I took a look at Shell's first ever 1.5C scenario and found that it is... remarkably similar to its “well-below 2C” scenario.

Oil, gas, coal, solar.... all basically unchanged.

The key difference: A new forest the size of Brazil to suck up the extra CO2.

Including "nature-based solutions" in the outlook brings forward the date for net-zero emissions to 2058.

Without them their pathway for CO2 emissions is the same as the previous one.

(It's also towards the higher end of 1.5C emissions pathways.)
The "Brazil-sized" forest idea isn't actually new, it has been kicking around for a couple of years.

It was referenced in the "well-below 2C" scenario although not formally included in it, and Shell's CEO has been framing it as the only viable way of getting to 1.5C.
Fine, but who is going to plant all those trees? Well... Shell says it will plant some of them.

Only yesterday Shell said forests were a key part of its net-zero strategy.

Not everyone is convinced though

https://t.co/RaJm7tOHxb
Given that Shell's 1.5C scenario also sees a big scaling up of bioenergy, the question remains: where are all those trees and bioenergy crops going to go?
Shell's scenario sits towards the higher end of 1.5C scenarios that scientists have come up with for energy use, oil, coal and solar

For emissions removed using carbon capture technology, it actually sits at the lower end. 1.5C scenarios rely _a lot_ on (largely untested) CCS
So getting to 1.5C is hard and most estimates say it will rely on lots of carbon removal.

Of course, the more fossil fuels are burned, the harder it gets.

Shell says oil and gas, “will remain significant for decades” and “there needs to be continued investment in…supply”.
Finally, Shell says it makes these scenarios not as forecasts or to reflect a business plan, but rather as “a useful tool for exploring future possibilities”.

A legal disclaimer adds:

“Ultimately, whether society meets its goals to decarbonise is not within Shell’s control.”
For more details on all of this, check out my analysis of Shells "Sky 1.5 scenario" in this piece >>>>

https://t.co/Ngj6MRMMTk

More from Science

Hugh Everett's birthday! Pioneer of the Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics. Let us celebrate by thinking about ontological extravagance. I will do so by way of analogy, because I have found that everyone loves analogies and nobody ever willfully misconstrues them.


We look at the night sky and see photons arriving to us, emitted by distant stars. Let's contrast two different theories about how stars emit photons.

One theory says, we know how stars shine, and our equations predict that they emit photons roughly uniformly in all directions. Call this the "Many-Photons Interpretation" (MPI).

But! Others object. That is *so many photons*. Most of which we don't observe, and can't observe, since they're moving away at the speed of light. It's too ontologically extravagant to posit a huge number of unobservable things!

So they suggest a "Photon Collapse Interpretation." According to this theory, the photons emitted toward us actually exist. But photons that would be emitted in directions we will never observe simply collapse into utter non-existence.

You May Also Like

1/ Here’s a list of conversational frameworks I’ve picked up that have been helpful.

Please add your own.

2/ The Magic Question: "What would need to be true for you


3/ On evaluating where someone’s head is at regarding a topic they are being wishy-washy about or delaying.

“Gun to the head—what would you decide now?”

“Fast forward 6 months after your sabbatical--how would you decide: what criteria is most important to you?”

4/ Other Q’s re: decisions:

“Putting aside a list of pros/cons, what’s the *one* reason you’re doing this?” “Why is that the most important reason?”

“What’s end-game here?”

“What does success look like in a world where you pick that path?”

5/ When listening, after empathizing, and wanting to help them make their own decisions without imposing your world view:

“What would the best version of yourself do”?