Senior Shell safety consultant resigns over double-talk on climate change

In an article in Newshub by Rachel Sadler called “‘Completely failing’: Shell consultant quits over firm’s ‘extreme harms’ to the environment,” it is reported a senior safety consultant to Shell has visibly resigned to make a statement about Shell’s lack of action on climate change. Here are the first few paragraphs with a link to the article below:

“A senior safety consultant has quit working with Shell after 11 years, accusing the company of causing ‘extreme harms’ to the environment and having a ‘disregard for climate change risks’.

Caroline Dennett announced her resignation as a contracted consultant in an open letter sent to Shell executives and 1400 employees. In an accompanying video posted to LinkedIn, she said she had quit because of the fossil fuel producer’s ‘double-talk on climate’

Dennett accused Shell of ‘ignoring all the alarms’ of climate change and ‘not putting environmental safety before production’.

‘Shell’s stated safety ambition is to ‘do no harm’ – ‘Goal Zero’, they call it – and it sounds honourable but they are completely failing on it,’ she said.

‘They know that continued oil and gas extraction causes extreme harms, to our climate, to our environment and to people. And whatever they say, Shell is simply not winding down on fossil fuels'”

It should be noted, as of this writing, some activists are protesting Shell’s climate change strategy at a shareholder meeting and a bloc of shareholders have offered a more carbon reducing strategy to be voted on as well. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, but regardless of strategy, what Dennett is saying, Shell management needs to be at least doing what they say they will.

It should be noted back in the 1990s, Shell produced an educational video on their scientists’ concern over global warming. If you look for it, you may still be able to find it if access has not been scrubbed. Not ironically, Exxon scientists used to speak at meetings about their concerns over global warming authoring papers dating back to the 1980s. This practice was ceased when Exxon hired a PR firm to help them promote climate change denial beginning in the late 1990s, the same PR firm that sold us that nicotine was not addictive for the tobacco industry.

On a positive note, change is happening with renewable energy becoming more mainstream and building market share. And, it was very pleasing to see climate change be a factor on Australian voters minds as they swept out a fossil-fuel friendly conservative party from power after nine years.

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/completely-failing-shell-consultant-quits-over-firms-extreme-harms-to-the-environment/ar-AAXDUoy?ocid=uxbndlbing

Some Wednesday Why Questions

Several news stories have crystallized over the past few days forcing me to ask some why questions. Here are just a few on this Wednesday.

Why is the party that is adamant voter fraud is more prevalent the one who causes more of it? Today, the GOP North Carolina chair was indicted for bribing a public official with campaign donations. This is on the heels of the GOP Congressional candidate absentee ballot fraud issue and the unconstitutional gerrymandering that has gone on under GOP tutelage in NC.

Why are we playing politics with the President overriding an unheard of 25 security clearances, including two relatives? I don’t care what party is responsible, this should give all Americans pause, especially given the President’s poor attention to vetting, conflicts of interest and the fact his two relatives do not hold positions that were approved by the Senate. The CIA has been concerned about Jared Kushner’s culpability for some time, eg.

Why is the British parliament failing to read the tea leaves on Brexit? There is a petition with 6 million names asking for a cancellation of Brexit. When the petition was criticized for foreign involvement, it was determined that 96% of the names are UK citizens. I read today that Ford will re-evaluate what to do with two British car plants depending on what happens. They are not alone.

Why is Shell Oil pulling out of an US based petroleum industry lobby group beginning next year? Its shareholders are forcing the company to more demonstratively  address climate change and support the Paris Climate Change Accord. It should be noted Exxon Mobil shareholders asked the company to report back on what they are doing about climate change. Both companies were active on climate change research before they decided to pretend it was not a problem in public.

Why would the President even consider closing the border with our third largest trading partner, not to mention the people who live in Mexico and work in the US? This would be harmful to the US economy, per Senate leader Mitch McConnell (and many others) and even more so for border states. It also overlooks the greatest need to help with the chronic border problem – immigration judges. Walls and closures are just costly theatrics.

Why is it OK to want to trade with North Korea, but not Cuba? The real reason is Obama opened the doors to the relationship. For some reason, Trump has an unhealthy focus on things Obama did. But, trading with Cuba is desirous to many Americans and Cubans and is far easier to get a return on investment. Commerce is a good way to break down barriers.

That is all for now. Let me know what you think or if you have any more why questions.

 

An old shell on the beach

The Guardian reported today that an interesting shell has been discovered on the beach. A twenty-six minute documentary film produced by Shell Oil Company in 1991 has been rediscovered. This prescient film was made for educational purpose for students discussing the key concerns over climate change.

In the film, Shell scientists speak about sea level rise, flooding, drought and forest fires due to climate change. The reporters for The Guardian note the film is highly relevant today and was made twenty-five years ago.

The article also notes the lack of business ethics of Shell that led them to double down on fracking and off-shore drilling since that time. This is not dissimilar to the activities of Exxon-Mobil who is under investigation for securities fraud in misrepresenting the impact of climate change on their business to shareholders. Like Shell, Exxon-Mobil has been aware of their impact on climate change for quite awhile.

The past actions of these two fossil-fuel companies are extremely relevant. They both have known the concerns of climate change for many years. Their knowledge flies directly in the face of the arguments of climate change deniers. And, with respect to Exxon-Mobil, if it is proven that they misled shareholders, that is a crime whether it was intentional of not.

A key reason I left the Republican Party in 2006 is their failure to admit and speak to one of the greatest threats to our planet in climate change. The World Economic Forum cites the failure to address climate change as the second greatest risk (following our global water crisis) over the next ten years.  Doubling down on fossil fuels as advocated by our President is extremely poor stewardship.