I've been asked whether @Shell's new #NetZero plan is credible. Not at all IMO.

@BP's last year, though imperfect, was credible for simple reason that it committed to reduce oil & gas extraction. Shell instead relies on VAST use of forests to soak up its emissions

Shell plans to use forests to remove 120 Mt/yr of CO2 by 2030.

Appropriate land for forestation is finite, and risks competition with food production and human rights of current land owners/users, esp Indigenous

The @IPCC_CH estimates maximum sustainable potential of forest CO2 removal of 500 to 3,600 Mt/yr in 2050. At the more pessimistic end of this range, Shell could be claiming a quarter of the potential, just for one company's emissions!

Shell sees a bright future for oil and gas, based on publication of 3 new scenarios earlier this week. Even in the "1.5C scenario", called Sky 1.5, global oil and gas use is still respectively 93% and 85% of current levels in 2050, at odds with most IPCC scenarios

To make the 1.5C sums work with so much fossil fuels, Shell says the world will need to plant forests to suck 12,000 Mt/yr of CO2 out of the atmosphere by 2060. This estimate is off the scale of anything I've seen

Shell thinks 12 GtCO2/y can be removed by 700 Mha (=~ Brazil) of extra forest: about 17 tonnes per year per hectare

This might be possible in theoretically perfect conditions. But practical estimates in literature are mostly 2-4 t/y/ha (with outliers 1-7 t/y/ha)

Please tell me @shell if I'm reading you wrong here, or if not how you think this can be achieved