‘North Sea Fossil Free’: Activists in 6 Countries Protest ‘Unhinged’ Oil and Gas Development

Spread the love

Original article by OLIVIA ROSANE republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

The “oil slicks” performance artist group demonstrates the impacts of a potential oil spill on Scotland’s Moray Firth as part of a North Sea-wide day of action on March 16, 2024.  (Photo: XR Forres)

“Going full steam ahead with new North Sea oil and gas is a sure fire route to the worst climate scenarios,” one campaigner said.

Climate activists in six North Sea countries came together on Saturday to carry out acts of civil disobedience in protest of their governments’ continued fossil fuel development.

Demonstrators in the United KingdomNorway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands blockaded roads, ports, and refineries; dropped banners; and held solidarity concerts as part of the North Sea Fossil Free campaign to demand that their governments align their plans for the shared body of water with the Paris agreement goal of limiting global heating to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels.

“For too long, the U.K., Norway, and other North Sea countries have avoided scrutiny for their oil drilling plans as the emissions are not included in their national inventories,” a spokesperson for Extinction Rebellion U.K. told Common Dreams. “Going full steam ahead with new North Sea oil and gas is a sure fire route to the worst climate scenarios.”

“The only serious response we can make is for citizens to unite, but we need to see many many more people doing this work.”

The day of action, which was organized by Extinction Rebellion (XR), came days after a new report from Oil Change International revealed that none of five North Sea countries—Norway, the U.K., the Netherlands, Germany, and Denmark—have plans consistent either with limiting warming to 1.5°C or with the agreement to transition away from fossil fuels reached at last year’s United Nations COP28 climate conference. If the five countries were counted as one, they would be the seventh biggest producer of oil and gas in the world.

In particular, these governments continue to issue permits to explore for and develop oil and gas fields, despite the fact that the International Energy Agency has said that no new fossil fuel development is compatible with limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C. In one high-profile example, the U.K. approved the undeveloped Rosebank oil field in September 2023. Taken together, these permits could lead to more than 10 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions.

The worst offenders were Norway and the U.K., which could be among the top 20 developers of oil and gas fields through mid-century if they do not change course.

“The five major North Sea countries are at a crossroads: One path leads toward global leadership in climate action and green industries, where they take bold action to phase out oil and gas production that creates sustainable jobs and communities. The other path leads to catastrophic climate change, economic crisis, and the loss of status as climate leaders globally, as they cling to outdated practices while the world moves forward,” Silje Ask Lundberg, North Sea campaign manager at Oil Change International, said when the report was released.

Extinction Rebellion co-founder Clare Farrell said that the North Sea governments’ policies were a betrayal of their citizens and the world following the hottest year on record.

“Temperatures have tracked 1.5°C above average recently, almost 2°C,” Farrell said. “Our global commitments, such that they are, are being flushed away with no regard for what the public really want. Where’s the consent for that here in our democracies? No government has a mandate to do that. So people deserve to know that our governments are willfully destroying everything. The people of these North Sea nations have not consented to destroying civilization, but that’s what is going to happen. Their governments are unhinged and unchecked.”

Saturday’s protests, Farrell continued, were a way for the people in these countries to make their voices heard.

“The only serious response we can make is for citizens to unite, but we need to see many many more people doing this work,” Farrell said. “Direct action like this should shake us awake; our governments will destroy democracy and society if we let them continue, that’s the course we are on, and they are redoubling their efforts despite the facts and knowing how much suffering they are already causing all over the world as climate breaks down.”

The demands of Saturday’s protests were threefold: An end to new oil and gas infrastructure in the North Sea, for governments to tell the truth about the realities of the climate crisis, and for the countries to pursue a just transition to renewable energy. In addition, many activists made additional demands specific to their nations’ policies.

The Netherlands

In the Netherlands, activists with Extinction Rebellion and Scientist Rebellion blocked all roads and railways leading to the largest oil refinery in Europe: Shell’s Pernis refinery. They targeted Shell because the oil major has received new permits to drill in the Victory Gas Field and has also restarted its drilling in the Pierce Field. What’s more, the company has refused to clean up its aging equipment in the North Sea, leaving old pipelines and drilling platforms to rust and pollute the sea with mercury, polonium, and radioactive lead. While there are 75 aging Shell oil and gas platforms in the Dutch North Sea that should be removed by 2035, current efforts are not on track to meet this deadline.

“Like the rest of the fossil industry, Shell is only interested in profits and shareholder returns,” said Bram Kroezen of XR Netherlands, adding that Shell’s appeal of a landmark court ruling ordering it to reduce emissions showed that the company “completely lacks a moral compass.”

Germany

Activists with Ende Gelände blocked off access to a floating liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal in the port of Brunsbüttel, Germany, beginning at 9:00 am local time. The activists are calling for an end to LNG imports, as new science reveals the so-called “bridge” fuel may in fact be at least as damaging to the climate as coal due to previously unaccounted for methane leaks.

“LNG is a double climate killer,” Rita Tesch, spokesperson for Ende Gelände, said in a statement. “Because it consists of methane. Methane is even more harmful to the climate than carbon dioxide. It escapes into the atmosphere during transportation by LNG ships and at terminals such as here in Brunsbüttel, and heats it up rapidly. The carbon dioxide from burning it is on top of that. It’s clear: LNG imports are a climate crime!”

Norway

Activists with XR Norway targeted Rafnes Petroleum Refinery, with some blockading access on land while another group entered the security area by boat.

“I’m ashamed to be a Norwegian,” XR Norway spokesperson Jonas Kittelsen said in a statement. “Norway profits massively from aggressively expanding our oil and gas sector, causing mass suffering and death globally. My government portrays us as better than the rest of the world, which we are not.”

