Open Letter to TalkTalk

8th July, 2021

Dear TalkTalk

As a value provider of a potentially low-carbon consumer product, TalkTalk is well placed to be part of a just transition to a zero-carbon economy. By working with a fossil-fuel giant whose business is not compatible with even a chance of limiting global warming to 1.5℃, or indeed 2℃, I worry that we are throwing that away.

Shell's current strategy for achieving 'net-zero' by 2050 is not compatible with the Paris Agreement. Its primary revenue source remains the continued extraction of existing and undeveloped fossil-fuel reserves. Its plan to cut fossil-fuel production by just 1-2% a year is completely at odds with the 7-10%—or 15% if negative emissions are excluded—necessary to remain within a carbon budget that yields a 2-in-3 chance of remaining below 1.5°C. At the current 1.2°C of warming we are starting to see the horrifying consequences of extreme weather and global heating, and we are seeing them consistently exceed our very worst projections. We are on track for 3°C of warming, or worse.

Very recently, the IEA's Net-Zero by 2050 report, stipulating that development of new fossil-fuel reserves must cease this year, coincided with Shell's AGM, during which they suffered a shareholder revolt over the insufficiency of their climate mitigation plan. There have also been rebellions at board-level, 4 executives quitting last year over the company's refusal to move away from fossil fuels on a radical enough time frame.

The company was ordered in May to go far beyond its lukewarm climate response by the Dutch court, in a landmark ruling requiring it to cut its global emissions at least 45% by 2031. The ruling asserts not only that Shell has knowingly played down the consequences of CO2 pollution for decades, but that it is in contravention of the human rights to life and to family life (articles 2 & 8, ECHR).

A UK Crown Court jury recently found the 'Shell 7' group of activists not guilty, despite the direction of a judge that there was no defence in law. The defendants succeeded in convincing the jury that the crimes of the oil giant and the difficulty in bringing it to justice was so severe that radical action, which would otherwise have been illegal, was necessary and justified. This is worth repeating; their actions, whereby they trashed Shell's London headquarters, were deemed legal.

Despite the evidence that the parent company seeks to recklessly minimise its climate-change response, Shell Energy UK projects itself as a climate-aware company dedicated to helping its customers reach 'net-zero' through renewable tariffs and questionable offsets.

This 'net-zero' image is a mirage tailored for UK consumers. Shell Energy in the United States, for instance, advocates heavily for 'natural gas' (shale). This product, as well as being nothing like 'net-zero'—never mind the more robust zero-carbon—would not market well to UK consumers, fracking having failed here mainly due to an extremely effective campaign of direct action and widespread grassroots opposition. To support these conflicting positions in different territories demonstrates willingness to indulge in bad-faith marketing and to mislead customers.

Even so, Channel 4 yesterday reported that Shell is part of a cabal of oil companies to have lobbied the UK government in the lead-up to COP26 in Glasgow to consider 'natural gas' a viable strategic fuel source for the transition—it is not. The group was led by Exxon who were just days ago shockingly exposed as having orchestrated lobbying efforts to intentionally diminish climate change measures. As a result of this video they are likely to be called before Congress within days.

Ethical Consumer rate Shell Energy UK at 3 out of 15—both it and the parent company have the lowest possible score for carbon management and reporting. This is not only for the gross campaign of denial and delay that the parent company continues to wage, but for the misleading claims of Shell Energy UK itself.

My belief and fear is that by acting as a major supplier to Shell Energy UK, TalkTalk is facilitating Shell's greenwash campaign in the UK. Intentionally or otherwise, this breaches the trust placed in us by our customers, and the duty of care we hold to them, as well as that which the company holds to us as employees.

Earlier this year I raised this as a question in a One-Plan update. I received the reply "Shell are really helping us with our net-zero target". Alas, this is a commonly-heard framing that oil companies endorse, but it's like putting a drug dealer in charge of rehab.

I have spoken endlessly to scientists, engineers, sustainability experts, IPCC authors, activists, and lawyers over the past few years and I understand the true urgency of deep and rapid climate action, that it is far more urgent than one is led to believe by the tone of media coverage in this country and far, far more serious than current policy reflects. I believe it is incumbent upon all of us to go beyond 'personal choice' and to ask difficult questions of our peers, employers and governments. So I wish to ask the board the following:

Does the board believe that TalkTalk's responsibilities to the climate go no further than decarbonising our own directly attributable operational emissions?

What is TalkTalk's detailed policy regarding climate action? Does it agree that it is crucial that the world holds to the Paris Agreement, and that it is the responsibility of every nation, government, corporation, community and individual to play whatever part they can in ensuring rapid decarbonisation?

How does this translate to the business arrangement with Shell Energy UK? What are the mechanisms to withdraw from the arrangement should Shell be revealed as insufficient or insincere in its mandated decarbonisation effort?

I thank you for any direction or advice you can offer at this late stage. Yours sincerely,

Jake Rigby