Introduction
Welcome to the Climate Interactive Roleplaying Game!
Over the next two lessons we will be looking at the different perspectives of the climate crisis and all the groups of interest within this question. You will be part of one of XXX groups, all representing a different group of people within the climate debate.
You will collect your findings within this WikiWijs, writing a summary on your worksheet. Next lesson you will represent your main point of interest against the other interest groups and their points. Finally, at the end of the lesson you will all vote on the points of interest. Concluding this debate with a factual report of our collectively chosen main points of interest.
Shell
Points of Interest
Choose one of the following Points of Interest to represent in the debate. Write it down on your worksheet under "Chosen main point of interest". Make sure the chosen Point is in line with everyone in your group as well as that there are enough sources that agree with your Point of Interest.
Points of Interest - Shell
- Shell should not be held accountable for all of the emissions, the customers are an even bigger part.
- As a result of policy changes Shell's revenue cannot be shorted.
- The timeline to cut emissions is too short for Shell to accomplish and should be pushed back.
Sources
Below are a couple sources everyone gets access to. Some may prove, while others disprove of your Point of Interest. Summarize the most fitting arguments on your worksheet. You are only allowed to take that sheet to the debate.
The History of Shell in Ten Scandals
- Shell has known for 30 years that their activities contribute to climate change.
That's what Correspondent journalist Jelmer Mommers discovered. He published internal documents from Shell showing that the oil giant swept knowledge about climate change under the rug for decades. At the same time, Shell paid millions to lobby against the scientific basis of climate change. Dutch climate skeptic Frits Böttcher received large sums of money from Shell and other multinationals between 1989 and 1998. The goal was to sow doubt about climate change and the role of humans in it.
- Shell advertising is misleading.
Shell makes ads claiming to be 'CO2-neutral.' This is misleading, according to the Advertising Code Committee in two cases against the oil giant. It's no wonder Shell is one of the nominees for the Dirty Elections. The oil giant lost a lawsuit against nine students from the VU Climate and Sustainability Law Clinic, supported by Advertising Fossil Free and Greenpeace. They objected to ads in which Shell promises its customers to fully offset the CO2 emissions of their refueling for an extra cent per liter with forest conservation and tree planting. The Advertising Code Committee ruled that Shell's compensation measures cannot undo the environmental damage of CO2.
- Earthquakes in Groningen
Shell may be Dutch by origin, but the interests of Dutch citizens are certainly not central to its operations. Together with ExxonMobil, Shell owns the Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij (NAM), which extracts gas in Groningen. Since the 1980s, NAM's gas extraction has caused about 1,000 earthquakes. Both Shell and the government ignored the risks for years. At the end of January 2018, it was announced that Shell is trying to distance itself from the NAM, apparently aiming to avoid liability for the damage suffered by the people of Groningen.
- Pollution in Nigeria
One of the largest oil spills ever is unfolding in the Niger Delta. Shell drills for oil around the Niger River. For over 50 years, tens of millions of barrels of oil have leaked there. The land and water are contaminated, agriculture and fishing are no longer possible, and residents suffer from health problems. Animals in the area, such as chimpanzees, leopards, and elephants, are threatened.
- Global climate change
Of all the greenhouse gases that humans have caused since the beginning of the industrial revolution, Shell is responsible for 2.12 percent. This makes the company partly responsible for the serious consequences of climate change already felt worldwide. Scientists agree that the temperature this century should not rise by more than 1.5 degrees to prevent catastrophic climate disasters. Shell shrugs it off. By continuing to search for new oil reserves, the oil giant ignores scientists who argue that we should leave that oil in the ground. If Shell and its counterparts are allowed to continue unabated, a scenario of 3 to 4 degrees warming is not unthinkable.
- Drilling in the Arctic
No area on earth is off-limits for Shell; this was evident when the oil company announced plans to drill in the Arctic. And this despite knowing that drilling in this beautiful but inhospitable area carries a 75 percent risk of a serious oil spill, as calculated by a US government institute. The icy climate and remote location make cleanup operations in the Arctic virtually impossible. Global protests by millions of people convinced Shell to withdraw.
- The asphalt lake in Curaçao
As early as 1916, Shell built an oil refinery in the middle of Curaçao. For decades, it dumped waste products into a nearby bay. Today, the place is called 'the asphalt lake.' The water is covered with a layer of asphalt ninety centimeters thick. Toxic substances seep into the groundwater.
- Oil depot in a Philippine residential area
In the middle of a busy residential area in Manila stands a gigantic oil depot managed by Shell and two other oil companies. Residents and local politicians claim that the oil storage is polluting and dangerous; a fire would be devastating. For years, residents have been trying to force a relocation through lawsuits. Shell delays the process by withholding information. With an aggressive lobby, the company tries to convince local politicians that the depot should stay.
- Oil spill in Argentina
Off the coast of the Argentine city of Magdalena in 1999, an oil tanker from Shell collided with a German ship. 5,400 m3 of crude oil leaked into the sea. Less than a third of the oil was cleaned up by Shell. After thirty days, the company terminated the cleanup operation. Shell thought the damage wasn't that bad. However, three protected nature reserves were heavily polluted. The disaster dealt a heavy blow to local fishing and tourism. In 2002, three years after the collision, the court forced Shell to pay for the cleanup.
- Greenwashing
As evidenced by the above scandals, Shell's history is pitch black. Shell itself likes to paint its activities as greener than green. From the Shell Eco-marathon, a design competition for energy-efficient vehicles, to Generation Discover, an initiative to convince children that Shell has the world's best interests at heart. Shell goes to great lengths to 'greenwash' its fossil activities, as evidenced when it tried to portray oil sands as a 'sustainable energy source' in a Canadian ad. The Canadian Advertising Standards Council rebuked the company for this. Several lawsuits are ongoing worldwide against Shell for its misleading propaganda.
Source: GreenPeace.org
Shell Defies Climate Critics and Continues Investing in Oil and Gas
Motorists filling up at Shell will need to emit 15 to 20 percent less CO2 by 2030. This is the new CO2 reduction target Shell has set for its customers. The company expects a decrease in gasoline and diesel usage and an increase in the use of biofuels and electricity in the coming years.
To support this shift, Shell plans to expand its global network of electric charging stations from 54,000 to approximately 200,000 by 2030. Additionally, the company is constructing a large new refinery in Pernis for the production of biodiesel and bio-kerosene. Last year, Shell acquired a major Danish biogas manufacturer.
A Change of Direction
Shell is mandated by the court not only to reduce its own CO2 emissions but also to reduce those of its customers. This directive is part of the ruling in the climate lawsuit filed by Milieudefensie against Shell. While the company is appealing the decision, it considers itself bound by the ruling.
Simultaneously, Shell has adjusted its overall reduction target for 2030 from 20 percent to '15 to 20 percent.' The company remains committed to achieving zero percent CO2 emissions by 2050 but has eliminated the interim goal of a 45 percent reduction by 2035.
"We believe the world will need oil and gas for many years to come."
— Wael Sawan, Shell CEO
Since Shell has been led by Lebanese-Canadian Wael Sawan and relocated its headquarters from The Hague to London, there has been a noticeable shift in the company's direction. Sawan, the successor to Dutch CEO Ben van Beurden, seems less affected by criticism from pension funds and environmental activists. "We believe the world will need oil and gas for many years to come, produced with lower emissions, alongside clean energy such as biofuels, sustainable electricity, and hydrogen," stated Sawan in the newly published Energy Transition Strategy 2024.
