What really lies behind Shell’s tweet
« What are you willing to change to help reduce emissions? » This question could have been fairly asked by any inhabitant of the Earth; the only problem is that it was asked by Shell.
Royal Dutch Shell is on the top list of the twenty fossil fuel companies responsible for more than one-third of all greenhouse gas emissions in the modern era. Now, this tweet sounds more like a sick joke than an honest call to action. Shell is obviously very badly placed to initiate this poll. Unless… Is anyone ready to receive some green advice from a climate criminal? — That’s what I thought too.
As you would imagine, many have rushed to hijack Shell’s publication. To the question « What are you willing to change to help reduce emissions? » Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez answered: « I’m willing to hold you accountable for lying about climate change for 30 years when you secretly knew the entire time that fossil fuels emissions would destroy our planet » — and bam! In total, Shell generated 8000 retweets and not much less comments. Submerged by a sea of responses (something that SHELL should have expected), the company reacted in a following tweet. « Changing the energy system requires everyone to play their part » Shell explained; in other words: « We’re in this together ». This rhetoric requires some context. Shell’s tweet is much more than a communication flop, its words hide a chilling truth.
The message first masks the firm’s deadly hypocrisy. Shell knew. They knew and they did not « play their part ». As early as 1991, Shell warned of the dangers of fossil fuels in a short film that clearly acknowledged global heating. The Climate of Concern was produced by the company to alarm people about the disastrous consequences of burning coal, oil, and gas — among them: extreme weather, floods, famine, and even climate refugees. Since then, the only thing Shell « was willing to change » is the climate! In the name of profit, Big oil is deliberately destroying our ecosystems and threatening life on Earth. Billions of dollars are then invested back in communication campaigns so that fossil fuel companies can appear as « sustainable » leaders. Shell’s tweet is illustrative of this propaganda. Inviting individuals to reduce their carbon emissions suggests that the company is already doing something about it. Affirming that « everyone has to play their part » means that individuals equally share the responsibility of climate change. Everyone is guilty, so no one is to blame!
Now, let’s analyse the grammatical structure of the sentence: « What-are-you-willing-to-change-to-help-reduce-emissions? ». « You » is the subject, meaning that Shell wants YOU to bear the responsibility of reducing carbon emissions. Besides, the sentence, as short as it is, counts four verbs: « will », « help », « change », « reduce ». Shell’s tweet manifestly insists on the actions which abound after the subject. Not only Shell wants you to solve the climate breakdown for them, but they also want you to feel overwhelmed with individual initiatives.
This rhetorical strategy is nothing new and is not the intellectual property of Shell either. When they couldn’t deny the existence of climate change anymore, oil companies tried to deflect attention from their felonies. In the early 2000s, British Petroleum introduced the term « carbon footprint » — this idea that people are individually responsible for the global climate disruption. This concept has invaded our language and continues to frame the way we talk about environmental problems to this day, for the benefit of polluters.
In the same way, Shell embraces the « it’s-not-me-it’s-you » strategy by restricting the poll to personal choices only. To reduce the global carbon emissions, Shell suggests the four following actions: « Offset emissions », « Stop flying », « Buy electric vehicle » and « Renewable electricity ». Clearly, we could have expected better from a corporation that proclaims itself as « one of the world’s most innovative energy companies ». None of the solutions are inspiring, or even slightly inventive…but who cares! What matters is that the company creates some semblance of interaction and dialogue. The results of the survey are meant to be discussed in an « Energy Debate » sponsored by the oil giant and broadcasted live on Twitter. Shell wants you to believe that your opinion counts, that you exert some sort of power and influence on their activity. After all, making you feel that you are already an actor in the debate might reduce the chances you’ll protest in the streets.
The event stages Shell’s Integrated Gas and New Energies Director Maarten Wetselaar in an effort to de-demonize the industry. But the debate is orchestrated to serve the same propaganda: the one of distributing the blame of global heating to the individuals. Wetselaar says that there is no point in « going back 30 years ago and saying who should have done what. Everybody should have done more and didn’t. » Shell wants to start over with a clean slate and build a future in which it is the environmental leader. The « Great Energy Debate » is just a terrible monologue aimed at diffusing the firm’s greenwashing.
Maarten Wetselaar emphasises Shell’s large investments in renewable energies, but without mentioning that these contributions represent just over one percent of the company’s annual income. In fact, Shell still invests massively in fossil fuel energy and continues to finance anti-climate policy lobbying. Another strategy of Shell is to portray themselves as energy experts and explain, in a condescending manner, the necessity of extracting fossil fuels — an attitude that I chose to call « oilsplaining » (because the pattern is too recurrent not to be given a name). The new discourse of big oil is to tell you that the only solution is to invest in a « mixed energy portfolio » that is, to balance renewables with dirty energy. This allows fossil fuels companies to make as much profit as possible while there is still time. Marteen Wetselaar could not illustrate « oilsplaining » better: « stopping oil and gas today is a recipe for total disaster, he says, the human wellbeing fundamentally depends on it. » His patronizing rhetoric is, as usual, never contradicted, nor even nuanced by the host of the online debate.
But let us return to Shell’s tweet which invites you to make one effort to help the global community against the rise of greenhouse gas emissions — take it as a « sacrifice » that you must make on behalf of humanity. Shell is articulating its question in such a way that it appears as the bearer of humanist values and the leader who gives the impetus for climate action. From seeking profits, Shell gives the impression of pursuing human welfare. Yet in fact, the tweet reveals quite the opposite.
The survey is completely disconnected from the social reality of the climate emergency. Asking people if they are willing to « stop flying » implies that they already do; encouraging them to « buy an electric car » implies that they can afford it. Shell takes, unsurprisingly, the perspective of white and privileged populations. I say « unsurprisingly » because the activity of fossil fuel companies is tainted by some form of oppression against low-income families and communities of color. Shell’s exploitation of natural resources in the Niger Delta pollutes the air, water, and soil of indigenous and black communities, and thereby furthers inequalities. For more than twenty years, the oil giant has supported the Nigerian military in the awful repression of anti-pollution protests and may have been complicit in committing murders and atrocities against the Ogale and Bille people. « Shell spoiled our water and destroyed our livelihoods, the community ruler King Okpabi says, It is now spending millions to protect itself and tell the world that it has no responsibilities towards the people of Ogale, rather than addressing the wrong it did to us.”
While Shell tells us to choose between buying an electric car and offsetting our emissions, it continues to systematically oppress the people who imperil their billions. The super-major asks what we are « willing » to change to counter climate change. But it has never been about a will. Fossil fuel companies left us with no choice. We have to change now because they ignored their own climate research for more than three decades, and still exacerbated the crisis to a point of no return.
Shell’s tweet is a miserable failure but its seriousness turned out to be more profound. The oil giant re-used old propaganda from its partner in crime British Petroleum, to shirk the responsibility for global heating. But the strategy found its limits in a context of greater awareness of climate issues: people have become dubious about what fossil fuel companies publicize. Communication campaigns are like the plastic they produce, you can’t recycle them indefinitely!
If there is one good thing that Shell’s tweet encouraged, it is the wake-up call that followed. The global community has mobilized against the greenwashing of polluting companies by posting ironic, derisive, and sometimes cruel comments. The activist Mary Annaïse Heglar calls this militant practice « greentrolling » — or the art of bullying fossil fuel companies on the internet. In the same way as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez mocked Shell’s hypocrisy, many have harnessed their creativity to tarnish the image of big oil on social media.
Shell’s tweet is the first greenwashing campaign that provoked such a powerful backlash. To many more!
