Fossil Fuel Companies Fall Short on Emission Reduction Targets
Despite public pledges, major fossil fuel companies’ emissions reduction targets remain weak, unambitious, and inconsistent.
Fossil Fuel Companies’ Emission Reduction Targets Remain Weak
Despite high-profile pledges to tackle climate change and align with the Paris Agreement, most major fossil fuel companies continue to set weak, inconsistent, and often unambitious emission reduction targets. These pledges frequently fall short of what’s necessary to keep global temperature rise below 1.5°C, leaving experts and climate advocates concerned about their credibility and their real-world impact.
Growing Scrutiny of Corporate Climate Commitments
As pressure mounts from investors, regulators, and the public, oil, gas, and coal companies face heightened scrutiny over the substance and transparency of their climate initiatives. The quality of their targets—specifically, whether they include all types of emissions and are independently verified—has emerged as a central point of contention.
While an increasing number of companies have announced so-called ‘net zero’ or emission reduction pledges, the details tell a different story. Many commitments are limited in scope, exclude the most significant sources of emissions, or rely on future technology and offsets rather than concrete action today. This gap between rhetoric and reality is jeopardizing the global response to the climate emergency.
Understanding Emissions: Scope 1, 2, and 3
To evaluate the strength of a company’s climate target, it’s essential to understand the types of emissions:
- Scope 1: Direct emissions from operations, such as fuel combustion at refineries and oil fields.
- Scope 2: Indirect emissions from purchased electricity, steam, heating, and cooling used by the company.
- Scope 3: Indirect emissions from the full value chain, especially the end use of fossil fuels (e.g., burning oil and gas).
For fossil fuel companies, Scope 3 emissions vastly outweigh the combined total of Scope 1 and 2. More than 80-90% of the climate impact from oil and gas companies typically comes from the burning of their products by consumers, making the inclusion of Scope 3 in any climate plan crucial for credibility and effectiveness.
Analysis of Major Oil and Gas Companies’ Targets
Recent years have seen dozens of international and regional oil and gas companies issue climate pledges. However, the overwhelming majority exhibit significant deficiencies. A closer look reveals:
- Most targets are limited to Scope 1 and 2 emissions, ignoring the much larger Scope 3 footprint.
- There is wide variability in how emissions are measured, baselined, and reported, complicating comparisons and accountability.
- Many goals are not independently verified or transparently updated, undermining public trust.
- Timelines for achieving reductions are often set far into the future, with few interim milestones.
- There is heavy reliance on unproven carbon capture technology or carbon offset schemes instead of real emissions reductions.
Shell
Shell has announced a net-zero ambition for 2050 that includes Scope 3 emissions from customers[D]. The company aims for a 15-20% reduction in net carbon intensity by 2030 compared to 2016, with intermediate milestones for 2025 and 2030. However, Shell’s targets are based on intensity (emissions per energy unit sold), not absolute cuts, which means total emissions could still increase if fossil fuel sales grow[D]. Shell also relies on a range of measures including growing gas share, increasing renewables, purchasing offsets, and investing in carbon capture.
What others are reading
BP
BP claimed to have reduced absolute emissions by 41% from 2019 to 2023, surpassing its 2025 target. Still, the company’s absolute emissions rose by 5% in 2024, as it increased output on several projects. The reversal casts doubt on BP’s ability to deliver sustained reductions and highlights the volatility and uncertainty baked into current industry pledges.
ConocoPhillips
ConocoPhillips has a near-term goal to cut methane intensity by 10% by 2025 (from a 2019 baseline), plus a pledge to achieve near-zero methane intensity by 2030. Overall, it targets a 50–60% reduction in GHG emissions intensity by 2030 from 2016 levels. However, most targets are intensity-based and focused on operational (Scope 1 and 2) emissions. Like others, ConocoPhillips has made progress in some areas—such as achieving a 64% cut in methane intensity from 2015 to 2024 and reducing routine flaring—but has not fully addressed the climate impact of the fuels it sells to customers.
TotalEnergies, Others
France’s TotalEnergies and US independent Expand Energy surpassed their 2025 targets by 2023, according to sectoral analysis, but the trend across the industry remains uneven. The lack of independently standardized methodologies exacerbates challenges for meaningful sector-wide progress.
Key Weaknesses in Industry Commitments
A detailed review of major fossil fuel company targets reveals several points of concern:
- Intensity versus absolute reductions: Intensity targets allow for overall emissions to rise alongside sales volume.
- Scope limitations: Excluding Scope 3 emissions ignores the vast majority of a company’s climate footprint.
- Lack of transparency: Opaque reporting and unverifiable data undermine the legitimacy of climate plans.
- Overreliance on offsets and future technology: Companies increasingly count on carbon credits or unproven solutions, rather than concrete cuts in fossil fuel production and use now.