"Shell is literally stepping on the gas pedal on the eve of the appeal,"
— Nine de Pater, Climate Defense campaign leader
Climate Defense will meet Shell again next month during the appeal in the climate lawsuit and has harsh words for Shell's sustainability plans: *"Shell is literally stepping on the gas pedal on the eve of the appeal. The new climate ambition shows that Shell continues to endanger lives and exacerbate the climate crisis, even increasing its focus on gas,"* said campaign leader Nine de Pater.
Maintaining Oil Production and Increasing Gas Output
The energy giant plans to maintain its current oil production levels and increase gas production. Due to reduced supplies of Russian gas via pipelines, the supply of liquefied natural gas (LNG) has significantly increased.
According to the company, reducing the supply of oil and gas is irresponsible as long as demand does not decrease. The significant price increases in Europe during the energy crisis caused by Russia's attack on Ukraine have demonstrated this, according to Sawan.
Moreover, the company believes that if Shell withdraws from oil and gas, other companies, particularly from the U.S. and the Middle East, which take fewer reduction measures than Shell, will fill the gap.
Last year, Sawan indicated at an event in New York that sustainable energy will be given space at Shell, but only if it is profitable. Many sustainable energy projects are less profitable than oil and gas production. The profits from oil and gas are necessary for investments in risky projects with hydrogen and carbon capture and storage, according to the company.
"The new CEO of Shell does not truly want to become more sustainable and is endangering the company,"
— Mark van Baal, founder of Follow This
Shell is the largest investor in sustainable energy in the Netherlands. It constructs offshore wind farms and is building the first large hydrogen plant at the Tweede Maasvlakte in Rotterdam. However, globally, the majority of investments still go to oil and gas extraction.
This frustrates activist shareholders of Follow This, who aim to steer Shell in a different direction with the help of critical pension funds and other major investors. Follow This founder Mark van Baal is not pleased with the new CEO: *"Ben van Beurden kept up appearances somewhat, but Sawan fears that this will deter shareholders. The new CEO of Shell does not truly want to become more sustainable and is endangering the company,"* said Van Baal.
Follow This will again submit a resolution at the shareholders' meeting in May to change the course of the oil giant. The chances of success are slim. Many critical pension funds are withdrawing entirely from fossil fuels and selling their Shell shares, thereby losing influence over the company's direction.
Source: AD.nl
'Shell is like the VOC, with all the negative and positive connotations'
History will be made today at Ahoy Rotterdam. As expected, Shell's shareholders' meeting will give the green light to the plan to fully relocate the company to the United Kingdom.
The headquarters will move from The Hague to London. Also, the title 'Royal Dutch' will disappear from the company's name, 130 years after the incorporation deed of 'De Koninklijke' on Spui in Amsterdam.
For now, only a handful of jobs will disappear. But the sentiment accompanying the relocation is significant, and understandably so, says investigative journalist and historian Marcel Metze. His book on Shell, or more precisely, his 'political biography' of the company, will be published next year. "Over the past 130 years, Shell has evolved into a huge political player. Oil is political, and that fascinates me immensely."
Ties with dubious regimes
Nieuwsuur has arranged to meet Metze in an Amsterdam cinema. Historical footage appears on the screen: the first oil drilling in Sumatra, controversial oil projects in Nigeria, the oil crisis of 1973. The early 1970s were crucial, says Metze. "After the oil crisis, dictatorial regimes in the Middle East took more control over oil production, changing the role of oil companies. They owned the oil but became operators and had to enter into joint ventures with various regimes. The ties between oil companies and these dubious regimes grew closer, making oil more political."
Oil became more political, and Shell fished in troubled waters. That was the case from the beginning, says Metze. "In many countries, Shell couldn't drill for oil properly without military assistance. In the early years, they operated in politically unstable areas not far from Aceh, and military force was immediately used to combat the so-called rebels. This also happened because Shell requested it."
Shell pushed the boundaries and got its hands dirty. I think that still holds true.
Marcel Metze, investigative journalist and historian In the television program Markant in 1979, former Shell CEO Gerrit Wagner (1971-1977) was asked: when do you decide not to do business with a regime that violates human rights, for example? "There may be situations where you have to say: I can no longer work in this place, this goes too far. But a multinational is not just one person. I have never been more than an exponent, a representative of many interests."
Metze also spoke with Wagner, years later. The former CEO honestly explained his rule of thumb to the journalist. "He said: before you do something that could be seen as wrong, you have to ask yourself: if this comes out, can I get away with it? And that's indeed how Shell operated. They pushed the boundaries and got their hands dirty. Every time there was an ethical decision to be made but business interests were also at stake, Shell prioritized the latter. I think that still holds true."
'Shell knows the backdoor routes'
So, on Friday, the shareholders' meeting must give the green light for the relocation. A historic moment, and Metze will be there. He emphasizes that his book will not be a list of abuses in which Shell was directly or indirectly involved.
Shell also deserves admiration, says Metze, if only for the unprecedented political agility the company has displayed since its inception. "They know the backdoor routes through the swamp, in exotic places but also in the Netherlands. Not only the diplomatic skills, but also Shell's lobbying skills are significant. They always know exactly which letter to write to whom at what moment, and who to put forward for what purpose. Over the years, they have proven to be much smarter, more agile than the Dutch government, often completely outplaying them."
How will people look back on 130 years of Royal Dutch Shell in the future? Metze: "You can compare Shell to the VOC, and I think historians will write it that way later on. With all the negative connotations that come with it, but also with the positive: the immense importance for the Netherlands. Shell managed to open doors that will remain closed in the future."
Source: AD.nl
Shell Sustainability Efforts
Shell's commitment to sustainability is evident in its Energy Transition Strategy 2024, a comprehensive plan outlining the company's efforts to navigate towards a net-zero emissions future. As the first energy company to present such a strategy to shareholders for advisory voting, Shell demonstrates transparency and accountability in its sustainability initiatives.
Despite transitioning towards renewable energy sources, Shell recognizes the ongoing importance of oil and gas in meeting global energy demands. With over two-thirds of its capital spending in 2023 allocated to maintaining these vital supplies, Shell ensures stability in energy provision while simultaneously investing in low-carbon solutions. These investments, totaling $10-15 billion between 2023 and 2025, encompass diverse areas such as electric vehicle charging, biofuels, renewable power, hydrogen, and carbon capture and storage.
Addressing concerns of greenwashing, Shell's reporting adheres to regulatory requirements and emphasizes transparency. The Energy Transition Strategy 2024 provides detailed insights into capital expenditure and the percentage allocated to low-carbon solutions, showcasing Shell's progress towards climate targets.
Shell remains steadfast in its commitment to becoming a net-zero emissions energy business by 2050. With a target to reduce absolute emissions by 50% by 2030 compared to 2016 levels, Shell aims to mitigate its environmental impact. Additionally, the company endeavors to reduce the net carbon intensity of its energy products, setting ambitious targets for 2024, 2025, and beyond.
Recognizing the evolving landscape of energy transition, Shell adjusts its strategies accordingly. This includes strategic shifts in its power business towards select markets and segments, reflecting a focus on value and sustainability. Notably, Shell sets a new ambition to reduce customer emissions from the use of its oil products by 15-20% by 2030 compared to 2021 levels, demonstrating a proactive approach to address Scope 3 emissions.
The progress:
- By the end of 2023, we had achieved more than 60% of our target to halve emissions from our operations (Scopes 1 and 2) by 2030, compared with 2016.
- Our overall methane emissions intensity in 2023 was 0.05% for facilities with marketed gas and 0.001% for facilities without marketed gas.
- As another way to measure our progress, we have set short-, medium- and long-term targets to reduce the net carbon intensity of the energy products we sell.
