G'day folks. I have a new @AustCCR, and it's a big one.

Shell's climate plans are a multi-purpose, armour-plated fossil-fuelled juggernaut of greenwashing, and a key vote is coming soon.

So: let's look under the hood - let me show you how it works. A 🧵

In February, I wrote about Shell's preliminary climate plans. The crux: using an 'intensity' targets means Shell can basically do what they like for absolute emissions, simply by selling a bunch of other stuff alongside.

Shell's "net zero" plans have been broadly welcomed from groups, media coverage, etc. And I get it: we're so tired, and we *want* these companies to be doing the right thing.

But they are exploiting our justified exhaustion, and it really makes me mad.

Their latest - an 'energy transition' plan - will be voted on by shareholders in May.

I think it answers a question I raised in part 1: what *are* Shell's actual fossil fuels plans? Which emissions curve are we on?
What it tells us:

- Oil production will fall 1-2% each year

By 2030:

- Gas grows to 55% of FF sales
- Double power sales
- 50m homes worth of renewables
- Trees sucking 120 megatonnes of carbon

By 2035:

- 25 megatonnes of carbon captured by CCS

We know how much oil Shell sold in 2020. We know how much gas, and power, and CCS and trees too

So if we assume a 1.5% decline in oil, and a 55% share of gas in 2030, plus the other changes, this is what we get. Yes - Shell are planning to change nothing

Plug this prediction of total energy sold into Shell's carbon intensity targets, and this what their much-heralded 2030 target looks like. Sure, emissions "peaked" in 2018 - but they actually slightly *rise* from 2020 - 2030.
*this* is why Shell aren't talking about absolute emissions , or winding down their fossils ASAP. Their carbon intensity targets will be achieved by *adding* other stuff, not *reducing* fossil fuels

That is - they could reduce emissions by winding down FFs - but *choose* not to.
Sorry, did you think I was done? Um, no, we've only just lifted the boot folks.

Because even the things that get Shell piles on top of its fossil fuel business are part of the ruse.

Thread break -> dog pic
- Shell claim that a transition to gas reduces emissions. But moving from the absolute worst option to a less bad option isn't what we need. We need absolute reductions in emissions, to meet climate targets. And gas isn't providing.

Shell claim they'll sell 50m homes worth of renewable power by 2030. But I can't get the numbers right - it's SO vague. And they don't tell us how much clean power they sold in 2020 - this seems to be only that purchased for operations?

I have no idea.

Shell claim they're going to be using carbon capture and storage (CCS) to avoid emissions from fossil fuels. This is what their target looks like:

Shell claim they're going to be planting a very large number of trees to absorb the emissions from the burning of the products they sell. This is what their targets look like:
Shell also says they're going to be selling heaps of biofuels - 8x more than in 2020. This is what their target looks like (and a reminder from Shell's own data: biofuels are not zero emissions)
You're sensing a theme here, yeah? I am too. A half-decade of failure hand-waved away, and a promise to suddenly change their ways.

Of course: we have to put it in context. Even if they *do* deliver, this is what it looks like relative to their emissions:
Oh, if anyone wants it, here's a chart I made of Shells' past five years of emissions with the amount they've captured using offsets and CCS on there.

Unfortunately I had to change the aspect ratio to make the captured part visible (not silly chart included too)
Wondering why Shell sponsored a @sciencemuseum exhibit feat carbon removal? Or why they've been paying influencers to do glossy insta posts?

This is why: they need to protect the wall of brown. And they need a decked-out greenwahsing juggernaut to do it.

As @ClientEarth point out, Shell have a 'get out' clause: if society 'moves slowly', they'll move slowly too

What they leave out: they are putting effort into *realising* the slow. They want to limit scrutiny, slow change, and distract critics.

Appendix A: Some groups are already planning to vote against approval of the Energy Transition plan. This is good -->> https://twitter.com/brynnobrien/status/1387570506388234241
I really wish I had the time / space to properly get stuck into "carbon neutral LNG" (AND WHY DOES THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY PLURALISE CARGO)
An investor is very worried that Shell isn't going to be pouring enough money into their oil fields to result in rising quantities of oil sold into the 2020s.

Shell say their oil biz is funding the growth pillar ->
Random thought listening to this call: fossil fuel companies should have climate-shareholder quarterly updates, where they show their 3-month emissions data and face questions from shareholders (anyone living within the Earth's biosphere)
BTW: the truck is real. Shell are pitching it as next gen transport.

It runs on fossil fuels, but has roof mounted solar panels to "power interior accessories". No, there is no emissions data for the "starship".

*Literally* a greenwashing juggernaut.
You can follow @KetanJ0.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: