Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Environment

Monbiot Grills Shell Oil CEO: Is There Any Investment You Would Not Make on Ethical Grounds?

By George Monbiot, Monbiot.com. Posted January 8, 2009.


Shell will pour big money into alternative energy when more lucrative opportunities are blocked. Where is the government brave enough to block them?
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

For a while it seemed that Shell had stopped pretending. The advertisements which filled the newspapers in 2006, featuring technicians with perfect teeth and open-necked shirts explaining how they were saving the world, vanished. After being slated by environmentalists for greenwash, after two adverse rulings by the Advertising Standards Authority, Shell appeared to have accepted the inescapable truth that it was an oil company with a minor sideline in alternative energy, and that there was no point in trying to persuade people otherwise.

The interview I conducted with its chief executive, Jeroen van der Veer, broadcast on the Guardian’s website today, contains what appears to be an interesting admission. I asked him whether Shell had now stopped producing ads extolling its investments in renewable energy. Mr van der Veer does not express himself clearly at this point, but he seems to admit that his company’s previous advertising was not honest. "If we are very big in oil and gas and we are so far relatively small in alternative energies, if you then every day only make adverts about your alternative energies and not about 90% of your other activities I don’t think that -- then I say transparency, honesty to the market, that’s nonsense." So, I asked, Shell did not intend to return to that kind of advertising? "Probably not," he told me. "I’m very much keep your feet on the ground, tell them who you are and explain why you are who you are."

But since the interview was filmed, Shell’s messianic tendencies appear to have resurfaced. In December the company ran a series of ads in the Guardian suggesting again that it had come to save the world. "Tackling climate change and providing fuel for a growing population seems like an impossible problem, but at Shell we try to think creatively", one of these advertisements boasts. It features a diagram of a human brain, divided into sections labelled "fuel from algae", "fuel from straw", "fuel from woodchips", "hydrogen fuels", "windfarm", "gas to liquids" and "coal gasification". This suggests progress of a kind, in that the company is acknowledging that it sometimes dabbles in fossil fuels, but its core business -- oil -- and its massive investments in tar sands are missing from the corporate mind. Could Shell be having a senior moment?

The confusion deepens when you watch its latest publicity film. It’s called "Clearing the Air", and it does just the opposite. It is supposed to tell an inspirational tale of discovery, but the script and the acting are so gobsmackingly bad that it inspires you only to rip your clothes off and run screaming down the street. The lasting impression it leaves is that Shell’s staff are chaotic and incompetent. Perhaps the clean-cut corporate clones featured in the ads of 2006 put people off.

Mr van der Veer is neither an incompetent nor an automaton. He is charming, friendly and smart. But he refused to answer some of the questions I had prepared.

Reading Shell’s reports and publicity material, I kept stumbling on an absence. In 2000, the company boasted that it would be investing $1 billion dollars in renewable energy between 2001 and 2005. But since then it appears to have produced no figures for its renewables budget. The company now claims that "we’re investing significantly in wind energy," but it doesn’t say what significantly means. Of the ten wind farms listed on its website, only one appears to be in the planning or development stage: the others are already in operation. Where is the evidence of new money? When Shell pulled out of Britain’s biggest windfarm, the London Array, last year, did this represent the end of its major investments?


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: renewable energy, shell oil

George Monbiot is the author Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning. Read more of his writings at Monbiot.com. This article originally appeared in the Guardian.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The only "Green" in big oil, isn't for the enviroment?
Posted by: larazzafilms on Jan 8, 2009 5:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe that a major lawsuit against such companies should be formed by the population. If attorneys are now suing for wrongful deaths due to asbestos, this should also apply to those oil companies which neglected to save lives for profits. This world does not belong to a single Human being. Everyone should have the same opportunity to breath clean air, drink uncontaminated water. The technology was available as of 80 years ago, and it was neglected for quick processing profits at the expense of generations of lives. Accountability should be held by those corporations acting as "identities". The people of this country understand the tight network of the association between media, advertising, science and government. "People" as one representation under one law suit, need to take action and end this corruption of greed and hypocrisy. One dollar per citizen and many “go green Attorneys” to represent the voice of the living.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: WHERE ARE THE VAULTS FILLED WITH GOLD BARS
Posted by: Elmowilcox on Jan 8, 2009 7:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The gold you speak of is located at Fort Knox, Switzerland, and formerly underneath the WTC, and a number of other places. I'm not sure by your articulation what exactly you're trying to get at. But there isn't enough gold on the planet to backup all the paper money in existence.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Shell seeks Colorado water for oil shale production‏
Posted by: Higher Reptile on Jan 8, 2009 7:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/01/07/ap5890933.html

Associated Press
Shell seeks Colo. water for oil shale production
Associated Press, 01.07.09, 02:29 PM EST


Shell Oil has filed for the first major water right on the Yampa River in northwest Colorado for its oil shale development plans.

Shell applied Dec. 30 in state Water Court to use about 8 percent of the Yampa's peak spring flow.
Article Controls


Shell spokesman Tracy Boyd says the water would be shipped to a reservoir for later use in oil shale production.

Critics say extracting oil from shale will use too much of the West's scarce water. Some estimates say it could take up to three barrels of water to produce a single barrel of oil.

Shell says it believes its process, still in the experimental stages, will be more efficient.

Colorado, Wyoming and Utah are thought to hold 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil locked in shale.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You can't paper over the fact that
Posted by: willymack on Jan 8, 2009 12:20 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Finding new stuff to burn is NO solution to problems caused by burinng too much stuff in the first place. It's going to take a lot of money to do the necessary research which has been successfully blocked or sidelined by the "energy" companies so far. It's probably going to be necessary to nationalize those companies and impound their vast, ill-gotten wealth for the puropse of research. The "energy" barons have had it their way far too long, and their indifference to enviornmental destruction, and imperiling the health of our people must be dealt with NOW, not later. Can we create a new way to produce abundant energy without poisoning the Earth or making people sick? We'll never know if we don't begin the research.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The people we pay to produce oil produce oil. I'm outraged.
Posted by: tommy_slothrop on Jan 8, 2009 1:30 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we don't want them to do it, how about we stop paying them to do it.

Quit driving and flying. If you can't do that just now then arrange your life so you can -- soon. The more people do it the easier it will become as more mass transit infrastructure becomes economically feasible.

Quit buying unnecessary consumer goods, especially plastic ones.

It's not that difficult. I got rid of my car in 1995. I fly less than once every two years (still working on this but there aren't that many options for long-distance travel yet).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great article
Posted by: Gypsi on Jan 8, 2009 8:30 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can we get Congress and Obama to read it?
Or do we have to file a class action lawsuit?

Because we can't count on the oil companies to police themselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement