SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Greenwash: Shell Betrays 'New Energy Future' Promises
The energy company has sold out on its renewable investments, claiming they are 'not economic'
Mar 26, 2009
Shell, I have to report, is the new Exxon. The company that back in
December was filling this and other newspapers with double-page adverts
promoting its conversion to a "new energy future" of wind farms, hydrogen fuels, fuel made from marine algae and much else, has pulled the plug.
In the 1990s Royal Dutch Shell set its boffins on finding new green fuels, such as forest plantations to make biofuels.
I remember them at the Earth Summit in Rio back in 1992. Not long
after, Shell was for a time the world's second largest manufacturer of solar panels. In 2004, it opened the world's largest grid-connected solar park.
The company seemed to embrace the idea that a modern global oil
company could and should transform itself into a green energy company.
But, to rewrite its old advertising slogan, you can never be sure of
Shell.
Just as the other European oil giant, BP, flattered to deceive when it began to call itself Beyond Petroleum, so too with Shell.
At a time when new bosses at Exxon in the US are making overtures to Barack Obama's idea of a new green deal to fight climate change, Shell is going back to the bad old days.
Last week, this and other papers reported: "Shell will no longer invest in renewable technologies such as wind, solar and hydropower because they are not economic."
In recent years, Shell has invested more than $1bn in the most commercial of the new renewable industries, wind power. It claims to have more than 500MW of wind power capacity altogether - the equivalent of half a regular power station.
It was chicken feed for them. But many hoped for more. Then last year, Shell pulled out of what would be the world's largest offshore wind farm in the Thames estuary. The London Array would have tripled its wind capacity.
The company claimed at the time that it was going to concentrate its renewables
business in the US. Now that promise has quietly disappeared. Last
week, its head of gas and power, Linda Cook, told reporters: "We do not
expect material amounts of investment [in wind and solar] going
forward." Biofuels will still get cash. Everything else is back into
cold storage.
Why? "They continue to struggle to compete with
other investment opportunities we have in our portfolio." In other
words, oil prices are back down and Shell is in this for the short term.
We
are left with those, shall we say unfulfilled, ads. "Tackling climate
change and providing fuel for a growing population seems like an
impossible problem, but at Shell we try to think creatively," said one.
If you keep old newspapers, you'll find it across the centrefold of the
Guardian on 15 December. If not, a version is still on their web site.
But now we know the creative thinking had more to do with advertisement copywriting rather than energy technology.
The
ad continues: "It won't be easy. Innovative solutions rarely are. But
when the challenge is hardest, when everyone else is shaking their
heads, we believe there is a way." Do smile, amid your tears.
Shell was busted last year by the UK Advertising Standards Authority
for an ad claiming that its $10bn investment in sucking oil from tar
sands in Canada was a contribution to a sustainable energy future.
Clearly
it hasn't been chastened. Those pre-Christmas ads were more greenwash.
But, for anyone who has watched the company over the years, what has
happened is not so much a cynical misrepresentation of its policies as
an outright betrayal of past promises.
In the race for a greener future, Shell could have been a contender. Now it is on the canvas, flat out cold.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 The Guardian
Fred Pearce
Fred Pearce is a freelance author and journalist based in the UK. He serves as environmental consultant for New Scientist magazine and contributes regularly to Yale Environment 360. He is the author of numerous books, including "The Land Grabbers: The New Fight over Who Owns the Earth" and "When the Rivers Run Dry: Water-The Defining Crisis of the Twenty-First Century."
Shell, I have to report, is the new Exxon. The company that back in
December was filling this and other newspapers with double-page adverts
promoting its conversion to a "new energy future" of wind farms, hydrogen fuels, fuel made from marine algae and much else, has pulled the plug.
In the 1990s Royal Dutch Shell set its boffins on finding new green fuels, such as forest plantations to make biofuels.
I remember them at the Earth Summit in Rio back in 1992. Not long
after, Shell was for a time the world's second largest manufacturer of solar panels. In 2004, it opened the world's largest grid-connected solar park.
The company seemed to embrace the idea that a modern global oil
company could and should transform itself into a green energy company.
But, to rewrite its old advertising slogan, you can never be sure of
Shell.
Just as the other European oil giant, BP, flattered to deceive when it began to call itself Beyond Petroleum, so too with Shell.
At a time when new bosses at Exxon in the US are making overtures to Barack Obama's idea of a new green deal to fight climate change, Shell is going back to the bad old days.
Last week, this and other papers reported: "Shell will no longer invest in renewable technologies such as wind, solar and hydropower because they are not economic."
In recent years, Shell has invested more than $1bn in the most commercial of the new renewable industries, wind power. It claims to have more than 500MW of wind power capacity altogether - the equivalent of half a regular power station.
It was chicken feed for them. But many hoped for more. Then last year, Shell pulled out of what would be the world's largest offshore wind farm in the Thames estuary. The London Array would have tripled its wind capacity.
