Accusations of greenwashing against major oil companies that claim to be in transition to clean energy are well-founded, according to the most comprehensive study to date.
The research, published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, examined the records of ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell and BP, which together are responsible for more than 10 percent of global carbon emissions since 1965. The researchers analysed data over the 12 years up to 2020 and concluded the company claims do not align with their actions, which include increasing rather than decreasing exploration.
The study found a sharp rise in mentions of “climate”, “low-carbon” and “transition” in annual reports in recent years, especially for Shell and BP, and increasing pledges of action in strategies. But concrete actions were rare and the researchers said: “Financial analysis reveals a continuing business model dependence on fossil fuels along with insignificant and opaque spending on clean energy.”
Photo: AFP
Numerous previous studies have shown there are already more reserves of oil and gas and more planned production than could be burned while keeping below the internationally agreed temperature target of 1.5C. In May last year, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said there can be no new fossil fuel developments if the world is to reach net zero by 2050.
Oil companies are under increasing pressure from investors to align their businesses with climate targets. But their plans have faced scepticism, prompting the researchers to conduct the new research, which they said was objective and comprehensive.
“Until there is very concrete progress, we have every reason to be very sceptical about claims to be moving in a green direction,” said Gregory Trencher, at Kyoto University in Japan, who worked with Mei Li and Jusen Asuka at Tohoku University.
Photo: AP
“If they were moving away from fossil fuels we would expect to see, for example, declines in exploration activity, fossil fuel production, and sales and profit from fossil fuels,” he said. “But if anything, we find evidence of the reverse happening.”
“Recent pledges look very nice and they’re getting a lot of people excited, but we have to put these in the context of company history of actions,” Trencher said. “It’s like a very naughty schoolboy telling the teacher ‘I promise to do all my homework next week’, but the student has never worked hard.”
The new study, published in the journal PLOS One, found mentions of climate-related keywords in annual reports rose sharply from 2009 to 2020. For example, BP’s use of “climate change” went from 22 to 326 mentions.
But in terms of strategy and actions, the researchers found “the companies are pledging a transition to clean energy and setting targets more than they are making concrete actions.”
Chevron and ExxonMobil were “laggards” compared to Shell and BP, the researchers said, but even the European majors’ actions appeared to contradict their pledges. For example, BP and Shell pledged to reduce investments in fossil fuel extraction projects, but both increased their acreage for new exploration in recent years, the researchers said.
Furthermore, the analysis found Shell, BP, and Chevron increased fossil fuel production volumes over the study period. None of the companies directly releases data on their investments in clean energy, but information they provided to the Carbon Disclosure Project indicates low average levels ranging from 0.2 percent by ExxonMobil to 2.3 percent by BP of annual capital expenditure (capex). Separate analysis by the IEA indicates that investment in clean energy by oil and gas companies was about 1 percent of capex in 2020.
“Until actions and investment behavior are brought into alignment with discourse, accusations of greenwashing appear well-founded,” the researchers said.
A spokesperson for ExxonMobil said: “The move to a lower emission future requires multiple solutions that can be implemented at scale. We plan to play a leading role in the energy transition, while retaining investment flexibility across a portfolio of evolving opportunities, including for example carbon capture, hydrogen and biofuels, to maximize shareholder returns.”
A Chevron spokesperson said: “We are focused on lowering the carbon intensity in our operations and seeking to grow lower carbon businesses along with our traditional business lines. We are planning US$10 billion in lower carbon investments by 2028.”
Shell’s spokesperson said: “Shell’s target is to become a net zero emissions energy business by 2050, in step with society. Our short, medium and long term intensity and absolute targets are consistent with the more ambitious 1.5C goal of the Paris Agreement. We were also the first energy company to submit its energy transition strategy to shareholders for a vote, securing strong endorsement.”
A spokesperson for BP said: “In 2020 BP set out our new net zero ambition, aims and strategy, and in 2021 completed the largest transformation of the company in our history to deliver these. Because this paper looks back historically over the period 2009-2020, we don’t believe it will take these developments and our progress fully into account.”
Trencher rejected the charge that the analysis was out of date: “We included the documents that were published during 2021, so the so-called data gap is only about six months and we don’t find any evidence of any new actions that would change any of our findings.”
“Unfortunately, the way the energy markets are structured around the world, fossil fuels still enjoy many [regulatory and tax] advantages and renewables are still disadvantaged,” he said.
Ajay Verma, a consultant gastroenterologist at Kettering general hospital in Northamptonshire, says our gut is a “complex machine.” “It is constantly providing us with the nutrition we need, initially to grow and develop, and then for us to survive, thrive and repair from injury and illness.” How can we keep it functioning well? Put simply: “Make sure what you put into it is balanced, and that you clear out its waste products adequately,” Verma says. “In a general gastroenterology clinic, the most common conditions we see are irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), gastroesophageal reflux disease, inflammatory bowel disease and constipation,” says Nisha
The arithmetic is straightforward and uncomfortable. By the end of 2025, Taiwan had committed itself to a 50-30-20 electricity mix — half natural gas, 30 per cent coal, 20 per cent renewables. The Ministry of Economic Affairs’s (MOEA) own monthly energy reports tell a different story. Natural gas reached 47.8 per cent of generation last year. Coal stood at 35.4 per cent, comfortably above its target ceiling. Renewables came in at 13.1 per cent, well short of the 20 per cent Taipei had pledged a decade earlier. Installed renewable capacity reached roughly half of the 12 gigawatts (GW) the government
Last week US President Donald Trump was asked by a reporter whether he would speak on the phone to the President of Taiwan. “l’ll speak to him. I speak to everybody. We have that situation very well in hand,” Trump said. This marked the second time in a couple of weeks he had said he would talk to the President of Taiwan. In 2016 he famously took a call from then-president Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), when he was president-elect. Despite warnings that the apocalypse was nigh because of a phone call, the world quickly forgot about the conversation between two democratically-elected presidents.
Taiwan’s drone exports are taking off, fuelled by the war in Ukraine, as Taiwanese companies seek a stake in the fast-growing global market for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV). Low-cost drones used for reconnaissance and strikes are in high demand as governments around the world boost defense spending in the face of intensifying conflicts. A relative new player in the increasingly competitive industry, Taiwan’s pitch is to be an “Asian hub” for the production of UAVs and components free of Chinese materials, or “non-red.” That means its UAVs can be up to three times more expensive than their Chinese competitors, like the world’s biggest
RSS