Denmark

Performance collective Becoming Species and Extinction Rebellion Denmark worked together to stage a creative protest targeting the oil company Total Energies, which is the leading oil and gas producer in the Danish North Sea and currently has plans to reopen “Tyra Feltet,” Denmark’s largest gas field. Four members of the band Octopussy Riot climbed a Total-owned container and staged a punk concert in Denmark’s Esbjerg Harbor.

“We octopuses have formed the band Octopussy Riot and have arrived here to play our song, a demand for you two-legs to stop oil and gas extraction,” performer Linh Le, said. “The sea is dying, our climate collapsing. We will not accept that the most rich and powerful destroy our home. We do not want to go extinct.”

Sweden

Members of XR Sweden blocked the road to Gothenburg’s Oil Harbor, where the group has been protesting since May of 2022. The activists called on Sweden to stop investing in the harbor and on city officials to develop a plan to dismantle the harbor and refineries.

“Twenty-two million tons of oil enter Gothenburg’s port every year, which is owned by the city,” one activist said. “There is no plan for decommissioning. This does not go together with the climate goals.”

Scotland

Finally, protesters across Scotland stood in solidarity with the other actions with performances and banner drops. In Aberdeen, activists unfurled banners outside the offices of Equinor, which owns 80% of Rosebank, and Ithaca, which owns the remaining 20%. The banners read, “North Sea Fossil Free,” “Stop Rosebank,” and “Sea knows no borders.” In Dundee, protesters targeted the Valaris 123 oil platform off the coast with banners. Shetland Stop Rosebank also brought signs to Lerwick Harbor, from where the first stage of Rosebank’s development is launching. XR Forres organized a performance of the group the “oil slicks” along the Moray Firth, to demonstrate what an oil spill would do to its unique coastal landscape.

“All countries should align their drilling plans with the Paris agreement now,” the XR U.K. spokesperson said. “We thank everyone who has taken action today in defense of a livable planet.”

Original article by OLIVIA ROSANE republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

Continue Reading‘North Sea Fossil Free’: Activists in 6 Countries Protest ‘Unhinged’ Oil and Gas Development

Shell CEO awarded £8m pay packet while climate targets dwindle

Spread the love

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/shell-ceo-awarded-8m-pay-packet-while-climate-targets-dwindle

Activists from Fossil Free London outside the InterContinental in central London, demonstrate ahead of the Energy Intelligence Forum, a gathering between Shell, Total, Equinor, Saudi Aramco, and other oil giants, October 17, 2023

CAMPAIGNERS have branded Shell CEO’s multimillion pay packet a “bitter pill to swallow” after the corporation announced today it would be watering down its climate pledges.

It also revealed that CEO Wael Sawan pocketed £7.94 million in pay in 2023.

Since taking charge last year, the executive oversaw plans to axe 25 per cent of Shell’s low-carbon solutions team and abandoned a policy to cut oil production each year for the rest of the decade.

Greenpeace campaigner Philip Evans took aim at the new boss, saying he has “doubled down on fossil fuels while ruthlessly slashing jobs and investment from Shell’s renewables division — and personally pocketed a tidy £8m for his trouble.”

Global Witness campaigner Jonathan Noronha-Gant said Mr Sawan’s payout “is a bitter pill to swallow” for the millions struggling with energy costs.

He said: “Our reliance on Shell’s dirty oil and gas make them rich whilst the rest of us get poorer.”

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/shell-ceo-awarded-8m-pay-packet-while-climate-targets-dwindle

Image of InBedWithBigOil by Not Here To Be Liked + Hex Prints from Just Stop Oil's You May Find Yourself... art auction. Featuring Rishi Sunak, Fossil Fuels and Rupert Murdoch.
Image of InBedWithBigOil by Not Here To Be Liked + Hex Prints from Just Stop Oil’s You May Find Yourself… art auction. Featuring Rishi Sunak, Fossil Fuels and Rupert Murdoch.
Continue ReadingShell CEO awarded £8m pay packet while climate targets dwindle

Shell abandons 2035 emissions target and weakens 2030 goal && Shell boss got £8m pay package in first year

Spread the love
Greenpeace activists display a billboard during a protest outside Shell headquarters on July 27, 2023 in London.
Greenpeace activists display a billboard during a protest outside Shell headquarters on July 27, 2023 in London. (Photo: Handout/Chris J. Ratcliffe for Greenpeace via Getty Images)

https://www.carbonbrief.org/shell-abandons-2035-emissions-target-and-weakens-2030-goal/

Shell has abandoned a key climate target for 2035 and weakened another goal for 2030, according to its latest “energy transition strategy”.

The oil major has “updated” its target to cut the total “net carbon intensity” of all the energy products it sells to customers – the emissions per unit of energy – by 20% between 2016 and 2030. The reduction is now set at between 15-20%.

Within Shell’s strategy, chief executive, Wael Sawan, writes that this change reflects “a strategic shift” to focus less on selling electricity, including renewable power.

Instead, the company says investment in oil and gas “will be needed” due to sustained demand for fossil fuels. It emphasises the importance of liquified natural gas (LNG) as “critical” for the energy transition and says it will grow its LNG business by up to 30% by 2030. 

This amounts to a bet against the world meeting its climate goals, with the International Energy Agency (IEA) and others concluding no new oil-and-gas investment is needed on a pathway to 1.5C – and warning against the risk of “overinvestment”.

Elsewhere in the report, Shell notes that it has “chosen to retire [its] 2035 target of a 45% reduction in net carbon intensity” due to “uncertainty in the pace of change in the energy transition”.

Both goals were intended as stepping stones on the company’s journey towards net-zero emissions by 2050, a goal set by the previous chief executive, Ben van Beurden, in 2020.

The weakening of climate goals from Shell, the world’s second-largest investor-owned oil-and-gas company, comes after BP scaled back its ambitions last year.

Shell boss got £8m pay package in first year

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4nm8r8787ko

Shell’s new boss received a pay package of almost £8m in his first year in the role, the energy giant has revealed.

Detail of the pay emerged as Shell watered down one of its carbon reduction targets.

