Shell is once again backing off from a pledge

Increasingly, it seems Shell is a company which repeatedly makes pledges when the light is on them, and then backs away, when no one is looking any more.

In the summer, they dropped a pledge to turn 1 million tonnes of plastic a year, back into oil. They now say that this goal is unfeasible. Advanced, or chemical recycling, involves breaking down plastic polymers into tiny molecules, ready to be reformed into something else. The most common method is called pyrolysis – which uses heat.

They first used pyrolysis in 2019, when they made oil using this process in a Louisiana chemical plant. It should be noted, that this uses so much energy, it is likely to be worse for the worlds climate than continued use of virgin plastics (this is not to say that we should, but that this is not a viable solution). Shell has suggested that this pledge is impossible as a result of not enough plastic waste coming back to them, but as hundreds of millions of plastic is created each year, this seems rather a cop-out.

They are not the only company to back away, but they are the latest. It should not be possible to get off the hook by simply making a declaration, but instead should require them to do something else that will have a similarly positive impact on the world

BP continue the misleading adverts – “and not or”

I am not sure whether I have been targeted, or whether these adverts that have been irritating me are being seen by everyone as often. I must have encountered these adverts at least once a day for the last month, and if you look at their YouTube channel, their blurb starts.

Our purpose is reimagining energy for people and our planet. We want to help the world reach net zero and improve people’s lives.

 If you do not believe me, click here to load their page and see for your self.
 

Why is this irritating? Because, whether they are intentionally suggesting that their company is green or not, this is the obvious conclusion for their advertising. The only hat-tip to their fossil fuel business, is to say that they will keep these fuels going until they are not needed.

Last year, BP took its second largest profits of $13.8 billion (only beaten by 2022 when they made $27.7 billion). In the same year BP spent $1.26 billion on renewable investments, up from $1.02 billion the former year. What does this mean? Renewables are a green side project: fossil fuels are the main part of BP business. While Shell is not currently yelling (at least on my youtube feed) their investment is similar.
 

 In 2023, BP invested 4.7 times as much money in oil and gas, as it did in renewables

Does it think that and not or, might mean that they can continue to invest more than 90% into fossil fuels and a small amount in renewables (as well as investor returns etc -this is a choice)? What is odd, is generally their renewable investments are good investments yielding returns of 15% a year.
 

As if another story is needed to highlight the absurd position of BP, here is another article from the guardian, on this very issue, only published yesterday, click here to read it

 
I have already been shown this advert twice in the last 30 minutes. I have not tried to complain about this advert, because I am sure it will have no impact. Never-the-less BP must stop pushing this advert, as it is a complete lie.

Students have protested at the Science museum in London over shell funding a climate crisis exhibition

It does seem to be rather self-serving, if you are putting together a exhibition on the threat that the climate crisis is producing, and you allow one of the biggest oil and gas companies in the world to fund it.

Much of the exhibition talks about carbon capture and storage (something that has not been demonstrated at significant scale, and yet would have to be catching billions of tonnes of carbon per year if it is to have a chance of helping) as well as nature based solutions.

The police cleared the building at the end of the day, ending what had been intended to be an overnight occupation.

It certainly seems that shell is trying to whitewash their company (should that be greenwash) and this should not be allowed. Rather, shell should be spending thousands of times more money on actually solving the climate crisis. Furthermore, ideas like carbon capture should not be allowed to be touted, until it has been demonstrated at scale. Finally, there is another problem. As far as the climate crisis is concerned, any captured carbon should be locked away for millions of years, yet at the moment the majority is either used to help with oil and gas extraction, or is turned into synthetic fuels – neither of these help in any way with forestalling the continued move towards run-away climate change.

SHELL MUST DO BETTER.

See Animals Wild

Read more news

Join as a wild member
to list your wild place & log in

Join as an ambassador supporter to
support this site, help save wildlife
and make friends & log in

Join as an Associate member
to assist as a writer, creator, lister etc & to log in

List a wild destination

List a destination in
the shadow of man

List a hide for animals more easily seen this way

Highlight some news
missed, or submit a
one-off article

Browse destinations for fun or future travel

Temporary membership
start here if in a hurry

Casual readers and watchers