Greenwashing by Shell

There are three SDG’s that focus on climate, biodiversity and environment. The goals are to take urgent action to combat climate change and its impact; conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development and lastly to protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss. In short these goals are climate change, life below water and life on land.

While many people do their part by watching their water consumption, turning down the heating by a degree and turning off the lights, there are large multinationals that continue to pollute undisturbed. One of the best known and largest company that does this is Shell. Shell's co2 emissions are almost 1% of global emissions, a major effect in the climate crisis for just one company. In addition, there are many oil spills on land and at sea. These leaks are very damaging to the environment with destroying entire ecosystems. In recent years, the pressure from society that Shell must become more sustainable has increased. Nowadays, almost all Shell commercials are about how much they do to make their oil more sustainable. As a consumer you would almost think that if you load your car with petrol at Shell, you are doing a good job.

The reality quite disappointing, because Shell could do much more. Every year, Shell spends more on their marketing than on actually making there business more sustainable. Less than 1% of their spending goes to their New Energies division. Time for a change, that is also what Milieudefensie thought. This is a Dutch action group that fights against climate change. Milieudefentie has filed a lawsuit against Shell, claiming that Shell contribute too little to the Paris climate agreement. Shell argues that it is not the responsibility of companies that consumers use their (harmful) products. It is true that the demand for oil is very high and we cannot live without it yet. But who should take the first step, the multinational or the consumer?

The judge ruled that Shell must reduce their emissions by 45% by 2030 compared to 2019 (The Guardian). An important detail here is that Shell knew for decades that their business was harmful to the environment, but that they did very little about it. This ruling is unprecedented and will open the door to holding more companies accountable for their emissions. Shell has indicated that it will appeal and that their goal is to be a net-zero emission company by 2050. This does not mean that they are no longer emitting any CO2 but that they want to compensate for all their emissions, one of their strategies is to compensate by planting trees. Trees absorb a lot of CO2 but this process takes a very long time. It takes years before a tree is big enough and needs to be maintained. So full CO2 compensation will not be realized before 2050. And this is not even about sealing leaks and protecting local nature in places where Shell drills for oil. This lawsuit is a small step in the right direction, but as long large polluters do not take the problem seriously, we as consumers can sit in the dark with an extra sweater on, but that way we will not stop climate change.