"It's time we all burst our carbon bubbles" declared New Scientist magazine in a leader published on 5 July, extolling the virtues of divesting one's current account, pension etc. from fossil fuels. We couldn't agree more. And so we'd suggest that New Scientist puts its money where its mouth is, and breaks sponsorship ties with Shell.
The annual exhibition 'New Scientist Live', taking place this autumn, sees Shell returning as a sponsor. And not just any sponsor. Shell's logo will be splashed all over the 'Earth Zone' covering life on earth and indeed climate change. In one sense it is extremely appropriate for the issue of climate change to be sponsored by Shell (see also the proposal that hurricanes should be named after fossil fuel companies).
But Shell's business model is contributing directly to a shocking decline in the biodiversity that the 'Earth Zone' is celebrating. A recent in-depth study by investors Schroder looked at the different elements that need to change if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change. The overall conclusion is clear - climate change is accelerating and we are on course to blow our 2C budget soon (let alone the aim of keeping temperature rise to a less dangerous 1C). What was also illuminating in the report was the difference between the elements. For example, renewable capacity has been increasing, but not fast enough: it is on a trajectory consistent with a 3.1C increase, electric vehicle progress is less positive on a 4.1C trajectory. Coal burning is falling so there's a more positive message there: it's consistent with keeping to 2.2C. Oil and gas production however is rated as on track for a 7.8C temperature increase.
We expect that visitors to New Scientist Live will learn about Shell's investment in green energy (one percent of its total business). Shell also likes to highlight its work on energy efficiency. One thing that will probably not be highlighted is that at Shell's recent AGM, a motion was rejected to set emissions targets in line with the Paris climate agreement, with the board arguing that this was "not in the best interests of the company".