* TPI prefers Eni for including third-party fuels, setting
absolute carbon reduction target
* TPI says sector's "net zero" carbon future not
substantiated
* More details needed on offsetting, renewables plans
* OMV currently laggard among integrated energy groups
By Shadia Nasralla
LONDON, May 12 (Reuters) - None of the big oil companies
currently meet U.N. targets to limit global warming despite the
most ambitious targets set by Royal Dutch Shell and Eni
, investors managing $19 trillion said on Tuesday.
The Transition Pathway Initiative (TPI), which represents
the investors and is co-chaired by the Church of England
Pensions Board, called on all oil and gas producers to set both
intensity-based and absolute emissions reductions targets so
that the industry adheres to a common standard on 'net zero'
emissions.
Burning of oil and gas accounts for the vast majority of the
world’s carbon emissions. TPI, in a study of Europe's biggest
oil producers, singled out Shell and Italy's Eni for making the
broadest commitments to reduce greenhouse gases from all fuel
products they sell, also known as Scope 3 emissions.
All European majors have committed to varying degrees of
carbon reductions by 2050 to make their companies fit for a
transition to a lower carbon economy. In marked contrast, U.S.
oil giants lag far behind in terms of
climate aims.
Shell has pledged to bring down its overall carbon intensity
by 65%, Eni by 55% and BP by 50% by 2050. Intensity targets mean
that absolute emissions can rise with increasing production.
Eni has also set itself a target to bring down its absolute
emissions by 2050 by 80%.
Scope 3 emissions dwarf, typically by a factor of about six,
direct emissions from operations and from the electricity a
company uses, known as Scope 1 and 2 emissions.
BP and Spain's Repsol have pledged to bring
down their overall emissions to net zero by 2050, but this
target does not cover fuel initially acquired from other
producers and sold through their marketing businesses.
Most companies use the phrase 'net zero' carbon in some way
to describe their ambitions, despite the varying pathways.
"We now need a net zero standard for the oil and gas
sector," said Adam Matthews of the Church of England Pensions
Board.
None of the companies had done enough to align with plans to
keep global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius.
"Claims of 'net zero' or 1.5 C alignment are not
substantiated by TPI's analysis. Even the most ambitious new
goals (Shell and Eni) are not aligned with a 2 C scenario using
TPI’s intensity metric," TPI said in a report.
"Alignment with a Below 2 C scenario requires a 90% cut in
emissions intensity (by 2050) while alignment with 1.5 C
scenario requires a 100% reduction in net emissions (a genuine
'net zero' strategy)."
It added that only Eni had provided substantial detail on
its use of nature-based offsets - an integral part of every
group's climate targets - to balance out emissions it cannot
eliminate.
Austria's OMV is the laggard with the least
ambitious climate targets among big integrated European oil
companies, TPI said, adding that it expected OMV to issue an
update on its transition plans this year.
TPI also urged all groups to provide more detail on their
carbon capture and storage renewables investment plans.
A spokesman for BP said: "What the world needs to meet the
Paris goals are absolute reductions in emissions to net zero...
We do not believe that carbon intensity alone is a reliable
single measure of progress towards the Paris goals."
A Shell spokeswoman said "we need to look at the detail of
this report, but we are pleased our ambition is recognised and
we are confident our approach is aligned with the 1.5 degrees
Celsius goal of the Paris Agreement."
An OMV spokesman said OMV had already achieved its 2025
targets and that it would set itself more ambitious climate
protection goals.
Eni and Repsol did not immediately respond to requests for
comment.
For a Factbox on oil majors' climate targets, click
For Graphics comparing oil majors' climate targets, click
(Reporting by Shadia Nasralla; Editing by Susan Fenton)