- Net carbon intensity3 measures emissions associated with each unit of energy we sell. It reflects changes in sales of oil and gas products, and changes in sales of low- and zero-carbon products and services — such as biofuels, hydrogen and renewable electricity.
Shell's Energy Transition Strategy 2024 exemplifies its commitment to sustainability, transparency, and responsible energy provision, ensuring a greener future for generations to come.
Source: shell.com
Government
Points of Interest
Choose one of the following Points of Interest to represent in the debate. Write it down on your worksheet under "Chosen main point of interest". Make sure the chosen Point is in line with everyone in your group as well as that there are enough sources that agree with your Point of Interest.
Points of Interest - Government
- Instead of punishing companies, the Government should put its focus towards more sustainable energy sources.
- Citizens should be made more aware of climate change, this is the Governments job.
- Companies like Shell should take a bigger part of reducing emmisions on them.
Sources
Below are a couple sources everyone gets access to. Some may prove, while others disprove of your Point of Interest. Summarize the most fitting arguments on your worksheet. You are only allowed to take that sheet to the debate.
The History of Shell in Ten Scandals
- Shell has known for 30 years that their activities contribute to climate change.
That's what Correspondent journalist Jelmer Mommers discovered. He published internal documents from Shell showing that the oil giant swept knowledge about climate change under the rug for decades. At the same time, Shell paid millions to lobby against the scientific basis of climate change. Dutch climate skeptic Frits Böttcher received large sums of money from Shell and other multinationals between 1989 and 1998. The goal was to sow doubt about climate change and the role of humans in it.
- Shell advertising is misleading.
Shell makes ads claiming to be 'CO2-neutral.' This is misleading, according to the Advertising Code Committee in two cases against the oil giant. It's no wonder Shell is one of the nominees for the Dirty Elections. The oil giant lost a lawsuit against nine students from the VU Climate and Sustainability Law Clinic, supported by Advertising Fossil Free and Greenpeace. They objected to ads in which Shell promises its customers to fully offset the CO2 emissions of their refueling for an extra cent per liter with forest conservation and tree planting. The Advertising Code Committee ruled that Shell's compensation measures cannot undo the environmental damage of CO2.
- Earthquakes in Groningen
Shell may be Dutch by origin, but the interests of Dutch citizens are certainly not central to its operations. Together with ExxonMobil, Shell owns the Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij (NAM), which extracts gas in Groningen. Since the 1980s, NAM's gas extraction has caused about 1,000 earthquakes. Both Shell and the government ignored the risks for years. At the end of January 2018, it was announced that Shell is trying to distance itself from the NAM, apparently aiming to avoid liability for the damage suffered by the people of Groningen.
- Pollution in Nigeria
One of the largest oil spills ever is unfolding in the Niger Delta. Shell drills for oil around the Niger River. For over 50 years, tens of millions of barrels of oil have leaked there. The land and water are contaminated, agriculture and fishing are no longer possible, and residents suffer from health problems. Animals in the area, such as chimpanzees, leopards, and elephants, are threatened.
- Global climate change
Of all the greenhouse gases that humans have caused since the beginning of the industrial revolution, Shell is responsible for 2.12 percent. This makes the company partly responsible for the serious consequences of climate change already felt worldwide. Scientists agree that the temperature this century should not rise by more than 1.5 degrees to prevent catastrophic climate disasters. Shell shrugs it off. By continuing to search for new oil reserves, the oil giant ignores scientists who argue that we should leave that oil in the ground. If Shell and its counterparts are allowed to continue unabated, a scenario of 3 to 4 degrees warming is not unthinkable.
- Drilling in the Arctic
No area on earth is off-limits for Shell; this was evident when the oil company announced plans to drill in the Arctic. And this despite knowing that drilling in this beautiful but inhospitable area carries a 75 percent risk of a serious oil spill, as calculated by a US government institute. The icy climate and remote location make cleanup operations in the Arctic virtually impossible. Global protests by millions of people convinced Shell to withdraw.
- The asphalt lake in Curaçao
As early as 1916, Shell built an oil refinery in the middle of Curaçao. For decades, it dumped waste products into a nearby bay. Today, the place is called 'the asphalt lake.' The water is covered with a layer of asphalt ninety centimeters thick. Toxic substances seep into the groundwater.
- Oil depot in a Philippine residential area
In the middle of a busy residential area in Manila stands a gigantic oil depot managed by Shell and two other oil companies. Residents and local politicians claim that the oil storage is polluting and dangerous; a fire would be devastating. For years, residents have been trying to force a relocation through lawsuits. Shell delays the process by withholding information. With an aggressive lobby, the company tries to convince local politicians that the depot should stay.
- Oil spill in Argentina
Off the coast of the Argentine city of Magdalena in 1999, an oil tanker from Shell collided with a German ship. 5,400 m3 of crude oil leaked into the sea. Less than a third of the oil was cleaned up by Shell. After thirty days, the company terminated the cleanup operation. Shell thought the damage wasn't that bad. However, three protected nature reserves were heavily polluted. The disaster dealt a heavy blow to local fishing and tourism. In 2002, three years after the collision, the court forced Shell to pay for the cleanup.
- Greenwashing
As evidenced by the above scandals, Shell's history is pitch black. Shell itself likes to paint its activities as greener than green. From the Shell Eco-marathon, a design competition for energy-efficient vehicles, to Generation Discover, an initiative to convince children that Shell has the world's best interests at heart. Shell goes to great lengths to 'greenwash' its fossil activities, as evidenced when it tried to portray oil sands as a 'sustainable energy source' in a Canadian ad. The Canadian Advertising Standards Council rebuked the company for this. Several lawsuits are ongoing worldwide against Shell for its misleading propaganda.
Source: GreenPeace.org
Shell Defies Climate Critics and Continues Investing in Oil and Gas
Motorists filling up at Shell will need to emit 15 to 20 percent less CO2 by 2030. This is the new CO2 reduction target Shell has set for its customers. The company expects a decrease in gasoline and diesel usage and an increase in the use of biofuels and electricity in the coming years.
To support this shift, Shell plans to expand its global network of electric charging stations from 54,000 to approximately 200,000 by 2030. Additionally, the company is constructing a large new refinery in Pernis for the production of biodiesel and bio-kerosene. Last year, Shell acquired a major Danish biogas manufacturer.
A Change of Direction
Shell is mandated by the court not only to reduce its own CO2 emissions but also to reduce those of its customers. This directive is part of the ruling in the climate lawsuit filed by Milieudefensie against Shell. While the company is appealing the decision, it considers itself bound by the ruling.
Simultaneously, Shell has adjusted its overall reduction target for 2030 from 20 percent to '15 to 20 percent.' The company remains committed to achieving zero percent CO2 emissions by 2050 but has eliminated the interim goal of a 45 percent reduction by 2035.
"We believe the world will need oil and gas for many years to come."
— Wael Sawan, Shell CEO
Since Shell has been led by Lebanese-Canadian Wael Sawan and relocated its headquarters from The Hague to London, there has been a noticeable shift in the company's direction. Sawan, the successor to Dutch CEO Ben van Beurden, seems less affected by criticism from pension funds and environmental activists. "We believe the world will need oil and gas for many years to come, produced with lower emissions, alongside clean energy such as biofuels, sustainable electricity, and hydrogen," stated Sawan in the newly published Energy Transition Strategy 2024.
"Shell is literally stepping on the gas pedal on the eve of the appeal,"
— Nine de Pater, Climate Defense campaign leader
Climate Defense will meet Shell again next month during the appeal in the climate lawsuit and has harsh words for Shell's sustainability plans: *"Shell is literally stepping on the gas pedal on the eve of the appeal. The new climate ambition shows that Shell continues to endanger lives and exacerbate the climate crisis, even increasing its focus on gas,"* said campaign leader Nine de Pater.
