Shell misleading
Shell have bold sustainability claims . The shame of it is they do nothing of the sort in practice. One of the best pieces of greenwash has been their sponsoring of the Science Museum's exhibition on a future without Fossil Fuels. Something even the hapless Director of the Museum fails to see as a conflict of interest. Where there's a few quid ..... A recent study into the claims of Shell and other major oil companies has concluded they are lying about their transitions to clean energy.
Read the story and look at the evidence here
Shell
shell reprimanded over green claims
For the second time in six months, Shell has been reprimanded for misleading green claims in an advertisement. The Advertising Code Commission (RCC) has ruled in favor of two citizens who had filed complaints about a newspaper advertisement in which Shell stated: “We are making millions of kilometers cleaner.” An explanation stated that the company does this with green hydrogen for buses, trucks and cars. The RCC has several problems with advertising. Read the whole story here
Meanwhile they say .".. we will contribute to a net-zero world, where society stops adding to the total amount of greenhouse gases emissions (GHGs) in the atmosphere. This supports the more ambitious goal to tackle climate change laid out in the Paris Agreement: to limit the rise in average global temperature to 1.5°Celsius."
Shell
Shell polluting
'Our Values: Honesty, Respect, Integrity
At Shell, we share a set of core values – honesty, integrity and respect for people – which underpin all the work we do. The Shell General Business Principles, Code of Conduct and Ethics and Compliance Manual help everyone at Shell act in line with these values and comply with relevant laws and regulations.
I guess that's all well and good until you come across a community that wants you to stop destroying everything in sight.
Have a look at these films of the effects of Shell's drilling in Nigeria
Shell
shell and the science museum
At the Science Museum in London Shell have sponsored an exhibition on Carbon Capture. And in so doing they are using the reputation of the Science Museum to create an impression that they are doing something about Climate Change when they are still exploring for new oil fields. Other organisations (the RSC and The British Museum for example) have cut ties with fossil Fuel Companies and are refusing to let their names be used in this way. Shell have also included a GAGGING ORDER into the funding agreement with the museum, stopping the Directors of the Science Museum criticising Shell.
Read more about the Science Museum and Fossil Fule companies here
Shell
shell and a net zero world
... we will contribute to a net-zero world, where society stops adding to the total amount of greenhouse gases emissions (GHGs) in the atmosphere.
This supports the more ambitious goal to tackle climate change laid out in the Paris Agreement: to limit the rise in average global temperature to 1.5°Celsius.
Shell recently announced a special “carbon neutral” shipment of fracked gas to Europe. Although there’s nothing unique about the liquified natural gas, Shell and its supplier, Cheniere, are somehow marketing the shipping of fossil fuels as carbon neutral. You can’t make this up.
In an article published by Salon, the author analyzed Shell’s shenanigans and those of a few other corporations that are practically pulling the strings of government in order to continue to produce fossil fuels that are still heating up our planet.
Shell
Shell and Siccar Point Energy
BorisJohnson said the UK would "lead the way" on climate change as we prepare to host global climate talks, COP26.
And Oil giant Shell and Siccar Point Energy are seeking permission from the UK Government to develop the Cambo oil field, West of Shetland, just months ahead of COP26. In the first phase, due to start in 2025, the companies expect to extract 150 million barrels of oil - the emissions equivalent of 16 coal-fired power plants running for a year. They anticipate operating the Cambo field, which contains 800 million boe, until 2050, by which time Britain has pledged to be net carbon neutral.
Tell the Government to reject the plans for oil extraction with Friends of The Earth
And it gets worse: The companies behind the Cambo Field are being paid to pollute. Between 2015 and 2019, Siccar Point paid effectively no tax. In 2019, the UK Government paid Siccar Point £41m. In 2020, the UK Government paid Shell £99.1m. We’re subsiding climate disasters like the Cambo Field every year.
Shell
shell and siccar point
Shell
Is it all about profits? Shell?
Ben van Beurden (CEO Shell) was asked whether "large companies with shareholders only look out for them ... it's all about profits"
He replied "Well that may well be true, but its not true for us.We are a company that powers progress, not just for our shareholders, but also for the planet, for net zero, also for lives and livelihoods, and also looking after nature. It's not all about profits, it is indeed a balanced way of powering progress for this planet.