Wael Sawan was paid a total of £7.94m, including bonuses, although that was below the £9.7m received by his predecessor, Ben van Beurden, in 2022.

The size of the pay package came under fire from pressure groups.

Jonathan Noronha-Gant, senior fossil fuels campaigner at Global Witness, said the amount was “a bitter pill to swallow for the millions of workers living with the high costs of energy”.

Shell also announced that it planned to reduce the “net carbon intensity” of the energy it sells by 15-20% by 2030, compared with a previous target of 20%.

It also dropped its plan to reduce net carbon intensity by 45% by 2035.

Continue ReadingShell abandons 2035 emissions target and weakens 2030 goal && Shell boss got £8m pay package in first year

Climate Trial Against Oil Giant Eni Opens in Italy

Spread the love

Original article by Stella Levantesi republished from DeSmog

Greenpeace Italy released a new report that shows oil major Eni is using climate denier technical consultants as a defense strategy in its climate warming lawsuit. Flickr via PRP Channel (CC BY-2.0)

The case coincides with a new Greenpeace Italy and ReCommon report showing Eni’s technical consultants have wide links to climate denier groups.

Italy’s first climate change lawsuit brought by Greenpeace Italy and climate advocacy group ReCommon against Italian oil giant Eni opened with its first hearing on February 16, alleging the company contributed to global warming. 

The hearing comes alongside a new report by Greenpeace Italy and ReCommon, which describes how Eni’s technical consultants in the case have deep ties to the fossil fuel industry and climate deniers. 

The lawsuit “aims to build on a similar case targeting Anglo-Dutch oil major Royal Dutch Shell in the Netherlands to force Eni to slash its carbon emissions by 45 percent by 2030,” as DeSmog has previously reported.

At issue in the case is whether or not Eni knowingly contributed to climate change and if it’s responsible for past and future damages. The case is also assessing if the oil giant violated human rights that are protected by the Italian Constitution and international agreements. 

The cache of documentary evidence in the lawsuit includes two “technical reports” produced for Eni’s defense by consultants who Greenpeace Italy’s new report describes as climate deniers.

Last week, the two environmental organizations pushed to have the judge hear their witnesses, which include 12 Italian citizens who have been impacted by climate change, the groups’ lawyer Alessandro Gariglio told DeSmog.

“Now it will be up to the judge to assess whether he considers the documentary evidence presented to be sufficient or, instead, whether he thinks it might be appropriate to hear witnesses and, above all, to order a court-appointed expert opinion,” Gariglio noted. He added that he and his parties are in favor of such a move, “and the counterparties [Eni included] are not.” 

In a statement to DeSmog, an Eni spokesperson said the company “will prove the groundlessness of Greenpeace and ReCommon’s claims, both legally and factually, in the legal proceedings.” Documentation related to the current lawsuit is available for review on Eni’s website.

Eni’s Technical Reports

The technical reports are addendums to one of Eni’s statements of defense and are authored by Carlo Stagnaro, director of research and studies at the think tank Istituto Bruno Leoni (IBL), and Stefano Consonni, professor of Energy and Environmental Systems at the Department of Energy of the Politecnico University in Milan.

According to Greenpeace Italy, the two consultants are “anything but independent,” and “have expressed climate denial positions” on more than one occasion. 

Consonni’s resume states that since 1993 he has been “lead investigator” for research financed by multiple oil and gas companies, including Eni, ExxonMobil, and BP Alternative Energy, and the U.S. Department of Energy. 

Stagnaro’s technical report, Greenpeace says, includes references to Eni’s key climate delay tactics, such as “whataboutism” to obscure the Italian oil giant’s true contribution to global warming. For example, it mentions China’s lack of responsibility in controlling emissions and also the tactic of  diverting accountability towards consumers –  a reference that is repeated 19 times throughout the text.

Ties to the U.S. Climate Denial Machine

According to Greenpeace’s report, the think tank IBL has denied man-made anthropogenic climate change in the past and, in the early 2000s, Stagnaro was “among the most active figures” within the institution to import U.S. climate denial theories into Italy.

In 2006, for example, Stagnaro wrote a briefing called “Climate. We want to be Amerikans,” which includes delayer phrasing such as “climate alarmists.” The briefing states, “Unfortunately, the Kyoto Protocol presupposes a ‘choice of field’ in science: it rests, that is, on the assumption that humans are the root cause,” which is “an assumption that is justified neither by the uncertainty of actual scientific knowledge nor by the complexity of the atmospheric dynamics.”

To support this, the briefing cites retired astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas, who is associated with many climate denier organizations, including the George C. Marshall Institute. In 2002, in a hearing in the U.S. Senate, Baliunas declared that “since no warming trend in the lower layers of the troposphere was observed, most of the surface warming in recent decades cannot be attributed to a greenhouse effect enhanced by human causes.”

Stagnaro’s briefing also cites climate denier Bjorn Lomborg and was co-authored by Mario Sechi, current editor-in-chief of far-right Italian newspaper Libero, who is the former director of Eni-owned news agency, AGI, and a former spokesperson for current right-wing Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni.

At a summit in Rome at the end of January, Meloni unveiled the “Mattei Plan,” named after Enrico Mattei, founder of Eni. The program aims to transform Italy into “an energy hub” distributing fossil fuels extracted from Africa that creates “a bridge between Europe and Africa.” Campaigners in Italy and across Africa have criticized the plan, saying it will promote fossil fuel exploitation and “false solutions.”  Before the initiative was announced, over 50 African groups signed a letter to the Italian government calling for an “end of neo-colonial approaches” and “a more consultative approach.” “This ‘dash for gas’ in Africa is dangerous and short-sighted,” the letter states.

Eni has also recently come under fire in some Italian media for sponsoring the week-long music and entertainment TV show, Sanremo, which was seen by 70 percent of Italian viewers this year during one of its broadcasts. According to Greenpeace, this sponsorship is “yet another greenwashing operation.”