Maintaining Oil Production and Increasing Gas Output
The energy giant plans to maintain its current oil production levels and increase gas production. Due to reduced supplies of Russian gas via pipelines, the supply of liquefied natural gas (LNG) has significantly increased.
According to the company, reducing the supply of oil and gas is irresponsible as long as demand does not decrease. The significant price increases in Europe during the energy crisis caused by Russia's attack on Ukraine have demonstrated this, according to Sawan.
Moreover, the company believes that if Shell withdraws from oil and gas, other companies, particularly from the U.S. and the Middle East, which take fewer reduction measures than Shell, will fill the gap.
Last year, Sawan indicated at an event in New York that sustainable energy will be given space at Shell, but only if it is profitable. Many sustainable energy projects are less profitable than oil and gas production. The profits from oil and gas are necessary for investments in risky projects with hydrogen and carbon capture and storage, according to the company.
"The new CEO of Shell does not truly want to become more sustainable and is endangering the company,"
— Mark van Baal, founder of Follow This
Shell is the largest investor in sustainable energy in the Netherlands. It constructs offshore wind farms and is building the first large hydrogen plant at the Tweede Maasvlakte in Rotterdam. However, globally, the majority of investments still go to oil and gas extraction.
This frustrates activist shareholders of Follow This, who aim to steer Shell in a different direction with the help of critical pension funds and other major investors. Follow This founder Mark van Baal is not pleased with the new CEO: *"Ben van Beurden kept up appearances somewhat, but Sawan fears that this will deter shareholders. The new CEO of Shell does not truly want to become more sustainable and is endangering the company,"* said Van Baal.
Follow This will again submit a resolution at the shareholders' meeting in May to change the course of the oil giant. The chances of success are slim. Many critical pension funds are withdrawing entirely from fossil fuels and selling their Shell shares, thereby losing influence over the company's direction.
Source: AD.nl
'Shell is like the VOC, with all the negative and positive connotations'
History will be made today at Ahoy Rotterdam. As expected, Shell's shareholders' meeting will give the green light to the plan to fully relocate the company to the United Kingdom.
The headquarters will move from The Hague to London. Also, the title 'Royal Dutch' will disappear from the company's name, 130 years after the incorporation deed of 'De Koninklijke' on Spui in Amsterdam.
For now, only a handful of jobs will disappear. But the sentiment accompanying the relocation is significant, and understandably so, says investigative journalist and historian Marcel Metze. His book on Shell, or more precisely, his 'political biography' of the company, will be published next year. "Over the past 130 years, Shell has evolved into a huge political player. Oil is political, and that fascinates me immensely."
Ties with dubious regimes
Nieuwsuur has arranged to meet Metze in an Amsterdam cinema. Historical footage appears on the screen: the first oil drilling in Sumatra, controversial oil projects in Nigeria, the oil crisis of 1973. The early 1970s were crucial, says Metze. "After the oil crisis, dictatorial regimes in the Middle East took more control over oil production, changing the role of oil companies. They owned the oil but became operators and had to enter into joint ventures with various regimes. The ties between oil companies and these dubious regimes grew closer, making oil more political."
Oil became more political, and Shell fished in troubled waters. That was the case from the beginning, says Metze. "In many countries, Shell couldn't drill for oil properly without military assistance. In the early years, they operated in politically unstable areas not far from Aceh, and military force was immediately used to combat the so-called rebels. This also happened because Shell requested it."
Shell pushed the boundaries and got its hands dirty. I think that still holds true.
Marcel Metze, investigative journalist and historian In the television program Markant in 1979, former Shell CEO Gerrit Wagner (1971-1977) was asked: when do you decide not to do business with a regime that violates human rights, for example? "There may be situations where you have to say: I can no longer work in this place, this goes too far. But a multinational is not just one person. I have never been more than an exponent, a representative of many interests."
Metze also spoke with Wagner, years later. The former CEO honestly explained his rule of thumb to the journalist. "He said: before you do something that could be seen as wrong, you have to ask yourself: if this comes out, can I get away with it? And that's indeed how Shell operated. They pushed the boundaries and got their hands dirty. Every time there was an ethical decision to be made but business interests were also at stake, Shell prioritized the latter. I think that still holds true."
'Shell knows the backdoor routes'
So, on Friday, the shareholders' meeting must give the green light for the relocation. A historic moment, and Metze will be there. He emphasizes that his book will not be a list of abuses in which Shell was directly or indirectly involved.
Shell also deserves admiration, says Metze, if only for the unprecedented political agility the company has displayed since its inception. "They know the backdoor routes through the swamp, in exotic places but also in the Netherlands. Not only the diplomatic skills, but also Shell's lobbying skills are significant. They always know exactly which letter to write to whom at what moment, and who to put forward for what purpose. Over the years, they have proven to be much smarter, more agile than the Dutch government, often completely outplaying them."
How will people look back on 130 years of Royal Dutch Shell in the future? Metze: "You can compare Shell to the VOC, and I think historians will write it that way later on. With all the negative connotations that come with it, but also with the positive: the immense importance for the Netherlands. Shell managed to open doors that will remain closed in the future."
Source: AD.nl
Shell Sustainability Efforts
Shell's commitment to sustainability is evident in its Energy Transition Strategy 2024, a comprehensive plan outlining the company's efforts to navigate towards a net-zero emissions future. As the first energy company to present such a strategy to shareholders for advisory voting, Shell demonstrates transparency and accountability in its sustainability initiatives.
Despite transitioning towards renewable energy sources, Shell recognizes the ongoing importance of oil and gas in meeting global energy demands. With over two-thirds of its capital spending in 2023 allocated to maintaining these vital supplies, Shell ensures stability in energy provision while simultaneously investing in low-carbon solutions. These investments, totaling $10-15 billion between 2023 and 2025, encompass diverse areas such as electric vehicle charging, biofuels, renewable power, hydrogen, and carbon capture and storage.
Addressing concerns of greenwashing, Shell's reporting adheres to regulatory requirements and emphasizes transparency. The Energy Transition Strategy 2024 provides detailed insights into capital expenditure and the percentage allocated to low-carbon solutions, showcasing Shell's progress towards climate targets.
Shell remains steadfast in its commitment to becoming a net-zero emissions energy business by 2050. With a target to reduce absolute emissions by 50% by 2030 compared to 2016 levels, Shell aims to mitigate its environmental impact. Additionally, the company endeavors to reduce the net carbon intensity of its energy products, setting ambitious targets for 2024, 2025, and beyond.
Recognizing the evolving landscape of energy transition, Shell adjusts its strategies accordingly. This includes strategic shifts in its power business towards select markets and segments, reflecting a focus on value and sustainability. Notably, Shell sets a new ambition to reduce customer emissions from the use of its oil products by 15-20% by 2030 compared to 2021 levels, demonstrating a proactive approach to address Scope 3 emissions.
The progress:
- By the end of 2023, we had achieved more than 60% of our target to halve emissions from our operations (Scopes 1 and 2) by 2030, compared with 2016.
- Our overall methane emissions intensity in 2023 was 0.05% for facilities with marketed gas and 0.001% for facilities without marketed gas.
- As another way to measure our progress, we have set short-, medium- and long-term targets to reduce the net carbon intensity of the energy products we sell.
- Net carbon intensity3 measures emissions associated with each unit of energy we sell. It reflects changes in sales of oil and gas products, and changes in sales of low- and zero-carbon products and services — such as biofuels, hydrogen and renewable electricity.
