“I had an ambition to be a synchronised swimmer…” Adam Matthews (Church of England) challenges Shell CEO Ben van Beurden on how ambition translates into reality and “mean what we say”.
Shell CEO (pictured) explains the full life cycle measure of Net Carbon Footprint (includes use of product [carbon scope 3] and Shell’s ambition. Need to be 50% less in Shell’s portfolio by 2050 to hit climate ambitions (Paris alignment).
This is derived from a fairly technical view - you can find Shell’s explanation here.
A few elements of Shell’s plan:
-Links targets to remuneration
-public commitments to net carbon target
-annual review of progress
-review of lobby practices
One can argue with Shell’s position but I do think it’s worth taking the time to understand where it is coming from.
Bending the demand side has been considered hard for companies to do - but they are also uniquely placed to influence government policy and consumer behaviour.
It is worth getting your head around “scope 3” carbon emissions.
There are many factors in play. The one which is high in my mind is the need for more innovation not less. You can see from above chart that arguable government spending here is under invested and similar arguments could be made for the private sector.
Short blog on there here.