| | |||
| ||||
| | | ||
Shell - it's not dialogue if you don't answer the question Latest: analysis of Shell's answers My question to Shell was highest rated. 11th June 2007: analysis of Shell's answers. Shell's replies start hopefully; all countries and sectors do need to be involved in order to achieve a level playing field. And the main global policies should be stable over the long-term to allow companies to plan and invest. However Shell's filmed reply really gives up at this point and does not say what they think the global policies should be or what they think of my proposal. The remainder of their filmed reply is padded out with self-congratulation about the efficiency of their operations, which has no bearing on global climate policy. Shell's written reply explains their preferred global policies; emissions targets for all countries, emissions trading "for large point source emitters in industry" and for other emitters, a mix of regulatory prescriptions and taxes to be determined by national governments. Shell did not read from my question that I believe it is the achievement of global mandatory caps on emissions which is doomed. 'Cap and trade' schemes are not doomed of course, they are already happening despite being limited to big emitters and having a history in the EU of heavily subsidising the biggest polluters which then increase their overall emissions. Shell do not distinguish between the possibility of global emissions targets (such as those proposed for consideration by the G8 last week) and the implausibility of global mandatory emissions limits (which are beset by the world's least aware and backward-thinking politicians who have allowed nothing to be agreed during around 15 years of negotiations). Shell do not notice that their proposed policies would not meet their requirement for a level playing field, both because there is no prospect of agreeing global caps this side of runaway climate change and because trading schemes only work with large industrial emitters and any alternate scheme for other sections of society would inevitably introduce market distortion. Ad hoc local prescriptions and taxes which blend measures at different stages of the fuel-product life-cycle, are similarly a recipe for market distortion within and between countries. Hypothetically, even if all such energy-based measures could work, is it conceivable that society gets energy right and everything else wrong (ie other aspects of sustainability)? Is this the radical and rigorous plan which will reverse climate change? 30 years of intensive 'scenario planning' by Shell may be expected to stimulate independent or creative thought. However Shell's position is indistinguishable from a typical government position, except in two minor points. Shell appear to argue against further subsidies for renewables and to argue in favour of support, via emissions trading, for carbon capture and storage - which has a dual use in forcing more oil up to ground level. In summary, Shell correctly define the requirements for a global market-based climate policy but then propose measures which cannot meet those requirements. The usefulness or even the possibility of new measures is not considered despite this being the subject of my question. Shell have not attempted to consider how my proposed measure would work and they have not said whether they would support it. I thank Shell for their replies and respectfully invite them to try again to answer my question, both on film and in writing, as they said they would do. May 2007 the hydrocarbon business Shell invited anyone to ask them a question about sustainability, which were then ranked by visitors to their website www.shelldialogues.com. James Greyson asked a question based on his work on a sustainability reform to capitalism, "Would Shell support a solution for climate change that charged premiums on fuels according to the risk that they end up as accumulating CO2 and then invested premiums on energy efficiency and renewables? On a global scale this could replace the doomed effort to agree mandatory caps on emissions - better to design a sustainable economy than constrain an unsustainable one." On 17th May Shell selected a short-list of 7 questions, including James' which was the highest rated of all questions (rated 9.2 out of 10 at the time). Five of the questions, including James', were put to 2 Shell executives and their replies were filmed on 25th May. See the film and transcript. However Shell replaced my question with some general points on how Shell's can prevent climate change. They discussed the efficiency of their own operations (which I had not enquired about) and explained that they lobby governments to provide an " integrated set of structures and requirements across societies" (which could mean anything). They did not indicate whether Shell would support market-based alternatives to mandatory emissions limits or a specific economic instrument which transfers premiums from fuels with a high risk of adding to CO2 levels to subsidise solutions which cut that risk, such as energy efficiency and renewables. Shell's 2006 sustainability report is slightly more informative, citing support for long-term greenhouse gas targets and emissions trading, despite knowing that international negotiations on emissions