- Insufficient short-term action: Many targets are far off in the future with few interim benchmarks or mechanisms for accountability.
The Role of Offsets and Carbon Capture
Offsets and carbon capture—while important tools if used correctly—cannot substitute for genuine, systemic emissions reductions. Many fossil fuel firms count emissions reductions from unrelated sectors (e.g., forestry or renewable projects in other countries) to compensate for continued extraction and combustion of oil and gas. Similarly, large-scale deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology remains nascent, expensive, and far from the scale required to neutralize global fossil fuel emissions.
Experts warn that leaning too heavily on these solutions amounts to a dangerous bet on uncertain, costly fixes—while deferring the urgent structural changes needed in the energy system.
Market Pressures and Regulatory Momentum
Investor demand for credible, science-based climate action is rising. For example:
- Regulators in the United States, European Union, and elsewhere are pushing for mandatory, comparable climate disclosures and stricter oversight of greenwashing.
- Shareholders are increasingly voting for climate resolutions and demanding greater transparency from company boards.
- Banks and investment firms are setting their own targets to reduce fossil fuel financing.
Nonetheless, inconsistent and weak standards within the fossil fuel industry persist, partially due to the absence of legally-binding requirements and clear penalties for underperformance.
Comparing Oil and Gas Firms’ Approaches
| Company | Net-Zero Target | Scope Included | Key Milestones | Offsets/CCS Reliance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shell | 2050 (Net Zero) | Scope 1, 2, 3 (customers) | 15–20% intensity reduction by 2030 | High |
| BP | 2050 (Net Zero) | Scope 1, 2, partial 3 | 41% annual reduction (2023), but rebounded in 2024 | High |
| ConocoPhillips | None (2030 for certain operations) | Scope 1, 2 (operations) | 50–60% GHG intensity reduction by 2030 | Moderate |
| TotalEnergies | 2050 (Net Zero) | Scope 1, 2, 3 | Met interim targets in 2023 | Moderate |
What’s Needed: Stronger, Science-Based Action
Climate scientists and advocacy organizations point to several best practices for meaningful climate action in the fossil fuel sector:
- Set absolute emissions reduction targets for all Scopes, especially Scope 3.
- Use a recent baseline year and avoid cherry-picking an unrepresentative starting point.
- Mandate third-party verification and regular, transparent progress reporting.
- Prioritize real emissions cuts over offsets and ensure offsets are of the highest quality and environmental integrity.
- Phase out fossil fuel expansion to align with global 1.5°C climate pathways.
The Bigger Picture: Industry at a Crossroads
With 2025 set as a milestone year for many interim targets, the coming months will serve as an important litmus test for the sector’s climate ambitions. Will oil and gas companies step up with credible plans and verifiable progress, or will 2025 mark another cycle of rebranded pledges and limited change?
The answer matters not only for the climate, but also for the long-term resilience and relevance of companies facing global transition away from fossil fuels. Without faster and broader reductions in emissions—spanning all scopes and phases of the value chain—net-zero commitments risk being seen as little more than empty promises.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q: What are Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions?
A: Scope 1 covers direct emissions from owned operations, Scope 2 covers indirect emissions from purchased energy, and Scope 3 includes all indirect emissions in a company’s value chain—most notably those from customers burning fossil fuel products.
Q: Do fossil fuel companies’ climate pledges truly cover their full emissions impact?
A: Most companies focus primarily on operational emissions (Scopes 1 and 2), while the bulk of climate impact—Scope 3, or emissions from burning their products—is often excluded or addressed only weakly.
Q: Why are intensity-based targets criticized?
A: Intensity targets measure emissions per unit of energy or output, not in absolute terms. So, overall emissions can still rise if production increases—undermining real progress toward climate goals.
Q: Are offsets and carbon capture enough to solve the climate crisis?
A: Offsets and carbon capture can play a role but are currently insufficient in scale and certainty. Over-reliance risks delaying the necessary transition away from fossil fuels.
Q: What would a strong industry climate plan look like?
A: A credible plan includes absolute reduction targets for all emissions, covers the entire value chain, mandates third-party verification, and is anchored in real, near-term action—not wishful thinking or accounting tricks.
References
- https://www.shell.com/sustainability/climate.html
- https://www.rystadenergy.com/insights/are-oil-and-gas-players-on-track-to-deliver-on-their-2025-emissions-targets
- https://www.conocophillips.com/sustainability/managing-climate-related-risks/metrics-targets/ghg-target/
- https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainability/getting-to-net-zero.html
- https://sciencebasedtargets.org/sectors/oil-and-gas
- https://www.sei.org/publications/production-gap-report-2025/
- https://www.ogci.com/carbon-intensity-target/
Similar Articles
Read full bio of Sneha Tete
