In its report, Shell states that it fully supports the Paris agreement on limiting warming well below 2 degrees C and supports “the vision of a transition to a zero net energy system.” However, unlike its European oil group BP, Shell does not commit to transferring its own activities to zero emissions. Shell`s 2019 annual report is full of statements that show the company`s views on the Paris Agreement, energy transition, climate conflicts and regulatory risks to its operations. Some of these statements seem contradictory, and it is important to keep in mind the context of the #ShellKnew, if the company now, in 2020, says it is committed to being part of the solution. The terms of the Paris Agreement allow countries and regions to set their own emission reduction targets, with few requirements other than climate change mitigation ambitions expected to increase over time. The United States already has the opportunity to change its original emissions reduction target and convince others to improve its emissions in the coming years. Ben van Beurden also warned on Wednesday that energy companies that do not cooperate under the 2015 Paris Agreement to combat climate change are at risk of leaving business. “If this type of sectoral action does not take place, the world will not achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement.” President Donald Trump`s decision to withdraw from the Paris climate change agreement – an agreement with his central goal of limiting global warming to a level well below 2 degrees Celsius compared to the mid-19th century – is an element of the Already. Shell`s own business is therefore not in line with the objective of the Paris Agreement and the company is facing litigation in its home country, the Netherlands. Current emission reduction plans or determinable national contributions (NDCs) presented by countries under the Paris Agreement are also insufficient.
As Shell points out in its report, current CNN is about 3 degrees C of warming. “In the coming decades, we expect countries to toughen these NCCs to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement,” the report says. Shell`s view seems to be that the world has decades to gather its actions. President Trump called the agreement a “bad deal” for the United States. But it`s not a good deal or a bad deal for anyone. It merely reflects the progression required over time to achieve zero net emissions, i.e. an increase that offsets the remaining emissions in the second half of the century elsewhere. But the energy transition is only one element of the Paris agreement. Reducing emissions is at the heart of the issue.
And to do that, it takes more than an energy transition to succeed. In 2015, governments took a major step forward by concluding an agreement in Paris to combat climate change by limiting the increase in global average temperatures over the course of this century to a level well below two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. When President Trump made his announcement, the reasons given were much the same as President Bush; Injustice, concern for competitiveness, negative effects on the U.S. economy and price increases for consumers. Like President Bush, he said his administration was open to new negotiations or a completely new agreement. Norwegian oil group Equinor, another member of the Australian Petroleum Production And Exploration Association, also criticized the shortfall and said in a review of its own lobby groups that the use of Kyoto credits could reduce the ambitions of the Paris climate agreement. If the United States pulls out of the agreement, other countries will continue to implement their national contributions through a multitude of approaches. Even within the United States, the current transition to low-carbon energy will continue; It is likely that some states and cities will ensure that this happens.