Greenpeace’s report underscores the fact that IBL, under Stagnaro’s direction, is part of the Atlas Network, a group of more than 500 “free market” organizations in nearly 100 countries that have supported climate science denial positions and  lobbied against legislation to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

According to previous DeSmog reports, the Atlas Network is also behind efforts to “brand climate activists as extremists” and “pass anti-protest legislation.”

Greenpeace’s report reveals that in 2004, IBL also joined the Cooler Heads Coalition (CHC), a U.S.-based pressure group that has worked to promote climate denialism. After calling climate science a hoax for two decades, CHC played an important role in President Donald Trump’s 2017 decision to pull the U.S. from the Paris Agreement.

Eni’s technical consultants with the Istituto Bruno Leoni (IBL) have ties to U.S. climate denial organizations like the Heartland Institute. Credit: Wikipedia

According to the Climate Investigations Center, from 1997 to 2015, members of CHC received “upwards of $98 million dollars in donations from Exxon Mobil, conservative foundations, and dark money organizations.”

According to another report by Italian news outlet Il Fatto Quotidiano, in 2010, Exxon contributed $30,000 to IBL and Eni gave the group 12,000 euros.

In 2008, IBL also co-sponsored the event “Global Warming Is Not a Crisis” with the Heartland Institute, which has been at “the forefront” of denying scientific evidence for climate change.

IBL’s position seems to have softened over the years, Greenpeace’s report mentions, with Stagnaro tweeting in November 2019 that, “The position of the @istbrunoleoni on #climate is that: 1. climate change exists and is also due to humans 2. Emissions must be reduced 3. Not all policies that aim to reduce emissions work or are efficient.”

However, in 2018, IBL promoted the launch of “In Defense of Fossil Fuels,” a book by Alex Epstein who, according to investigative group Documented, “influences oil policy directly as a member of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission,” which is “a powerful quasi-regulatory body that lobbies for oil and gas interests.”

“Can the report of someone who has often personally embraced and disseminated climate change denialist positions be considered reliable in the context of climate litigation?” asks Greenpeace Italy and ReCommon, who have named their campaign for the lawsuit “The Just Cause.” Can it “be considered free of judgment if that same expert has received funding from that same company in the past?” the plaintiffs ask.

In response, Eni’s website reads, “There is little that is ‘just’ about this action. “The plaintiffs are in fact asking the court to declare Eni “responsible” for damages suffered and future damages resulting from climate change, to which the company has allegedly contributed with its conduct over the past decades.” 

This “false narrative,” Eni continues, is based on an “obvious instrumental approach” aimed at “demonizing” the business.

Greenpeace Italy and ReCommon stated that they hope the judge will “reject the numerous and specious objections made by Eni” to allow “a radical change in the company’s industrial strategies.”

Original article by Stella Levantesi republished from DeSmog

Continue ReadingClimate Trial Against Oil Giant Eni Opens in Italy

Chicago Joins ‘Historic Wave of Lawsuits’ Against Big Oil

Spread the love

Original article by BRETT WILKINS republiahed from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

Environmental activists march during the Global Climate Strike in downtown Chicago, Illinois, on September 15, 2023.  (Photo: Kamil Krzaczynski/AFP via Getty Images)

The city alleges the industry “funded, conceived, planned, and carried out a sustained and widespread campaign of denial and disinformation about the existence of climate change and their products’ contribution to it.”

Chicago on Tuesday joined the growing list of U.S. cities and states suing Big Oil for lying to the public about how burning fossil fuels causes and exacerbates the climate emergency.

The administration of Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, a progressive Democrat, filed a lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court against ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, Shell, ConocoPhillips, Phillips 66, and the industry lobby American Petroleum Institute, which “funded, conceived, planned, and carried out a sustained and widespread campaign of denial and disinformation about the existence of climate change and their products’ contribution to it.”

“The climate change impacts that Chicago has faced and will continue to face—including more frequent and intense storms, flooding, droughts, extreme heat events, and shoreline erosion—are felt throughout every part of the city and disproportionately in low-income communities,” the suit contends.

In a statement, Johnson said that “there is no justice without accountability.”

“From the unprecedented poor air quality that we experienced last summer to the basement floodings that our residents on the West Side experienced, the consequences of this crisis are severe, as are the costs of surviving them,” he added. “That is why we are seeking to hold these defendants accountable.”

https://twitter.com/climatecosts/status/1760043981432619269?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1760043981432619269%7Ctwgr%5E8b38b723510420040ed227ade1f1ed4f7162abc2%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.commondreams.org%2Fnews%2Fclimate-lawsuit-2667326559

Climate campaigners welcomed the lawsuit.

“Big Oil has lied to the American people for decades about the catastrophic climate risks of their products, and now Chicago and communities across the country are rightfully insisting they pay for the damage they’ve caused,” Center for Climate Integrity president Richard Wiles said in a statement.

“With Chicago, the nation’s third largest city, joining the fray, there is no doubt that we are witnessing a historic wave of lawsuits that could finally hold Big Oil accountable for the climate crisis they knowingly caused,” he added.

Chicago joins eight U.S. states plus the District of Columbia and numerous municipalities across the country that have sued to hold Big Oil accountable for deceiving the public about its role in the climate emergency.

“To date, eight federal appeals courts and dozens of federal district courts have unanimously ruled against the fossil fuel industry’s arguments to prevent these lawsuits from moving forward in state courts,” noted the Center for Climate Integrity. “In 2023, the U.S. Justice Department added its support for the communities. The U.S. Supreme Court has denied Big Oil petitions to consider the industry’s appeals of those lower court rulings three separate times, most recently in January.”

Angela Tovar, Chicago’s chief sustainability officer, told the Chicago Sun-Times that “the fossil fuel industry should be able to pay for the damage they’ve caused.”

“We have to see accountability for the climate crisis,” she added.

