British oil and gas giant Shell weakened its climate strategy on Thursday by lowering a crucial carbon intensity target for its products, which immediately drew criticism from environmental organizations.
Shell now wants to reduce “net carbon intensity” by 15 to 20% [ratio des émissions sur les volumes] of energy products sold by 2030, compared to 2016″, a relaxed objective compared to the previous target of a 20% reduction.
A change attributed to “less growth in electricity sales” than anticipated, because the group wants to focus on “value and not volume” in electricity generation, he says.
The group also eliminates a target of reducing the carbon intensity of its products sold by 45% by 2035, claiming to “take into account the uncertainty in the pace of change in the energy transition”.
On the other hand, it still wants to halve the polluting emissions generated by its own operations (so-called “Scope” 1 and 2 activities) by 2030, compared to 2016, and says it has already reached 60% of this target by the end of 2023. , in a press release.
It also sets a “new ambition to reduce carbon emissions by 15 to 20% by 2030 compared to 2021. [ses] customers when using [ses] oil products [Scope 3] “.
Shell claims to have lowered its methane emissions by 70% compared to 2016 and is aiming for “nearly zero methane emissions by 2030”.
He confirms his plan to invest $10 to $15 billion between 2023 and the end of 2025 in low-carbon energy systems.
“Back-pedaling”
“Shell is backpedaling on its climate objectives,” immediately deplored the environmental shareholder association Follow This.
“Shell is attenuating its emissions reduction targets for 2030 while Managing Director Wael Sawan pockets nearly 8 million pounds in pay” for 2023, protests Greenpeace.
On Thursday, Shell revealed that Wael Sawan had earned 7.94 million pounds in his first year at the helm of the oil giant, a reduction of some 2 million compared to his predecessor’s pay.
The carbon intensity ratio can theoretically decrease even if the company increases its CO emissions2as long as production increases more quickly.
“Wael Sawan’s decision [le directeur général de Shell] “To further dilute Shell’s already minimal carbon neutrality commitments is no surprise, but with floods, fires and climate chaos raging around the world, it is even more alarming,” chants Greenpeace.
“We need bold action from leaders [gouvernementaux] to force the industry [des hydrocarbures] to stop drilling for new oil and gas and start paying for the damage they cause”, underlines Greenpeace, castigating the British government which “insists in betting on the wrong horse”.
Shell, for its part, calls for a “balanced and orderly transition away from fossil fuels to maintain a secure and affordable energy supply,” according to the press release.
The group was heavily criticized by environmental organizations last year for indicating that it would no longer reduce its oil production by 2030, claiming to have achieved in advance a production reduction target of 1 to 2% per year. , unveiled in 2021.
Last year, Shell obtained the support of a large majority of shareholders at its annual general meeting, despite many doubts expressed about its energy transition.
Thursday, in its annual update on its energy strategy, the group estimated that “liquefied natural gas will play a crucial role in the energy transition, by replacing coal in heavy industries” and in electricity generation.
He says that “investment in oil and gas will be necessary because demand for oil and gas is expected to decline less quickly than the natural rate of attrition of oil and gas fields, which is 4 to 5 percent per year.”
Environmental NGOs, but also the International Energy Agency, are calling for an end to all new oil and gas exploration projects to keep warming under control.
Shell shares rose 0.30% to 2.535 pence shortly before 12:00 GMT on the London Stock Exchange.