Why are Major Corporations and Governments Cutting Down Their Climate Promises?

KAKALI DAS

Corporate leaders are redefining their sustainability goals, particularly their green targets. The latest development comes from British Petroleum (BP), the British oil giant, which announced an ambitious plan in 2020 to reduce its oil production by 40% by 2030.

The original goal was to transition towards renewable energy. However, last year, BP scaled back that target from 40% to 25%. While this raised some eyebrows, many believed that a partial shift was still better than none. Now, even that goal has been scrapped entirely.

Why are Major Corporations and Governments Cutting Down Their Climate Promises?

Recent reports indicate that BP has completely abandoned its target. The company will not reduce its oil output by 2030 as previously planned. Instead, BP is intensifying its efforts, focusing on three legacy projects in Iraq, one in Kuwait, and two in the Gulf of Mexico.

So, why the shift in strategy? There are two main reasons. First, investor concerns—BP’s shares have dropped 17% over the past six months, prompting the company to seek a turnaround. Their solution? Refocusing on their core business: oil and gas.

The second reason is geopolitics. Europe is distancing itself from Russian oil and gas, leading to an energy shortage in the region. Renewable energy alone cannot address this shortfall.

It’s not just BP — Shell is following a similar path. The company had planned to reduce its carbon emissions by 45% by 2035, but that target has now been scrapped.

It’s not just oil companies making these changes. Other industries are following suit. Take the auto industry, for example — Toyota initially planned to sell 1.5 million electric vehicles by 2026, but they’ve now lowered that target to 1 million. Volvo, which aimed to go fully electric by 2030, has also scrapped that plan.

Ford had allocated 40% of its annual budget to electric vehicles (EVs), but that has been reduced to 30%. Mercedes-Benz initially projected that half of their sales would be EVs by 2025, but they’ve now pushed that target back to 2030.

Governments are equally guilty of backtracking. Take Britain, for instance—last year, they were set to ban petrol and diesel cars by 2030, but they postponed the deadline by five years. They also delayed the ban on gas boilers.

This highlights the problem: Climate targets are already viewed as lacking full commitment. The last thing needed is constant revisions, as this undermines public trust and weakens efforts toward meaningful climate action.

These targets are largely self-imposed, and even the UN goals are not legally binding. For instance, the United States withdrew from the Paris Climate Accords under Donald Trump, demonstrating that any country can freely revise, reduce, or cancel its commitments.

The question remains: why do they make these changes? Politics plays a significant role. Stability is essential for investing in green energy; it’s difficult to do so amid conflict. Take the Ukraine war, for example—targets were established during peacetime when Russian gas flowed freely into Europe. When that supply was disrupted, energy prices surged, leading to rising inflation.

European leaders were faced with a straightforward choice: continue the green transition and risk further inflation, or turn to fossil fuels to stabilize prices. Unsurprisingly, most leaders opted for the second option.

Additionally, clean energy supply chains are highly vulnerable. Specific resources are required to manufacture batteries and panels, such as cobalt and lithium. Approximately 70% of the world’s cobalt is sourced from the Congo, while 40% of nickel comes from Indonesia. Furthermore, 55% of mined lithium is produced in Australia, and 25% originates from Chile.

Most of the processing occurs in China, which accounts for 60% of all mass-produced clean technologies, including solar cells, wind turbine systems, and batteries. This type of supply chain is unreliable, particularly for countries looking to de-risk or decouple from China.

The issue is clear: world leaders and corporate executives made ambitious commitments that garnered significant praise, yet they failed to adequately chart a roadmap or anticipate political challenges. In hindsight, these commitments appear to be half-baked promises.

The reality is that we need a mechanism to enforce commitments. It shouldn’t just be up to companies; countries must take the lead. Otherwise, climate targets will hold no real significance.

Mahabahu.com is an Online Magazine with collection of premium Assamese and English articles and posts with cultural base and modern thinking. You can send your articles to editor@mahabahu.com / editor@mahabahoo.com (For Assamese article, Unicode font is necessary) Images from different sources.