Shell and BP amongst companies accused of greenwashing over renewable power
S
hell and BP are amongst 12 oil companies who’ve been accused of greenwashing over the quantity of renewable and low-carbon power they produce.
Research commissioned by Greenpeace analysed the annual reviews of the British fossil gasoline giants for 2022, alongside 10 different European firms.
The report in contrast the quantity of renewable electrical energy generated by the businesses (wind, photo voltaic, geothermal and hydro) with the quantity of power they supply via their very own oil and gasoline manufacturing.
Shell and BP generated simply 0.02% and 0.17% of power from renewable sources in 2022 respectively, the evaluation claimed.
Meanwhile, the businesses’ funding in inexperienced power was a fraction of that in fossil fuels over the yr, it discovered.
For BP, 97% went in direction of fossil fuels whereas the corporate lowered investments in renewable merchandise in comparison with 2021, whereas 91% of Shell’s funding went in direction of fossil fuels, it mentioned.
Greenpeace accused the oil majors of greenwashing, saying the companies featured offshore wind and photo voltaic power extensively of their annual reviews and advertising and marketing.
The group’s analysis mentioned BP was an instance of companies that had “endless repetitions of the same vague sustainability goals” of their reporting.
By method of instance, it added that the BP has been promoting its renewables ambitions for years however its reviews from 2022 don’t give a quantity for the quantity of wind and solar energy they’ve generated within the yr.
BP additionally counts its investments in comfort shops at petrol stations as “low carbon” and makes use of a good broader strategy for its transition development capital expenditure, the analysis added.
For Shell, the evaluation discovered the agency’s reporting confirmed a “clear misrepresentation” of numbers on its “renewable capacity” for the 2022 monetary yr, reporting it as 6.4 gigawatts.
However, a footnote mentioned this contains crops which can be nonetheless below development or dedicated on the market and Shell’s precise 2.2 gigawatts capability on the finish of 2022 was revealed elsewhere in its reporting.
Shell additionally counts something that produces even a fraction much less emissions than typical oil or gasoline as “low carbon”, the analysis added.
It comes as each oil majors have confronted criticism this yr for rowing again on their inexperienced targets.
Governments must cease enabling fossil gasoline firms, closely regulate them, and plan our fossil gasoline phase-out now. They won’t ever change on their very own
Kuba Gogolewski, finance campaigner at Greenpeace central and jap Europe, mentioned: “As the world endures unprecedented heatwaves, deadly floods and escalating storms, big oil clings to its destructive business model and continues to fuel the climate crisis.
“Their already inadequate decarbonisation plans are an empty shell; instead of providing desperately-needed clean energy, they feed us greenwashing garbage.
“Big oil’s unwillingness to implement real change is a crime against the climate and future generations.”
The Greenpeace report additionally mentioned all 12 firms, on common, nonetheless derive 99.7% of power from fossil gasoline sources.
The evaluation urged that inexperienced power accounts for a median of simply 7.3% (£5.61 billion) of funding whereas 92.7% (£69.58 billion) continued to fund fossil gasoline actions and, in some circumstances, enlargement.
Greenpeace has accused the businesses of undermining local weather motion via greenwashing jargon, selling carbon seize and storage (CCS) and carbon offsetting, deceptive diagrams of their focus and actions, and publishing solely partial information.
The report mentioned that whereas the 12 firms have publicly dedicated to reaching “net zero” by 2050, none have developed a coherent technique to get there, with the overwhelming majority planning to keep up and even improve their oil and gasoline manufacturing till at the very least 2030.
The environmental group is urging European governments to tax the income of fossil gasoline firms to pay for the low-energy transition.
It can be calling for stricter regulation to stop fossil-fuelled local weather destruction and to implement funding in inexperienced infrastructure.
Mr Gogolewski mentioned: “Governments need to stop enabling fossil fuel companies, heavily regulate them, and plan our fossil fuel phase-out now. They will never change on their own.”
He added that governments ought to agree on an in depth highway map to section out oil and gasoline throughout Europe, beginning with measures to shift closely polluting oil and gasoline sectors like transport.
The report authored by political scientist Dr Steffen Bukold included evaluation of BP, Shell, Eni, Equinor, Repsol, and TotalEnergies, in addition to OMV, PKN Orlen, MOL, Wintershall Dea, Petrol Group and Ina Croatia.
BP mentioned the Greenpeace report is inaccurate and “misrepresents its investments and strategies”.
The oil main mentioned the determine of 97% in fossil gasoline funding is “completely wrong”.
The agency added that its technique contains quickly rising investments in a variety of non-fossil gasoline companies, like biofuels and biogas, hydrogen, renewables and energy, EV charging and comfort.
It additionally mentioned that 30% of its capital expenditure in 2022 went into these companies, together with its acquisition of main US biogas firm Archaea.
A spokesperson for Shell mentioned: “We are planning to invest 10-15 billion dollars across 2023 to 2025 to support the continued development of low-carbon energy solutions including biofuels, hydrogen, electric vehicle charging and CCS.
“It remains our view that global energy demand will continue to grow and be met by different types of energy – including oil and gas.
“The pace of the transition from fossil fuels to low-carbon energy depends on many things including government policy and regulations, affordability of energy, the development of new technologies, and, importantly, changing customer demand.”