Earlier this year, oil giants BP and Royal Dutch Shell assessed the climate lobbying done by trade associations they have been involved with, and publicly quit a handful of high-profile industry groups campaigning to undermine regulations to reduce greenhouse gases.
The effort was part of a vow to increase corporate transparency and bring planet-heating emissions to net zero over the next few decades.
But Shell and BP ― the second- and fourth-largest oil companies by revenue last year ― are still active members of at least eight trade organisations lobbying against climate measures in the United States and Australia that were not disclosed in the public reviews, an Unearthed and HuffPost investigation has found.
Shell
Shell: helping us to a net zero world. Yeah.
They say "... we will contribute to a net-zero world, where society stops adding to the total amount of greenhouse gases emissions (GHGs) in the atmosphere.
This supports the more ambitious goal to tackle climate change laid out in the Paris Agreement: to limit the rise in average global temperature to 1.5°Celsius.
Becoming a net-zero emissions energy business means that we are reducing emissions from our operations, and from the fuels and other energy products we sell to our customers. It also means capturing and storing any remaining emissions using technology or balancing them with offsets.
We are transforming our business to meet our target, providing more low-carbon energy such as charging for electric vehicles, hydrogen and electricity generated by solar and wind power.
We are also working with our customers as they make changes, including in sectors that are difficult to decarbonise, such as aviation, shipping, road freight and industry."
Too little too late.
Shell have been aware of their role in causing Climate Change for at least 40 years and yet they're asking us to believe they've changed ...
And yet whatever greenwash Shell come up with to try and make you think they are sustainable and care about the environment the truth is quite different. Read here about 8 scandals that prove Shell's contempt for people and planet. And while Shell claim to be heading for a Carbon Zero future it is still exploring new oil and gas fields and still a part of the destruction of the environment.
And bang on cue, and likely to prove embarrassing for the Science Museum in London ..... Shell is an official sponsor of the Climate Exhibition 'Our Future Planet' at the Science Museum in London. Promoting controversial Carbon Capture technologies which overstate their effectiveness so Shell can carry on drilling.
and if you wonder how those kinds of decisions are made.... "the chief exec of the 0% tax paying, fracking supporting Peel Group is on the @sciencemuseum board of trustees which agreed to Shell's sponsorship. Just a hugely rotten core at the centre of the UK." More here
BREAKING NEWS ... (a bit of good news) the Methodist Church has got rid of it's SHELL investments because of its "inadequate response to Climate Change". If it's good enough for the Methodist Church ..... Read here
Shell
Shell: Sustainability Claims
For the second time in six months, Shell has been reprimanded for misleading green claims in an advertisement. The Advertising Code Commission (RCC) has ruled in favor of two citizens who had filed complaints about a newspaper advertisement in which Shell stated: “We are making millions of kilometers cleaner.” An explanation stated that the company does this with green hydrogen for buses, trucks and cars. The RCC has several problems with advertising.
Shell say "... we will contribute to a net-zero world, where society stops adding to the total amount of greenhouse gases emissions (GHGs) in the atmosphere.This supports the more ambitious goal to tackle climate change laid out in the Paris Agreement: to limit the rise in average global temperature to 1.5°Celsius."
At Shell, we share a set of core values – honesty, integrity and respect for people – which underpin all the work we do. The Shell General Business Principles, Code of Conduct and Ethics and Compliance Manual help everyone at Shell act in line with these values and comply with relevant laws and regulations
Shell
As a result of the museum's choices, more than 40 senior academics and scientists have now withdrawn their support: see the story in The Guardian and on the Culture Unstained site. Pollution experts Steve and Dee Allan have also refused to work with the museum, saying "the sponsorship deal and the gagging clause show the Science Museum is no longer a credible scientific institution". Read the story here. This follows on from the recent resignation of 2 trustees of the Museum. Dr Hannah Fry said “I cannot in good conscience remain in post while the museum is not positively engaging with the people it was built to inspire”. Jo Foster said "“I do not support the recent agreement with Adani . . . the museum needs to proactively engage with the reasonable concerns opposing their stance on fossil fuel sponsorship”. Earlier Chris Rapley, Professor of Climate Science at UCL and a previous director of the museum, resigned as a member of its Advisory Board. “I disagree with the museum’s ongoing willingness to accept oil and gas sponsorship.”