Original article by BRETT WILKINS republiahed from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

Continue ReadingChicago Joins ‘Historic Wave of Lawsuits’ Against Big Oil

With $280 Billion in Profits, Oil Giants Are ‘Main Winners of the War in Ukraine’

Spread the love

Original article by OLIVIA ROSANE republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

A protester pretends to celebrate outside Shell’s London headquarters. (Photo: Greenpeace U.K./X)

“They have amassed untold wealth off the back of death, destruction, and spiraling energy prices,” a Global Witness investigator said of a new analysis.

As Russia’s invasion of Ukraine approaches its second anniversary, one group has clearly benefited: the five biggest U.S. and European oil and gas companies.

BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, and TotalEnergies have made more than a quarter of a trillion dollars in profits since the war began, according to an analysis published by Global Witness on Monday.

“This analysis shows that regardless of what happens on the front lines, the fossil fuel majors are the main winners of the war in Ukraine,” Global Witness senior fossil fuels investigator Patrick Galey said in a statement. “They have amassed untold wealth off the back of death, destruction, and spiraling energy prices.”

https://twitter.com/Global_Witness/status/1759513194412822610?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1759513194412822610%7Ctwgr%5Ecf0f479e05c1d66d6dfb8e61ce64f22738dffd32%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.commondreams.org%2Fnews%2Foil-majors-winners-ukraine-war

Big Oil’s profits were fueled in part by high wholesale gas prices, which were already elevated before Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022 and skyrocketed afterward. All five companies covered by the analysis reported record profits for 2022.

This bonanza came as the conflict killed more than 10,000 Ukrainian civilians.

“Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has been devastating for millions of people, from ordinary Ukrainians living under the shadow of war, to the households across Europe struggling to heat their homes,” Galey said.

During 2022, U.S. President Joe Biden accused Big Oil of “war profiteering.”

Global Witness calculated that BP and Shell have raked in enough since the war began—at £75 billion—to pay all British household electricity bills through July 2025. Chevron and ExxonMobil have made a combined $136 billion while Total has netted $50.4 billion.

These massive profits also come as the climate crisis, driven primarily by the burning of fossil fuels, continues to escalate. 2023 was the hottest year on record, and likely the hottest in 125,000 years. Yet instead of using their record profits to invest in renewable energy technology, the five major oil companies have cut back on their climate initiatives and handed massive payouts to shareholders.

“This is yet another way in which the fossil fuel industry is failing customers and the planet.”

Of the more than $280 billion the five companies have brought in since the war began, they returned what Global Witness said was an “unprecedented” $200 billion to shareholders. At the same time, Shell rescinded a promise to curb oil production by 2030 and said it would fire around 200 people employed by its green jobs division. BP, meanwhile, slashed its emissions reduction target from 35-40% of 2019 levels by 2030 to 20-30%.

The money paid to shareholders is also money that could have been paid to help communities adapt to the climate crisis or recover from the damage it has already caused. The $111 billion that the five companies paid to shareholders in 2023 alone is 158 times more than the money pledged to climate-vulnerable nations at COP28, and the €15 billion that TotalEnergies rewarded shareholders with was more than the €10 billion that France needed to recover from droughts and storms in 2022.

Galey said the companies were now “spending their gains on investor handouts and ever more oil and gas production, which Europe doesn’t need and the climate cannot take.”

“This is yet another way in which the fossil fuel industry is failing customers and the planet,” Galey said.

Original article by OLIVIA ROSANE republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

Rishi Sunak offers huge fossil fuel subsidies to develop fossil fuel extraction in UK.
Rishi Sunak offers huge fossil fuel subsidies to develop fossil fuel extraction in UK.

Investigating the so-called ‘windfall tax’

Continue ReadingWith $280 Billion in Profits, Oil Giants Are ‘Main Winners of the War in Ukraine’

BP and Shell’s spending on renewables flatlines in 2023

Spread the love

https://www.energymonitor.ai/finance/corporate-strategy/weekly-data-oil-majors-bp-and-shells-spending-on-renewables-flatlines-in-2023/

Protestors call out bp and Shell during a demonstration in the City of London in 2021. Credit: Vuk Valcic/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images.

Shell decreased spending on “renewables and energy solutions” last year, while bp’s spending on “low carbon energy” has flatlined, finds an Energy Monitor analysis of fourth-quarter results.

On Tuesday, UK oil major BP reported that in 2023 it raked in $13.8bn (£10.93bn) in profits. This represented its second-highest annual profit in a decade – despite it being nearly half the record-breaking $27.7bn bp amassed in 2022 after oil prices spiked following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Days earlier, Shell also reported better-than-expected profits of more than $28bn, following a record-breaking $40bn in 2022. Yet both oil majors’ spending on renewables has flatlined, finds Energy Monitor‘s analysis of the companies’ filings.

Shell’s annual results show that investment in “renewables and energy solutions” fell from $3.5bn in 2022 to just $2.7bn last year. The company spent just 11.7% of its total capital expenditure (capex) on renewables in 2023 compared with 15.3% in 2022.

By contrast, bp slightly increased its spending on “low carbon energy” from $1.02bn in 2022 to $1.26bn in 2023, although as the chart below shows, spending on renewables by both companies has flatlined over the past five years.

https://www.energymonitor.ai/finance/corporate-strategy/weekly-data-oil-majors-bp-and-shells-spending-on-renewables-flatlines-in-2023/

Greenpeace activists display a billboard during a protest outside Shell headquarters on July 27, 2023 in London.
Greenpeace activists display a billboard during a protest outside Shell headquarters on July 27, 2023 in London. (Photo: Handout/Chris J. Ratcliffe for Greenpeace via Getty Images)
Continue ReadingBP and Shell’s spending on renewables flatlines in 2023

New Shell Files Could Aid Climate Cases, Attorneys Say 

Spread the love

Original article by Matthew Green and Merel de Buck republished from DeSmog.

Credit: Sabrina Bedford.