limits (the Kyoto process) have moved at a glacial pace over the past 15 years. Shell also calls for the involvement of "all major emitting countries and all sectors not just industry", despite knowing that agreeing targets and emissions trading for all sectors in all countries would involve negotiations that would move even slower than Kyoto. On 26th May 2007 a reminder was sent to Shell, "Hi, my question was short-listed and was rated highest of all questions between 17th and 25th May. The greatest number of people said it was important to answer. Your shelldialogues website says "The questions voted most important by Dialogues visitors will be answered in the Q&A programme on 25 May." I read the transcript and can't see anything that begins to answer my question. With respect, I would be grateful to know how ignoring my question is consistent with Shell's business integrity, with open public dialogue and with the pressing need for new thinking on climate and sustainability? Thanks." Shell believes that they are "really serious and proactive on CO2". However they also appear to promote solutions which are mired in problems and to ignore solutions which may bypass those problems. Oil businesses benefit from the lack of effective global policies for climate change so any mishandling of the debate about policies risks being seen as a ploy to put profit ahead of survival. BlindSpot respectfully invites Shell to try again to answer the question, as they promised to do. On 4th June 2007 Shell emailed to say they did answer it; I replied - sorry you didn't. Shell's email, "I thought it would be better if I sent you are private reply to your question below regarding your original question. You are absolutely right in saying that your question was one of the highest rated on the sight, hence why Roxanne Decyk and Graeme Sweeney answered your question in the interview. Please click on the film at the following link and press 5 on the navigate to question panel. Pls. note that,as with any unscripted interview, the question was shortened and rephrased slightly. Your question will also be answered online over the coming days. I hope this answers your question." My reply to Shell on 5th May 2007, "Thank you. I wrote to Shell on the 26th May having seen both the film and transcript since it was clear to me that my question had been "rephrased" to the extent that Shell's reply did not answer it at all. May I ask whether the Shell executives were shown the actual unedited question? It appears unreasonable for Shell to replace my specific question with an easier one, answered with information that I had not requested. I would remain grateful to see a filmed answer to my question, as Shell undertook to do. If it helps to have more detail of my concerns and suggestions please see the Shell Dialogues page on my site." 6th June 2007: Shell offer another explanation, "Roxanne Decyk and Graeme Sweeney went into as much detail as they could on emissions and climate change in the limited time they had." My reply to Shell on 7th May 2007, "Thanks for your reply. As you suggest there really is a lot of detail in the issues of emissions and climate change. All the more important then to stick carefully to the subject in dialogue. Your offered film two pieces of information: Please may I further complain that Shell is attempting to dismiss my complaint as an issue of detail, when in truth if Shell had chosen to answer my question they could have done so with fewer words than they used to answer Shell's replacement question. I believe that companies like Shell, which profit both from further sales during slow negotiations on global solutions and from creating a public image of greenness and open dialogue, have a moral duty to achieve the highest standards for their conduct. I am not satisfied with Shell's conduct on either the filming of my question or the excuses offered. I would be grateful to know of your proposals for reaching an acceptable resolution. My suggestions may be seen at this link but please feel free to propose what you believe may work. Without wishing to unduly influence any proposal Shell is able to make, I would offer two comments: 7th June 2007: Shell repeat the previous explanation, " Roxanne Decyk and Graeme Sweeney went into as much detail as they could in the limited time they had... Your question was one of the highest rated on the site, hence why Roxanne Decyk and Graeme Sweeney answered your question in the interview". My reply to Shell on 8th June 2007, "Thank you for this reminder of the points previously made to me by Shell. I hesitate to repeat my replies, which may be found at www.blindspot.org.uk. My question may have a bearing on the stability of our shared climate, and Shell's filmed reply could be an important moment in the global sustainability debate. The substitution of a 'dumbed down' question and 'greenwash' type reply has no place in any genuine attempt at dialogue. I trust that Shell are able to rethink this matter and respectfully ask again for what Shell said it would do, to film an answer to my question. Two further notes. 1. You have seen but not answered my enquiry, "May I ask whether the Shell executives were shown the actual unedited question?". 