Shell's Energy Transition Strategy 2024 exemplifies its commitment to sustainability, transparency, and responsible energy provision, ensuring a greener future for generations to come.
Source: shell.com
Climate Defense
Points of Interest
Choose one of the following Points of Interest to represent in the debate. Write it down on your worksheet under "Chosen main point of interest". Make sure the chosen Point is in line with everyone in your group as well as that there are enough sources that agree with your Point of Interest.
Points of Interest - Climate Defense
- Shell and the Government should be held most accountable for the emmisions and climate crisis.
- The crisis needs to be addressed and solved as soon as possible, faster than the current timeline.
- Shell can't have more drilling operations and instead needs to focus more on renewable energy sources.
Sources
Below are a couple sources everyone gets access to. Some may prove, while others disprove of your Point of Interest. Summarize the most fitting arguments on your worksheet. You are only allowed to take that sheet to the debate.
The History of Shell in Ten Scandals
- Shell has known for 30 years that their activities contribute to climate change.
That's what Correspondent journalist Jelmer Mommers discovered. He published internal documents from Shell showing that the oil giant swept knowledge about climate change under the rug for decades. At the same time, Shell paid millions to lobby against the scientific basis of climate change. Dutch climate skeptic Frits Böttcher received large sums of money from Shell and other multinationals between 1989 and 1998. The goal was to sow doubt about climate change and the role of humans in it.
- Shell advertising is misleading.
Shell makes ads claiming to be 'CO2-neutral.' This is misleading, according to the Advertising Code Committee in two cases against the oil giant. It's no wonder Shell is one of the nominees for the Dirty Elections. The oil giant lost a lawsuit against nine students from the VU Climate and Sustainability Law Clinic, supported by Advertising Fossil Free and Greenpeace. They objected to ads in which Shell promises its customers to fully offset the CO2 emissions of their refueling for an extra cent per liter with forest conservation and tree planting. The Advertising Code Committee ruled that Shell's compensation measures cannot undo the environmental damage of CO2.
- Earthquakes in Groningen
Shell may be Dutch by origin, but the interests of Dutch citizens are certainly not central to its operations. Together with ExxonMobil, Shell owns the Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij (NAM), which extracts gas in Groningen. Since the 1980s, NAM's gas extraction has caused about 1,000 earthquakes. Both Shell and the government ignored the risks for years. At the end of January 2018, it was announced that Shell is trying to distance itself from the NAM, apparently aiming to avoid liability for the damage suffered by the people of Groningen.
- Pollution in Nigeria
One of the largest oil spills ever is unfolding in the Niger Delta. Shell drills for oil around the Niger River. For over 50 years, tens of millions of barrels of oil have leaked there. The land and water are contaminated, agriculture and fishing are no longer possible, and residents suffer from health problems. Animals in the area, such as chimpanzees, leopards, and elephants, are threatened.
- Global climate change
Of all the greenhouse gases that humans have caused since the beginning of the industrial revolution, Shell is responsible for 2.12 percent. This makes the company partly responsible for the serious consequences of climate change already felt worldwide. Scientists agree that the temperature this century should not rise by more than 1.5 degrees to prevent catastrophic climate disasters. Shell shrugs it off. By continuing to search for new oil reserves, the oil giant ignores scientists who argue that we should leave that oil in the ground. If Shell and its counterparts are allowed to continue unabated, a scenario of 3 to 4 degrees warming is not unthinkable.
- Drilling in the Arctic
No area on earth is off-limits for Shell; this was evident when the oil company announced plans to drill in the Arctic. And this despite knowing that drilling in this beautiful but inhospitable area carries a 75 percent risk of a serious oil spill, as calculated by a US government institute. The icy climate and remote location make cleanup operations in the Arctic virtually impossible. Global protests by millions of people convinced Shell to withdraw.
- The asphalt lake in Curaçao
As early as 1916, Shell built an oil refinery in the middle of Curaçao. For decades, it dumped waste products into a nearby bay. Today, the place is called 'the asphalt lake.' The water is covered with a layer of asphalt ninety centimeters thick. Toxic substances seep into the groundwater.
- Oil depot in a Philippine residential area
In the middle of a busy residential area in Manila stands a gigantic oil depot managed by Shell and two other oil companies. Residents and local politicians claim that the oil storage is polluting and dangerous; a fire would be devastating. For years, residents have been trying to force a relocation through lawsuits. Shell delays the process by withholding information. With an aggressive lobby, the company tries to convince local politicians that the depot should stay.
- Oil spill in Argentina
Off the coast of the Argentine city of Magdalena in 1999, an oil tanker from Shell collided with a German ship. 5,400 m3 of crude oil leaked into the sea. Less than a third of the oil was cleaned up by Shell. After thirty days, the company terminated the cleanup operation. Shell thought the damage wasn't that bad. However, three protected nature reserves were heavily polluted. The disaster dealt a heavy blow to local fishing and tourism. In 2002, three years after the collision, the court forced Shell to pay for the cleanup.
- Greenwashing
As evidenced by the above scandals, Shell's history is pitch black. Shell itself likes to paint its activities as greener than green. From the Shell Eco-marathon, a design competition for energy-efficient vehicles, to Generation Discover, an initiative to convince children that Shell has the world's best interests at heart. Shell goes to great lengths to 'greenwash' its fossil activities, as evidenced when it tried to portray oil sands as a 'sustainable energy source' in a Canadian ad. The Canadian Advertising Standards Council rebuked the company for this. Several lawsuits are ongoing worldwide against Shell for its misleading propaganda.
Source: GreenPeace.org
Shell Defies Climate Critics and Continues Investing in Oil and Gas
Motorists filling up at Shell will need to emit 15 to 20 percent less CO2 by 2030. This is the new CO2 reduction target Shell has set for its customers. The company expects a decrease in gasoline and diesel usage and an increase in the use of biofuels and electricity in the coming years.
To support this shift, Shell plans to expand its global network of electric charging stations from 54,000 to approximately 200,000 by 2030. Additionally, the company is constructing a large new refinery in Pernis for the production of biodiesel and bio-kerosene. Last year, Shell acquired a major Danish biogas manufacturer.
A Change of Direction
Shell is mandated by the court not only to reduce its own CO2 emissions but also to reduce those of its customers. This directive is part of the ruling in the climate lawsuit filed by Milieudefensie against Shell. While the company is appealing the decision, it considers itself bound by the ruling.
Simultaneously, Shell has adjusted its overall reduction target for 2030 from 20 percent to '15 to 20 percent.' The company remains committed to achieving zero percent CO2 emissions by 2050 but has eliminated the interim goal of a 45 percent reduction by 2035.
"We believe the world will need oil and gas for many years to come."
— Wael Sawan, Shell CEO
Since Shell has been led by Lebanese-Canadian Wael Sawan and relocated its headquarters from The Hague to London, there has been a noticeable shift in the company's direction. Sawan, the successor to Dutch CEO Ben van Beurden, seems less affected by criticism from pension funds and environmental activists. "We believe the world will need oil and gas for many years to come, produced with lower emissions, alongside clean energy such as biofuels, sustainable electricity, and hydrogen," stated Sawan in the newly published Energy Transition Strategy 2024.
"Shell is literally stepping on the gas pedal on the eve of the appeal,"
— Nine de Pater, Climate Defense campaign leader
Climate Defense will meet Shell again next month during the appeal in the climate lawsuit and has harsh words for Shell's sustainability plans: *"Shell is literally stepping on the gas pedal on the eve of the appeal. The new climate ambition shows that Shell continues to endanger lives and exacerbate the climate crisis, even increasing its focus on gas,"* said campaign leader Nine de Pater.
