What 30 Years of Documents Show Shell Knew About Climate Science

authordefault
on
Series: #ShellKnew

There can be no mistake: as early as 1981, big oil company Shell was aware of the causes and dangers of climateย change.

These documents show Shell walking backwards. In the 1980s it was acknowledging anthropogenic global warming. Then, as the scientific consensus became more and more clear, it started introducing doubtย and giving weight toย a โ€œsignificant minorityโ€ of โ€œalternative viewpointsโ€ย as the full implications for the company’s business model becameย clear.ย ย 

By trawling through a tranche of documents first uncovered by Jelmer Mommers of De Correspondent, published on Climate Files, DeSmog UKย can chart 30 years of the companyโ€™s understanding of climateย science.

Shell commissioned a study about the greenhouse effect in 1981 by the Climate Research Unit and Dr T.G Wigley, which was published by the US Department of Environment in 1984. Then in 1988 the confidential report โ€œThe Greenhouse Effectโ€ is prepared for the Shell Environmental Conservation Committee.ย From other source documents we can then follow as senior figures and publications veer between defence of climate science denial positions, faith in technological solutions and โ€œefficiencyโ€,ย the belief that countries should just adapt to a changing world, andย ย questioning the validity of the scientificย process.

As early as 1981 it was able to say unequivocally:ย โ€œthe total emission of 5.3 GtC 44 percent came from oil, 38 percent from coal and 17 percent from gas.โ€ย By 1988 it was stating clearly: โ€œthe main cause of increasing Carbon Dioxide (C02) concentrations is considered to be fossil fuel burning.โ€ But come the mid-90s, the company starts talking aboutย a โ€œsignificant minorityโ€ of โ€œdistinguished scientistsโ€ that cast aspersions of the seriousness of climateย change.

As Shell’s positionย on climate science evolves over time, the contradictionย of simultaneously being involved with groups thatย fund climate denialย becomes apparent.ย The following charts Shellโ€™s knowledge of and public statements on climate change from 1981ย toย 2002.

1981

Shell knew the impact its products had on climate change decades ago, as we can see from this statement, referencedย in a 1988ย report:

Appendix 8 from this report saysย Wigley had โ€œhis feet on the groundโ€ by stressing the uncertainties, but that he was willing to โ€œstick his neck out and say there had been global warming over the last 100 years, that the 0.5 degrees increase is a result of C02 build-up, that we will see a further 1 to 2 degrees warming over the next 40 yearsโ€ฆโ€ and muchย more:

1983

The talk is now of whether thereย will be โ€œsignificant global warmingโ€ and that if it will occur at all isย โ€œstill a matter ofย debateโ€:

1984

Coal is identified as worse for emissions than gas. A switch from coal is proposed as solution to tackle climateย change:

The reportsย even have a handy table showing the contribution to global carbon dioxide emissions from fuels, sold by the Shell Group in 1984 (as reported in the Shell report fromย 1988):

The company recognises that reducing CO2 means moving away from fossil fuels and the companyโ€™s own products. The company explicitly believes in the correlation between fossil fuel and economic growth.

โ€œIt is the worldwide fossil fuel usage that affects the level of CO2 in theย atmosphereโ€

โ€œAn overall reduction in fossil fuel use would of course reduce CO2 production and could be achieved by constraint on energy consumption, by improved thermal efficiency and by replacing fossil fuels with eg nuclear power. But such a course of action would imply a major shift in world energy supply andย use.โ€

โ€œFurthermore, world growth in fossil fuel use is expected to be greatest in developing countries, and they are unlikely to wish to constrain their developmentย programmesโ€

ย ย 

1988

In a confidential 1988 document โ€œThe Greenhouse Effectโ€, theย companyย writes:

โ€œThere is reasonable scientific agreement that increased levels of greenhouse gases would cause a global warmingโ€ and that,ย โ€œsuch relatively fast and dramatic changes would impact on the human environment, future living standards and food supplies and could have major social, economic and politicalย consequences.โ€

It also says that:ย โ€œBy the time the global warming becomes detectable it could be too late to take effective countermeasures to reduce the effects or even stabilise theย situation.โ€ย 

1992

In a change of gear, Lodewijk (Lo) van Wachem said there was โ€œstill debate about the basic scienceโ€ around global warming. Van Wachem became director of Shell Oil company in 1979 and chairman of the board in 1982 and so is likely to have seen the 1988 document about the greenhouse gasย effect.

Shell clearly donโ€™t want to take the responsibility, despite knowing that itsย products are harmful:

โ€œCompanies should take the lead when they can, but on the other hand, they should not be expected to gamble reputation and assets where they may be exposed to unreasonable or unpredictable penalties.โ€ ย 
ย 

Now the idea of clean coal appears. โ€œA number of clean coal technologies are now also availableโ€ and โ€œOther more advanced technologies may enable us to use more cleanly the worldโ€™s vast reserves of coalโ€ ย – thisย despite theย 1988 report which stressed thatย coal was worse than oil.