2. On 26th May I wrote to Shell that my question was "highest rated". Shell has now twice rephrased that as "one of the highest rated". I would be grateful if Shell would now acknowledge that my question really was highest rated of all those asked of Shell as at 17th May, making it even more important to answer properly on film. Shifting the goal-posts of truthfulness seems unlikely to benefit this complaint, Shell dialogues or the corporate culture of any organisation." Suggestions for Shell. 1: Withdraw the section of film about Shell preventing climate change since this information does not begin to address my question. Shell Dialogues exists to build trust and open communication with Shell's stakeholders, which cannot be achieved with Shell's response so far. 2: Film an answer to the question as asked, indicating Shell's attitude towards the proposed market-based solution that does not rely on fixed emissions limits. This would do what Shell said they would do and would also introduce Shell to an idea which supports their interest in climate change and sustainable business. 3: Shells "answer" to the "rephrased" question which replaced mine claimed that Shell were "forthright" about what governments should do. However this is not actually apparent from the sketchy comments offered in different corners of the Shell website. If Shell stand by their "forthright" position then vastly more detail would need to be far more easily accessible from Shell. Text of Shell's filmed reply. Copied in full from their webpage. What is Shell doing... to prevent Climate Change? Roxanne Decyk: Well, it’s a good question and there isn’t an easy answer to it, because a number of players are going to have to take their place in solving this problem. An important player is governments, and we’ve been very forthright in what we think government must do to create a structure for the rest of the members of society, including companies like Shell, to make their contribution. We believe that government needs to not only consider it’s own needs, but actually for governments to work together, and for there to be an integrated set of structures and requirements across societies that allow companies to make the investments that will be necessary to solve these problems. Graeme Sweeney: What have we actually been doing in our own operations to improve efficiency? Roxanne Decyk: Well, we’ve had a programme for quite a long time in refineries to reduce our energy demands. We’re also doing that in chemical plants. We have some very innovative ways of addressing the use of energy in the upstream as well, including a platform that we use offshore which is self-powered through solar and wind energy. All of these things contribute to our own ability to cut our demand, as well as help our customers figuring out how to be more efficient themselves. Shell's written reply. Copied in full from their webpage. "Many thanks for your question, James. It raises very important issues -- ones which we are also calling on governments to address. Our appeal is for them to lead on this issue by introducing effective policies to combat climate change: firstly, to involve all major emitting countries and all sectors -- not just industry -- to avoid distorting competition. This would give us a level playing field. Secondly, to develop stable, long-term greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions targets to allow companies to plan and invest. Thirdly, to use emissions trading systems more widely as a cost-effective way to manage GHGs from industry -- and to include reductions from CO2 capture and storage in these schemes. And, finally, as you also mention, to design better targeted support for alternative energy sources, so that they can survive without further subsidies and become competitive. We don't in fact share your view that "cap and trade" is doomed at all. It is an efficient and politically acceptable system for tackling GHGs for large point source emitters in industry. By using market mechanisms and setting a clear price for emitting GHGs, it allows companies to invest in reduction measures and allows any given level of reductions to be achieved at the lowest possible cost. Its power and practicality were clearly demonstrated by the successful trading schemes for sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide in the United States in the 1980s. The EU Emissions Trading Scheme has also demonstrated its potential. However, emissions trading won't work for individual household energy users. And it won't work in the transport sector, which accounts for approximately 17% of global GHG emissions. Every individual driver or household will not be able to manage their own GHG allowances. Here other approaches are needed. Charging carbon-based premiums on transport fuels -- in effect a CO2 tax on gasoline and diesel -- is one option. However road fuel taxes are politically sensitive in many countries. And in some parts of the world taxes already make up more than 80% of the price of gasoline or diesel in a number of countries. Other options governments are considering include tougher vehicle fleet fuel efficiency standards, congestion charges and requirements on biofuels content in fuels." David Hone, Shell Group Climate Change Advisor. Want a world that works? Return to: top of page, home page, BlindSpot reviews, BlindSpot tools. | |
blindspot.org.uk