Revealed: Here is what #ShellKnew about Climate Change in the 1980s

picture-25876-1571179299.jpg
on
Series: #ShellKnew

Shell knew climate change was going to be big, was going to be bad, and that its products were responsible for global warming all the way back in the 1980s, a tranche of new documentsย reveal.

Documents unearthed by Jelmer Mommers of De Correspondent, published today on Climate Files, a project of the Climate Investigations Center, show intense interest in climate change internally atย Shell.

The documents date back to 1988, meaning Shell was doing climate change research before the UNโ€™s scientific authority on the issue, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, wasย established.

Hereโ€™s a quick run through of a 1988 document entitled, โ€˜The Greenhouseย Effectโ€™.

Climate Change Was Going to beย Big

Shellโ€™s internal document acknowledge that increased greenhouse gas emissions could lead to 1.5 degrees to 3.5 degrees ofย warming:

Shell was worried that should the issue of climate change become better known, public opinion may shift against fossil fuels and towards renewables, putting Shellโ€™s business model atย risk:

Shell acknowledged that climate change could lead to changes that were โ€œthe greatest in recorded historyโ€. But the company also said that it may have recognised the problem โ€œearly enough for man to be able to anticipate and to adapt inย timeโ€:

Climate Change Was Going to beย Bad

Shell knew that climate change could have โ€œmajorโ€ and โ€œdramaticโ€ changes. The document said climate change couldย lead to โ€œmajor social, political, and economicย changesโ€:

Shell also knew climate change was going have major impacts on the environment, anticipating that there could be โ€œeven local disappearance of specificย ecosystemsโ€:

Shell lists a number of areas that could be specifically affected by climate change,ย including:

Shellโ€™s Products were Responsible for Climateย Change

Shellโ€™s document acknowledges that greenhouse gas emissions have significantly risen โ€œmainly due to fossil fuel burning andย deforestationโ€:

The document also shows that Shell knew all of its products including coal, oil and gas significantly contributed to theย problem:

Thereย is even a table that outlines how much of global carbon dioxide emissions Shell’s products were responsible for inย 1984:

Shell and the Fossil Fuel Industry Needed to be Part of theย Solution

Shell was quick to push most responsibility for dealing with climate change onto governments. But the company did acknowledge that the fossil fuel industry would have to be part of theย solution.

In one paragraph, Shell calls for โ€œa forward looking approach by the energyย industryโ€:

Shell also says the industry must โ€œwork out the part it should playโ€, and that the fossil fuel industry โ€œhas very strong interests at stake and much expertise to contributeโ€ to addressing climateย change:

You can read the full document with annotated highlights by De Correspondent and the Climate Investigation Centre here.

Get Weekly News Updates

Get Weekly News Updates

picture-25876-1571179299.jpg
Mat was DeSmog's Special Projects and Investigations Editor, and Operations Director of DeSmog UK Ltd. He was DeSmog UKโ€™s Editor from October 2017 to March 2021, having previously been an editor at Nature Climate Change and analyst at Carbon Brief.

Related Posts

Analysis
on

What the country craves is fewer selfies and more action to confront the emergency.

What the country craves is fewer selfies and more action to confront the emergency.
on

A look back at the yearโ€™s manipulative messaging.

A look back at the yearโ€™s manipulative messaging.
on

Policymakers and industry say the Midwest Hydrogen Hub will create green jobs and slash emissions, but environmentalists see a ploy to keep fossil fuels in use.

Policymakers and industry say the Midwest Hydrogen Hub will create green jobs and slash emissions, but environmentalists see a ploy to keep fossil fuels in use.
on

Is the Gulf of Mexico the "single best opportunity" to store climate-warming gas โ€” or an existential threat to wildlife and people?

Is the Gulf of Mexico the "single best opportunity" to store climate-warming gas โ€” or an existential threat to wildlife and people?