Introduction
Royal Dutch Shell, the major integrated oil and gas company headquartered in the Netherlands and incorporated in the United Kingdom,
is among the largest historic producers of fossil fuels and, through that
production, one of the largest contributors to atmospheric greenhouse
gas emissions. In a landmark analysis
of the world’s largest carbon producers by the Climate Accountability
Institute, emissions attributable to
Shell’s products and operations rank
fifth among the 50 investor-owned
companies on the list, accounting
for 2% of industrial greenhouse gas
emissions since the beginning of the
industrial revolution.1
Notwithstanding the global importance of its operations, its significant
contribution to cumulative CO2
emissions and its active engagement
on climate science, and climate policy for decades, Shell’s knowledge of
and role in the climate crisis has received comparatively less attention
than other leading Carbon Majors,
such as ExxonMobil.
A major new tranche of internal
Shell documents unearthed by
Jelmer Mommers from journalism platform De Correspondent
and first released on Climate Files
demonstrates that Shell’s history of
flying below the climate investigation radar may be at an end. The
documents, spanning the 1980s and
1990s, cover a critical period in the
history of climate science, climate
policy, and public debates about the
risks and realities of both. By bringing to light Shell’s internal discussions of climate risks at a time when
the company’s external actions have
already been documented, these
A Crack in the Shell
|
documents expose the dichotomies
between the two for the first time.
With Shell facing litigation and investigation in a growing number
of jurisdictions, from US courts to
human rights bodies in the Philippines, this information comes at a
critical juncture.
Absence of Evidence is not
Evidence of Absence
From #ExxonKnew to government
investigations to exposés by researchers and media outlets, ExxonMobil has garnered far greater
attention than other major oil companies, particularly those based primarily outside the United States.
Significant, compelling, and growing documentary and testimony evidence demonstrates that investigations into Exxon are both justified
and urgently needed – a perspective
upheld by a growing array of courts
and human rights bodies.
At the same time, a compelling
and growing body of evidence also
makes clear that while investigations
into climate accountability may begin with ExxonMobil, they cannot
and should not end there.
To some extent, the relative lack of
attention paid to Shell to date may
reflect differences, real or perceived,
in the public posture of the companies with respect to climate change.
Shell, unlike Exxon, has at times
been more proactive about acknowledging the reality of climate change
and has been vocal about its corporate commitment to combating climate change, despite the insufficiencies of those commitments.
As previous work by CIEL and numerous other researchers demon2
|
strates, however, Exxon was by no
means the only company actively engaged in climate science, the
misrepresentation of that science,
or – more fundamentally – the continued production of fossil fuels
in the face of mounting evidence
and mounting impacts. Shell was
an early and recurring participant
in climate denial and obstruction
schemes in the United States and
Europe but then made public exits
from the groups coordinating them,
often after much of the core work
had been done. As discussed more
fully herein, that exit was not only
belated, but also incomplete.
Ironically, the release of the new
Shell documents, including confidential internal communications,
highlights a second and equally important factor at play in Shell’s lower
profile relative to ExxonMobil: quite
simply, we’ve seen few documents of
this kind. By contrast, a substantial
number of once internal communications from Exxon, American Petroleum Institute, and other industry actors have become public over
the years, whether through investigation, litigation, or leaks.
While this distinction may seem
tautological, it is not: information
breeds new information. Whether
in investigation or litigation, one
document leads to another, yielding
names, dates, and connections that
create an ever-expanding (and ever
more accurate) roadmap to where
additional documents might be
found. For this reason, this latest set
of documents is significant, filling in
missing pieces of a story that spans
decades, continents, and an array of
disciplines. Just as the disclosure of
Exxon documents has informed and
fueled new investigations into that
Center for International Environmental Law