Maintaining Oil Production and Increasing Gas Output
The energy giant plans to maintain its current oil production levels and increase gas production. Due to reduced supplies of Russian gas via pipelines, the supply of liquefied natural gas (LNG) has significantly increased.
According to the company, reducing the supply of oil and gas is irresponsible as long as demand does not decrease. The significant price increases in Europe during the energy crisis caused by Russia's attack on Ukraine have demonstrated this, according to Sawan.
Moreover, the company believes that if Shell withdraws from oil and gas, other companies, particularly from the U.S. and the Middle East, which take fewer reduction measures than Shell, will fill the gap.
Last year, Sawan indicated at an event in New York that sustainable energy will be given space at Shell, but only if it is profitable. Many sustainable energy projects are less profitable than oil and gas production. The profits from oil and gas are necessary for investments in risky projects with hydrogen and carbon capture and storage, according to the company.
"The new CEO of Shell does not truly want to become more sustainable and is endangering the company,"
— Mark van Baal, founder of Follow This
Shell is the largest investor in sustainable energy in the Netherlands. It constructs offshore wind farms and is building the first large hydrogen plant at the Tweede Maasvlakte in Rotterdam. However, globally, the majority of investments still go to oil and gas extraction.
This frustrates activist shareholders of Follow This, who aim to steer Shell in a different direction with the help of critical pension funds and other major investors. Follow This founder Mark van Baal is not pleased with the new CEO: *"Ben van Beurden kept up appearances somewhat, but Sawan fears that this will deter shareholders. The new CEO of Shell does not truly want to become more sustainable and is endangering the company,"* said Van Baal.
Follow This will again submit a resolution at the shareholders' meeting in May to change the course of the oil giant. The chances of success are slim. Many critical pension funds are withdrawing entirely from fossil fuels and selling their Shell shares, thereby losing influence over the company's direction.
Source: AD.nl
'Shell is like the VOC, with all the negative and positive connotations'
History will be made today at Ahoy Rotterdam. As expected, Shell's shareholders' meeting will give the green light to the plan to fully relocate the company to the United Kingdom.
The headquarters will move from The Hague to London. Also, the title 'Royal Dutch' will disappear from the company's name, 130 years after the incorporation deed of 'De Koninklijke' on Spui in Amsterdam.
For now, only a handful of jobs will disappear. But the sentiment accompanying the relocation is significant, and understandably so, says investigative journalist and historian Marcel Metze. His book on Shell, or more precisely, his 'political biography' of the company, will be published next year. "Over the past 130 years, Shell has evolved into a huge political player. Oil is political, and that fascinates me immensely."
Ties with dubious regimes
Nieuwsuur has arranged to meet Metze in an Amsterdam cinema. Historical footage appears on the screen: the first oil drilling in Sumatra, controversial oil projects in Nigeria, the oil crisis of 1973. The early 1970s were crucial, says Metze. "After the oil crisis, dictatorial regimes in the Middle East took more control over oil production, changing the role of oil companies. They owned the oil but became operators and had to enter into joint ventures with various regimes. The ties between oil companies and these dubious regimes grew closer, making oil more political."
Oil became more political, and Shell fished in troubled waters. That was the case from the beginning, says Metze. "In many countries, Shell couldn't drill for oil properly without military assistance. In the early years, they operated in politically unstable areas not far from Aceh, and military force was immediately used to combat the so-called rebels. This also happened because Shell requested it."
Shell pushed the boundaries and got its hands dirty. I think that still holds true.
Marcel Metze, investigative journalist and historian In the television program Markant in 1979, former Shell CEO Gerrit Wagner (1971-1977) was asked: when do you decide not to do business with a regime that violates human rights, for example? "There may be situations where you have to say: I can no longer work in this place, this goes too far. But a multinational is not just one person. I have never been more than an exponent, a representative of many interests."
Metze also spoke with Wagner, years later. The former CEO honestly explained his rule of thumb to the journalist. "He said: before you do something that could be seen as wrong, you have to ask yourself: if this comes out, can I get away with it? And that's indeed how Shell operated. They pushed the boundaries and got their hands dirty. Every time there was an ethical decision to be made but business interests were also at stake, Shell prioritized the latter. I think that still holds true."
'Shell knows the backdoor routes'
So, on Friday, the shareholders' meeting must give the green light for the relocation. A historic moment, and Metze will be there. He emphasizes that his book will not be a list of abuses in which Shell was directly or indirectly involved.
Shell also deserves admiration, says Metze, if only for the unprecedented political agility the company has displayed since its inception. "They know the backdoor routes through the swamp, in exotic places but also in the Netherlands. Not only the diplomatic skills, but also Shell's lobbying skills are significant. They always know exactly which letter to write to whom at what moment, and who to put forward for what purpose. Over the years, they have proven to be much smarter, more agile than the Dutch government, often completely outplaying them."
How will people look back on 130 years of Royal Dutch Shell in the future? Metze: "You can compare Shell to the VOC, and I think historians will write it that way later on. With all the negative connotations that come with it, but also with the positive: the immense importance for the Netherlands. Shell managed to open doors that will remain closed in the future."
Source: AD.nl
Shell Sustainability Efforts
Shell's commitment to sustainability is evident in its Energy Transition Strategy 2024, a comprehensive plan outlining the company's efforts to navigate towards a net-zero emissions future. As the first energy company to present such a strategy to shareholders for advisory voting, Shell demonstrates transparency and accountability in its sustainability initiatives.
Despite transitioning towards renewable energy sources, Shell recognizes the ongoing importance of oil and gas in meeting global energy demands. With over two-thirds of its capital spending in 2023 allocated to maintaining these vital supplies, Shell ensures stability in energy provision while simultaneously investing in low-carbon solutions. These investments, totaling $10-15 billion between 2023 and 2025, encompass diverse areas such as electric vehicle charging, biofuels, renewable power, hydrogen, and carbon capture and storage.
Addressing concerns of greenwashing, Shell's reporting adheres to regulatory requirements and emphasizes transparency. The Energy Transition Strategy 2024 provides detailed insights into capital expenditure and the percentage allocated to low-carbon solutions, showcasing Shell's progress towards climate targets.
Shell remains steadfast in its commitment to becoming a net-zero emissions energy business by 2050. With a target to reduce absolute emissions by 50% by 2030 compared to 2016 levels, Shell aims to mitigate its environmental impact. Additionally, the company endeavors to reduce the net carbon intensity of its energy products, setting ambitious targets for 2024, 2025, and beyond.
Recognizing the evolving landscape of energy transition, Shell adjusts its strategies accordingly. This includes strategic shifts in its power business towards select markets and segments, reflecting a focus on value and sustainability. Notably, Shell sets a new ambition to reduce customer emissions from the use of its oil products by 15-20% by 2030 compared to 2021 levels, demonstrating a proactive approach to address Scope 3 emissions.
The progress:
- By the end of 2023, we had achieved more than 60% of our target to halve emissions from our operations (Scopes 1 and 2) by 2030, compared with 2016.
- Our overall methane emissions intensity in 2023 was 0.05% for facilities with marketed gas and 0.001% for facilities without marketed gas.
- As another way to measure our progress, we have set short-, medium- and long-term targets to reduce the net carbon intensity of the energy products we sell.
- Net carbon intensity3 measures emissions associated with each unit of energy we sell. It reflects changes in sales of oil and gas products, and changes in sales of low- and zero-carbon products and services — such as biofuels, hydrogen and renewable electricity.
