A few days ago, I randomly came across this 2009 promotional film by Shell. In their own words:
This new film has leading scientists and environmentalists discuss the merits of CCS and visit projects in Australia and the US. It features experts from institutions including Imperial College London, Princeton University, Shell, the Climate Institute and WWF UK.
Peak techno-optimistic aesthetics. Starting from the thumbnail: a man in a grey suit standing in front of a highly complicated refinery. It’s a vibe. Not my vibe, but I get the aesthetic. Very authoritative. Very “we know technology and we’ve got this.”
There are a few important insights from this video.
The video is very well produced, opening with fancy shots of Earth and a generic city, a refinery, and a voice speaking over wondrous music. Clearly Shell cared enough to spend on this, and the video was meant to inspire a sense of awe and a “yeah, science” sentiment.
We then learn that the voice is Prof. Robert Socolow of Princeton University. One of the main reasons we are in a situation where global temperatures are rising while emissions are still soaring is that fossil fuel companies have been spending big on building the authority to speak to climate change. They wanted the public to believe that they knew everything there is to know about the issue, and that they had the solution.
Conveniently, one of those solutions was carbon capture and storage, which meant business as usual for oil companies. No phase-out of fossil fuels, no transition to renewables, just more pumping of oil and gas.
Next, Shell manages to get someone from WWF on camera: the WWF Climate Change Policy Officer, no less. She does not endorse carbon capture and storage, but her appearance early in the video makes it seem as though environmentalists have been involved with the project or broader efforts. Over the years, oil companies have repeatedly tried (and unfortunately sometimes succeeded) to co-opt environmental organizations to influence public discourse or deflect criticism.
Then there is a cut to Prof. Martin Blunt at Imperial College London, sitting in front of a computer at a lab, in a lab coat. Again, Shell is commandeering the voice of science for image management purposes. Prof. Blunt speaks on climate change, even though he hasn’t published on the topic. He is a materials scientist working in petroleum engineering. When I checked Google Images, I could not find a single photo of him in a lab coat. It must have been Shell’s request; it certainly wouldn’t reflect how Prof. Blunt usually presents himself.
And then comes the predictable pitch for carbon capture and storage as an alternative to renewable energy. Again, we get wondrous music and the same scientists presenting the idea. What are we supposed to believe?
One more professor enters the mix: Prof. Sally Benson of Stanford University, also appearing in a lab setting. She presents the solution, again with inspiring music in the background. “The idea is that we separate the carbon dioxide from the other gases that are coming out … and that you then start to pump it underground.”
John Berry, Strategic Issues Manager at Shell, then quickly makes clear that this is really just a bridging solution intended to buy us a few decades.
Later, a speaker from The Climate Institute tells us that instead of debating, we should simply evaluate the technology in real life.
And then, there it is: Shell’s CO2CRC Otway Project in South-West Victoria, Australia, where the technology is supposedly becoming a reality. Everyone on screen sounds quite optimistic that the carbon dioxide will stay underground.
Knowing what we know today, it’s fairly easy to see through the project. The video never mentions it, but the amount of carbon dioxide stored on site is only in the tens of thousands of tonnes. 65,000 tonnes in stage one (Sharma et al. 2011). While Australia emits hundreds of millions of tonnes each year. If anything, the project proves that Shell was never serious about deploying carbon capture and storage at a meaningful scale.
Instead of buying us a few decades, Shell lulled the public into a false sense of certainty that things were progressing, and that fossil fuels could be made compatible with reduced or even zero emissions. That was not the case, and as a result we are in the process of overshooting the 1.5°C and 2°C climate targets. But Shell is still raking in plenty of money, so they’ve got that going for them, I guess.