Analysis deems technology promoted by Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber ‘dangerous red herring’
Dr. Sultan al Jaber. Image: Arctic Circle, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Climate-wrecking emissions produced by the oil company of the Cop28 president, Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber, would take hundreds of years to remove using the carbon capture technology he has been promoting.
With just weeks to go until the crucial Cop28 climate summit, Al Jaber, who is the boss of United Arab Emirate oil company Adnoc, has been backing carbon capture as one solution to the climate crisis.
But analysis by Global Witness has found it would take the company 343 years to capture all the CO2 emissions it will produce in just the next six years.
Jonathan Noronha Gant from Global Witness said the findings proved carbon capture was “a dangerous red herring” that would do nothing to tackle the climate crisis.
“Sultan Al Jaber’s Cop is shaping up to be the Cop of false solutions, inundated by fossil fuel lobbyists pushing empty promises. If Al Jaber is serious – if we are serious – we must immediately reject the CCS [carbon capture and storage] false solution and tackle the existential oil and gas problem head on.’’
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)
“Every house burnt to the ground, every town forced to evacuate, every ecosystem lost to a wildfire is a necessary consequence of a business model like Shell’s.”
With much of the world reeling from record-shattering heat and devastating wildfires, the London-based oil giant Shell is poised to ramp up its investments in planet-warming fossil fuels after ditching its plan to cut oil production.
An analysis released Thursday by the rights group Global Witness estimates that Shell’s investments in oil and gas projects are set to surge to around $14.5 billion this year, a 10% increase over 2022. The company is expected to spend far less on what it defines as “renewables and energy solutions.”
“Fossil fuels are the number one cause of climate breakdown, which is stoking extreme heatwaves, forest fires, and drought,” said Jonathan Noronha-Gant, a senior campaigner at Global Witness. “Every house burnt to the ground, every town forced to evacuate, every ecosystem lost to a wildfire is a necessary consequence of a business model like Shell’s, which prioritizes short-term cash grabs over the safety and survivability of our societies.”
The new analysis came as Shell reported $5.1 billion in second-quarter profits, a major decline compared to the company’s record-setting $11.5 billion in profits during the same period last year. Despite the profit dip, which Shell blamed on falling oil and gas prices, the company announced a 15% quarterly dividend increase and $3 billion in stock buybacks.
“CEO Wael Sawan’s fossil fuel direction continues to be solely aimed at profit for shareholders,” Nine de Pater, a campaigner with Friends of the Earth Netherlands, said in a statement. “This is immoral and completely irresponsible. We are seeing the impact of the climate crisis around the world this summer: the wildfires in Greece and heat records in southern Europe, Algeria, and India, among others, and the floods in Italy and Afghanistan.”
“Shell’s profits clearly show that the company chooses profits over human lives,” she added.
Shell, which has known about the climate impacts of burning fossil fuels since the 1970s, announced last month that it intends to boost gas production in the coming years while abandoning its plan to reduce oil production by up to 2% per year.
In an interview weeks after the announcement, Sawan claimed it would be “dangerous and irresponsible” to curb oil and gas production even as scientists say that’s exactly what’s needed to avert catastrophic warming.
Global Witness recently estimated that Shell’s reversal on oil production could generate an average of “29 million tonnes of extra carbon per year, almost as much as Denmark emits annually.”
“By 2030,” the group added, “Shell’s extra estimated emissions would be as much as Spain—one of Europe’s largest polluters—produces in one year.”
“The shift to a low-carbon economy is not just inevitable, it’s already happening. Yet the board is persisting with a transition strategy that is fundamentally flawed.”
A group of activist investors sued Shell’s board of directors on Wednesday for failing to “deliver the reduction in emissions that is needed to keep global climate goals within reach.”
ClientEarth, an environmental law charity and institutional investor in Shell, described the case as the first time a company board is facing a shareholder lawsuit for inadequately preparing to transition away from fossil fuels.
“Shell may be making record profits now due to the turmoil of the global energy market, but the writing is on the wall for fossil fuels long term,” Paul Benson, a senior lawyer at ClientEarth, said in a statement. “The shift to a low-carbon economy is not just inevitable, it’s already happening. Yet the board is persisting with a transition strategy that is fundamentally flawed, leaving the company seriously exposed to the risks that climate change poses to Shell’s future success—despite the board’s legal duty to manage those risks.”
The lawsuit, which is backed by large institutional investors that collectively hold 12 million shares of Shell, alleges that the oil giant’s 11 directors are violating the Companies Act, a U.K. law that requires corporate boards to “promote the success” of the business.
By failing to sufficiently manage climate risks and implement “an energy transition strategy that aligns with the Paris Agreement,” Shell is flouting its legal obligations, the lawsuit contends.
“Shell’s Board on the other hand maintains that its ‘Energy Transition Strategy’—including its plan to be a net-zero emissions business by 2050—is consistent with the 1.5°C temperature goal of the Paris Agreement,” ClientEarth notes. “It also claims that its plan to halve emissions from its global operations by 2030 is ‘industry-leading,’ however this covers less than 10% of its overall emissions.”
“It is in the best interests of the company, its employees, and its shareholders—as well as the planet—for Shell to reduce its emissions harder and faster than the board is currently planning.”
ClientEarth and its backers are asking the High Court of Justice in London to force Shell’s board to “adopt a strategy to manage climate risk in line with its duties under the Companies Act” and in compliance with a 2021 Dutch court ruling ordering the oil giant to cut its total carbon emissions by 45% by 2030.
“Long term, it is in the best interests of the company, its employees, and its shareholders—as well as the planet—for Shell to reduce its emissions harder and faster than the board is currently planning,” Benson said.
Jacqueline Amy Jackson, the head of responsible investment at London CIV—one of the institutional backers of ClientEarth’s lawsuit—said that “we do not believe the board has adopted a reasonable or effective strategy to manage the risks associated with climate change affecting Shell.”
“In our view,” Jackson added, “a board of directors of a high-emitting company has a fiduciary duty to manage climate risk, and in so doing, consider the impacts of its decisions on climate change, and to reduce its contribution to it.”
Shell said in response that ClientEarth’s suit “has no merit.”
ClientEarth filed its complaint a week after Shell announced that its profits doubled in 2022, surging to a record $40 billion as households across Europe and around the world struggled with high energy costs. The company said it returned $26 billion to shareholders last year through dividends and stock buybacks.
Earlier this month, the advocacy group Global Witness filed a complaint with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission accusing Shell of “lumping together some of its gas-related investments with its spending on renewables to inflate its overall investment in renewable sources of energy,” misleading investors and authorities.
“Shell’s so-called renewable and energy solutions category is pure fiction,” said Zorka Milin, a senior adviser at Global Witness. “The company is living in fantasy land if it thinks fossil gas has any place in the much-needed energy transition. Shell’s business model has always been, and continues to be, overwhelmingly based on climate-polluting fossil fuels.”
Shell is also facing lawsuits from nearly 14,000 Nigerians whose communities have been devastated by the company’s pollution and oil spills.
