Oil giant’s net-zero plan fails to add up

You can always rely on Greenpeace to put the boot in. There was Shell boss Ben van Beurden dressed head-to-toe in full superhero regalia, trying his very best to sound like he will save the world from imminent climate destruction.

Yet, within minutes of Van Beurden’s vow that Shell would attain carbon-neutral status by 2050, activists were tearing it to shreds. “A credible net-zero plan from Shell would start with a commitment to stop drilling for new oil and gas,” Greenpeace said.

Well, they would say that wouldn’t they? Especially when it comes to Shell. Greenpeace has long had it in for the Anglo-dutch oil giant, targeting its drilling operations in the North Sea, the Arctic – even its partnership with Lego.

Still, it’s a fair point. BP made a similar pledge earlier this year, promising to shrink its carbon footprint to net zero and cut the carbon intensity of the products it sells by 50pc by 2050. These are ambitious moves from some of the biggest polluters on the planet, in an industry that for decades fiercely resisted pressure to commit to real reduction targets, and in some cases campaigned aggressively against climate change science.

Yet, these promises to cut carbon emissions are at odds with reality. Over that same 30-year time frame that BP laid out, the supermajor is projected to spend $71bn (£55bn) on new drilling. Shell’s spending will also be in the tens of billions, so the “net zero” claim doesn’t mean zero at all. Shell’s plan will inevitably be compared to BP’S and not just because they are arch-rivals but because in the premiership of polluters they stand an unenviable seventh and sixth respectively.

Still, Shell can claim to have gone further by also laying out interim targets for it to be judged upon, including tackling so-called “scope three” emissions produced by customers such as airlines by more than a third by 2030.

Greenpeace accuses it of “passing the buck” but it at least makes it easier for Shell to be held to account for its goals.

There are some wishy-washy commitments to ramping up carbon capture storage and investing more in renewable energy and biofuels but overall the picture is still far too vague to be taken seriously. With this grand announcement Shell will have been hoping for a big pat on the back. But until it provides some proper detail, the most it deserves is a golfer’s clap.

An unwelcome gatecrasher

What luck. Just when it seemed like Lord Tyrie was primed to stick a giant fork into a planned tie-up between Amazon and Deliveroo, along came a pandemic to save the day.

The competition watchdog ordered an investigation amid concerns that the two had “ceased to be distinct” since Amazon snapped up a $575m stake in the delivery service almost a year ago.

Well, thanks to coronavirus the entire premise for the inquiry has been scraped into the bin, and the tie-up has been given the green light on the basis that Deliveroo would go under without Amazon’s investment, reducing competition in the food delivery space.

So how about that for a first – Big Tech as a defender of consumer choice. Try telling that to the thousands of bookstores that have been wiped off the map by Amazon’s grip on the publishing industry.

There was an assumption when the outbreak started and half the world’s population retreated into the safety of their homes, that the likes of Just Eat, Uber Eats and Deliveroo would be among the few beneficiaries as we all began gorging on takeaway pizzas.

But all the major fast food chains have been forced to shut their doors, while the office lunch delivery market will have practically vanished overnight, so it’s not a surprise that Deliveroo is suddenly struggling.

But what about the wider implications of allowing Amazon to grab a slice of an entirely new sector? We know how that usually turns out

– it crushes the competition by offering bargain basement prices. Then with dominance secured, margins are hiked.

So despite the immediate benefits of protecting Deliveroo’s future, the long-term implications of allowing Amazon to gatecrash a booming market and tighten its grip on the consumer could be serious. That’s what the CMA should have given more consideration to.

‘Over that 30-year time frame it will spend $71bn on new drilling’