The company claimed at the time that it was going to concentrate its renewables
business in the US. Now that promise has quietly disappeared. Last
week, its head of gas and power, Linda Cook, told reporters: "We do not
expect material amounts of investment [in wind and solar] going
forward." Biofuels will still get cash. Everything else is back into
cold storage.
Why? "They continue to struggle to compete with
other investment opportunities we have in our portfolio." In other
words, oil prices are back down and Shell is in this for the short term.
We
are left with those, shall we say unfulfilled, ads. "Tackling climate
change and providing fuel for a growing population seems like an
impossible problem, but at Shell we try to think creatively," said one.
If you keep old newspapers, you'll find it across the centrefold of the
Guardian on 15 December. If not, a version is still on their web site.
But now we know the creative thinking had more to do with advertisement copywriting rather than energy technology.
The
ad continues: "It won't be easy. Innovative solutions rarely are. But
when the challenge is hardest, when everyone else is shaking their
heads, we believe there is a way." Do smile, amid your tears.
Shell was busted last year by the UK Advertising Standards Authority
for an ad claiming that its $10bn investment in sucking oil from tar
sands in Canada was a contribution to a sustainable energy future.
Clearly
it hasn't been chastened. Those pre-Christmas ads were more greenwash.
But, for anyone who has watched the company over the years, what has
happened is not so much a cynical misrepresentation of its policies as
an outright betrayal of past promises.
In the race for a greener future, Shell could have been a contender. Now it is on the canvas, flat out cold.
Fred Pearce
Fred Pearce is a freelance author and journalist based in the UK. He serves as environmental consultant for New Scientist magazine and contributes regularly to Yale Environment 360. He is the author of numerous books, including "The Land Grabbers: The New Fight over Who Owns the Earth" and "When the Rivers Run Dry: Water-The Defining Crisis of the Twenty-First Century."
Shell, I have to report, is the new Exxon. The company that back in
December was filling this and other newspapers with double-page adverts
promoting its conversion to a "new energy future" of wind farms, hydrogen fuels, fuel made from marine algae and much else, has pulled the plug.
In the 1990s Royal Dutch Shell set its boffins on finding new green fuels, such as forest plantations to make biofuels.
I remember them at the Earth Summit in Rio back in 1992. Not long
after, Shell was for a time the world's second largest manufacturer of solar panels. In 2004, it opened the world's largest grid-connected solar park.
The company seemed to embrace the idea that a modern global oil
company could and should transform itself into a green energy company.
But, to rewrite its old advertising slogan, you can never be sure of
Shell.
Just as the other European oil giant, BP, flattered to deceive when it began to call itself Beyond Petroleum, so too with Shell.
At a time when new bosses at Exxon in the US are making overtures to Barack Obama's idea of a new green deal to fight climate change, Shell is going back to the bad old days.
Last week, this and other papers reported: "Shell will no longer invest in renewable technologies such as wind, solar and hydropower because they are not economic."
In recent years, Shell has invested more than $1bn in the most commercial of the new renewable industries, wind power. It claims to have more than 500MW of wind power capacity altogether - the equivalent of half a regular power station.
It was chicken feed for them. But many hoped for more. Then last year, Shell pulled out of what would be the world's largest offshore wind farm in the Thames estuary. The London Array would have tripled its wind capacity.
The company claimed at the time that it was going to concentrate its renewables
business in the US. Now that promise has quietly disappeared. Last
week, its head of gas and power, Linda Cook, told reporters: "We do not
expect material amounts of investment [in wind and solar] going
forward." Biofuels will still get cash. Everything else is back into
cold storage.
Why? "They continue to struggle to compete with
other investment opportunities we have in our portfolio." In other
words, oil prices are back down and Shell is in this for the short term.
We
are left with those, shall we say unfulfilled, ads. "Tackling climate
change and providing fuel for a growing population seems like an
impossible problem, but at Shell we try to think creatively," said one.
If you keep old newspapers, you'll find it across the centrefold of the
Guardian on 15 December. If not, a version is still on their web site.
But now we know the creative thinking had more to do with advertisement copywriting rather than energy technology.
The
ad continues: "It won't be easy. Innovative solutions rarely are. But
when the challenge is hardest, when everyone else is shaking their
heads, we believe there is a way." Do smile, amid your tears.
Shell was busted last year by the UK Advertising Standards Authority
for an ad claiming that its $10bn investment in sucking oil from tar
sands in Canada was a contribution to a sustainable energy future.
Clearly
it hasn't been chastened. Those pre-Christmas ads were more greenwash.
But, for anyone who has watched the company over the years, what has
happened is not so much a cynical misrepresentation of its policies as
an outright betrayal of past promises.
In the race for a greener future, Shell could have been a contender. Now it is on the canvas, flat out cold.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.