Greenwash+20 - Greenpeace

Shell lobbying
Shell talks a good game about the need for a binding global
climate deal, with one executive commenting recently that
“we need to maintain and support existing frameworks and
institutions through the UNFCCC process...” 78
However, in parallel Shell lobbies to block meaningful
national action to halt catastrophic climate change.
The company holds powerful positions in several of the
business lobby groups 79 most hostile to climate change
legislation 80 , including BusinessEurope, the European
Roundtable of Industrialists (ERT) and the European
Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC). More than once,
Shell has been involved in lobbying with these groups to
undermine positive action on climate change.
In 2008, when the EU’s draft 2020 climate and energy
legislation was about to be published, Shell’s former CEO,
Jeroen van der Veer, wrote to the European Commission
on behalf of the ERT to warn against plans to strengthen
the EU’s climate policy, arguing that it could undermine
competitiveness of European business. 81 In the middle of
the Copenhagen climate conference in December 2009,
BusinessEurope was urging the EU to stick to its modest
20% climate target 82 , and right after the conference
CEFIC and BusinessEurope insisted that the EU should
stop considering any further unilateral action on climate
change. 83 Shell’s opposition has continued ever since 84 ,
despite analysis by the European Commission finding that
a stronger EU climate target would come with multiple
benefits 85 , and several independent research institutes
indicating that it is in Europe’s own economic interests to
introduce stronger climate legislation – irrespective of what
others did. 86
In the meantime, Shell has also worked against legislation
that would limit the import of high-carbon tar sandsderived
fuels into the EU, repeatedly lobbying UK
government ministers. 87 In 2010 Shell CEO Peter Voser, in
his natural gas promotion speech, suggested that offshore
wind was expensive and advised the UK to reconsider
its offshore wind policies, saying: “Perhaps the country
should consider diverting some investment away from new
offshore wind farms.” 88
Here the company itself has been taking “lead” by pulling
out the world’s biggest offshore wind farm 89 (in 2008) and
saying “no” to offshore wind investments in the North Sea
(in 2012), suggesting that the British government should
support an industry that is “already successful” – such
as oil and gas. 90 Indeed, on the same day the company
announced 2012 first quarter profits of nearly $9bn, 91
Shell’s finance director announced that it couldn’t “make
the numbers” 92 add up for investing in offshore wind in
the UK’s North Sea, long considered one of the largest
potential sources of clean energy anywhere on the planet. 93
While Shell can’t afford to invest in offshore wind, it is
spending impressive amounts of money to invest in
offshore oil drilling – and lobbying for it. Shell’s lobbying
expenditure in the US is among the largest. 94 In May 2012,
the New York Times revealed details of Shell’s Arctic quest
that has now consumed seven years and $4bn, and
involved a lot of lobbying and campaigning. 95 In Canada,
Shell is an uncritical member of the Canadian Association
of Petroleum Producers, the industry association that
consistently denies the impact of tar sands and works to
avoid regulation on tar sands producers. 96
Carbonisation
Every oil company repeats some form the mantra that
“fossil fuels will be a big part of the energy mix for decades
to come” and Shell’s version is “fossil fuels would still,
even in 2050, supply over 60% of global energy”. 97 On the
surface, this sounds like a simple prediction, but it is also
a self-fulfilling prophecy. In absolute terms that’s about as
much or even more fossil fuels than today. Energy-related
CO2 emissions would not decline even to 2000 levels, 98
let alone the 50-80% reductions needed according to
the IPCC. Shell calls climate change “one of the biggest
challenges facing society” 99 , and touts its “programmes
that help drivers to use less energy and emit fewer CO2
emissions” 100 but at the same time its business model
remains to develop more of the increasingly marginal
sources of highly polluting oil and gas. As Shell executives
have said: “Essentially the Group’s business was not to
decarbonise but rather take advantage of opportunities
which had arisen as a result of the world’s desire to
decarbonise.” 101
20 Greenwash+20 How some powerful corporations are standing in the way of sustainable development