Source: BBC Radio 4: Today
URL: N/A
Date: 29/09/2015
Event: Jeremy Leggett - Shell's business models "ruinous for the planetary future"
Credit: BBC Radio 4
People:
James Naughtie: Now what's the significance of the decision of Shell to stop Arctic oil and gas exploration off Alaska, beyond what it means for the company's own books? It's clearly an important strategic decision for Shell, but how does it fit into the commitments, for example, made by governments for an increase in the use of renewable energy sources? Dr. Jeremy Leggett chairs the Carbon Tracker Initiative - it measures carbon output and, broadly speaking, it says it's a group of leaders from across the energy landscape, who believe that economic growth and climate action can be achieved together. Dr. Leggett, good morning.
Jeremy Leggett: Good morning.
James Naughtie: Where do you see this decision fitting into the whole argument that you're involved in?
Jeremy Leggett: Well, the first thing to say is about the retreat from the Arctic, um, and that's in the face of impossible economics - you know, even if they had found oil, they would be producing it at a cost far above what they could sell it at, and this is not just a Shell problem, this is a problem of the oil and gas industry generally, at the moment. Carbon Tracker has identified more than a trillion dollars of investments intended by 2025 above an oil price of $95, where the break-even is above an oil price of $80.
James Naughtie: Well indeed, and Simon was talking about this earlier - with a low oil price, it just doesn't [inaudible] the North Sea.
Jeremy Leggett: They're wasting pensioners' money.
James Naughtie: What about - you're arguing from a what I might call broadly a green perspective. What's the significance of this decision, for you?
Jeremy Leggett: Well, you know, hopefully now Shell will join some of the other oil companies that are, you know, showing encouraging signs of going with the Paris agenda - so Total, for example, has invested hugely in solar, StatOil set up a renewable energy division, um, last month. But what we fear is that actually they haven't changed their game plan, and their game plan is to have as much gas as they can in the mix, and as much oil as well, and, you know, they talk, for example, in their commission that they're setting up, of a study to find out whether, you know, we can have 50% renewables in the electricity mix by 2050. Well, you know, that's completely inadequate - that would give us a world of 4 degrees Celsius, way above the danger ceiling of 2 degrees Celsius for global warming, a world in which, you know, we'd be finding it difficult to feed ourselves or have enough drinking water, amid all the droughts and floods and wildfires and all the other horrors.
James Naughtie: Well, of course this is, you know, a controversial area, inevitably, but - politically as well as anything else.
Jeremy Leggett: That's not controversial, Jim, what I just said. That's the best advice that governments are getting from all their scientific bodies, governmental and academic.
James Naughtie: Yeah, the question of how we go about it, though, I mean, what - my question to you, finally, is a fairly simple one. If this is so obvious, if that is so clearly what is going to happen, why should it be in the interest of a company like Shell not to accept it?
Jeremy Leggett: Well, that's bewildering, and it's very difficult to explain. Presumably they love their kids as much as all the governments arguing hard for a target of 2 degrees Celsius at the all-important Paris climate summit in December, but, you know, as things stand, they're playing a tricky game - they're trying to defend 20th-century technologies, 20th-century business models, that are ruinous for the planetary future.
James Naughtie: Dr. Jeremy Leggett from the Carbon Tracker Initiative, thank you very much.