Latest documents unearthed by Dutch climate activist seen as “valuable sources” for litigators.

Newly-discovered Shell documents dating back decades could help strengthen lawsuits aiming to hold the oil major to account for climate damages, climate attorneys say.

Among the files, reported for the first time today by DeSmog and Follow The Money, and published on Climate Files, there is a 1970 industry journal article where Shell appears to accept responsibility for harms caused by its products. A trove of Shell publications from the 1980s and 1990s foresee the “major adverse changes” the “greenhouse effect” is liable to cause to the climate. 

And a 1998 report spells out Shell’s reasons for leaving the Global Climate Coalition, a now defunct lobby group that worked to undermine climate science. The document shows that Shell had acknowledged the need to adopt  “prudent precautionary measures” to avoid the worst impacts of the climate crisis — even as it continued to push for more production of oil and gas.   

“It is feared that a further rise in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere could lead to a higher average surface temperature on Earth, which could have far-reaching environmental, social and economic consequences,” wrote the authors of a 1987 internal Shell publication entitled “Air Pollution: an Oil Industry Perspective.”

Cover of the 1987 internal Shell publication “Air Pollution: an Oil Industry Perspective.”

“Global warming could challenge the very fabric of the world’s ecological and economic systems,” Shell executive Ged Davis wrote in a contribution to a report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) published two years later.

Vatan Hüzeir, a climate activist and doctoral candidate in sociology at Rotterdam’s Erasmus University, unearthed the documents over five years of research, gathering thousands of pages of Shell-related material from archives, former employees, and other sources.

The latest materials add to an initial tranche published in April last year which showed that even as Shell’s awareness of the potentially devastating consequences of climate change grew during the 1970s and 1980s, the company downplayed or omitted key risks in public communications; emphasised scientific uncertainties; and pushed for more fossil fuels.

Shell and other oil and gas companies have been named as defendants in dozens of U.S. climate lawsuits brought by the attorneys general of states such as New Jersey, Vermont, and California, as well as Washington, D.C. and other municipalities across the country. Some of these cases have been brought under consumer fraud or protection laws that penalise companies for misrepresenting their products to the public.

The Washington D.C.-based Center for Climate Integrity, which has filed briefs in support of many of the climate cases against Shell, said that the latest documents provide further evidence that the company has known for at least half a century that its products posed a threat to the climate, as well as the grave consequences of delaying action.

“These internal admissions are valuable sources for litigators around the world seeking to hold Shell accountable for its climate deception under a variety of legal theories,” Corey Riday-White, senior staff attorney at the Center for Climate Integrity, told DeSmog. “While Shell privately acknowledged the dangers of using its products as intended, the corporation publicly sowed doubt about the science and fought efforts to regulate its pollution.”

Hüzeir hopes the latest documents will support two additional and complementary legal strategies: showing that Shell has long accepted some liability for harms caused by its products — including, by implication, climate change — and demonstrating that even as Shell supported lobby groups that sought to block meaningful action to curb fossil fuel use, senior executives acknowledged the need for a “precautionary” approach to the growing climate crisis.    

In response to a request for comment, Shell referred DeSmog to a previous statement it has made regarding the lawsuits. 

“It is for government to determine the right trade-offs for society and put in place smart policy to enable fundamental change in the way society consumes energy,” a Shell spokesperson said.  

More than a dozen of the newly released documents, as well as the previous tranche published in April, can be viewed on Climate Files, under the title Dirty Pearls: Exposing Shell’s hidden legacy of climate change accountability, 1970-1990

Shell Knew

In July 2023, 20 Democratic members of Congress cited DeSmog’s initial coverage of the documents in a letter to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, in which they requested a Department of Justice investigation into the evidence that Shell, ExxonMobil and other oil majors concealed their early knowledge of climate risks.

This spring, a Dutch court is due to hear Shell’s appeal of a 2021 order to slash the company’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions 45 percent by 2030, issued in response to a suit filed by environmental group Milieudefensie. Six other organisations also participated in the suit, including FossielvrijNL, a campaign group chaired by Hüzeir, as well as 17,000 Dutch citizens.  

“Shell must do its part to contribute to combating dangerous climate change,” Hague district court judge Larissa Alwin said, reading out the ruling.

Hüzeir believes the latest tranche of documents will strengthen cases brought by climate litigators in Europe and North America, in part by providing clues to the possible existence of additional Shell documents that could be obtained through discovery — a pre-trial procedure in the U.S. legal system that parties involved in a lawsuit use to obtain evidence from each other.

“You have to ‘crack the shell,’” Hüzeir told DeSmog. “With the existing documents in hand, and perhaps many more yet to be discovered, prosecutors, litigators and campaign groups can ground their demands for Shell to be held accountable in even more detailed fact and documentation.”

‘Annoying Consequences’

Among the new documents is an October, 1970 article in Dutch trade publication Chemisch Weekblad (Chemical Weekly), in which two authors from the University of Leiden reported on their research into “chemistry and ethics” — including the results of interviews with petrochemical executives. Representatives from Shell had appeared to acknowledge that the company bore some responsibility for the problems that its products would cause.

“If a product is used, as indicated by Shell, and annoying consequences nevertheless arise, Shell feels partly responsible,” they told the researchers.

Excerpt from an October, 1970 article in Dutch trade publication Chemisch Weekblad (Chemical Weekly).

Hüzeir said the document, and others like it, could support litigators to argue that Shell’s apparent early admission of some liability for the side-effects caused by its products should, by extension, also include climate impacts from burning its oil and gas, now known as “Scope 3” emissions. 

Later documents cast new light on Shell’s growing understanding of the risks posed by climate change. In a March 1985 article in the journal Conservation & RecyclingT.G. Wilkinson, who worked at the time in the Ecology Section of Shell UK’s Long Term Business Planning Unit, explored the risks posed by “energy-generated pollution.” 