Shell's Energy Transition Strategy 2024 exemplifies its commitment to sustainability, transparency, and responsible energy provision, ensuring a greener future for generations to come.
Source: shell.com
Citizens
Points of Interest
Choose one of the following Points of Interest to represent in the debate. Write it down on your worksheet under "Chosen main point of interest". Make sure the chosen Point is in line with everyone in your group as well as that there are enough sources that agree with your Point of Interest.
Points of Interest - Citizens
- The comfort of life cannot be minimised to get further towards the climate goals.
- Solving the climate crisis is a point for companies like Shell and the Gouvernment, not regular Citizens.
- We want to keep companies like Shell here for the jobs, we can't lose them.
Sources
Below are a couple sources everyone gets access to. Some may prove, while others disprove of your Point of Interest. Summarize the most fitting arguments on your worksheet. You are only allowed to take that sheet to the debate.
The History of Shell in Ten Scandals
- Shell has known for 30 years that their activities contribute to climate change.
That's what Correspondent journalist Jelmer Mommers discovered. He published internal documents from Shell showing that the oil giant swept knowledge about climate change under the rug for decades. At the same time, Shell paid millions to lobby against the scientific basis of climate change. Dutch climate skeptic Frits Böttcher received large sums of money from Shell and other multinationals between 1989 and 1998. The goal was to sow doubt about climate change and the role of humans in it.
- Shell advertising is misleading.
Shell makes ads claiming to be 'CO2-neutral.' This is misleading, according to the Advertising Code Committee in two cases against the oil giant. It's no wonder Shell is one of the nominees for the Dirty Elections. The oil giant lost a lawsuit against nine students from the VU Climate and Sustainability Law Clinic, supported by Advertising Fossil Free and Greenpeace. They objected to ads in which Shell promises its customers to fully offset the CO2 emissions of their refueling for an extra cent per liter with forest conservation and tree planting. The Advertising Code Committee ruled that Shell's compensation measures cannot undo the environmental damage of CO2.
- Earthquakes in Groningen
Shell may be Dutch by origin, but the interests of Dutch citizens are certainly not central to its operations. Together with ExxonMobil, Shell owns the Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij (NAM), which extracts gas in Groningen. Since the 1980s, NAM's gas extraction has caused about 1,000 earthquakes. Both Shell and the government ignored the risks for years. At the end of January 2018, it was announced that Shell is trying to distance itself from the NAM, apparently aiming to avoid liability for the damage suffered by the people of Groningen.
- Pollution in Nigeria
One of the largest oil spills ever is unfolding in the Niger Delta. Shell drills for oil around the Niger River. For over 50 years, tens of millions of barrels of oil have leaked there. The land and water are contaminated, agriculture and fishing are no longer possible, and residents suffer from health problems. Animals in the area, such as chimpanzees, leopards, and elephants, are threatened.
- Global climate change
Of all the greenhouse gases that humans have caused since the beginning of the industrial revolution, Shell is responsible for 2.12 percent. This makes the company partly responsible for the serious consequences of climate change already felt worldwide. Scientists agree that the temperature this century should not rise by more than 1.5 degrees to prevent catastrophic climate disasters. Shell shrugs it off. By continuing to search for new oil reserves, the oil giant ignores scientists who argue that we should leave that oil in the ground. If Shell and its counterparts are allowed to continue unabated, a scenario of 3 to 4 degrees warming is not unthinkable.
- Drilling in the Arctic
No area on earth is off-limits for Shell; this was evident when the oil company announced plans to drill in the Arctic. And this despite knowing that drilling in this beautiful but inhospitable area carries a 75 percent risk of a serious oil spill, as calculated by a US government institute. The icy climate and remote location make cleanup operations in the Arctic virtually impossible. Global protests by millions of people convinced Shell to withdraw.
- The asphalt lake in Curaçao
As early as 1916, Shell built an oil refinery in the middle of Curaçao. For decades, it dumped waste products into a nearby bay. Today, the place is called 'the asphalt lake.' The water is covered with a layer of asphalt ninety centimeters thick. Toxic substances seep into the groundwater.
- Oil depot in a Philippine residential area
In the middle of a busy residential area in Manila stands a gigantic oil depot managed by Shell and two other oil companies. Residents and local politicians claim that the oil storage is polluting and dangerous; a fire would be devastating. For years, residents have been trying to force a relocation through lawsuits. Shell delays the process by withholding information. With an aggressive lobby, the company tries to convince local politicians that the depot should stay.
- Oil spill in Argentina
Off the coast of the Argentine city of Magdalena in 1999, an oil tanker from Shell collided with a German ship. 5,400 m3 of crude oil leaked into the sea. Less than a third of the oil was cleaned up by Shell. After thirty days, the company terminated the cleanup operation. Shell thought the damage wasn't that bad. However, three protected nature reserves were heavily polluted. The disaster dealt a heavy blow to local fishing and tourism. In 2002, three years after the collision, the court forced Shell to pay for the cleanup.
- Greenwashing
As evidenced by the above scandals, Shell's history is pitch black. Shell itself likes to paint its activities as greener than green. From the Shell Eco-marathon, a design competition for energy-efficient vehicles, to Generation Discover, an initiative to convince children that Shell has the world's best interests at heart. Shell goes to great lengths to 'greenwash' its fossil activities, as evidenced when it tried to portray oil sands as a 'sustainable energy source' in a Canadian ad. The Canadian Advertising Standards Council rebuked the company for this. Several lawsuits are ongoing worldwide against Shell for its misleading propaganda.
Source: GreenPeace.org
Shell Defies Climate Critics and Continues Investing in Oil and Gas
Motorists filling up at Shell will need to emit 15 to 20 percent less CO2 by 2030. This is the new CO2 reduction target Shell has set for its customers. The company expects a decrease in gasoline and diesel usage and an increase in the use of biofuels and electricity in the coming years.
To support this shift, Shell plans to expand its global network of electric charging stations from 54,000 to approximately 200,000 by 2030. Additionally, the company is constructing a large new refinery in Pernis for the production of biodiesel and bio-kerosene. Last year, Shell acquired a major Danish biogas manufacturer.
A Change of Direction
Shell is mandated by the court not only to reduce its own CO2 emissions but also to reduce those of its customers. This directive is part of the ruling in the climate lawsuit filed by Milieudefensie against Shell. While the company is appealing the decision, it considers itself bound by the ruling.
Simultaneously, Shell has adjusted its overall reduction target for 2030 from 20 percent to '15 to 20 percent.' The company remains committed to achieving zero percent CO2 emissions by 2050 but has eliminated the interim goal of a 45 percent reduction by 2035.
"We believe the world will need oil and gas for many years to come."
— Wael Sawan, Shell CEO
Since Shell has been led by Lebanese-Canadian Wael Sawan and relocated its headquarters from The Hague to London, there has been a noticeable shift in the company's direction. Sawan, the successor to Dutch CEO Ben van Beurden, seems less affected by criticism from pension funds and environmental activists. "We believe the world will need oil and gas for many years to come, produced with lower emissions, alongside clean energy such as biofuels, sustainable electricity, and hydrogen," stated Sawan in the newly published Energy Transition Strategy 2024.
"Shell is literally stepping on the gas pedal on the eve of the appeal,"
— Nine de Pater, Climate Defense campaign leader
Climate Defense will meet Shell again next month during the appeal in the climate lawsuit and has harsh words for Shell's sustainability plans: *"Shell is literally stepping on the gas pedal on the eve of the appeal. The new climate ambition shows that Shell continues to endanger lives and exacerbate the climate crisis, even increasing its focus on gas,"* said campaign leader Nine de Pater.
