Big Oil’s ‘Grossly Insufficient’ Climate Plans Risk Global Devastation: Report

The world’s eight largest fossil fuel companies are set to blow 30% of the world’s limited carbon budget by 2050, while their expansion goals risk pushing global temperatures beyond a 2.4°C rise, Oil Change International concludes in its latest analysis of Big Oil’s climate plans.

“Across the board, none of the major oil and gas companies we assess is pledging to do even the bare minimum to prevent climate chaos,” Oil Change writes in its fourth annual Big Oil Reality Check report.

“Those big oil and gas companies with huge historical responsibility for the climate crisis, and wealth derived from many decades of oil, gas, and coal extraction, must act first and fastest, and must be required to provide finance to support others.”

The report evaluates climate pledges made by the largest oil and gas producers in the United States and Europe—BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Eni, Equinor, ExxonMobil, Shell, and TotalÉnergies. It finds that their cumulative oil and gas production between now and 2050 “threatens to exhaust more than 30% of the entire world’s remaining carbon budget for limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C.” Their current oil and gas extraction plans “are consistent with more than 2.4°C of global temperature rise, likely leading to global devastation.”

The climate research and advocacy group used 10 assessment criteria representing “minimum, but not necessarily sufficient” baselines for potential alignment with the Paris climate agreement. The study evaluated each company’s climate strategy on a scale of “Fully Aligned” with the Paris goals to “Grossly Insufficient.” It included performance measures for ambition to align with the Paris Agreement; integrity to avoid ineffective or harmful policies like carbon offsets and lobbying to obstruct climate solutions; and people-centred transitions that support workers and uphold human and Indigenous peoples’ rights.

No company scored higher than “Insufficient” on any of the criteria except Eni, which was rated as “Partially Aligned” for one measure of integrity in setting absolute targets to reduce emissions. Most companies were rated as “Grossly Insufficient” on nearly all the criteria.

And while climate scientists have been unequivocal about the need to halt all new oil and gas production worldwide, none of the companies plan to stop fossil fuel exploration or halt new projects. Six of the eight—excluding only BP and Shell—actually plan to increase production.

Of those six, the three U.S.-based companies—Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and ExxonMobil—are projected to be the largest expanders of oil and gas between now and 2050. They all scored as “Grossly Insufficient” on all criteria.

“American fossil fuel corporations are the worst of the worst,” said Allie Rosenbluth, Oil Change International’s U.S. program manager. “Chevron, ExxonMobil, and ConocoPhillips perpetuate harm in front-line communities not only across the U.S., but worldwide.”

Some of the oil majors pushed back on the findings. Equinor said the report misrepresents its plans, contending that “the information in the report seems to be based on quite selective sources.”

Oil Change says its work relied on “companies’ own published climate plans, reporting, investor presentations, and data, as well as independent analysis and news reports.”

Responding to UK news outlet the Guardian, an Equinor spokesperson said Oil Change had “misunderstood” the viability of carbon capture and storage in Norway, where the company has “captured and stored carbon dioxide underground since 1994”.

Norway hosts the world’s first commercial carbon storage project at the Sleipner West gas field, where it injects carbon dioxide separated from gas back under the seabed. In 2023, the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis said Sleipner demonstrates that “carbon capture and storage is not without material ongoing risks that may ultimately negate some or all the benefits it seeks to create,” calling into question “the long-term technical and financial viability of the concept of reliable underground carbon storage.”

A Shell spokesperson told the Guardian the company did “not recognize the conclusions of this report,” asserting that it plans to reach net-zero by 2050 and has been slashing its direct emissions. In 2021, the oil giant’s climate plan was called “grotesque” and “delusional” by climate analysts. More recently, Shell’s new CEO Wael Sawan indicated the company would cut back its renewables investments to ensure higher returns for shareholders.

Eni said it had “embarked on an industrial transformation” and that its plans for carbon capture and carbon credits play “one role among many.” Last spring, Eni had plans to develop one of the most carbon-intensive gas fields in the world—though it has paused the project, while reviewing its environmental footprint. Eni was also among a group of oil companies whose net-zero pledges were deemed “largely meaningless” because it reduced emissions by selling off, rather than shutting down, its most carbon-heavy extraction sites.

More than 200 climate groups worldwide have endorsed the Oil Change International report.