News & Analysis
October 6, 2021
Public reporting has shown that Shell knew about the dangers posed by its fossil fuel products for decades, but engaged in a widespread campaign of deception to protect its profits
Shell now faces lawsuits from 20 states and municipalities that are seeking to hold the corporation accountable for lying about its products’ role in the climate crisis.
The American people deserve answers, and as Shell’s President, Watkins must testify. Here is just some of the evidence that members of the House Oversight Committee should ask her to explain:
Shell Knew About the Dangers of Climate Change as Early as the 1980s
In 1988, Shell prepared a confidential report on climate change, concluding that the impacts “may be the greatest in recorded history” and warning that waiting to act until warming is detectable could be “too late to take effective countermeasures to reduce the effects or even to stabilize the situation.”
In 1998, Shell predicted a potential scenario around the year 2010 in which “a series of violent storms causes extensive damage to the eastern coast of the US” prompting environmental groups sue “fossil-fuel companies on the grounds of neglecting what scientists (including their own) have been saying for years: that something must be done.”
Shell Opposed Climate Action and Publicly Denied the Threat While Preparing Its Own Assets for a Warming Globe
In 1984, Shell received a patent for equipment to drill in areas of the Arctic that would only become accessible as the region warmed.
In 1989, the company spent more than $16 million to raise an offshore oil platform to account for rising seas and stronger storms from climate change.
While Shell protected its own assets in the face of climate change, the company argued against public policies to curb emissions, calling them “premature.”
Shell Continues to Expand Drilling and Refining While Falsely Depicting Itself as Committed to Climate Solutions
Shell pledged in 1999 to pursue renewable energy because “action needs to be taken now” to address climate change, but between 2010 and 2018, Shell invested just 1.3% of its capital expenditures in low-carbon projects. For comparison, Shell spent $1.7 billion on exploring for new fossil fuels in 2020, 24 times the $70 million it spent on carbon capture technology and 19 times the $90 million it spent on nature-based projects.
In 2016, Shell released its first “net-zero” plan with a substantial marketing strategy, but buried in the footnotes was the disclaimer “we have no immediate plans to move to a net-zero emissions portfolio over our investment horizon of 10–20 years.”
After Shell introduced its new net-zero target in 2020, they noted again, “It is important to note that as of February 11, 2021, Shell’s operating plans and budgets do not reflect Shell’s Net-Zero Emissions target… ”
As of October 2021, the company’s Powering Progress strategy outline still includes the legal disclaimer, “Shell’s operating plans, outlooks, budgets and pricing assumptions do not reflect our net-zero emissions target.”
Shell Says Consumers Are Responsible For Lowering Emissions
While Shell claims credit for being the first oil major to report and develop a plan to reduce so-called scope 3 emissions (from the burning of the fuels they produce and sell) to net-zero, a closer reading of the plan reveals that it requires that customers “themselves take action on the emissions created by their use of our energy products.” Legal disclaimers on their net-zero communications reinforce that end-use emissions from the products they sell are their customer’s responsibility, stating, “The use of the term Shell's "Net Carbon Footprint" is for convenience only and not intended to suggest these emissions are those of Shell or its subsidiaries.”
After a Dutch court ordered Shell to reduce its emissions by 45% by 2030, including scope 3, Shell’s CEO dismissed the idea that the company should be responsible for its customers’ emissions and said the company will appeal the ruling.
Shell’s Net Zero Nature-Based Plans Are Astonishingly Unrealistic
Shell’s latest net-zero plan requires the company to use nature-based solutions to offset 120 million tons of CO2 per year by 2030. Doing so will require “planting forests the size of Spain,” according to the company’s own estimates—or roughly one tenth of the land available for forest planting in the entire world. In the company’s most ambitious low carbon scenario, Sky, the company would need to plant a forest approaching the size of Brazil. To date the company has not described how it would accomplish such massive offsets or when they would start.
