Shell en
BP hebben eerder dit jaar openlijk gebroken met een klein aantal
industriegroepen die actie voeren tegen de maatregelen die zijn
genomen om de uitstoot van broeikasgassen te verminderen……. Ook
in Nederland kon het je niet ontgaan en als je niet beter wist zou
je warempel geloven dat Shell op de groene tour was gegaan,
echter de leugen is nooit zo snel of…… En inderdaad nu blijkt dat
Shell en BP een wel heel smerige strategie volgen, groen van buiten en gifgroen
aan de binnenkant……Dit is dan ook tekenend voor de zogenaamde tranparantie die Shell beloofde: tranparant als men de wereldbevolking (slaap-) zand in de ogen kan strooien met ‘duurzame praatjes’ en achter de schermen het tegenovergestelde doen……..
Unearthed
(een onderdeel van Greenpeace) en de (poepvervelende en neoliberale)
Huffington Post (tegenwoordig héél hip ‘HUFFPOST’ genoemd) hebben onderzoek gedaan en ontdekten dat Shell
en BP met tenminste 8 beroepsorganisaties ‘actief lobbyen’ bij de Australische en VS regering tegen klimaatmaatregelen……. De
godvergeten oplichters!
Moet wel
zeggen dat me dit niet verbaasde, immers eerder al heeft Shell laten
zien vooral niet ‘goed te zijn’ in het greenwashen van hun
bedrijvigheid*, niet vreemd dan ook dat Shell ondertussen een
grote ‘kraker’ voor schaliegas heeft gebouwd in de VS, waar het dan trots
over doet als zou het zoveel werkgelegenheid opleveren……
Als Exxon in de 70er jaren van de vorige eeuw, wist Shell uit eigenonderzoek in de 80er jaren van die eeuw, dat de snelle klimaatverandering wordt veroorzaakt door het verbranden van fossiele brandstoffen en ondanks dat hebben deze 2 smeerpijpen daarna wetenschappers ingehuurd om te ontkennen dat de klimaatverandering is te danken aan de verbranding van fossiele brandstoffen……
Helaas staat het er in Australië niet beter voor dan in de VS, Morrison de psychopathische premier van dat land, zegt niet meer hardop dat de klimaatverandering onzin is maar ik weet zeker dat hij dat nog steeds denkt en ondanks dat bij wijze van spreken half Australië is afgefikt doet hij er niets aan om de klimaatverandering nog enigszins af te remmen….
Al jaren exporteert Australië dagelijks 1 miljoen ton steenkool en dat wordt nog meer met een nieuwe steenkoolterminal, waarvoor een kanaal t.b.v. zeeschepen dwars door het Groot-Barrièrerif is gegraven, hetzelfde rif waarvoor de inhumane neoliberale regering Morisson vorig jaar nog de alarmklok luidde… (zo hypocriet als de pest zoals je begrijpt……)
Hier
tekst van de Shell site:
Shell’s
principles for producing tight/shale oil and gas
The
world needs to develop more energy while safeguarding the
environment. Abundant global supplies of natural gas and oil lie
locked tightly in rock formations such as tight sandstone and shale.
Shell is using advanced, proven technologies – including hydraulic
fracturing – and follows global operating principles to unlock
these resources safely and responsibly.
Ha! ha!
ha! ha! ha! de oplichters!! De wereld heeft de ontwikkeling van meer
energie nodig en tegelijkertijd beschermt men het milieu met de winning van schaliegas en -olie…….. Hoe
verzinnen ze het??!!! En vergeet niet dat ‘ons’ koningshuis grootaandeelhouder ís van ‘Royal Dutch Shell….’
Lees het
volgende artikel ik heb daaronder de rest van de Shell tekst geplaatst.
Revealed:
BP and Shell back anti-climate lobby groups despite pledges
Shell
executives meet with President Donald Trump in 2019. Photo: Nicholas
Kamm, AFP via Getty Images.
An
Unearthed and HuffPost investigation identified at least eight trade
associations the companies failed to disclose in transparency reports
Earlier this year, oil giants BP
and Royal Dutch Shell assessed the climate lobbying done by trade
associations they have been involved with, and publicly quit a
handful of high-profile industry groups campaigning to undermine
regulations to reduce greenhouse gases.
