Shell has silently dropped carbon offsetting amid concerns many don’t have positive environmental impact.
As reported by Bloomberg, when speaking at an investor conference in June, Shell chief executive Wael Sawan mentioned everything but the company’s commitment to spend up to $100 million a year to build a pipeline of carbon credits, part of its strategy to reach zero emissions by 2050.
Bloomberg reported that Shell confirmed the offset programmes have been “retired” along with the plan to harvest a 120 million carbon credits annually by the 2030 from projects that sequester carbon with trees, grasses or other natural resources, many of which Shell would develop itself.
That would have accounted for about 10% of the company’s emissions.
A Shell spokesperson told the Guardian however: “Shell’s position on carbon credits, including from nature-based solutions, remains unchanged. Carbon credits remain a valuable and additional decarbonisation lever in our portfolio, including from nature-based solutions.
“The carbon market may not be perfectly functioning everywhere yet, however there are ongoing discussions of how it can be improved which we welcome; that is how markets progress.”
Subscribe to Sustainability Beat for free
Sign up here to get the latest sustainability news sent straight to your inbox everyday
Are carbon offsets the way to go forward?
Shell now join Gucci, Leon and Nestlé moving away from offsets amid reports that many voluntary carbon offsets don’t have environmental worth at all.
Reports that there is a growing number of carbon credits equivalent to the annual emissions of Japan, which go unused.
Additionally, offsetting schemes have been linked by campaigners with human rights abuses in the past.
The Carbon Trust director John Newton told the Guardian that due to its controversies, companies are “quite cautious and nervous about the impact of offsets.”
“But they were certainly bought with good intentions,” he added.
“The people we’re working with definitely didn’t go out there thinking these are controversial. I think there was a lot of confidence in the fact that we’re doing the right thing because they come from credible organisations.”
“I’m not an expert on which offsets are bad and which are good. But obviously, if an offset is found to be not helpful, then yes, I think consumers have been misled,” concluded Newton.
