Assessing climate strategies of major energy corporations and examining projections in relation to Paris Agreement objectives within the framework of sustainable energy

Abstract

The study presents a comparative analysis of emission scenarios proposed by key institutions, including Shell, British Petroleum (BP), the International Energy Agency (IEA), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), within the framework of the Paris Agreement's ambitious goals. The Agreement seeks to limit global temperature rise to below 2 °C, ideally to 1.5 °C. Using a comprehensive analytical framework, the study evaluates each institution's projected carbon pathways, energy compositions, and policy recommendations. The findings reveal that IPCC scenarios demonstrate the strongest alignment with the Paris Agreement's targets, emphasizing a rapid transition to renewable energy and stringent mitigation measures. In contrast, the scenarios put forward by Shell and BP, although showing significant carbon reductions, remain heavily dependent on fossil fuels, raising concerns about the ability to meet the 1.5 °C and 2 °C targets. The IEA scenarios provide a middle ground, promoting decarbonization while still supporting natural gas as a transitional energy source. Disparities in transparency and methodological consistency are also identified across the scenarios, with the IPCC leading in clarity and scientific rigor. Ultimately, the research underscores the importance of harmonizing the strengths of different institutional approaches, while addressing the respective limitations, to ensure that the global community can stay on track to meet or exceed the climate objectives outlined in the Paris Agreement's. The study concludes that collective action, accelerated technological advancement, and policy shifts are crucial to achieving a sustainable, Net Zero future.

Keywords

• Paris Agreement's
• Emission scenarios
• Comparative analysis
• Energy pathways
• Institutional
• Compatibility