Shell’s Bizarre Definition Of Sustainability
Posted by keith on January 9th, 2008
Oh, where to start on the horrors of oil sands extraction, as both a local and a global destroyer of environments? 155,000 barrels of oil a day, according to Shell’s proud boast. A filthy fuel source that requires twice as much water to steam off the oil, as the oil itself. An industrial process that is guaranteed to leach and creep tarry residues into the soil, the rivers, the skins of animals, human and non-human alike. A momentous drive to make Canada the second largest producer of oil in the world, simply to ensure that north America can continue driving up carbon dioxide levels in sustaining a “lifestyle”.
This is all fact. Now for the fiction.
“For us, as a company, the scientific debate about climate change is over. The debate now is about what we can do about it. Businesses, like ours, should turn CO2 management into a business opportunity and lead the search for responsible ways to manage CO2, use energy more efficiently and provide the extra energy the world needs to grow. But that also requires concerted action by governments to create the long-term, market-based policies needed to make it worthwhile to invest in energy efficiency, CO2 mitigation and lower carbon fuels. With fossil fuel use and CO2 levels continuing to grow fast, there is no time to lose.”
This quote by Jeroen van der Veer, Shell’s global Chief Executive is bullshit of the highest order. Shell’s raison d’etre, as a corporation, is to make money, and it does that by selling oil. It convinces people that selling oil is necessary by using phrases like “provide the extra energy the world needs to grow”. Excuse me? Exactly how is filling the biosphere and the atmosphere with pollutants going to help the world “grow”?
Oh, I see! You mean, help the pockets and the bank balances of the already rich and powerful grow, for the mere inconvenience of extinguishing life on Earth.
I have left the most extraordinary quote until the end, though. This comes from Shell Canada’s web site. It says: “Environmentally, in 2004 the AOSP became the first oil sands operation to have its environmental management system certified under ISO 14001.” Well done, Shell. You have succeeded in making ISO 14001 the most irresponsible, hypocritical international standard in existance.
You can be sure of Shell.
January 9th, 2008 at 5:55 am
[…] The Unsuitablog wrote an interesting post today on Shell’s Bizarre Definition Of SustainabilityHere’s a quick excerptShell’s raison d’etre, as a corporation, is to make money, and it does that by selling oil…. For more information, click here […]
January 10th, 2008 at 2:17 am
There is always a debate when an operation that is not environmentally friendly does ISO 14001. Shell’s operation is no different.
My take on this is that to pass their audit the Company have to demonstrate that they comply with the law and all their license conditions and to embark on a cycle of continuous improvement. This has to be good.
The Problem you are complaining about is that the regulators are permitting the activity, not that Shell is doing it in as responsible a way as possible.
Of course we all know that we must reduce our reliance on fossil fuels as urgently as possible but realistically – this issue is for legislation. I fully agree your your sentiments but do NOT agree with your attack on ISO 14001.
January 10th, 2008 at 5:35 am
In which case, Jean, the ISO must remove all references to sustainability and environmental management from ISO 14001. Sustainability is absolute and does not reference any laws: if it causes a net degradation of the environment then it is not sustainable.
Legislation will do nothing to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels as it is not in the interests of governments to bite the hands of their masters.
Keith
January 17th, 2009 at 1:37 am
[…] It’s bizzare definition of sustainability , how can one forget the Indonesian Mess. […]