“Burning of fossil fuels which have taken millions of years to form has effectively upset the balance leading to an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere,” Wilkinson wrote. “The Greenhouse effect could lead to some melting of the ice-cap and a significant change in the climatic pattern throughout the world. Whilst this will cause major adverse changes to some areas, others will benefit.”

Excerpt from a March 1985 article in the journal Conservation & Recycling by T.G. Wilkinson, who worked at the time in Shell UK’s Long Term Business Planning Unit.

Wilkinson went on to explore whether a precautionary approach should be adopted to prevent the “potential enormous effects on the world’s climate.”

“It is likely that the continued use of fossil fuel will come under close scrutiny in the future if adverse increases in world temperature are measured and can be linked to CO2 release. A quandary remains into how quickly a response is needed if a warming trend is identified, and to whether the response should be preventative (i.e. a worldwide low fossil fuel strategy) or curative (i.e. specific actions taken by individual countries).

“The dilemma therefore remains as to whether to encourage the continued use of fossil fuels with the potential enormous effects on the world’s climate.”

Wilkinson returned to this dilemma in his conclusion, again noting the dangers posed by “emissions and discharges” caused by fossil fuels and nuclear power. 

“As well as the benefits of these energy developments however, there are also consequences to the environment arising from the emissions and discharges which are part of the process operations or are implicit in the subsequent use of the fuel,” Wilkinson wrote. “There is concern that energy-generated pollution could well affect the quality of life that has at least in part been made possible by energy developments.”

Graphs showing growing carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels, and rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, in Shell staffer T.G. Wilkinson’s March 1985 article in Conservation & Recycling.

Winners and Losers

Further evidence of Shell’s growing understanding of the risks posed by burning its products appears in the 1987 internal Shell publication “Air Pollution: an Oil Industry Perspective.” 

“It is feared that a further rise in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere could lead to a higher average surface temperature on Earth, which could have far-reaching environmental, social and economic consequences,” the document said. “A lot of scientific research is being done to determine which climatic changes can occur and which measures should be taken.”

Shell’s understanding of the gravity of the dangers was also apparent in the 1989 OECD report, entitled “Energy Technologies for Reducing Emissions of Greenhouse Gases.” Davis, the Shell executive, who warned that “global warming could challenge the very fabric of the world’s ecological and economic systems,” also foresaw the possible cost to future generations of failing to curb emissions.

“Whatever policies are chosen there will be ‘winners’ and ‘losers,’” he wrote. “Two groups who could bear particularly heavy costs will be: Future generations who would have to live with the costs of adaptation, and…Those in countries yet to industrialise who would face constraints on energy use…How should we allocate resources between prevention and adaptation?”

An excerpt from Shell executive Ged Davis’ contribution to a 1989 report by the OECD.

Shell planners spelled out the risks even more starkly in an October 1989 confidential scenario exercise, previously reported by DeSmog. The authors warned that climate-fuelled migration could spark conflicts by swamping borders in the U.S., Soviet Union, Europe, and Australia, and that “civilisation could prove a fragile thing.”

‘Too Late’

In the 1990s, as the oil industry increasingly backed lobby groups and think tanks working to undermine climate science, the stark assessments of the risks of burning fossil fuels made by Shell staff in the previous decade gave way to a greater emphasis on scientific uncertainty.  

In an October 1990 internal Dutch-language publication entitled “Climate Change,” Shell acknowledged that many leading scientists were convinced of the existence of the “greenhouse effect” — the term then used for climate change. 

But the publication also echoed a message  seen in other Shell documents that Hüzeir has turned up: emphasizing uncertainty about the magnitude and timing of climate impacts, “if they do come.” 

“There is a considerable period of time (perhaps decades) between the increase in greenhouse gases and their ultimate effect on the climate,” the report stated. “As a result, by the time the enhanced greenhouse effect has been conclusively proven, it may be too late to do anything about it.” 

Nevertheless, the report went on to acknowledge the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and referenced the possibility of using carbon taxes to promote a shift away from fossil fuels. “It is widely recognized that emissions of the main greenhouse gases must be limited if there is to be any chance of reducing the further strengthening of the greenhouse effect,” the document said.

The report also noted technologies that could reduce emissions, ranging from switching to fuels that produce less CO2 per unit of energy, to boosting nuclear and renewables such as solar and wind energy. Hüzeir hopes this explicit acknowledgement of the existence of alternatives could strengthen the hand of litigators who want to prove that Shell chose to continue boosting production of fossil fuels, even while knowing that cleaner options were available.

The cover of the October 1990 internal Dutch-language publication entitled “Climate Change.”

Shell’s emphasis on scientific uncertainty was evident again two years later, in September 1992, when the company’s Group Planning department published a “Business Environment Occasional Paper” on the “Potential Augmented Greenhouse Effect, & Depletion of the Ozone Layer.”

In contrast to Shell authors who had squarely recognised the primary role of fossil fuels in driving climate change in documents and graphs published during the 1980s, the authors emphasised that it was difficult to assess the extent to which fossil fuels were responsible. 

“Because of the complexity of the biogeochemical cycles, it is very difficult to aportion [sic] the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations to any particular cause,” the paper said. “The increase in CO2 and methane has corresponded with increasing industrialisation, use of fossil fuels, intensification of agriculture and deforestation. As a minimum statement, therefore, human activities must have contributed to the increase in carbon dioxide and methane.”

An excerpt from Shell’s September 1992 “Business Environment Occasional Paper” on the “Potential Augmented Greenhouse Effect, & Depletion of the Ozone Layer.”

Meanwhile, in other documents, Shell recognised the need to adopt a “precautionary” approach to climate change. In a 1993 report by the World Energy Council, a think tank backed by government and industry, where Shell’s managing director at the time, John Jennings, served on the board, the word “precautionary” appears more than 20 times. 

