considered safe for the planet.
A paper used for guiding future business planning at the
Anglo-Dutch multinational assumes that carbon dioxide emissions will fail to
limit temperature increases to 2C, the internationally agreed threshold to
prevent widespread flooding, famine and desertification. Instead, the New
Lens Scenarios document refers to a forecast by the independent
International Energy Agency (IEA) that points to a temperature rise of up to 4C
in the short term, rising later to 6C.
The revelations come ahead of the annual general meeting of
Shell shareholders in the Netherlands on Tuesday, where the group has accepted
a shareholder resolution demanding more transparency about the group’s impact
on climate change. Hundreds of environmentalists took to the seas off Seattle
in kayaks, canoes and paddleboards on Sunday to protest against the company’s’s
controversial plans to drill in the Arctic Ocean. The “Shell No” protest was
held close to where Shell’s Polar Pioneer drilling rig is docked. One banner
read: “We can’t burn all the oil on the planet and still live on it.”
Ben van Beurden, the Shell chief executive, has repeatedly
stated that the fossil fuel giant is a responsible company that fully accepts
the need to counter manmade global warming, has campaigned for a tax on
greenhouse gas emissions, and is moving its focus from oil to cleaner fuels
such as gas.
But an analysis of Shell’s New Lens planning document points
to an acceptance that world temperatures will rise to a level that the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change argues would have a severe and
widespread impact. A 4C global rise by 2100 would entail a sea level rise of
between 52cm and 98cm, leading to widespread coastal flooding. There would be
widespread risk of animal and plant extinctions and global agriculture would be
severely hit. A 4C average would also mask more severe local impacts: the
Arctic and western and southern Africa could experience warming up to 10C.
The Shell document says: “Both our (oceans and mountains)
scenarios and the IEA New Policies scenario (and our base case energy demand
and outlook) do not limit emissions to be consistent with the back-calculated
450 parts per million (Co2 in the atmosphere) 2 degrees C.” It adds: “We also do not see governments taking steps now
that are consistent with 2 degrees C scenario.”
Environmentalists said the presumptions undermine Shell’s
ability to talk with authority on climate change. Charlie Kronick, climate campaigner at campaign group
Greenpeace, said Shell and IEA saw fossil fuels continuing to be burned, with
the earth facing temperature rises of 3.7°C or 4°C in the short term, mounting
to 6°C later on. “What I don’t see is a realisation from Shell about what
exactly would happen to its business if climate change escalated dramatically
beyond what is safe with all the negative consequences in the world for food
and water never mind energy,” said Kronick.
Louise Rouse, an investor relations specialist and
consultant to Greenpeace, said the New Lens document undermined Shell’s claim
that ongoing oil and gas exploration helps raise living standards in the
developing world by supplying the energy for rapidly expanding economies. “There is an incoherence at best between oil companies on
the one hand positioning themselves as being on the side of the world’s
developing countries and while on the other actively pursuing strategies which
will entail catastrophic climate change which we already know is having a
significant impact on the global south,” she said.
Friends of the Earth in the Netherlands, which has carried
out its own review of activities by the Anglo-Dutch oil group, said the company
often argues that it is moving away from oil towards cleaner gas but has often
concentrated on the most carbon intensive forms of gas such as liquefied
natural gas.
Shell’s carbon dioxide emissions have risen in 2014 and are
set to increase further as it expands the business through a planned £47bn
takeover of rival BG. Shell declined to comment formally on the New Lens scenarios
but oil industry experts said they were not meant to be a business blueprint.
Instead, they represent “plausible assumptions and quantification” designed to
make executives consider events that may be only remotely possible. The expert
added: “Scenarios are not intended to be predictions of likely future events or
outcomes.”
The Guardian’s
Keep it in the Ground campaign seeks to persuade the Wellcome Trust
and the Gates Foundation to divest themselves of their shareholdings in fossil
fuel companies. According to the latest figures, Wellcome held a stake of £142m
in Shell as of September 2014. The Gates Foundation held £6m of Shell’s shares
at the time of its latest tax filing in 2013.
The Anglo-Dutch group said the BG takeover would expand its
presence in controversial deep-water activities – many of the planet’s untapped
fossil fuel resources are now in ocean regions that are difficult to access –
but said it would also increase its presence in liquefied natural gas, a
cleaner fossil fuel than oil. It added: “By combining BG’s portfolio and skills set with
Shell’s capabilities, we can deliver a step change in the growth priorities for
both of our companies. This means more deep water and more LNG, plays where we
have strong profitability and capabilities.”
Editor’s note: This story is part of Keep it in the
Ground, a campaign
launched by the Guardian in March calling on the Wellcome Trust and
Gates Foundation to shift their investments from fossil fuels. To date more
than 200,000 people have signed our
petition. Both the Wellcome Trust and Gates Foundation say they carefully
screen the companies they invest in to ensure they act in line with their
goals. This piece, and others to follow this week, are the result of Guardian
reporters’ investigations into some of the companies the foundations invest in,
revealing how they operate both environmentally and socially - Alan Rusbridger,
Guardian editor in chief.
