RSN Fundraising Banner
Shell Boss Says Mass Reforestation Needed to Limit Temperature Rises to 1.5C
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=18812"><span class="small">Adam Vaughan, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Saturday, 13 October 2018 08:32

Vaughan writes: "The boss of Shell has said a huge tree-planting project the size of the Amazon rainforest would be needed to meet a tougher global warming target, as he argued more renewable energy alone would not be enough."

Reforestation is seen as essential if the world is to restrict warming to 1.5C, as outlined by the UN. (photo: Otto Bathurst/Alamy)
Reforestation is seen as essential if the world is to restrict warming to 1.5C, as outlined by the UN. (photo: Otto Bathurst/Alamy)


Shell Boss Says Mass Reforestation Needed to Limit Temperature Rises to 1.5C

By Adam Vaughan, Guardian UK

13 October 18


Ben van Beurden says ‘another Brazil in terms of rainforest’ will help achieve UN target

he boss of Shell has said a huge tree-planting project the size of the Amazon rainforest would be needed to meet a tougher global warming target, as he argued more renewable energy alone would not be enough.

Ben van Beurden said it would be a major challenge to limit temperature rises to 1.5C (equivalent to a rise of 2.7F), which a landmark report from the UN’s climate science panel has said will be necessary to avoid dangerous warming.

“You can get to 1.5C, but not by just by pulling the same levers a little bit harder, because they are being pulled roughly as fast and as hard as we are currently imagining. What we think can be done is massive reforestation. Think of another Brazil in terms of rainforest: you can get to 1.5C,” he told an oil and gas industry audience in London.

“It’s not what some people sometimes think: we’ll just do a little bit more solar, a bit more wind and we’ll get there,” he added.

Reforestation is seen as essential in the scenarios outlined this week by the UN’s intergovernmental panel on climate change, if the world is to restrict warming to 1.5C.

But Van Beurden stressed that meeting the challenge would be an uphill battle, because while it was “technically about doable”, it would not be commercially viable without changes to government policies and regulation. “Already to get to less than 2C will be [a] quite unimaginable, unprecedented scale of collaboration. Getting to 1.5C is a major challenge on top of it,” he said.

But the Shell chief executive was adamant that gas, which makes up a growing share of the firm’s portfolio, would have have a role to play in a 1.5C world.

“You can have an endless discussion about semantics. Is it a transition role, a destination role? In the end it is a bit of both,” he told the Oil and Money conference.

He said observers should not mistake headlines on the company’s forays into low-CO2 projects as a sign it was “going soft” on oil and gas.

In the past year, Shell has made investments in electric car infrastructure firms, offered support to the government bringing forward its proposed ban on new petrol and diesel car sales and bought up one of the UK’s biggest electricity and gas suppliers.

Van Beurden said renewables would become a bigger part of what the company does in future, but it could only move as far as society did.

“That means Shell’s core business is, and will be for the foreseeable future, very much in oil and gas,” he said.

Separately, Qatar, the world’s biggest exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG) said there was no doubt gas would be a fuel of the future, even with tough climate targets. “We believe natural gas will continue to play a key role, not as a so-called transition fuel but rather in our view, a destination fuel,” said Saad al-Kaabi, chief executive of Qatar Petroleum.

The state-owned company recently announced plans for a significant expansion of its LNG production and exports, which account for nearly a third of the UK’s gas imports.

Kaabi said it was difficult to believe in the IPCC 1.5C report if it did not spell out the cost of hugely reducing the world’s reliance on gas. But he denied he was being dismissive of the report. “My comment is it doesn’t make sense that you could get rid of so much [oil and gas] volume unless you give me a solution that is different from just renewables,” he said.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
Last Updated on Saturday, 13 October 2018 08:52
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+3 # Jaax88 2018-10-13 16:34
Fine van Beurden of Shell. Since Shell and other fossil fuel companies have been a big cause of the climate warming and have profited so well, what about you and your bank account as well of Shell's massive assets and shareholders and all the other profiteers off fossil fuels get to planting that second Brazil style rain forest with all your money and assets. It seems to me there is little difference between what the fossil fuel industry has done to pollute the environment with CO2 and methane for its profit and what other business have been held accountable for their environmental pollution with other hazardous materials.
 
 
+2 # economagic 2018-10-13 17:16
The fossil fools, blowing smoke as always.

Question: Did they learn it from Trump, or did he learn it from them?

(Answer: None of the above. Techniques for distorting and obfuscating the obvious truth have been around for at least 5,000 years, since the rise of the kings and the priests. Sorry, but this software does not allow me to type the answer upside down.)