The effort was part of a vow to
increase corporate transparency and bring planet-heating
emissions to net zero over the next few decades.
But Shell and BP ― the second-
and fourth-largest
oil companies by revenue last year ― are still active members
of at least eight trade organisations lobbying against climate
measures in the United States and Australia that were not disclosed
in the public reviews, an Unearthed
and HuffPost investigation has found.
Reviews of leaked and publicly
available documents show those groups are part of the sprawling
network of state and regional trade associations that have, in at
least one case, boasted about quashing the very carbon-reduction
policies the oil giants publicly claim to support.
The companies said they either
hoped to reform the trade groups, including the eight identified
here, of which they are still part, or planned to review their
membership going forward. But both BP and Shell refused to disclose
full lists of trade associations where they have ongoing involvement.
“Our approach is that where
policy differences arise, we will seek to influence from within ―
and this may take time,” BP said in a statement. “If we reach an
impasse, we will be transparent in publicly stating our differences.
And on major issues, if our views and those of an association cannot
be reconciled then we will be prepared to leave.”
A Shell spokeswoman said its next
review would “select the additional industry associations because
their climate-related policies have brought them to the attention of
investors and non-governmental organisations, and because they
operate in regions or countries where we have significant business
activities.”
“We were one of the first
companies to publish an industry associations report and we are
pleased that other companies have since published reports,” she
said by email. “Our next update will assess our alignment with the
18 industry associations featured already, as well as others.”
But the findings cast a dim light
over the oil behemoths’ ballyhooed new climate pledges, raising
questions about how seriously they can be taken when the companies
are still funding lobbying operations that undermine their new
commitments.
In the United States, both Shell
and BP support groups such as the Alliance of Western Energy
Consumers, which crusaded against Oregon’s efforts to put a price
on carbon emissions, and the Texas Oil & Gas Association, a trade
group in the nation’s top oil-producing state battling rules to
restrict output of methane, a super-heating greenhouse gas.
In Australia, the two giants back
the Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association and
the Business Council of Australia, two groups fighting to undercut
the country’s contributions to the Paris climate accords. Shell,
meanwhile, quietly held its seat on the Queensland Resources Council,
a key advocate of building the world’s largest coal mine.
“This is a standard business
practice,” said Robert Brulle, a climate denial researcher and
professor at Brown University’s Institute at Brown for Environment
and Society. “They’re trying to have it both ways, being socially
responsible without changing their actual positions.”
Under
Bernard Looney’s leadership, BP has promised to ‘transform’ its
business. Photo: Daniel Leal-Olivas, AFP via Getty Images.
Undisclosed groups
Shortly after taking the helm in
February, BP CEO Bernard Looney began a review of lobbying by the
company’s trade groups. He billed the effort as a “small but
important step towards rebuilding trust in BP.” He promised a new
era on climate change, where the company that a decade earlier
rebranded as “Beyond Petroleum” would eliminate its carbon
footprint and direct its powerful lobbying machine toward “advocacy
for policies that support net zero.”
Shell published its own review in
2019, which it updated this year as part of what CEO Ben van Beurden
called “a first step towards greater transparency around our
activities with industry associations on the topic of climate
change.” Yet the reviews covered only a narrow slice of their
memberships.
Shell acknowledged its membership
in hundreds of industry groups worldwide, but said its review
assessed only 19 organisations selected “because their positions on
climate-related policy have brought them to the attention of
investors and non-governmental organisations (NGOs).”
BP declined to provide a ballpark
estimate of how many trade associations it affiliates with, but said
its review focused on 30 groups “on the basis that they are
actively involved in energy policy discussions and salient to
stakeholders.”
“BP and Shell’s disclosures
focus on a narrower selection of industry associations,” said Faye
Holder, an analyst at InfluenceMap, a British research outfit that
analyses the fossil fuel industry’s finances. “These groups tend
to be the larger and more visible ones that already disclose their
corporate membership, while the smaller, regional and sometimes less
transparent ones are more likely to be left out.”
United States of
Astroturfing
Among the more jarring examples of
groups the companies omitted from the reviews are two regional
organisations whose names suggest they represent coalitions of
ordinary citizens concerned about energy prices.
In fact, the groups represent some
of the biggest companies in the world, a tactic known in politics as
“AstroTurfing,” wherein powerful industry players create front
groups meant to appear like grassroots organisations with Average-Joe
followings.
In February 2019, Alliance of
Western Energy Consumers, which represents heavy industry on the West
Coast, boasted that it had “defeated all carbon pricing bills” in
Oregon ― describing efforts to drive “grassroots opposition”
and coordinate “vote counts” during the state legislative
session, emails obtained by the Climate Investigations Center show.
Both companies claim to strongly
support carbon pricing, including in Oregon. Yet several employees of
both BP and Shell at the time are listed as recipients of these
emails. Shell confirmed that it is a member. BP declined to comment.
Though the companies failed to
disclose it in their reviews, BP and Shell are also listed
as top members of the Consumer Energy Alliance. The group
bills itself as the “voice of the energy consumer,” but is
actually run by the Republican-linked consultancy HBW Resources.
After running campaigns to
oppose President Barack Obama’s rules to limit emissions of methane
from oil and gas operations and pollution from coal power stations,
the Consumer Energy Alliance turned its attention to state-level
fights. The group was party to a
lawsuit seeking to overturn Oregon’s clean fuel program,
which aims to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from
transport fuels. The case concluded unsuccessfully in March 2019.
In a statement, the Consumer Energy
Alliance said it fought Oregon’s clean fuel program because it
would have raised prices without achieving significant environmental
outcomes. The group said it opposed the Obama administration’s
methane rule because it “would have interfered with the
successful performance of state rules that were already reducing
methane emissions.”
The
Trump administration undid Obama-era regulations on the powerful
greenhouse gas methane after a lobbying push by the oil industry.
Methane haze
When President Donald Trump moved
to roll back the methane rule shortly after taking office, BP and
Shell publicly opposed the move.
“We don’t usually tell
governments how to do their job but we’re ready to break with that
and say, ‘Actually, we want to tell you how to do your job,’”
Shell’s U.S. Country Chair Gretchen Watkins told Reuters at
a March 2019 conference, urging the Trump administration “to put in
a regulatory framework that will both regulate existing methane
emissions by also future methane emissions.”
When the Environmental Protection
Agency finalised plans to gut the methane rule in August, David
Lawler, the head of BP America, issued a statement saying
the company “respectfully disagrees with today’s decision by the
administration.”
Both companies remain members of
the American Petroleum Institute, the industry’s largest and most
influential lobby in the United States and a fierce proponent of the
Trump administration’s changes to the methane rule. Yet perhaps
even more influential on the rollback were the state-level
organisations whose smaller members claimed the biggest benefits from
the deregulatory effort.
BP remains a member of the New
Mexico Oil & Gas Association, the Texas Independent Producers &
Royalty Owners Association, and the Petroleum Association of Wyoming.
Shell and BP are members of the Texas Oil & Gas Association.
All of the groups campaigned
aggressively for changes the New Mexico Oil & Gas Association
said brought the federal regulation in line with what’s
“appropriate” to “emphasise flexibility and innovation.” None
of the groups’ names appeared in either company’s reviews.
Meanwhile, the Petroleum
Association of Wyoming ― on whose board
a BP executive sits ― joined a
lawsuit last year to allow the leasing of public lands for oil and
gas drilling without assessing the climate impacts.
Among the other major groups BP and
Shell left off their reviews was the National
Ocean Industries Association, which successfullylobbied
the Trump administration to open up the United State’s
entire continental shelf to drilling.
The move would open up areas
containing up to 45 billion barrels of oil ― 21 billion barrels of
which are estimated to be economically recoverable ― and jeopardise
chances of meeting the Paris climate goals. A report released by the
campaign group Global Witness last year found that any investment in
new oil and gas fields is incompatible with limiting global warming
to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial norms, an average
temperature roughly half a degree warmer than today.
NOIA has also lobbied the
Trump administration to exclude the wider climate impacts of oil
and gas projects from being assessed as part of the process of
approving major infrastructure. Earlier this
year Unearthed reported that
BP has lobbied in support of these changes.