“Given the as yet unknown consequences of continued and increasing greenhouse gas emissions and impacts, the ability to ascertain the ‘economically optimal’ level of emissions and their mitigation, as required by a cost-benefit approach, is impossible,” the report said. “As a matter of simple prudence, therefore, action based on the precautionary principle is advocated.” 

An excerpt from a 1993 report by the World Energy Council, where Shell held a seat on the board.

Hüzeir argues that such explicit acknowledgements of the need for precautionary measures will further bolster lawsuits alleging that Shell had developed a thorough understanding of the dangers posed by fossil fuels, even as it issued other publications that emphasised scientific uncertainties, and backed lobby groups working to undermine climate action.  

‘Profits and Principles’

Shell was a founding member of the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), the outspoken oil industry lobby group, which was formed in 1989 to actively promote uncertainty and doubt about climate science in order to delay climate action.

Hüzeir believes Shell’s explanation of why it left the GCC in 1998 in an English-language sustainability report called “Profits and Principles – Does There Have to Be a Choice?” could provide a further hook for litigators.  

DeSmog has previously documented that the GCC had attempted to limit the strength of statements regarding the human causes of climate change made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN’s scientific advisory body, in the run-up to the 1997 climate conference where nations agreed to the Kyoto Protocol.

The “Profits and Principles” document said that the “main disagreement” between Shell and the GCC centred on the group’s opposition to the Kyoto agreement, which aimed to cut global greenhouse gas emissions by five percent by 2012.

“The GCC is actively campaigning against legally binding targets and timetables as well as ratification by the US government,” the report said. “The Shell view is that prudent precautionary measures are called for.”

An excerpt from Shell’s 1998 English-language sustainability report called “Profits and Principles – Does There Have to be a Choice?

Hüzeir said that Shell’s admission that it saw the need for these “precautionary measures” affirms that the company had long understood the risks posed by the climate crisis — knowledge apparent in many earlier files. 

This document also raised the question of why Shell had continued to fund the GCC, as late as 1998 — the year it left the organisation — despite that understanding, Hüzeir said.  

Shell’s acknowledgement that its position in GCC had become untenable could also help litigators demonstrate that oil and gas companies that remained in the group until it disbanded in 2002 had been acting in bad faith, Hüzeir added.

“We’ve heard many times from the fossil fuel industry that it was unsure whether or not to take early action on the climate crisis, because there were uncertainties in the science,” Hüzeir said. “But Shell’s deepening embrace of the precautionary principle, as revealed in this document, shows that Shell was well aware of the crisis ahead. What else did they know?”

Original article by Matthew Green and Merel de Buck republished from DeSmog.

Continue ReadingNew Shell Files Could Aid Climate Cases, Attorneys Say 

‘Banker of the Climate Crisis’: Lawsuit Targets ING in the Netherlands

Spread the love

Original article by OLIVIA ROSANE republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

“Whether you are drilling for oil yourself, or have paid for the drill, in both cases you are contributing to and bear responsibility for the climate crisis we are currently experiencing,” one campaigner said of the suit against the Dutch banking giant.

Friends of the Earth Netherlands, which won a historic climate case against Shell in 2021, announced a new lawsuit on Friday against ING, the country’s largest bank.

The environmental group, known as Milieudefensie in Dutch, is demanding that the bank bring its climate policy in line with the Paris agreement goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C, slash its carbon dioxide emissions by 48% of 2019 levels by 2030 and its carbon-dioxide equivalent emissions by 43%, take measures to ensure its clients are not destroying the Earth, and begin a dialogue with Milieudefensie about meeting these demands.

“The bank finances oil and gas companies, deforestation, and heavy industry, all of which add to the climate crisis,” Milieudefensie director Donald Pols said in a statement. “Whether you are drilling for oil yourself, or have paid for the drill, in both cases you are contributing to and bear responsibility for the climate crisis we are currently experiencing.”

In 2022, ING emitted at least 61 megatons of climate pollution, more than Ghana, Switzerland, or Sweden. Almost all of ING’s emissions come through the companies it invests in and does business with, and it emits more than any other bank in the Netherlands.

“He who pays the piper calls the tune. Due to ING’s financing of, e.g., oil and gas companies, ING is the banker of the climate crisis,” Pols said.

In a letter to ING, Milieudefensie outlined several steps the bank should take to reduce the climate footprint of its investments. These included requiring all clients to develop a Paris-compliant climate plan and refusing large clients that don’t develop one within a year, requiring all fossil fuel clients to stop expanding fossil fuels and develop a plan to phase them out entirely, and cutting ties with clients who refuse after one year.

“Large polluters like ING and Shell have to seriously get to work.”

In the letter, Miliedefensie said that ING had eight weeks from Friday to respond to its demands.

“If ING does not present a positive answer to Milieudefensie’s claims within the requested period of time, Milieudefensie will assume that ING is unwilling to comply with this request,” the group wrote in the letter. “Milieudefensie will in such case see no other option than to issue summons against ING with the goal of obtaining a court order instructing ING to take the aforementioned measures.”

The environmental group said that the legal argument behind its victory against Shell would also apply against ING, namely that large corporations must comply with the Paris agreement.

“Since the climate agreements in Paris, it is clear what the world needs to do: reduce the CO2 emissions to limit the warming of the Earth to 1.5°C,” the group’s attorney Roger Cox said in a statement. “This means that large polluters like ING and Shell have to seriously get to work. It is evident that they are not doing enough, and I am therefore confident that we will win this case too.”

While ING has made some progress on its internal climate goals, Mileudefensie believes it is not moving fast enough, as it plans to continue funding oil and gas projects through 2040 and has not set any goals for reducing its total emissions.

“We young people are not in charge, but companies like ING, with their fossil fuel financing, are helping to ruin our world and future,” Winnie Oussoren, a 21-year-old who chairs Young Friends of the Earth Netherlands, said in a statement.

Original article by OLIVIA ROSANE republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

Continue Reading‘Banker of the Climate Crisis’: Lawsuit Targets ING in the Netherlands