1994

Now we begin to see โ€”ย despite earlier clarity andย the articulation that environmental concerns were of โ€œby far the greatest significance for the fossil fuel industryโ€ โ€” Shellย now introduces doubt and talk of a โ€œsignificant minorityโ€ and โ€œdistinguishedย scientistsโ€:ย 

The narrative as we enter the 1990s becomes more confused. As the scientific evidence becomes clearer and more defined, Shell’s anlaysis and messaging stresses difference and disagreement. Here’s anย example:

At first weย hear:

but then โ€ฆ

Shell, despite being forced to acknowledge the mounting global consensus, is still wrapped up in a climate science denialistย narrative that โ€œthere is no convincing statistically significantย evidenceโ€:

Again, Shellย reverts to claiming that โ€œthere are serious limitations to the ability of models to predict climateย changeโ€โ€ฆย 

Shellโ€™s conclusions concerning the science of climate change can be summarised as โ€œuncertainty applies bothย waysโ€:

This pattern continues. Shell acknowledges the veracity of climate science but casts doubt and stresses that it is โ€œnot possible to dismiss the global warming hypothesis as scientifically unsoundโ€ but rather wants policy to admitย โ€œweaknessโ€:

For Shell, uncertainty means action โ€œcould be premature, divert resources from more pressing needs [development and profit] and further distort markets [protecting the oilย industry].โ€

1995

By 1995 it isย forced to acknowledge the global scale and significance of theย crisis:

โ€œThe possibility of climate change brought about by global warming via man-made increases in gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane – the enhanced greenhouse effect – is probably the most prominent global environmental issue of today and could have major business implications for the fossil fuelย industry.โ€

Despite such ‘uncertaintly, the company does recognise human influence on theย climate:

โ€œManโ€™s activities have contributed to emissions of these gases from the use of fossil fuels, particularly since the Industrial Revolution, and have more recently added synthetic greenhouse gases such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). The increase in concentrations of greenhouse gases has caused concern that this will give rise to an enhanced greenhouse effect resulting in globalย warming.โ€

This pattern of accept/retreat is now being continually played-out. Again, the use of the term ‘significant minorityโ€ is used to boost a denialistย position. No explanation is given as to why this minority isย โ€œsignificantโ€.

โ€œFurthermore, there are a significant minority outside IPCC who take a contrary view, believing the concerns over global warming to be exaggerated and misguidedโ€, the reportย says.

1998

By 1998, Shell’s line is essentially to focus on the uncertainty around the impacts of climate change, depsite two decades of internal reports outlining how serious climate change is likely to be.ย  There isย still persistent quoting of climate science deniers.ย ย 

Theย business model is not to be changed because oil and gas is expected to continue to be the main source of fuels for decades to come, the 1998 report implies. The language still talks in terms of โ€œconcernโ€ ratherย thanย urgency:

โ€œThere is concern that an enhanced greenhouse effect will cause the world to warm up. This could cause a change in climate and local weather patterns, possibly with increased droughts, floods, storms and sea level rise. The average temperature of the earth has risen by about had a degree Celsius over the last century, possibly due in part to human greenhouse gas emissions.โ€


ย 

Despite such fence-sitting over the science, the company knows action isย necessary:

โ€œWe in Shell share the concern over the possible impacts of using fossil fuels. We believe that prudent precautionary measures are nowย necessary.โ€

Which makes Shell’s continued huge investments in fossil fuels for the next two decades all the moreย intriguing.

Image credit: Shellย report

Related Posts

Analysis
on

Right wing YouTuber Tim Pool is the latest to own โ€˜climate peopleโ€™ with fake facts spouted by a grizzled TV oilman.

Right wing YouTuber Tim Pool is the latest to own โ€˜climate peopleโ€™ with fake facts spouted by a grizzled TV oilman.
on

Critics say the controversial GWP* method โ€“ which New Zealand appears close to adopting โ€“ is โ€œopen to significant abuseโ€.

Critics say the controversial GWP* method โ€“ which New Zealand appears close to adopting โ€“ is โ€œopen to significant abuseโ€.
on

Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, who holds shares in Shell and TotalEnergies, called the green transition a โ€œchildrenโ€™s crusadeโ€.

Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, who holds shares in Shell and TotalEnergies, called the green transition a โ€œchildrenโ€™s crusadeโ€.
on

Carrboro, N.C., accuses Duke of knowingly fueling the climate crisis for decades with harmful emissions, deception, delay, and "greenwashing."

Carrboro, N.C., accuses Duke of knowingly fueling the climate crisis for decades with harmful emissions, deception, delay, and "greenwashing."