“We think it’s important that
we continue to responsibly explore for and develop U.S. offshore
resources to counter the natural decline of existing fields,” a
Shell spokeswoman said. “It’s equally important that regulators
ensure sound science can be gathered from prospective new areas to
inform potential leasing and future exploration decisions.”
Australia’s climate
loophole
The key condition that BP and Shell
say they have placed on trade groups is support for the Paris climate
accord, which means backing the goal ― and policies to reach it ―
of keeping global temperature rises to 1.5 degrees celsius. This has
led Shell to walk away from one of its lobby groups and BP to quit
three. Both companies have said they will seek to change some trade
associations from within and identified others as being fully aligned
with them on climate policy.
But two powerful lobby groups that
BP and Shell publicly support ― the Australian Petroleum Production
& Exploration Association and the Business Council of Australia ―
back the use of a controversial loophole that could slash Australia’s
contribution to the Paris goals.
The loophole involves using surplus
carbon credits from Australia’s overachievement in meeting weak
emissions reduction targets it secured under the Kyoto protocol.
According to an analysis
of the Australian government’s plans, using the credits would
effectively cut the country’s 2030 climate target from 26% to 14%.
The European Union has banned
member states from doing this on the grounds that it threatens the
integrity of the Paris Agreement and no country other than Australia
is openly planning to do so. But during last year’s general
election, both the Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration
Association and the Business Council of Australia challenged the
Labor Party for refusing to use the credits if they won.
Despite this, both oil majors
insist they are aligned with these groups on climate policy.
“Despite Australia’s horrific
summer of bushfires, the government has not retracted its support for
Kyoto carryover credits, and nor have APPEA [or] the BCA,” said Dan
Gocher, an analyst for the nonprofit Australasian Centre for
Corporate Responsibility.
Norwegian oil major Equinor ―
another member of Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration
Association ― has also criticised the loophole, 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.
Equinor added that it would
“encourage APPEA to take a clear stand on … not supporting
carryover of credits from the Kyoto protocol to the Paris Agreement.”
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)
said in an interview: “BP and Shell have announced ambitious cuts
to their carbon emissions, but if they were serious about addressing
climate change, they’d give big trade groups an ultimatum: support
serious climate legislation or we’ll quit.”
This was echoed by Matthew
Pennycook, shadow minister for climate change in the UK, who told
Unearthed:
“Shell, BP and other oil and gas majors are at a fork in the road,”
“The long-term survivors will be
those who shift decisively away from fossil fuels towards renewable
energy, not those who purport to act on global heating while at the
same time supporting bodies that seek to frustrate the transition to
a net-zero economy.
“Sitting on the fence is no
longer an option – we need to see far greater corporate
transparency and a decisive break with industry associations working
to stifling climate action.”
————————————————–
Hier het vervolg van de Shell pagina:
Our five aspirational operating principles focus on safety,
environmental safeguards, and engagement with nearby communities to
address concerns and help develop local economies. We are working
towards making all of our Shell-operated onshore projects where
hydraulic fracturing is used, to produce gas and oil from tight
sandstone or shale, consistent with these principles.
We consider each project – from the geology to the surrounding
environment and communities – and design our activities using
technology and innovative approaches best suited to local conditions.
We also support government regulations consistent with these
principles that are designed to reduce risks to the environment and
keep those living near operations safe.
Learn about how we use the principles for projects we operate and
projects where Shell is involved, but not the operator, in the full
principles guide.
Our five principles are:
Principle 1: Safety
Shell designs, constructs and operates wells and
facilities in a safe and responsible way.
Principle 2: Water
Shell conducts its operations in a manner that protects
groundwater and reduces potable water use as reasonably practicable.
Principle 3: Air
Shell conducts its operations in a manner that protects
air quality and controls fugitive emissions as reasonably
practicable.
Principle 4: Footprint
Shell works to reduce its operational footprint.
Principle 5: Community
Shell engages with local communities regarding
socio-economic impacts that may arise from its operations.
(ja 2 Shell medewerkers die door de natuur lopen, alsof de planten daar groeien dankzij de vuile business van Shell…. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!)
