In a recent big news, the famous company named, Shell has announced first-half 2024 profits surging to £10.9 billion ($14 billion) on the back of some juicy returns focused on fossil fuels over investment in green energy—a move that infuriates climactic activists, who argue the rise in profits at Shell really means less profit for its investment in fighting climate change. The company is also slowing down its efforts to cut carbon emissions.

It means that in the case of Europe’s largest oil and gas companies, Shell recorded a massive profit increase by £10.9 billion ($14 billion) for the first half of 2024. This rise in earnings was based on the decision of the group to focus more on fossil fuels like oil and gas rather than plowing large amounts of investment into low-carbon energy sources.

It also announced a $6.3 billion profit for the first quarter of 2024 and revealed it had spent some of those profits buying back shares worth $3.5 billion. It has bought back a total of $7 billion of shares this year. The strong results delighted shareholders but infuriated many climate campaigners.

Climate activists are enraged that Shell is expanding its gas business while slashing investment in renewable energy. The move is happening at a time many are raising a red flag over climate change, banking on large companies to find solutions to slash carbon emissions. For Shell to focus on fossil fuel rather than green energy is a backward step in the fight against climate change.

Last week, another oil giant, BP, announced its earnings for the second quarter: nearing almost $2.8 billion. The company is also planning to construct an oil hub in the Gulf of Mexico. In total, Shell and BP have made £31.2 billion in profits in the last year. This is an amount in excess of the combined GDP of six Caribbean countries worst hit by Hurricane Beryl, notes NGO Global Justice Now.

Izzie McIntosh, a Global Justice Now campaigner, condemned the profits made by Shell, saying that such gains were a “shameful inequity in the fossil fuel economy.” Her statement read, “While the people in the Caribbean are still struggling in the wake of destruction left behind by Hurricane Beryl, rich shareholders and fossil fuel CEOs are getting off scot-free with large profits, referring to what is wrong with the present economic order.”.

Over the past 12 months, Shell has watered down its climate targets, reducing the ambition to cut carbon emissions intensity of the energy that it sells. It had intended to cut emissions from these by 20% by the end of the decade. The revised target is a reduction of 15-20%. This means that it will slow down efforts to reduce emissions at the same time when business expansion in liquefied natural gas begins. Climate scientists indicate that the next decade will be important in hitting stringent measures to avert disasters related to climate change.

Aside from these, Shell’s chief executive, Wael Sawan, has just announced that it would slash hundreds of positions at the group’s low-carbon energy division as another measure to increase profit. Besides this, it is also planning to shift away from the aging North Sea oil fields in search of better opportunities elsewhere in the world which would yield higher profits.

The company has completed the sale of 11 gas fields in the North Sea, which it co-owned with US company ExxonMobil, to Viaro, an independent operator. The company also sold one of the key gas import terminals in the UK. But robust financial results, paired with the decision to pay out $3.5 billion to shareholders through buybacks, suggest the company believes it can deliver value for shareholders while shrinking emissions.

However, some setbacks were viewed from certain fronts. It had to suspend the work of producing Europe’s largest biofuel in Rotterdam, which aimed to turn waste into low-carbon sustainable aviation fuel. The company has also sold a refinery in Singapore and warned investors that these problems could force it to face an impairment charge of as high as $2 billion.

Although the profits that Shell has posted are quite impressive, basically, the company divests its focus to the fossil fuel business, and not much remains to save the planet from carbon emissions. In arguing, this is an issue quickly cited by climate advocates. To them, the actions of the firm prove a lack of commitment to dealing with the climate crisis by supporting communities affected by environmental catastrophes.