EnergieCafé

Yesterday night, in café in Arnhem, the air conditioning had a hard time to keep it cool as the heat of the discussion filled the crowded space. Shell had been so brave to invite Greenpeace hard liner Meike Baretta to debate their respective visions on our energy system in 2040. Baretta referred to Greenpeace' Energy [R]evolution scenario, calculated by the German aerospace institute DLR, showing that 50% less CO2 emissions is possible by mid-century without new coal fired power plants and nuclear. Shell's most optimistic scenario 'blueprints' doesn't come anywhere near such reductions. Shell's Hans Peter Calis found himself in defense from scratch, taking the role of a father providing his children with a reality check of their high rising plans. Calis never managed to change the roles that night. Most people in the diverse audience didn't seem to accept the perceived resilience of Shell, not showing any willingness to take responsibility for CO2 emissions reduction. They may have the numbers on their side, but they lost their audience. Me too, I feel disappointed. Why do they always seem to emphasize external factors? In their scenarios Shell points towards "hard truths": rising energy demand that has to be met, and that supply will struggle to keep up. They conclude that fossil energy will remain the dominant source to do so. "There are no easy solutions." Maybe true, and what Shell can do may be limited by shareholders' interests and regulatory regimes, but it is unsatisfactory. The necessity of 80% reduction of CO2 emissions in 2050 should be a "hard truth", too. Why don't I hear: yes, this year we invest € 30+ billion investments in fossil energy compared to 1,7 billion in renewables. In 2050 these respective numbers shall be inversed. Shell can do this, this and this, if you, politicians/consumers, do this and this. A joint letter of business leaders to the Dutch parties in parliament, and a letter by CEO Jeroen van der Veer in Financial Times in January 2007 were hopeful signs. But where is the follow up? Did they lobby for the required regulations with the European politicians? Do they lobby for an ambitious post-Kyoto deal in Copenhagen at the end of this year? With a yearly turnover exceeding the GDP of many nations, Shell is just too big and powerful to define its mission as "surviving as a company, generating profit", like Mr. Calis did yesterday.