Read
Shell’s Onshore Operating Principles in Action: Water Fact Sheet.
Read
Operating Principles in full and learn about our examples in
practice.
Read
Shell’s On-Shore Operating Principles in Action in North America:
Methane Fact Sheet
Read
Shell’s Onshore Operating Principles in Action: Induced Seismicity
Fact Sheet
Read
Shell’s Onshore Operating Principles in Action: Community
Engagement Fact Sheet
============================
Ja ja ze durven wel hè??
* Zie: ‘Biden en Trump zijn voor het blijven winnen van schalie-olie en gas met een ‘mooie rol’ voor Shell‘
Zie ook: ‘Shell
positief over LNG markt: hoe is het mogelijk? ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!
ha!‘
‘Shell neemt Kosmos Energy over, ‘specialist in diepzeeboringen’, of: hoe Shell ook de diepzee verder ‘duurzaam’ wil vervuilen‘
‘Shell,
Exxon, Total, Dupont, Dow en anderen lobbyen bij Trump om afval
plastic te exporteren naar Afrika‘
‘Kleine
bedrijven en consumenten betalen de vergroening, waar de grote
vervuilers miljarden aan subsidie krijgen‘
‘Willem
Alexander opent expositie: Museum Boerhaave moet eindelijk de
sponsoring door Shell stoppen!!‘
‘Shell
krijgt plek op top 30 lijst van Royal Bank Canada (RBC)‘
‘Shell
gaf advies klimaatresolutie te verwerpen‘
(!!!!)
‘Australië:
film ‘Dirty Power: Burnt Country’ maakt gehakt van regeringsbeleid en
media misinformatie‘
(en zie de links in dat bericht naar meer artikelen over de gevolgen
van de klimaatverandering voor Australië en het smerige beleid van
de regering daar)
‘Absolute
noodzaak volgens Michael Moore, Jeff Gibbs en Greta Thunberg: het
redden van mens, dier, natuur en aarde, voor het echt te laat
is‘
‘Shell
kijkt vooruit >> naar de subsidiepot voor duurzame energie,
terwijl nog vele jaren lang veruit de belangrijkste bezigheid olie-
en gaswinning zal blijven‘
‘Shell,
ExxonMobil en andere oliemaatschappijen gaan 180 miljard dollar
investeren in plasticproductie………‘
‘Bas
Heijne weet, geenszins ‘onbehagelijk’, niet wat te denken van de
klimaatverandering……. OEI!!!‘
‘ExxonMobil
vervolgd voor ‘misleiding…’ Nou zeg maar het op grote schaal
bedonderen van de kluit!!‘
‘Shell
was al in 1989 overtuigd van klimaatverandering………….‘
(!!!!)
‘Exxon
lobbyist (politicus) dagvaardt milieugroepen voor kennis bij Exxon
over klimaatverandering…….‘
(ongelofelijk
ook…..)
‘Het grootste olieveld ter wereld: niet in Saoedi-Arabië maar in de VS >> het Permian-bekken‘
‘Frans Timmermans (PvdA Europese Commissie) op de valsgroene tour‘
‘Britse regering geeft na 2 jaar eindelijk rapport vrij over Britse schalie-olie- en schaliegaswinning‘
‘Klimaattop Madrid: de grote vervuilers hebben veel te veel invloed‘
‘Frans Timmermans (PvdA, Europese Commissie) wakker geschrokken: wil geheel hypocriet belasting op kerosine‘
‘Klimaattop Madrid bij voorbaat mislukt‘
‘Shell
en Exxon die ondanks eigen onderzoek niets hebben ondernomen tegen
klimaatverandering, willen met subsidie CO2 opslaan in lege gasvelden‘
‘Uniper (energiebedrijf van Finse staat) bezig met rechtszaak tegen Nederlandse staat voor sluiten kolencentrales‘
‘IETA, lobbygroep van oliemaatschappijen en andere grote vervuilers, manipuleert klimaattoppen‘
‘Exxon in VS onder vuur vanwege de al decennialang voorradige kennis over de menselijke hand in de klimaatverandering‘
In