Maintaining Oil Production and Increasing Gas Output
The energy giant plans to maintain its current oil production levels and increase gas production. Due to reduced supplies of Russian gas via pipelines, the supply of liquefied natural gas (LNG) has significantly increased.
According to the company, reducing the supply of oil and gas is irresponsible as long as demand does not decrease. The significant price increases in Europe during the energy crisis caused by Russia's attack on Ukraine have demonstrated this, according to Sawan.
Moreover, the company believes that if Shell withdraws from oil and gas, other companies, particularly from the U.S. and the Middle East, which take fewer reduction measures than Shell, will fill the gap.
Last year, Sawan indicated at an event in New York that sustainable energy will be given space at Shell, but only if it is profitable. Many sustainable energy projects are less profitable than oil and gas production. The profits from oil and gas are necessary for investments in risky projects with hydrogen and carbon capture and storage, according to the company.
"The new CEO of Shell does not truly want to become more sustainable and is endangering the company,"
— Mark van Baal, founder of Follow This
Shell is the largest investor in sustainable energy in the Netherlands. It constructs offshore wind farms and is building the first large hydrogen plant at the Tweede Maasvlakte in Rotterdam. However, globally, the majority of investments still go to oil and gas extraction.
This frustrates activist shareholders of Follow This, who aim to steer Shell in a different direction with the help of critical pension funds and other major investors. Follow This founder Mark van Baal is not pleased with the new CEO: *"Ben van Beurden kept up appearances somewhat, but Sawan fears that this will deter shareholders. The new CEO of Shell does not truly want to become more sustainable and is endangering the company,"* said Van Baal.
Follow This will again submit a resolution at the shareholders' meeting in May to change the course of the oil giant. The chances of success are slim. Many critical pension funds are withdrawing entirely from fossil fuels and selling their Shell shares, thereby losing influence over the company's direction.
Source: AD.nl
'Shell is like the VOC, with all the negative and positive connotations'
History will be made today at Ahoy Rotterdam. As expected, Shell's shareholders' meeting will give the green light to the plan to fully relocate the company to the United Kingdom.
The headquarters will move from The Hague to London. Also, the title 'Royal Dutch' will disappear from the company's name, 130 years after the incorporation deed of 'De Koninklijke' on Spui in Amsterdam.
For now, only a handful of jobs will disappear. But the sentiment accompanying the relocation is significant, and understandably so, says investigative journalist and historian Marcel Metze. His book on Shell, or more precisely, his 'political biography' of the company, will be published next year. "Over the past 130 years, Shell has evolved into a huge political player. Oil is political, and that fascinates me immensely."
Ties with dubious regimes
Nieuwsuur has arranged to meet Metze in an Amsterdam cinema. Historical footage appears on the screen: the first oil drilling in Sumatra, controversial oil projects in Nigeria, the oil crisis of 1973. The early 1970s were crucial, says Metze. "After the oil crisis, dictatorial regimes in the Middle East took more control over oil production, changing the role of oil companies. They owned the oil but became operators and had to enter into joint ventures with various regimes. The ties between oil companies and these dubious regimes grew closer, making oil more political."
Oil became more political, and Shell fished in troubled waters. That was the case from the beginning, says Metze. "In many countries, Shell couldn't drill for oil properly without military assistance. In the early years, they operated in politically unstable areas not far from Aceh, and military force was immediately used to combat the so-called rebels. This also happened because Shell requested it."
Shell pushed the boundaries and got its hands dirty. I think that still holds true.
Marcel Metze, investigative journalist and historian In the television program Markant in 1979, former Shell CEO Gerrit Wagner (1971-1977) was asked: when do you decide not to do business with a regime that violates human rights, for example? "There may be situations where you have to say: I can no longer work in this place, this goes too far. But a multinational is not just one person. I have never been more than an exponent, a representative of many interests."
Metze also spoke with Wagner, years later. The former CEO honestly explained his rule of thumb to the journalist. "He said: before you do something that could be seen as wrong, you have to ask yourself: if this comes out, can I get away with it? And that's indeed how Shell operated. They pushed the boundaries and got their hands dirty. Every time there was an ethical decision to be made but business interests were also at stake, Shell prioritized the latter. I think that still holds true."
'Shell knows the backdoor routes'
So, on Friday, the shareholders' meeting must give the green light for the relocation. A historic moment, and Metze will be there. He emphasizes that his book will not be a list of abuses in which Shell was directly or indirectly involved.
Shell also deserves admiration, says Metze, if only for the unprecedented political agility the company has displayed since its inception. "They know the backdoor routes through the swamp, in exotic places but also in the Netherlands. Not only the diplomatic skills, but also Shell's lobbying skills are significant. They always know exactly which letter to write to whom at what moment, and who to put forward for what purpose. Over the years, they have proven to be much smarter, more agile than the Dutch government, often completely outplaying them."
How will people look back on 130 years of Royal Dutch Shell in the future? Metze: "You can compare Shell to the VOC, and I think historians will write it that way later on. With all the negative connotations that come with it, but also with the positive: the immense importance for the Netherlands. Shell managed to open doors that will remain closed in the future."
Source: AD.nl
Shell Sustainability Efforts
Shell's commitment to sustainability is evident in its Energy Transition Strategy 2024, a comprehensive plan outlining the company's efforts to navigate towards a net-zero emissions future. As the first energy company to present such a strategy to shareholders for advisory voting, Shell demonstrates transparency and accountability in its sustainability initiatives.
Despite transitioning towards renewable energy sources, Shell recognizes the ongoing importance of oil and gas in meeting global energy demands. With over two-thirds of its capital spending in 2023 allocated to maintaining these vital supplies, Shell ensures stability in energy provision while simultaneously investing in low-carbon solutions. These investments, totaling $10-15 billion between 2023 and 2025, encompass diverse areas such as electric vehicle charging, biofuels, renewable power, hydrogen, and carbon capture and storage.
Addressing concerns of greenwashing, Shell's reporting adheres to regulatory requirements and emphasizes transparency. The Energy Transition Strategy 2024 provides detailed insights into capital expenditure and the percentage allocated to low-carbon solutions, showcasing Shell's progress towards climate targets.
Shell remains steadfast in its commitment to becoming a net-zero emissions energy business by 2050. With a target to reduce absolute emissions by 50% by 2030 compared to 2016 levels, Shell aims to mitigate its environmental impact. Additionally, the company endeavors to reduce the net carbon intensity of its energy products, setting ambitious targets for 2024, 2025, and beyond.
Recognizing the evolving landscape of energy transition, Shell adjusts its strategies accordingly. This includes strategic shifts in its power business towards select markets and segments, reflecting a focus on value and sustainability. Notably, Shell sets a new ambition to reduce customer emissions from the use of its oil products by 15-20% by 2030 compared to 2021 levels, demonstrating a proactive approach to address Scope 3 emissions.
The progress:
- By the end of 2023, we had achieved more than 60% of our target to halve emissions from our operations (Scopes 1 and 2) by 2030, compared with 2016.
- Our overall methane emissions intensity in 2023 was 0.05% for facilities with marketed gas and 0.001% for facilities without marketed gas.
- As another way to measure our progress, we have set short-, medium- and long-term targets to reduce the net carbon intensity of the energy products we sell.
- Net carbon intensity3 measures emissions associated with each unit of energy we sell. It reflects changes in sales of oil and gas products, and changes in sales of low- and zero-carbon products and services — such as biofuels, hydrogen and renewable electricity.
Shell's Energy Transition Strategy 2024 exemplifies its commitment to sustainability, transparency, and responsible energy provision, ensuring a greener future for generations to come.
Source: shell.com
